Roads and rails

[Jon Shafer]

Though I enjoy offense most of all, better defense makes the game more interesting, because for an offensive to be successful, the player has to be much more clever in his strategy. Anyone can smash 100 Swordsmen into a catapult-Pikemen defense line... it takes a clever mind to defeat it.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Trip
Though I enjoy offense most of all, better defense makes the game more interesting, because for an offensive to be successful, the player has to be much more clever in his strategy. Anyone can smash 100 Swordsmen into a catapult-Pikemen defense line... it takes a clever mind to defeat it.

I would agree that this hard battles are more interesting and entertaining. (which is probably why my games are boring, played so conservatively until there is no chance for failure, overwhelming force etc. Though in my own defense, MP will involve much more strategy than just playing against the AI)

Looking forward to MP where can play someone who varies his or her tactics and strategy.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If they don't modify how RRs work for unit movement, MP warfare is going to be very one-sided on the side of the defender.

this isnt neccessary (sp) true, although it does reflect a bit of reality.

can you think of a democratic nation that has tons of troops stationed in every city of its empire? no, they have troops all around that can move where they are needed real quick (in civ3, democracies with rails only have to defend border cities, inner citites can be empty).

and what i do, to use the AI's rails for my own benefit, is i like to use marines to take over a city, then move transports full of tanks / cavalry INTO the city, and unload while inside. then THAT SAME TURN you have tanks or cavalry will FULL MOVEMENT that can use whatever rails you control / the enemies culture no longer expands over. it actually works fairly well.

as you can tell, firaxis made civ3 to be more of a builder game that civ2 was. because they couldnt remove all the war elements of the game, they made it easier to defend then to attack, giving the builders a chance in a warmongers world.

the system is fairly balabced IMHO.

danke.

[Tuberski]

I agree with UberKrux(again??). Think of RRs this way, just because they have the rails in place, that doesn't mean YOUR trains can run on them. I believe that an American rail is a different size than a European rail.

[Ethelred]

I believe that an American rail is a different size than a European rail.

The cars are connected differently as well.

The US used to have THREE different rail standards not counting special rails for mining in the mountains.

[Tuberski]

I see, I think roads should increase movement of the attacker but not railroads.

Almost gives railroads another purpose.

[notyoueither]

It's just that the rails the way they are make defence a rather brainless operation. Garrison the border cities and strategic fortresses. Stack up Arty in the middle of the empire, with Inf and Fast Attackers around them.

Oh look! Some one has sent 10 percent of his available forces to invade us! Oh my. I guess we'll just use as much as 100% of our entire Army as it takes to completely obliterate them.

OTOH. I guess 'skating the Rails' on the offence is equally likely. Boom! goes a border city. Boom! goes the next city... With the proper use of settlers one could get to the defenders capital on the first turn of the assault with some ease.

All sounds a bit riskish, doesn't it?

[Tuberski]

I guess it would make Bombers MUCH more useful. Much like in real life you could use your Bombers to destroy rail lines.

Yes it does sound a bit Riskish.

Oh, this is post number 500.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's just that the rails the way they are make defence a rather brainless operation. Garrison the border cities and strategic fortresses. Stack up Arty in the middle of the empire, with Inf and Fast Attackers around them.

Oh look! Some one has sent 10 percent of his available forces to invade us! Oh my. I guess we'll just use as much as 100% of our entire Army as it takes to completely obliterate them.

OTOH. I guess 'skating the Rails' on the offence is equally likely. Boom! goes a border city. Boom! goes the next city... With the proper use of settlers one could get to the defenders capital on the first turn of the assault with some ease.

All sounds a bit riskish, doesn't it?

A better way to have done battle would have been to put units in flexible armies (no, I'm not talking about the armies included in Civ III). Rarely did large waves of unorganized troops and scattered units simply flood a landscape... there would be small and quick scout units, with a large mass body of troops following behind. Large-scale battles were few and far between. Manoever was incredibly important. Cities would be abandoned in favor of more defensible locations to place the army. When everything was ready, the two armies would converge, and a battle would ensue. This is very un-Civ-ish, which is why I'm working on GGS, as well as a design for a new game of my own. I simply feel that the entire battle system needs to be re-done in favor of something more realistic and enjoyable.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Tuberski
I guess it would make Bombers MUCH more useful. Much like in real life you could use your Bombers to destroy rail lines.

Yes it does sound a bit Riskish.

Oh, this is post number 500.

Perhaps it also means that you should sabotage your own rail lines in desparation, though at that point, you're probably lost.

I don't think its as easy as just blitzing to the capital in MP, I mean, sure, the AI won't have a preemptive strike against you, bbut if my opponent in MP is very quiet for a while, I will think he's up to something devious and prepare.


at this rate, tuberski, I will soon join you as the only 2002 joiner above 500 posts

[Cyclotron]

I would sever railroad lines if the AI pressed the attack a bit more.

...waiting for Tuberski's new avatar...

[notyoueither]

The point is that when war erupts in the industrial or modern era your capital could be gone before you can do anything about it. This scenario is very feasible as rails stand.

If on a smaller map, entire empires could be gone before the defender has a chance to move a single unit.

Or conversely, if the attacker is forced to pause, his entire invading army could disappear before his next turn.

Neither case is desirable. Of course, both assume turn based MP, PBEM or hot seat.

The results in 'turnless' could be worse. Either way, infinite has to go.

[Captain]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point is that when war erupts in the industrial or modern era your capital could be gone before you can do anything about it. This scenario is very feasible as rails stand.

If on a smaller map, entire empires could be gone before the defender has a chance to move a single unit.

Or conversely, if the attacker is forced to pause, his entire invading army could disappear before his next turn.

Neither case is desirable. Of course, both assume turn based MP, PBEM or hot seat.

The results in 'turnless' could be worse. Either way, infinite has to go.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, NO MORE INFINITE RAILROAD MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the RR howitzer blitz at the end of civ 2 games was the initial reason for the demand, then how it made ship useless because of non-infinite sea moves...
we're back to the same reason again, and it looks like culture doesn't really prevent this RR blitzing. attacker will probably take half a defender's cities before any retaliatory action.

Riskish? if it was more like Risk 2, with simultaneous turns, I would be all for it - it's way better than classic Risk.

[Captain]

btw, it's strange but i joined a year ago and I'm still nowhere near 500 posts (despite coming here almost daily except for some time off), how does one get to 500 posts in 2 months?!?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Captain
btw, it's strange but i joined a year ago and I'm still nowhere near 500 posts (despite coming here almost daily except for some time off), how does one get to 500 posts in 2 months?!?

Tuberski spammed his way up to 500.