rail rouds
- Thread starter Vietcong
- Start date
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
What editor are you using? I want it
Iztvan
the Terrible
Great minds think alike, Vietcong. 
We were discussing the same thing (among other things) in this thread two weeks ago:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58562&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1
We were discussing wether that rail movement should be unlimited or not.
I wanted a City imporovement called Railroad Station, that would allow rebasing between cities, just like the Airports work today.
We were discussing the same thing (among other things) in this thread two weeks ago:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58562&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1
We were discussing wether that rail movement should be unlimited or not.
I wanted a City imporovement called Railroad Station, that would allow rebasing between cities, just like the Airports work today.
Furius
Prince
But, When one gets on a railroad it only a takes a few hours (in some cases a few days) to travel anywhere, not a couple of years.
Cilpot
Pretentious Schmuck
But travelling between continents in boats take several years
I agree that there should be an option to set movement along railroads in the editor.. Going from Paris to Vladivostok may take under 1 turn if you travel by yourself, but not when you're transporting a HUGE army. Maybe limited railroad moves (like axis & allies: World at War) is the answer? Only 3 unlimited moves a turn, the rest use RRs as roads...?
I agree that there should be an option to set movement along railroads in the editor.. Going from Paris to Vladivostok may take under 1 turn if you travel by yourself, but not when you're transporting a HUGE army. Maybe limited railroad moves (like axis & allies: World at War) is the answer? Only 3 unlimited moves a turn, the rest use RRs as roads...?
Arne
King
Simply make it possible adjust the movement rate of railroads in the editor would be a BIG step, I think.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
That's correct in itself, but that thinking doesn't work very good in a turn-based game. If you design movement in civ3 with that thinking, a warrior should have a movement of 100 or so, since each turn is lots of years in the beginning of the game.
More important, having unlimited movement within a continent, totally removes a very important and realistic strategic aspect from the late game - you no longer need to think very much about strategic positioning of your forces, since you can move them from one front to the other and still attack the same turn. It's as if Hitler could move all his reserves from the eastern front and hit back the invasion on D-day.
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Agreed
I do remember a long time back we discussed the RR issue (Before PTW was released).
Several ideas were listed, among them the RR station in cities.
Others concerned adding Train units, that would be upgraded with time to faster (=> longer movement) and more capacity trains. Only trains could of course carry troops over the RR.
Edit: I hope this will be taken into account in Conquest
I do remember a long time back we discussed the RR issue (Before PTW was released).
Several ideas were listed, among them the RR station in cities.
Others concerned adding Train units, that would be upgraded with time to faster (=> longer movement) and more capacity trains. Only trains could of course carry troops over the RR.
Edit: I hope this will be taken into account in Conquest
Iztvan
the Terrible
Many Mod:ers (and players) would be very happy if the AI was capable of handling "ground transport" units, like trains and trucks.
i second the motion for shorter movement across RR. And also vote for convoy units, like trucks and APC's, altough AI is gonbe have a hard time with this.
RR should habe a high movement rate, like 1/12 or 1/10. And upgrades support higher rates. Aircraft should be allowed 1 turn movement, but what they do here is making 1/1 movement when u rebase or airlift.
WRONG, aircraft can go much faster and further then RR yet they require movement and RR don't. Iff it's about load and Unload, Trains don't load and Unload fast either.
RR should habe a high movement rate, like 1/12 or 1/10. And upgrades support higher rates. Aircraft should be allowed 1 turn movement, but what they do here is making 1/1 movement when u rebase or airlift.
WRONG, aircraft can go much faster and further then RR yet they require movement and RR don't. Iff it's about load and Unload, Trains don't load and Unload fast either.
Iztvan
the Terrible
The AI can handle Naval Transport, so why not Land Transport or Air Transport?
TheNiceOne
Emperor
This has certainly been discussed before.
Unlike roads, railroads should not have a normal movement rate. The railroad doesn't move three times faster just because there's cavalry on its wagons.
Instead, railroad movement should be a fixed number (say 12), which would then be the maximum number of squares a unit could move on rails than turn if only moving on railroad. In effect, moving one square on railroad woul consume not 1/12 of one movement point, but 1/12 of the unit's total movement points, i.e. 1/12 MP if having 1MP, 1/6 MP if having 2MP and 1/4MP if having 3MP.
