Railroads are just ****

[gsmoove23]

Aaagh, no. Infinite RR movement throws off game balance? It maintains it. At a point in the game when shear number of units is multiplying exponentially and trying to position them all strategically gets dangerously boring RRs turn strategy on its head which is exactly what they should do. They also increase the value of aerial bombardment when wiping out 1 tile can have a drastic effect on the defensive capabilities of the enemy. If your upset by infinite stacking after invasion then precede your invasion with heavy bombardment, naval, aerial or otherwise, if this is impossible then tough noogie. You've got a hard target.

If war concentrates in an area for a long period of time then I usually find there are no RRs or even roads left. Making workers so easy to capture also subtracts from RR power because you're not going to risk building them in contested territory.

Keep infinite RR, but I've always thought roads should be a little more effective in the modern age. Perhaps after Motorized Transport they should get a boost.

[DrFell]

A flat movement rate on railroads is probably the only realistic solution. Having a train unit would be a micromanagement nightmare (as if industrial/modern age MM wasn't already bad enough with all the workers you have to move around, not to mention sea invasions), having a reduced move cost is unrealistic (why should a train with modern armour move faster than a train with infantry?).

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
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.

OK, OK - I've since read something to confirm that. Dammit, that stupid history textbook I read about the Prussians made it look like they were the genuises behind it And that was a final year high school book too.

[Gen.Dragolen]

NeoStar,

That is why you read many books by different authors on the same topic. Then you get to figure out what the truth of a situation for yourself.

Too bad for the world that politicians don't like to read history too... May be then they'd quit making the same mistakes.

BTW, as a suppliment to railway units, there is a need for an improved road way: an old Roman road may be great for troops and chariots, but a modern lorrie/semi or tank would get stuck on one. One of the strategic moves the Germans made in preparation for WW2 was to build the Autobahns to allow the rapid redeployment of troops from East to West and back. Railways are limited in the volumes they can carry so being able to send only the heavy equipment by train and the troops by truck was an effective comprimise. Until we blew up all the trains that is...

There should be a limit to how much of a rail system you can build and that trade should rely on having the most modern transporation connection available to keep the gold rolling into one's coffers. If a rail unit is not feasible, then a limit to how far would be a good alternative. Making the unit would be a snap: pull some unit graphics from Railway Tycoon 2 and then "All Aboard!"


D.

[vmxa1]

remember the train animation when something moved on the rails in civ2?

[Mad Bomber]

gen dragolen:

I agree that their should be a limit to your RR's you can build but not to movement. In other threads regarding this subject a proposal came up in which a support cost was factored into the RR system (you pay X-$ for Y-tiles). I think that this would be acceptable, but I am not in favor of limiting movement or number of units that can use the RR network.

[Tattila the Hun]

How about giving units extra speed after the invention of, say, combustion (trucks for the infantry, heavy movers, like Buesin-Nag, for the Pz's and Arty.

Perhaps a railway station could allow "airdropping" of units to nr of squares. And the idea of the RR infrastructure creating a pool of movement points sounded good too.

Normandy style "harbor", created by sinking drafts and such on the shore would ge great. To aid in invasions against heavily RR'd opponents.

(Strange, the next naval transport from a sail galleon is WWII transport? Should be something in between...)

And my workers don't have jeeps in 2002? Come on...

Naval transporting, perhaps putting the unit out of the loop for one turn, and interdicted by the presence of enemy fleets in the waters between?

[Mad Bomber]

tatilla:

Probably should increase mobvement to all units by one with discovery of motorized transport, Do many people have problems with modern invasions? I don't think that RR's make an amphibious invasion impossible, you simply must bring a lot of troops (but Nukes make an invasion much more difficult).

[Qilue]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Aaagh, no. Infinite RR movement throws off game balance? It maintains it. At a point in the game when shear number of units is multiplying exponentially and trying to position them all strategically gets dangerously boring RRs turn strategy on its head which is exactly what they should do. They also increase the value of aerial bombardment when wiping out 1 tile can have a drastic effect on the defensive capabilities of the enemy. If your upset by infinite stacking after invasion then precede your invasion with heavy bombardment, naval, aerial or otherwise, if this is impossible then tough noogie. You've got a hard target.

If war concentrates in an area for a long period of time then I usually find there are no RRs or even roads left. Making workers so easy to capture also subtracts from RR power because you're not going to risk building them in contested territory.

Keep infinite RR, but I've always thought roads should be a little more effective in the modern age. Perhaps after Motorized Transport they should get a boost.

Your comment has fallen on deaf ears. Since they can't flame you, they have decided to simply ignore you hoping you'll go away.

However, I agree with you. The current system with railroads means an invasion requires planning and preparation. The simplistic rush tactics that worked in ancient and medieval eras are as obsolete in industrial and modern eras as the unit that were used.

To comment on rail unit, based on the suggestions above. One would need to build lots of these for them to be of any use. This would add greatly to micro-management.

