EC3 Fix #15 - ROAD & RAIL

[MadWoodster]

Using other people's roads:

If I was at war with someone I would just drive straight onto their roads as I'm sure the Germans did in Poland and Irag in Kuwait (among others)
If I was at peace with them then provided I didn't have a non-trespressing agreement (or even have a new treary such as use roads agreement) then I coud drive on them.
Obviously with allies you could use them as normal.

Using other people's railroads:
I couldn't use my enemy's railroads as I doubt their trains would be willing to pick me up somehow!
With friends you could have a use railroads agreement.
With allies you would already have this agreement.
Possibly charge them the energy cost as it is their train you are using. Obviously they could come up and say please don't use our railways.

[Zanzibar]

CrispyCritter, Korn

Let's say you have an engineer from Boston, building a railroad between New York and Washington. Now, which city is charged? Very simple: Boston! So, normally an engineer costs you 1 shield. For only those turns when he is building a RR, you will pay 2 shields. I don't think it's complicated. Of course, if you want do build a diesel RR on existing steam rail, it will cost you 1 shield. But if you want to build a mag-lev RR on a virgin tile, it will cost you 4 shields.
But I also have an another idea for this: You don't pay extra shields for RR building, but in order to link a city to a RR, you must build first a city improvement (maybe a RR Station or a Train Depot). Also, you could build RR only near cities or near tiles that already has RR on it ("chain-building").
Now, which do you like more?

Movement in war: I have 2 proposals. Please tell which do you like. If none, I will drop the idea:
1. -1 movement penalty on your opponents' territory , because they are sabotaging you
2. +1 movement bonus inside your borders, during war, IF there are enemy troops on your territory

Otherwise, in your opinion, is the R&R system ready for the final draft?

[Glostakarov]

I can see a railroad station as being a +trade building, but I can't picture it as being necessary to use the rails. After all, when you're not in a city you load and unload simply by stopping the train and piling units in or out. This would not be much different in a city. Plus, any city on a rail line is going to be so eager for the trade that they will build at least a basic station to provide services to the train.
A classic example of how far towns will go during the rail boom is Chadron, Nebraska, where I lived for a few years. When the first rails were being built in the area, the entire town picked up and moved itself three miles so that it would be along the tracks. It wasn't a large town, but still they physically moved all the buildings to take advantage of the train route. Something as simple as erecting a platform for easy boarding of the train is nothing next to that.

[The Mad Viking]

The movement point fixes are very good and absolutely essential.

Road and rail must be independently built, and must be able to co-exist on the same tile. Rail movement could be initiated like an airlift, thereby ensuring that a unit only uses it once per turn and there is no confusion about whether its moving on rail or road.

Don don has good knowledge about railways. Here's a little more info. Highways cost about twice as much to build as railways. This changes radically in mountains, where railway costs absolutely skyrocket. "Roads" should cost about half as much as rail. This is all actually taken nicely into account in Civ2, with the time it takes to build each. (Highways being an improvement) I really agree that the maintain costs on engineers should be enough for whatever they're working on.

Although rail is somewhat slower in the mountains, particularly uphill, as Don don pointed out, this is probably not significant enough to bother with. For trains to be able to travel at all, the track is relatively straight, and relatively level. Roads are 10 times steeper and 5 times twistier, so using the terrain modifier only with roads is legit, IMHO.

Also, rail and roads have a neglible maintenance cost, while highways are expensive to maintain. Once again, Civ2 has it right! No need to complicate unless it gives important something back! ;-)

[korn469]

Zanzibar

all railroad tiles should be the same and should cost the same amount of shields to buy...not matter if you are at steam engine tech levels or at maglev tech levels. however when you discover the appropriate tech then your troops automatically move farther on rails...

i would go with proposal number 2 if anything

i like the train depot being a trade building...how about it being a commerce building, having a train depot in your city will increase that cities commerce rate by one and if all of your cities have train depots then your trains get a +1 bonus to movement

(custom houses could be another commerce building but that is another idea for another thread)

korn469

[Zanzibar]

Korn,

The final shape must be very, very exact and specific, or could I write some options there (there are many different opinions, and I don't want to be the judge).

[korn469]

zanzibar

make sure to include all of the important things and then use your best judgement...if an idea is contraversial you might want to leave it out or only include it as an optional after thought...there are a few specific things i could nitpick with you on but you have the major things hammered out i think

korn469

[Zanzibar]

FINAL DRAFT

Improved road & rail rules

Almost every CIV player agrees on the fact that the road & rail rules must be improved. But because of the variety of opinions, this proposal has 2 sections: General Rules (supported by everyone) and Other Improvements (different ideas)

GENERAL RULES

For a better reflection of reality, Civ3 should use 3 ways of transportation: roads, highways and railroads.

Prerequisite technologies:
1. Road – none or Masonry
2. Highway – Automobile
3. Railroad – Railroad

Movement rates:
TM = terrain modifier (just for ex. plains TM = 1; hills TM = 0,6; mountains TM = 0,3)
US = unit speed (ex. Armor US = 3)
RS = railroad speed (the speed of the train transporting the units)

1. Road – 3 x TM x US
2. Highways – 4 x (motorized US), 3 x (non-motorized US)
3. Railroad – flat movement rate (rail speed), the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (travelling on RR, the units are assumed to be travelling by train)
(example: steam – 6, diesel – 8, electric – 10, monorail – 12).
After moving on railroad, the unit would still have all of its movement (US) left.
Important: A unit could use only one railroad once per turn.

