Many people are unhappy with the current way that railroads are being run, being given unlimited movement. I am opposed to this system. I would like to see who all what alternatives are the most popular if a change is made.

Aussie_Lurker broke the changes into several catergories:

Restricted Access-RR 1) Units can only embark or disembark RR's at certain set points IF they want the benefit of infinite RR movement-these points would be at points where the RR connects with a city, outpost or fort. Otherwise, the RR counts only as an improved road (perhaps 1/4 or 1/5 mp).

Maximum Level Transportation 2) Give RR, and other terrain, squares a 'stack limit'-meaning that you can't have more than X units on one RR at any one time. This would force players to 'stagger' the movement of their forces (eg, bring 6 units into a city, then move them as a stack along the RR. Until they disembark, no other units can travel on that particular section of RR)

Disembarkation Penalty 3) Units which disembark and fight on the same turn will do so at a high penalty, to reflect the period of 'organisation' prior to battle. Also, after disembarking, all units have only 1mp irrespective!

Reduced movement penalty: 4) Possibly still have a movement cost associated if you pass through a city whilst travelling on RR, but perhaps have it as 1/4 of the movement points of the unit doing the travelling.

And One other:
5)Rail Cars: Actual Rail road cars which must be taken to give the benefits of unlimited movement. This will limit the amount of items that can be shipped by units.

On #2: Aussie had made a summary of an idea I proposed, but it doesn't quite work like that. There's no "per line" limit, it's a total limit for all rail capacity. So you move X number of units per turn, nationwide, and after that it's assumed you have no more locomotives available.

Here's a more complete description:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125673

But I see that there could be a lot of different models for limited capacity, so maybe it should all just go under a single idea of "limited # units/turn".

Could the poll be changed so "Limited Rail Capacity" is an option? Maximum transportation sounds confusing - makes it sounds like you get maximum transportation when really you get limited transportation (but I do know what you meant).

It sort of resembles #5 as well, except that there are no actual "cars" just RR points. But I guess the graphic of the unit could change to a train when it decides to entrain.

Well, I voted for the 'Rail Capacity' option, but I think it would work best with a limit to units which enter the RR from a city. This will prevent players (at least I hope it will) building vast amounts of RR's to nowhere-just so that they have LOTS of RR capacity in both peacetime and war. Instead, at least from a military perspective, the combination of these systems would mean that it would only makes sense to build RR's which join either one city to another, or a city to a colony, outpost or fort!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

RR capacity probably wouldn't be based on the number of tiles you've put rails on. While realistic in terms of how it works in the real world, I'd like to see them getting away from RR sprawl.

It would be easier to tie it to technological advances - invent the diesel-electric engine, get +5 rail capacity - and to governments, eg anarchy, -10 rail, communism no bonus, democracy, +5. Or whatever.

Make rail take a long time to build and taking away tile bonuses is the ONLY way to prevent ppl building rails everywhere. Even if you make it so that they don't offer benefit to moving units, ppl will still build them everywhere for the tile bonuses. Limiting the number of troops boarding at a given city isn't necessary to stop railroad sprawl.

I like the rail cars option. Probably when you learn steam power you can build a rail car unit called steam engine and it can move about 9 squares. When you learn motorized transportation you can build a diesel engine which can move 15 squares. Steam engines would cost coal and diesel engines would cost oil. Military units may be loaded on an engine like a ship. Steam engines may contain three units while diesel engines may contain up to six. A unit on the railroad without a rail car may only use the railroad as a regular road. Trade on railroads will be the same. Both railcar units may only be built in a city with railroad access. Also, the action of loading and unloading onto a railcar will cost no movement points to the unit. There is only one problem with this system that I am suggesting. If you are on a huge world size how are you to efficiently automate workers? Not much would be achieved in places far unless you have hundreds of workers.

with Rail cars, we have to load units, move car, unload unit. How much would that be. NO, i don't like this idea. There is gotta be an easier model. Just make the RR give 9x or whatever movement solve the problem. No need for complicated idea or concepts.

Yeah but I still like the idea of railcars. I think they make the game more interesting. Maybe there is a way to make them simpler.

with Rail cars, we have to load units, move car, unload unit. How much would that be. NO, i don't like this idea. There is gotta be an easier model. Just make the RR give 9x or whatever movement solve the problem. No need for complicated idea or concepts.

