Railroads are just ****

[Blake]

You'd be suprised.
A very simple algorithm can be used for "connectivity", run this once over the map to find connected regions (consider such things as ROP, units, etc...), iow, the route finding is done ONCE for all units moving on a single area of rail.

If two tiles are part of the same RR region, it can be guaranteed a route can be found. And because the unit will expend 0 movement theres no need to even find the route, just move the unit!.

This is no longer true when using a mixed rail-nonrail movement (from rail to road to rail, or something) in which the full algorithm can be used, but if you think about how many of your unit movements are entirely on rail, then consider the AI is probably doing just as many, you'll figure out that a bit of time must be saved by not doing any route-finding for those units.

Ofcourse I can't say for sure that Firaxis HAS used such a system but it'd be a justifiable reason for infinite movement.

[King of Rasslin]

If we have infinite railroad movement, having a zone of control rule would help balance it as it is. Roads are not hard coded, but railroads are. This also needs to change.

In my opinion, roads should take 1/2 a movement point and railroads should take 1/4 of a movement point. This seems good to me.

[gergi]

Originally posted by NeoStar


Or the Prussians (Germans). After all, they were the first to use railroads for mobile warefare during the Franco-Prussian war.

Not to nitpick, but the Franco-Prussian war was preceded by the American Civil War which was really the first war to use railroads for logistics and mobile warfare and was studied extensively by the Prussians (and everyone else)

[Jahi]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
RRs give free food and production, they are already very powerful! I think they should give 5 moves to a unit with 1 movement, but function as roads for mobile units. How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical. They are designed for foot soldiers. I think this would make infantry, paratroopers, and marines better. Mech infantry shouldn't replace infantry because infantry is not obsolete even today.

i totally disagree with this.. during desert storm i lived by an army base and i cannot even begin to count the tanks transported my rail.. i think if you look in your military history book you will see how powerful rail is in war.

as for infantry being obsolete in favor it of mech inf is correct. infantry that cannot keep up with armor weakens both the armor and the infantry. rember, infantry in jeeps can be considered mechanised

[Pyrodrew]

Unfortunately, I doubt any RR changes will happen in any patch, only in Civ4 might we see something. Nevertheless, at least some good options to modify the power of railroads should be offered in the Editor. Railroads/transportation are powerful IRL, but in Civ3 gamebalance terms they are too powerful. This was in 1 of my posts when Civ3 came out & the editor still didn't have a mini-map or start locations.

I agree farmland/supermarkets should have been placed back in. With how easy it is to get 8 luxuries & keep people happy, potentially larger cities would have been fine & offered another option. Farmlands were also a welcome new terrain image. Railroads can be limited to offering only production and/or trade (I don't care which).

The limited railroad movement (as in CtP2) at around 1/10 (perhaps varies with techs & for all units) is better than this 'move or attack' thing, which the AI may not use properly. Civ3 Industrial/Modern Navy is not only too slow, but practically worthless without any mod once RRs hit & especially when Airports come into play.

I agree with the railroad maintenance for the most part as well, especially if the AI understands. I would love if the AI could connect its cities better.

I agree with giving workers in the Industrial Age the 'all-terrain-as-roads movements' OR more feasibly (in Civ3) offer the option to upgrade workers to a new better worker unit.

I also agree with the mined grasslands comment. Grasslands were already powerful in Civ2... making good terrains (like grasslands) even more powerful & others (like jungle) even worse only makes one's starting position a bigger role in determining that Civ's destiny.

Train idea will never happen. As many mentioned before, too many clicks. It's the same reason we lost our sexy Civ2 spy unit for streamline speed.

And the train wouldn't even have cleavage or nice legs... even if it does have a nice caboose.

[Mad Bomber]

The problem with RR's really is not with the 'teleporting' ability, its the hardcoded timeframes that are included in CIV3 to begin with. The solution is simple, allow time scale, and RR movement changes in the editor. If you reduce the movement of RR's without changing the timescale then you will only make a mockery of movement in CIV3,. which is already a joke. RR's are simply a way to increase movement in industrial times. Think of movement without RR's and only roads avaiable, a tank would take 30 years to get from one end of your country to another!

[Unconquered]

One idea to offset the advantages railroads have in the modern age for the defender is to only use one movement point (or the cost of moving through the terrain you land on) having all remaining movement-points available for attacking on the same turn as you land your forces. Therefore you get a chance to capture (or raze) as many cities as you have coordinated attacks (e.g. three landing forces simultaneously attacking three cities within the enemies empire). Severely weakening his ability to make war and adding a surprise element to massive coordinated attacks. If this does not change large wars in multiplayer in the modern age will virtually be impossible to win for the attacker.

[King of Rasslin]

I don't care about a stupid AI anymore! We have multiplayer now, so it's time for some revised railroad moves!

[Pyrodrew]

I don't care about a stupid AI anymore! We have multiplayer now, so it's time for some revised railroad moves!

MP can often involve AI Civs, from the start or I would imagine taking over when a human gives up the throne. Therefore revisions which both the human and AI understand are superior.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by gergi
Not to nitpick, but the Franco-Prussian war was preceded by the American Civil War which was really the first war to use railroads for logistics and mobile warfare and was studied extensively by the Prussians (and everyone else)

Well this is a fairly old thread. It seems something I said in it has come back to haunt me...

OK, I never heard of railroads playing a major role in the American Civil War but now I'll have to find out about it.

BTW - a similiar thread like this seems to have popped up in the PTW forum.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by NeoStar
BTW - a similiar thread like this seems to have popped up in the PTW forum.

The resurrection of this aged thread is perhaps because I posted a link to here in the other (PtW) thread...

I am often too lazy to repeat what has been said on a given topic (even if it was interesting) and rather spend a few minutes looking for the previous good thread on the topic, posting a link then...

[Sandman]

I have a simple, elegant, solution to the RR problem.

Every railroad you build will increase your 'rolling stock' by one point. With a large network you would have hundreds of rolling stock points. A city improvement, say a railyard or something like that, would also increase your rolling stock points. The rolling stock points regenerate every turn.

Each time you move a unit one square along a railroad, it uses one rolling stock point. Moving many units a long way could very well consume all your rolling stock for that turn.

This is clearly much better than the 'train' unit idea, since it involves much less micromanagement, whilst still making rail transport a finite resource.

[Mad Bomber]

Neostar-

RR's played a vital role in the American Civil war, from the first battle to the last. THe Union lost the battle of Bull Run because of the reinforcements that the Southern army recieved via railroad.

[aaglo]

I would give railroads a fixed system speed - say 10 moves/turn. And this could increase to 15 and 20 with apropriate techs (electricity and ecology?).

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Optimizer
You're right. Any suggestions of how to create a better model for railroads?

Concerning sea transport, I would really like a "sealift" which would automatically transport one unit from one port to another.

Airport & helicopter.