TERRAIN & TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (ver 1.1): Hosted by EnochF

[Harel]

EnochF, what happened on july 7? Had a good day?

[loinburger]

Theben et al.:

The following post wanders a little bit, but the reason is that I'm trying to convince you folks to not have railroads be 'owned' by a civilization.

"The General" was an old silent film made by Buster Keaton and is based on an actual occurrence during the Civil War. "The General" is the name of a train (owned by Buster Keaton) which is stolen by Union soldiers and brought back to the Union base somewhere around Tennessee (along with Keaton's girlfriend). Keaton takes another confederate train, "The Texas", and chases the Union soldiers back to their base, steals "The General" back again, and saves the day. It's a wonderful movie and I suggest that you rent it sometime (although it is difficult to find).

The point? Things like this really happenned. (the movie is based on a true story and even has the actual train "The General" which was used in the skirmish). Two opposing civilizations CAN use the same rail lines, logically; all you really need is something on rails and you can travel as far as your heart desires, assuming that nobody blows you or the rails up first. Maglevs, however, require a power source to work and would therefore NOT be instantly accessible but would instead have to be occupied by the civ for one turn before the civ could use them.

But then comes the problem of rush tactics, which I am no fan of.
-First solution: roadblocks and ambushes, and stationing units on the railroad tracks.
-Second solution: you can only get on and off a railroad track from a city or at a Rail Center TI, otherwise you use up an entire turn (perhaps two) getting off the railroad (perhaps getting on? this must be decided--I think that units should be able to get off anywhere for a turn sacrifice, else they would get stranded, but what about getting back on?)
-Third solution: Alter the method in which railroads/meglevs are built (this need not apply to roads/paths). Railroad/maglev tracks would require a direction in which they would be built, and junctions not located at cities would be costly (in both time and money). This would eliminate the current "build a railroad everywhere for the land bonus" problem with railroads, because you just cannot defend yourself with a network like this (but you have to build one in order to get the most output from your land). Instead, railroads/maglevs would be built more sparingly and, preferably, only as connections between cities. This single-line rail system would make railroads much easier to defend and would justify allowing enemy civs access to your railroad(s). The current rail bonus should, IMHO, be replaced with a city improvement which would confer the same benefits or else the benefits should be automatically conferred with the discovery of the Bessemer Process (or something). It would also be much more difficult to perform a rail-blitz (with an army of engineers) with the increased price of railroad laying.
-Fourth solution: it will always take more than one turn to complete a section of track, no matter how many engineers you put on the job. The new rail tile square will confer a Path bonus (due to the clearing of trees and whatnot) but will not confer the Rail (or Maglev) bonus.

I do see where you're coming from with the "civ control of rails" idea, but I do not think that it should be implemented from a realism (>cringe<) perspective nor from a playability perspective. Blitzes can be prevented just as easily by simply tweaking the railroad building process. As far as I'm concerned, if you've only got one railroad connecting your city and the enemy city and you don't have the common sense to defend it or destroy it, then it's your own fault. So all we've got to do is make a single railroad line a viable option instead of the rail network we've got instead.

[loinburger]

another way to reduce the chance of a rail blitz--
any unit (except regular, non mech infantry) on a railroad/maglev cannot attack while on the railroad/maglev, and receives a defense penalty while on the railroad/maglev. Perhaps there should be some way that a unit could NOT be on a railroad/maglev if it did not want to be. This would especially be a viable option if a unit could only get on a railroad/maglev at a city or rail station. Such units would move as if on a Path (Road?)

This should handle your "tanks on rails" problem, since the tanks have to spend time getting off of the rails before they can attack (and, if not unloaded at the proper location, then the tank/howitzer/whatever could not attack that turn).

I'm sorry to be so insistent on this "non-controlled rails" point, but I think that it is very important to game play that blitzes be made difficult if not impossible to perform but at the same time that attackers are not unnecessarily hindered in their process. Otherwise you'll be putting an end to rush games but the battles will also drag on indefinitely. (particularly if the rail network remains a part of game play--can you imagine attacking an enemy when you can only move two or three spaces a turn and all the while the defender is mustering reinforcements? I'm all for delaying tactics, but the defender should have to WORK for the delay, by gosh!)

[Maniac]

ember: I agree terrain is too changeable. Lower and raise terrain is OK for fiction-future games like SMAC but not for Civ3.

Did I ever mention I wanted rockyness or moistness variables on earth? Again I think good for a fiction world/game but not for a historice game on earth.

Your idea for a dike is OK. However there should be limits to prevent you to make the Atlantic Ocean land.

TI's until now: Civ2 TI's/Forest/Jungle/Offshore Platform/Radar/Canal/Condenser/Genetic Farm/Highway/Maglev/(Solar Collector?)/Dike...

You may suggest other ones.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 19, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

Theben: If Civ3 doesn't have 3D terrain, I would find it a step backworths.

In Civ2 Hills produce only 1 Food as if high terrain never would be fertile. With 3D altitude terrain, you could still have fertile grasslands or plainson high altitude. Cities like Quito, Lima, Addis Abeba, Kathmandu and Lhasa would be more realistic.

[Maniac]

AAAAAAARRRRRGH!
What did I do?!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 19, 1999).]</font>

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Technophile: Actually, "The General" movie (there were two of them: Disney made a version in the 1950s) is a good indicator that armies cannot use another civ's railroad. Individual trains on a raid, maybe, but a railroad is a system including switches, many trains, signals, and communications that all have to be controlled in order to use it. A single train is insignificant in the Civ game scale: remember that even a small Soviet WWII rifle division took 20+ trains to move, while an armored division can take 50 to 100 trains of 50+ cars each!
I agree with your concepts of limiting the massive rail net problem, but a relatively simle and realistic solution to the 'rail blitz' is to require railroads to be converted to your control by an engineer before any unit can use them for movement.
Thus, you could move an Armor/Tank unit along the railroad, but at terrain speed only. Behind it in the same turn you could place engineers on the rails to convert, but conversion would be like building roads: possible in the same turn, but only if you have a lot of engineers assigned to the entire railroad line.
In return, 'pillaging' or destroying railroads as you retreat should be one of the easiest and fastest of the Pillage commands. Destroying railroads in hill or mountain tiles is almost automatic: there are lots of bridges and tunnels that can be collapsed to block the rails and require major engineering to repair or replace.

[Maniac]

Tecnopile: My idea about Railroads:

You must have discovered Railroad to use Railroad. Some for Maglevs etc... That way inferior civs can't use your hightech machines. For them RR act as roads.

My idea to avoid blitzkrieg:

Before you can use someone else his RR's, you must convert them (see The List v1.0).
OR
you must connect your RR system to his, so you can use your own trains.

Actually this whole RR-blitzkrieg discussion is pointless if you give RR a 1/5 movement bonus.
READ MY POSTS!

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 19, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Theben: That would be a solution. But why weren't your ideas mentioned in The List?

Something else. I get the feeling this thread is just Technopile and Theben discussing about their stupid Railroads and movie. According to Brain Reynolds e-mail, we should make the decisions how Civ3 works. The List contains only suggestions. So -again- LET'S MAKE A LIST OF TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND TERRAIN WE WANT IN THE GAME!
About Railroads: I gave you an answer how to avoid blitzkriegs and how to simulate other civ problems with your RR system but you keep discussing with no result at all !



------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

[Theben]

It was included in the List (Tiles & TI's, 2.10). Also above.

Right now the rr discussion is each of us, & others, trying to win people over to their point-of-view. Same as what you're doing.