The problem with that is, it will be more attractive to micromanage by airlifting all your units from huge banks of airfields built on unused land (plus airports in cities) than move them by rail. If you have a distant border city that you need to get your whole army to in one round to defend, you'll still be able to do it, it will just be alot of work. It might be more realistic, but it would actually not be simpler in gameplay. Complicated ideas and concepts aren't necessarily more complicated in play, just as simple concepts can often be more complicated in play. Although just keeping it the way it is, is both a simple idea and simple to play.

I don't like rail cars either. Abstract them, with a national limit for the number of units that can use rail in a round. A button entrains (no "Which car to load to" like with ships) and as soon as they come off the track, the rail move is over (no need for an unload button). Then limit that number to a low number, so you never have to do much of it in a round. 5 or 10 extra clicks in a round is, I think, tolerable, if there are no sub-menus.

Yeah but I still like the idea of railcars. I think they make the game more interesting. Maybe there is a way to make them simpler.

Yes there is! A simple graphic change for units using the rail. No need for an actual railcar unit. In the above model, when you entrained, the unit graphic changes to a locomotive (to show that unit is moving by train).

I didn't vote yet, but i think there should be a penalty if you build railroad in certain tiles and certain era's (fi. you shouldn't be able to build rr through forest without getting a pop penalty, also, certain era's didn't adapt to rr that fast, since it was steam power and made the cattle go wild). Things like that. It's only to restrict myself actually, since i'm a perfectionist and i build rr EVERYWHERE and each and every tile. I think there should be a economy bonus for the shortest transportation line between cities but a penalty for most other tile rr occupance

Which one is the option if you want RR to be an upgrade of roads with 1/5 or 1/7 (settable in the editor) movement?

I like the max transport capacity idea. You can only move so many units by rail (though instantly, to anywhere) per turn. Need a good way to calculate max transport capacity though, maybe based on a building, like RR depot, each lets you move, say 5 units per turn. RR depot should cost a fair amount of gold per turn, to reflect locomotive, RR car, and general upkeep costs.
We'd need new graphics to represent both roads and RR in the same square, and an embark/disembark button for units.

I also think RR should cost maybe 5-10 gold per tile to build, then you could eliminate per tile upkeep. Have RR serve only as a quick transportation route between cities, for farms, go back to the civ2 model, and have ths done thru public works, this would save enormously on time spent moving workers about. Maybe new techs could increase unit capacity of RR depots, and RR could also affect luxury and food trade somehow as well, due to better freight shipping.

Though I wouldn't mind a change as a mod option, my preference is to leave it as is in the epic game. Instantaneous mass troop movement throughout your empire is no less logical than infinite distribution of goods and services. If these things weren't abstracted in a game covering 6000+ years of history it would simply become to tedious for most people to play.

Zeekater: That option would be reduced movement penalty. Reduced movement penalty would treat movement as a faster version of roads.

i voted for Reduced movement penalty cause i was thinking it was the RR movement points option that we had talked about earlier in another topic... i like the idea of an unlimited amount of units being able to use the rails each turn but each unit can only travel a set amount on them... it shouldn't be determined by the unit type or the units movement points or anything like that cause that doesn't matter on a RR... and there should be no "delay" to get on or off.

the onboard/offboard idea of RR will not work with the "goto" function whereas the RR MP idea will work seemlessly and will automatically be calculated into the fastest movement path.

This should really be a multiple-choice poll...

Reduced movement penalty. Perhaps make it use up a fixed percentage of MPs rather than a fixed number (this would mean Riflemen move no slower than Cavalry on RR).

While infinite movement might make justifiable sense in a game on Civ's scale, it removes to much from the military strategy aspect in the later ages; you basically don't have to worry where the enemy will strike any longer, since you can instantly get your entire army there.

it is multiple choice... i suppose you mean multiple answer? :-P

I voted for Restricted Access because it could tie in with a rail station.

i think it should be reduced movement like 1/10 movement so there could be more advancd things like highways

About Restricted Access: I think that if you don't get on the rail then you shouldn't have ANY increased movement. How is walking on a rail different to walking on a road (apart from the greater chance of death thing)?

