Train Wrecks

[Rommel2D]

I spent some time in the Army in stationed Germany where we moved armor by train all the time. And trust me, loading trains for movement is no quick task. Being able to move entire divisions in a sudden response to a sneak attack would be a logistical nightmare.

Could you make a comparison between moving an armor division from DC to Seattle by train vs. airlift? Including loading and unloading time, would there be a significant difference? I don't even know how many tanks are in a division, would this ever be done with C-130s or other cargo aircraft?

[TheArsenal]

Difficult question. I don't know that heavy armor can even be airlifted in numbers to be significant, if at all. I've only seen rail and ocean transport used. So truthfully, don't know. But pre-planned, at full readiness, it can take days to load a battalion's worth of armor, a little less time to unload, stage and prep for battle (even if units could roll straight from trains into battle, it would be suicide). Further, what instant movement of rail does not contemplate is moving 96-128 tanks (a division's worth) would take great coordination, even assuming that a platoon's worth of vehicles, no less battalion's or division's, were at full combat readiness, which they are not. This does not contemplate, either, the great number of support units that must move with mechanized units. No one goes anywhere, for example, without mechanics (I would assume fighting on your own soil, food, water and medical care would be less of an issue). Nor does it contemplate the coordination with the rail system itself - one doesn't just roll a tank onto any rail car, but one specially designed to move heavy equipment. The game assumes these exist in unlimited supply, everywhere in the country. And lastly, the game's rail system has the added assumption that all of this massive movement can be done instantly from the stand still of a peace time environment.

I don't require that level of realism in a game, so I don't need all of those factors to be taken into consideration. Just a slight limiting of rail movement. I like the idea of the city to city movement that was being suggest.

[Mad Bomber]

Just to reply on airlift v. RR:

Air transport is not used except for emergencies becuse there are limited assets that can do the job (only the C-5A can transport a MBT) and Sea and rail transport is the most effecient way of traveling. In an emergency (like an invasion) efficiency falls to the way of expediency. Airlifting would be used as well as the full potential of the RR's if this was not enough then the Highway system would be used as well (the most inefficient way to move a division)

The game makes the assumption that anything that would be needed would be mobilized to do the job when and if it is needed. RR's not only represent the actual RR's but also the highway system as well. Its simply a representation of the decreased travel times in the modern age.

I would like to keep the RR's infinate as te default game but perhaps Firaxis should allow it to be modified in the editor.

[Unconquered]

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Unconquered

Back at you.

and thanks for the

[Rommel2D]

Airlifting would be used as well as the full potential of the RR's if this was not enough then the Highway system would be used as well (the most inefficient way to move a division)

RR's not only represent the actual RR's but also the highway system as well. Its simply a representation of the decreased travel times in the modern age.

Are you talking about loading armor onto trucks for transportation? Or big convoys of tanks just cruising down the interstates?

My point is that whether its a train, plane, truck, or ship, the process of organizing and securing the machinery for transport and unloading and reorganizing at the other end would be similar to what Arsenel describes. If you're using both trains and trucks for one division, it would take even longer. It's just completely out of balance with air and sea transport to have units (at least mechanized ones) attacking straight from a train.

They could just make it an option, but- done right- why would anyone use the present rules? Does anyone prefer the way flight was done in Civ2 after playing 3?

Still, I guess there's not much chance of anything but an editor option in the near future, huh?

[Mad Bomber]

Rommel:

True, it would take some time to disembark, and if the timescale wasn't measured in years then I might agree that the RR should have a limited movement (one of the reasons an option should be available to mod RR is the new ability to change the timescale of the turns in the editor) However, I hope that it does not take the Third Infantry Division an entire year to simply disembark their Brads and Abrams at a Railroad Station and proceed to the front line.

[Rommel2D]

Bomber,

The games timescale is pretty irrelevant to movement. As I'm sure has been pointed out before, a tank could go far enough to circumnavigate the globe a number of times in a year on a train or not. A warrior could do it in 25. If calander accuracy is that important most units should have unlimited movement under any circumstances.

It does take a year to disembark those divisions from a ship or a plane and move them into position. Whether they speed up airlifts and ship unloading or limit RRs, shouldn't they be consistant with each other?

I'm just a little lost as to why Firaxis changed the ship disembarkment rule from Civ2 without touching RRs. And didn't the airlift equivalent (warp gate?) in SMAC allow movement from the destination on the same turn?

[Kampus majore]

I'm happy the way it is now because:

1. I think the timescale IS relevant.
2. If you mess with the RR movement, you mess up the balance as it is now and I like the defender having an advantage.

But this discussion is one of those things civers will never agree on. One other is workers or public works....

[TheStinger]

I think there ok

[pedrojedi]

I think the RR rules were maintained because of their tradition, at least in a part. There are some fundamental rules in civ that will almost never be changed; they were not made to make total sense, but to keep a balance in the game.

[Kampus majore]

Exactly! It already cost me a lot of trouble getting used to not being able to use the railroad in enemy territory....

[pedrojedi]

And it's so much better... when the it works backwards! heheheh...

[Kampus majore]

You've got a point there....

And I must admit it is more realistic....

[Rommel2D]

One promising thing I think Civ3 shows, territorial passage being the best example of this, is that nothing in the series is sacred except a good game and ironic Elvis tributes.

I don't think anything suggested here would directly hinder the defense of any culture's cities. Using airlift-style rules for RRs would still allow cities/fortresses to be loaded up with defenders long before anything but a direct amphibious assault could arrive. The problem I'm talking about is that a simple RR through a vast wilderness gives it the defensive equivalent of a square next to any major metropolis.

There should be more to defending a continent than being an obsessive builder.

If this a topic of great disagreement, why are RRs hardcoded? What I'd really like to know is if the AI would be crippled by it. I don't see how anyone could know how this change would affect gamebalance until its been playtested.