You would all then cry for an automation function. You would all then cry for a better AI of that automation. You would all then complain about something that should be fixed and probably would have been fixed if Sid & co hadn't spent all their time impementing something that didn't really need changing.

If'n it ain't broke, don't be trying to fix it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I, for one, have no problem with infinite movement-in principle-I just wish that you could edit it, and other terrain improvements, to your own personal preferences (ie, more flexibility). Given the amount of flexibility they have given us WITHIN each city, it just seems unfortunate that we can't have the same thing OUTSIDE of the city!!
I would, however, also like to see some kind of limit placed on how many units can use a section of railroad each turn-to reflect the whole concept of "Rolling Stock"!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Basilisk]

Well everything I was going to say when I read the first post has been said by others now..
I particularly like ixnay37 's idea of bonuses only applying to cities connected to the capital...

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Qilue
Your comment has fallen on deaf ears. Since they can't flame you, they have decided to simply ignore you hoping you'll go away.

However, I agree with you. The current system with railroads means an invasion requires planning and preparation. The simplistic rush tactics that worked in ancient and medieval eras are as obsolete in industrial and modern eras as the unit that were used.

thanks. I would have liked some flame though. The rolling stock idea someone mentioned does sound like an interesting idea for a Civ 4 though I'd still prefer infinite or at least to have the choice. Seriously, RRs do a lot to stave off the boredom that comes with the Modern Age for me. What I do think is ridiculous is the need to put RRs everywhere. I know RRs would increase efficiency for land that its near but it also would be an enormous expense to have rails everywhere within a city radius. The bonuses to trade, prod and food should be gotten rid of.

[zorbop]

i think your all being kind of silly. there is nothing wrong with infinite movement on railroads... you all don't like it because it makes the, "build tanks then click on enemy city" strategy innefective.

to fight a modern offensive war against someone with railroads, you have to use strategy(more than in ancient wars anyway, where "strategy" is 2 defenders per city and a hord of swordsman/horseman)

when you launch an attack in a modern war, try some of these technices, prefrebly using them all on the same turn you declare war
-take over some coastal cities with marines, backed by infantry for defence. bombard w/ B-ships railroads, in enemy territory, surround the cities you just took
-dump a decent hord of para's next to thier inner, less defended cities.
- move forward a LARGE force infantry, marines and artillery, probly the bulk of your army, closer into enemy territory. you might even put tanks here, and only move them one square per turn, but be thier reinforcing your infantry, to be able to attack twice...
-of coarse, this is backed up by a healthy air force and navy.

after this, if your opponent uses his current army to try to deal with your marines and para's, your iinfanty force
can simply use it's artillery to bombard the nearest city, and it's tanks to take it that turn... but if enemies try to deal with your slower, infantry army, (which should be pretty large), then they have probly worn out most of thier current military, and would not be ready for an attack on another border. thier units could either move back to defend all their cities, but be at low health for a turn, or heal quickly in the city they just saved. you can't move and be healed...

[Sandman]

After a couple of positive responses about the rolling stock idea, I have decided to try an expand upon it, as the initial post wasn't very clear.

Rolling stock is an empire wide value, dependent on two things, the size of your rail network and the number of rolling stock boosting city improvements. It replenishes to the full value at the start of every turn.

To move one unit one square along a railroad costs one rolling stock point. In a normal, peacetime situation, a well developed empire will have more than enough rolling stock to rearrange garrisons, move workers etc with no hassle.

In a wartime situation, however, the large number of units on the move may very well prove too much for the system and result in the player running out of rolling stock, meaning that certain units might not be able to get to their intended destinations.

Positive consequences of this idea:

It becomes desirable (but not essential) to build efficient rail networks between cities to minimise the amount of rolling stock used.

A sprawling empire with a poorly developed rail network will be at a disadvantage when fighting a small empire with a well developed network. Germany vs Russia in the First World War for example.

It retains most of the revolutionary aspects of the railroad, without overpowering it.

Problems and unresolved issues:

A player may wish to move units normally, so as not to waste rolling stock. A key press could disable railroad use, but this is the sort of micromanagement I'd hope to avoid.

What should be done about broken networks, say an empire spanning two islands? One solution is to just ignore this and still have a single rolling stock figure for both islands. Another is to have two seperate values, but this increases complexity.

Rolling stock usage may force the player to perform tedious sums trying to work out if enough rolling stock remains to move a unit somewhere.

Can the AI use rolling stock effectively?

[Mad Bomber]

Sandman:

Not sure about the rolling stock idea, its clearly better than most other Ideas but it has its drawbacks, mainly from a micromanagement standpoint. I favor paying a maintenence cost for RR's more than the rolling stock system. If a player was forced to pay a cost to maintain a RR on a tile then the player would not RR all the tiles that they could and focus more on building the network system that you are striving to achieve.

One more issue to resolve with rolling stock, if a player uses automated moves or long goto moves they could easily run out of RSP (Rolling Stock Points) and have moves left for more critical moves of units that were not on automation and their move came after the automated moves were complete (new production). Lots of unhappy people will result if that happens on a regular basis.