I voted other, but really I'd be happy with almost anything that isn't the way it is now.

Rails consume small amounts of movement points
Rails have tangible entry/exit points
Rails cannot be built as a huge network, only a few straight lines through cities
Stack limits

Any combination of the above or what you have or any one thing... I don't really mind. But rails the way they are have absolutely ZERO strategic value.

Restricted Access-RR 1) Units can only embark or disembark RR's at certain set points IF they want the benefit of infinite RR movement-these points would be at points where the RR connects with a city, outpost or fort. Otherwise, the RR counts only as an improved road (perhaps 1/4 or 1/5 mp).


If there is any change, then the above is what i'd prefer. It wouldn't be a huge change to the way things work now. You'd use movement points to get into town, but then click RR and automatically be moved from city to city (Only cities connected by railroad). Then maybe your turn ends, or you use the rest of your movement points once you get there. Or you could have a points system depending on how far away the town is. If the town is far away, then it would take 2-3 turns to get there. This is how Airports worked in Civ2 and possibly in Civ3 (but I haven't played much Civ3 so can't remember). It is very simple to implement it, just make it like how the Airports work. Just choose from the unit's command options while in town to take a train to another city.

I voted for "no changes" because I think the railway system works perfectly as it is today.

Reduced movement penalty. Perhaps make it use up a fixed percentage of MPs rather than a fixed number (this would mean Riflemen move no slower than Cavalry on RR).

(bolding mine)

I was just going to propose the same. This is really the most sensible, yet simple model. I vote for that (assume that qualifies as Other option).

(bolding mine)

I was just going to propose the same. This is really the most sensible, yet simple model. I vote for that (assume that qualifies as Other option).

I like the restricted access idea better because it is just as simple but is more realistic. You catch the train in town to a train station in another town (or maybe wherever you build one). Just go into town and choose from the unit's options to use the railroad and pick the city to go to. This is realistic because as other people have mentioned, units do not go faster if they "walk" on railroad tracks in REAL Life. If the city is too far away, it will tell you that it will take multiple turns for the train to arrive, and then when it arrives your turn is over. Then the Air transport would be a huge and helpful upgrade to that because with the Air transport you could transfer a unit much further and not lose your turn when you arrive. (I know Air Transport was in Civ2 but I haven't played Civ3 enough to know if it's in Civ3).

Air travel is faster than train travel, and this is especially noticeable for larger distances, so that should somehow be reflected also.

I like the restricted access idea better because it is just as simple but is more realistic. You catch the train in town to a train station in another town (or maybe wherever you build one). Just go into town and choose from the unit's options to use the railroad and pick the city to go to. This is realistic because as other people have mentioned, units do not go faster if they "walk" on railroad tracks in REAL Life. If the city is too far away, it will tell you that it will take multiple turns for the train to arrive, and then when it arrives your turn is over. Then the Air transport would be a huge and helpful upgrade to that because with the Air transport you could transfer a unit much further and not lose your turn when you arrive. (I know Air Transport was in Civ2 but I haven't played Civ3 enough to know if it's in Civ3).
Correct me if I'm wrong but restricted access option assumes that unit does in fact go faster if walking on railroad (1/4 or 1/5 MP per tile) when not using city/fort/airfield train station to embark and select destination. Let me quote:

Restricted Access-RR 1) Units can only embark or disembark RR's at certain set points IF they want the benefit of infinite RR movement-these points would be at points where the RR connects with a city, outpost or fort. Otherwise, the RR counts only as an improved road (perhaps 1/4 or 1/5 mp).
Idea which The Last Conformist proposed looks more realic to me. Basically, every unit goes by train the same number of tiles regardless of its individual inherent speed (rifleman will go the same distance as cavalry).

Correct me if I'm wrong but restricted access option assumes that unit does in fact go faster if walking on railroad (1/4 or 1/5 MP per tile) when not using city/fort/airfield train station to embark and select destination. Let me quote:

Well... Restricted Access with a... twist :crazyeye:

I voted for Other, in that I agree with the Last Conformist and Gen that RRs should use a fixed number of movement points, or use up a supply of "RR movement points" that is the same for every unit, so that the particular type of unit being transported is irrelevant to how far it can be shipped. This would be most reasonable because the trains are doing the work of moving, and their speed does not, in any way, depend on their cargo's own ability to move.