Trade (money) bonus
Only roads and highways, and only in squares that already generate trade or have tile improvements that generate trade
(ex. One trade bonus for roads, and two for highways)

Shield (mineral, energy) bonus
Only railroads, and only in squares that generate minerals or energy (forest, iron, coal) or already have tile improvements such as coal mines, oil wells, wind mills, solar collectors, etc.

Movement cost
1. For transportation on railroad for all units
For stacked units, the cost will be the same, no matter how many units are being transported. The cost is coming from the train type (diesel, electric, etc)
2. Moving on roads or highways for motorized units only;
The cost will depend only on the type of the unit. For stacked units, the cost should be the sum of all units' cost.

Clarifications
The cost for transportation won’t depend on the terrain type, because this is already included trough the movement rate formula.
The cost should be energy (or something equivalent)

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

1. Road (highway later) and RR on the same tile.
a) Yes, because it's realistic
b) No, because the map could easily become overcrowded. The players need no more to strategically choose between them (based on movement rate, cost, and so on), and will build them both. Some problems may occur when a unit enters on a tile with both road and railroad on it (how many moves he has?)
2. Modern military units being capable of road (but not RR or highways) and fortress building, at the speed of a settler.
3. Railroads could generate trade bonus through a "Train Station" city improvement.
4. Construction cost
Railroad: 1 shield (the construction of the RR includes the construction of the train, too)
The city where the engineer belongs to allocates 1 shield for RR construction as long the engineer is working on that RR.
5. Movement and borders
a) Moving inside your borders: +1 movement bonus during war (priority for military vehicles) if there are enemy troops on your territory
b) Moving outside your borders: Cost you nothing if you have a "Use railroads " agreement. If you have not such an agreement, you must pay money for the right to use the RR.
Possible problem: makes the game too complicated
c) Moving on enemy’s railroad: You could use an enemy’s RR only after you capture it. A RR is captured if you move a unit (X) on the RR, there are no enemy vehicles between the RR controlled already by you and X, and don’t move X until the next turn. You can not use the RR until the next turn. If X survives, the RR is yours.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Zanzibar (edited March 08, 2000).]</font>

[Sir Shiva]

I have an idea...

Have any of you'll played Railroad Tycoon? How about a Railroad Tycoon style road & rail management..

I mean, you give the settler/engineer the order to build a road/rail to somewhere.

For rail access, there should be stations or platforms which the engineers build on the track... Units must get on a train at a station (cities could be stations by default) and should be allowed to move as many stations forward as there are within 12 spaces.

Stations also make the economy more realistic.. Suppose there's some gold or oil somewhere in the mountains. An engineer can build an mine/oil well on top of it, build a station and connect it with rail. This railroad can connect it to one or more cities and pump resources which are shared between all connected cities.

The stations could come in various sizes.. From small, which only access an area of one square around it, to large, which can access the equivalent of a city radius...

These railways can also facilitate movement of people, migration etc. For example, if a city isn't doing too well (it could be a foreign city), some people could migrate to a connected city...

This stations idea can be extended to air and sea routes.. Engineers should be able to build ports/harbours/airports around the map, stations near them and connect the stations to somewhere.. There could also be s 'superstation' which incorporates port/rail/airport...

From the ports, you could buy/build ships and send them to other ports for trade/passengers..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@telebot.com
Web: <A HREF="http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ:" TARGET=_blank>http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ:</A> 17719980

[Theben]

Korn,

I have been away for about one week and I haven't seen your responses until now. Since this thread has had the discussion of List vs. EC3 I'll post my concerns here.

I don't know how you plan on presenting the EC3 to Firaxis. The name "Essential Civ3 list" sounds to me like something that all the fans really want, possibly overriding what was in the previous lists. I agree that the ideas in both EC3 and the lists are equally valid, but the title of EC3 just sounds like it deserves preference. And I disagree that most new posters have read the lists. As you say, it's a big document. Hell, I haven't read the whole thing.

So my concern is that EC3 will replace any similar list ideas. If you could present the ideas as a supplement to, as opposed to "instead of", similar list ideas, then this would allay my concerns.

------------------
"The collapse of communism at the end of the cold war removed from the world's political stage the last pretense of principled opposition to the rule of money, and the pages of history suggest that oligarchies unhindered by conscience or common sense seldom take much of an interest in the cause of civil liberty."- Lewis Lapham

[korn469]

Theben

here is a quote from raingoon about the EC3 list a while back

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The Essential Civ 3 is not to give Firaxis ideas but rather to be a companion to the 500 page list, a sort of clarification -- by that token, I think it could be a tremendously helpful document.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

now as for presenting the list to firaxis...there will have to be a cover letter and basically this cover letter will tell firaxis a few things...

• the process of forming the list
• it could give a list of signatures that participated in the EC3
• it will tell what the list is all about

here is what the EC3 is all about

• it is not a comprehensive list
• it is not a replacement for any list
• it is not a stand alone list
• it is a prioritized list of suggestions
• it is a helpful tool, that try to catch the general feeling of what is important to civ3
• it is a list pointing out what areas need the most work
• although it does provide some unique new ideas and some specific fixes this list is more about trying to encourage firaxis to be innovative in civ3's game design

now here is the reason why i didn't simply want the list rehashed...since it is a sumpliment to the list, maybe we could mail the EC3 to firaxis and when we do also remail any sections of THE LIST that has a coresponding part in the EC3 List

so if the realtime/firstperson shooter idea from the EC3 makes it then we should send the section of THE LIST that deals with real/firstperson shooters

*note: there is no realtime/firstperson shooter idea in either of the lists...i was just trying to not endorse a specific idea

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited March 12, 2000).]</font>