Has anyone at Firaxis or Sid Meier ever expressed a desire to change the railroad system?

I think Dan Magraha (I'm sure I spelt that wrong) said they'll keep the current system because it's part of the "civ legacy".

I think Dan Magraha (I'm sure I spelt that wrong) said they'll keep the current system because it's part of the "civ legacy".

Well.. I won't really mind if they keep it. It's not like they'll lose fans if they don't change it, but they could if they do... :undecide:

Personally I think the current system is equally good as any other model. But restricted movement, I do not like at all.

This is one of those places where I don't care too much about realism. Although if they can find a realistic excuse that helps. Really, it's a question of rendering space and time completely meaningless by 1900. I don't like how railroads do that.

I voted for Other, in that I agree with the Last Conformist and Gen that RRs should use a fixed number of movement points, or use up a supply of "RR movement points" that is the same for every unit, so that the particular type of unit being transported is irrelevant to how far it can be shipped. This would be most reasonable because the trains are doing the work of moving, and their speed does not, in any way, depend on their cargo's own ability to move.

i agree with all 3 of you. i think that this is not only realistic, but it would improve gameplay the most. I DO NOT want to have to click "entrain/detrain" to use a darn RailRoad... come on guys... think of all the extra clicking you'd have to do! that doesn't sound fun to me.

i want to be able to click on my dude, click "GOTO," and have it automatically use trains and roads to get there in the fastest possible manner. just click and forget it until it gets to it's destination...

this seems not only the most realistic to me, but also the best for gameplay, and strategy... no more "mass reaction forces" in the middle of an empire that can go throughout the entire place in one turn...

with this, they'd have to have smaller forces which could actually be overpowered... they'd have to spread out their military throughout their empire, and militarily defeating a mass empire would actually have some chance of taking place... or at least getting in some good attacks.

please try to think of gameplay and how annoying it is to click all the time! i think most people agree that RR's as they are now need to be changed... but let's try not to make them more annoying through a ton of clicks... let's try to stay as close to the original design, but yet make it better.

i want to be able to click on my dude, click "GOTO," and have it automatically use trains and roads to get there in the fastest possible manner. just click and forget it until it gets to it's destination...


Hmm.. After reading that I have to say I am converted. I like that better than my idea.

woohoo! :-P

The only thing is limited movement for rail is not very realistic. In a month you can travel a pretty much unlimited distance by rail. And in terms of military effects, using rail for strategic redeployment does allow massive numbers of troops to be shuttled in from very remote areas in extremely rapid time. We're talking moving 30 divisions from Siberia in a time span of maybe a week to assist in Soviet offenses, which is basically instant in terms of any other kind of movement ... limited movement doesn't model this well. The only realistic limitation is capacity, and even that's debatable. Also limited movement results in "mass crawl". It's just like worker automation, you're still stuck watching all that stuff move ... round after round after round. If you ask me that's alot more tedious than a few extra clicks.

In a month, you can drive from Spain to Beijing. or you could do if there were good roads along the entire route. Except in limited regions where bullet trains or their equivalent exist (complete with premium prices), rail travel is usually slower than the same journey done by road.

The only thing is limited movement for rail is not very realistic. In a month you can travel a pretty much unlimited distance by rail. And in terms of military effects, using rail for strategic redeployment does allow massive numbers of troops to be shuttled in from very remote areas in extremely rapid time. We're talking moving 30 divisions from Siberia in a time span of maybe a week to assist in Soviet offenses, which is basically instant in terms of any other kind of movement ... limited movement doesn't model this well. The only realistic limitation is capacity, and even that's debatable.
The same is true of sea travel, but ships can only move up to about 8 tiles. Even if you argue for an increase in ship movement, it still doesn't model it "realistically."

What we need is something that models the relative strategic speed realistically. As such, Japan and Frances's bullet traisn wont be counted, but rail should be faster than road and sea, and air should be faster still.

The same is true of sea travel, but ships can only move up to about 8 tiles. Even if you argue for an increase in ship movement, it still doesn't model it "realistically."

It took 6 weeks for the Royal Navy to get to the Falklands, a heck of a long way, so any increase in ship movement should be massive.

Definately movement reduction. But when you learn motorized transportation the reduction becomes less so your unit can move farther. If you have a stack of two or more units together on a railroad, A graphic of a train will appear and the units when stacked may move 25% faster. That symbolizes that organized transportation is more efficient.

In a month, you can drive from Spain to Beijing. or you could do if there were good roads along the entire route. Except in limited regions where bullet trains or their equivalent exist (complete with premium prices), rail travel is usually slower than the same journey done by road.

Not for large military forces ... they congest roads too quickly.

And how would limited movement be displayed for gotos? If everything moved instantly you'd get a massive headache watching the scenes flashing and you wouldn't, in any case, be able to tell what's going on or see what's moving where. If instead it were displayed in the way that automated workers moving on rail are now, shown moving a square at a time ... it would take about 30 minutes to watch all your units move, every round.

In civ 2, when you airlifted your units, a list of cities would appear, youd select one, and that was it. No flash forward to the destination city, no psychedelic zipping across the map. It helped that this move also ended the unit's turn.

In civ 2, when you airlifted your units, a list of cities would appear, youd select one, and that was it. No flash forward to the destination city, no psychedelic zipping across the map. It helped that this move also ended the unit's turn.

That only works with infinite movement though. And it's actually easier (for me at least, alot of other people too I think) to just use the map, cause I can't always remember the name of every city. I really don't want to have to scroll down in a pop up window and try to remember where all the cities are by name every single time I want to move a unit. That sounds crazy.

Frekk, it could work with finite movement too. Any unit could be issued a goto order, which in civ2 would bring up your city list, the basic goto order not being as flexible (there was also a badly documented right mouse option).

A finite move rail lift order might only list those cities within, say, 15 (or whatever) tiles.

I haven't seen too many arguments in favour of rail cars, and yet they are the third most popular option in the poll.....

I haven't seen too many arguments in favour of rail cars, and yet they are the third most popular option in the poll.....

People vote before they read, that's why.

Infantry w/o road - 1 square
Horseback w/o road - 2 squares
Motor Vehicle w/o road - 3 squares
Infantry w/ road - 3 squares
Horseback w/ road - 6 squares
Motor Vehicle w/road - 9 squares

That all seems sensible to me. Horses moving on a road would move faster than across fields and through forests.

So what should it be with trains? Trains should move faster than tanks on a road, so 12 squares for anything on a train.

Ships... ships wouldn't move as fast as a train or tanks, I don't think. Online I saw that new carriers will move at about 35 miles per hour. That's about the speed that tanks would move, maybe a little less than what tanks would move by road. So make the highest tech naval units move 8 squares (AEGIS Cruiser and Carrier maybe) and reduce appropriately for older types of ships (Battleships 6). Trains however do not move realistically, and therefore should be reduced to having like 12 movement points, which would be a simple addition process to the units now - Infantry + 9, Horses + 6, Vehicle + 3. Simple. Wait... Maybe not so simple... You'd have to have the railroad move 18 points. To calculate properly the movement difference for when the unit left the railroad (ie: division)

So if railroads move 18 squares, Infantry becomes 3 road movement multiplied by 6 railroad squares each.
Horses would be 6 road movement multiplied by 3 railroad squares each
Vehicles would be 9 road movement multiplied by 2 railroad squares each

Then normal movement would be:
Infantry 18 / 1 = 1 regular movement equals 18 rail each
Horse 18 / 2 = 2 regular movement equals 9 rail each
Vehicle 18 / 3 = 3 regular movement equals 6 rail each

Confusing... :confused:

Looks like Railroads would have to be 18 movement. Which kind of sucks cause it's too high.

So to summarize, everything stays the same from now except that:

1 - ships movement increases by 1-3 points.
2 - railroad movement is reduced to 18 points.

I don't know why anyone would complain about having the movement reduced to 18 points. That's still a ton of movement points and can move you to a city quite far away.

Infantry w/o road - 1 square
Horseback w/o road - 2 squares
Motor Vehicle w/o road - 3 squares
Infantry w/ road - 3 squares
Horseback w/ road - 6 squares
Motor Vehicle w/road - 9 squares

That all seems sensible to me. Horses moving on a road would move faster than across fields and through forests.

So what should it be with trains? Trains should move faster than tanks on a road, so 12 squares for anything on a train.

Ships... ships wouldn't move as fast as a train or tanks, I don't think. Online I saw that new carriers will move at about 35 miles per hour. That's about the speed that tanks would move, maybe a little less than what tanks would move by road. So make the highest tech naval units move 8 squares (AEGIS Cruiser and Carrier maybe) and reduce appropriately for older types of ships (Battleships 6). Trains however do not move realistically, and therefore should be reduced to having like 12 movement points, which would be a simple addition process to the units now - Infantry + 9, Horses + 6, Vehicle + 3. Simple. Wait... Maybe not so simple... You'd have to have the railroad move 18 points. To calculate properly the movement difference for when the unit left the railroad (ie: division)

So if railroads move 18 squares, Infantry becomes 3 road movement multiplied by 6 railroad squares each.
Horses would be 6 road movement multiplied by 3 railroad squares each
Vehicles would be 9 road movement multiplied by 2 railroad squares each

Then normal movement would be:
Infantry 18 / 1 = 1 regular movement equals 18 rail each
Horse 18 / 2 = 2 regular movement equals 9 rail each
Vehicle 18 / 3 = 3 regular movement equals 6 rail each

Confusing... :confused:

Looks like Railroads would have to be 18 movement. Which kind of sucks cause it's too high.

So to summarize, everything stays the same from now except that:

1 - ships movement increases by 1-3 points.
2 - railroad movement is reduced to 18 points.

I don't know why anyone would complain about having the movement reduced to 18 points. That's still a ton of movement points and can move you to a city quite far away.


The problem here is you're thinking of everything being in linear distances and like a single person using these forms of transportation. Doesn't work like that.

Ships don't have any obstacles. They move at 35 miles without having to go around hills, up slopes, or any curves at all. No stop signs, no congestion, nothing.

Roads are of very limited capacity for military forces, at least for modern ones. Congestion is a big problem - if a column of armour is moving along a road and one of them breaks down or gets stuck, it really slows things down (in ww2 this happened *alot*). Also roads have other limitations, after a while the roads just turns to mud if too much heavy equipment churns it all up, even a paved road gets ground into bits. Finally, the military just doesn't move anything long distances by road - all the equipment goes by train because that way it arrives without any wear and tear. Moving a long distance on road would simply be very very slow and you can't judge that rate by the simple speed of the vehicle in a straightforward situation when you're dealing with large military units moving considerable distances under all kinds of conditions.

Rail is different because it has dedicated lines that can be controlled to minimize congestion, especially with good infrastructure and lots of railyards. The train pretty much does move at its straightforward speed and can carry many, many tanks or whatever that don't have to worry about congestion. They don't need to be repaired and are more or less protected from the elements during transit, things like dust and mud. So rail is the primary means of strategic redeployment (other than air) and it is *vastly* faster than moving forces by road, at least over long distances. In terms of a timeframe such as a month, movement by rail pretty much is unlimited. In terms of going by road alone, if you were trying to move a number of armour divisions, you might make 1000 miles at most, everything factored in. Also don't forget trains don't need to stop at night - two or three engineers can run the train 24 hours, giving the train twice as much movement right there, not to mention all the other factors. In the end what you've got is something that can move stuff in bulk at easily 5 or 6 times the speed that moving full divisions of modern armour would take - at least over long distances anyway, this of course breaks down as you approach local, tactical levels of movement. In essence a reasonably realistic limitation on rail would be that it moves things about 40 or 50 squares in a round and at that point, because of all the other problems associated with other models, you might as well just make it infinite.

People vote before they read, that's why.

That's basically what happens with our elections.

Never mind tanks breaking down on a congested road - two buses with the one in front taking longer to take on passengers than the one behind is enough to bring things to a standstill. I must say I am against the linear models.

For those who spread the word "majority" and "minority" in a reverse way...
I vote: No change

Sorry - but i'am just a little confused -

means "no change" keep the 10 Movementpoit limit as it is in the game now or keep it the way it works in Civ 3 ???:confused:

If it is the last point - where is the 10 MP limit ? :confused:

I am happy with the reduced MM and with a fixed numbr of MM for railroads. But IMO the MM should be increased with the invention of certain techs like combustion and electricity

You guys realize you just bumped a year old thread and now Civ 4 has limited rail movement.

You guys realize you just bumped a year old thread and now Civ 4 has limited rail movement.

Ah - not have looked at it - but maybe then we should start a new poll ? F.E. with the options

1. Like Civ 3 unlimeted Rail MM
2. Limit Rail to 10 MM ( like it seems to work )
3 Limit rail 10 MM in age of steam engine but increase it with better techs
4 Limit is o.k but should be increased
5 something else

unfortunaly I don't know how to start a poll :(

Sorry - but i'am just a little confused -

means "no change" keep the 10 Movementpoit limit as it is in the game now or keep it the way it works in Civ 3 ???:confused:

If it is the last point - where is the 10 MP limit ? :confused:

I am happy with the reduced MM and with a fixed numbr of MM for railroads. But IMO the MM should be increased with the invention of certain techs like combustion and electricity

Sorry, I just couldn't help but
Ah! HA HA HA HA HA

Ah - not have looked at it - but maybe then we should start a new poll ? F.E. with the options

1. Like Civ 3 unlimeted Rail MM
2. Limit Rail to 10 MM ( like it seems to work )
3 Limit rail 10 MM in age of steam engine but increase it with better techs
4 Limit is o.k but should be increased
5 something else

unfortunaly I don't know how to start a poll :(

You did start a poll though in general discussions.

does anyone here kno why aussie puts "yours
Aussie locker" or something like that????????????

Its actually

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The reason behind it is, when I first joined this forum, I was a major Lurker-and an Australian one at that ;)! Of course, now I have posted many thousands of times, but the Lurker tag has a nice ring to it, so I kept it-even though it doesn't really apply anymore. I just use the tag the way you would sign off a letter to someone. Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

It seems many people here are off the rail car idea, but to me it's the most appealing of all the ideas listed so far.

Obviously, no one wants a 'rail car' unit to load and unload their other units with limited mobility, it'll just slow down the pace of the game creating basically 'land transport' ships. Instead, what about the idea of creating a 'rail car unit' within your cities, only that it is not a physical unit, but one which is shared by the entire civilization after completed. Much like freighters were used in master of orion, once completed, the unit would allow for one of your military units to travel a certain distance [a fairly high limited number] along the rail lines you've constructed with your workers each turn. The more rail car units you build, the more units you can move along the railway system in a given turn. Kinda like building trains as well as building building the tracks. The only specific reason as to why you would build a railway unit in a specific city would be that if your railway system does not link your entire civilization, then the rail car would only have access to the rails connected to the city in which it was build from until you have connected the remaining cities to it.

And if that isn't enough to limit transport, especially instant transport to a threatened city, employ a maximum amount of rail cars able to enter a city or even a map square during a specific turn. the amount of troops able to stack per turn on a rail square could even be modified based on terrain. You could allow say 2 units for non-city terrain, 3 for a town, 4 for a city, and say 5 for a megapolis [numbers obviously would be subject to game balance], reflecting the amount of rails that would be found within cities at different levels of development. That way, the defender would be able to assist his threatened city to some degree, but he may have to wait 2-3 turns to have an overwhelming defense set up, and that should be ample time to wage a strong seige.

I'm not a fan of the restricted access, as to me, every square withing my cultural borders to me I feel is settled on, as each square has a number small towns not large enough to warrent putting a name on in the grand scheme of world politics [like Paris, Ont., Canada, really who gives a **** about that town?]. Besides, what's stopping you in real life from stopping a train in the middle of the tracks and unloading in the middle of nowhere?

The disembarkment penality seems a bit too harsh as well, as it takes only like 10 minutes in real life to organize troops coming off a train and getting them into fighting order.

the maximum transport idea is already merged with this one.

Basically, I would envision a button on the bottom of the screen like pillage, or fortify for units located on a railroad, and while pressed, you'd get the benefits of a rail car, using up one rail car unit every time you press it. The way I see it, reward the players for investing in a great transportation system, just make it harder to do.