By doing this you would both get the effect that all units could move the same distance by train if only moving by train that turn, while still letting a faster unit move more by non-train if only moving partly by train (or similarily, more by train if moving as much by non-train).
This makes quite a lot sense. Assume that a cavalry and a rifleman both moved half of their turn on railorads (6 squares). Since having used half their movement porential on railroads, they would have half their MP unused, thus the rifleman would have 1/2 MP left and the cavalry 1+1/2 MP left.
EX:
A rifleman, a knight and a cavalry each start two squares from the railroads, and will move those two squares by road before entering the train.
* The rifleman has 1/3 (=4/12) MP left when entering the train, and will therefore be able to move 4 squares by train, or 1-3 squares by train + off the railroad.
* The knight has 1+1/3 (=16/12)MP left when entering the train, and can move 8 squares by train (each square costs 2/12).
- If moving only 1 square by train, it has 1+1/6 MP left, which is enough for 4 squares by road.
- If moving 2-3 squares by train, it has at least 5/6 MP left, which is enough for 3 squares by road.
- If moving 4-5 squares by train, it has at least 3/6 MP left, which is enough for 2 squares by road.
- If moving 6-7 squares by train, it has at least 1/6 MP left, and can move off the railroad.
* The cavalry has 2+1/3 (=28/12) MP left when entering the train and can move 10 squares by train (each square costs 3/12), or 9 + off the train etc.
Unlike roads, railroads should not have a normal movement rate. The railroad doesn't move three times faster just because there's cavalry on its wagons.
Instead, railroad movement should be a fixed number (say 12), which would then be the maximum number of squares a unit could move on rails than turn if only moving on railroad. In effect, moving one square on railroad woul consume not 1/12 of one movement point, but 1/12 of the unit's total movement points, i.e. 1/12 MP if having 1MP, 1/6 MP if having 2MP and 1/4MP if having 3MP.
By doing this you would both get the effect that all units could move the same distance by train if only moving by train that turn, while still letting a faster unit move more by non-train if only moving partly by train (or similarily, more by train if moving as much by non-train).
This makes quite a lot sense. Assume that a cavalry and a rifleman both moved half of their turn on railorads (6 squares). Since having used half their movement porential on railroads, they would have half their MP unused, thus the rifleman would have 1/2 MP left and the cavalry 1+1/2 MP left.
EX:
A rifleman, a knight and a cavalry each start two squares from the railroads, and will move those two squares by road before entering the train.
* The rifleman has 1/3 (=4/12) MP left when entering the train, and will therefore be able to move 4 squares by train, or 1-3 squares by train + off the railroad.
* The knight has 1+1/3 (=16/12)MP left when entering the train, and can move 8 squares by train (each square costs 2/12).
- If moving only 1 square by train, it has 1+1/6 MP left, which is enough for 4 squares by road.
- If moving 2-3 squares by train, it has at least 5/6 MP left, which is enough for 3 squares by road.
- If moving 4-5 squares by train, it has at least 3/6 MP left, which is enough for 2 squares by road.
- If moving 6-7 squares by train, it has at least 1/6 MP left, and can move off the railroad.
* The cavalry has 2+1/3 (=28/12) MP left when entering the train and can move 10 squares by train (each square costs 3/12), or 9 + off the train etc.
Iztvan
the Terrible
What?
Do you mean that trains loaded with cavalry aren't thrice as fast as trains loaded with riflemen???
I'd prefer a simple "Railroad rebase" action, that took 50% or 100% of the units move, just like with air units.
Do you mean that trains loaded with cavalry aren't thrice as fast as trains loaded with riflemen???
I'd prefer a simple "Railroad rebase" action, that took 50% or 100% of the units move, just like with air units.
nalves
sailing in a NAU
Railroads with infinite movement are here since civ1, don't change it !!!
I don't think that in a expansion they will change that. I like the way it is .... It's Sid Civilization ......
I don't think that in a expansion they will change that. I like the way it is .... It's Sid Civilization ......
Arne
King
Hmmh... I personally don't like the idea having "Railroad-Airports" very much. It seems to me kind of stupid: Having bases (stations) but no tracks (and no worker job to do). In RL It is possible to move on or from waggons without any stations, but how one could move from station to station without tracks?
The train-unit idea sounds good - if the AI can handle it.
Generally I don't want any changes in normal Civ3, but I like to have the possibility of edititing the RR movement rate in editor. That's the easyest way (I think) and it opened (hopefully) further additions: The movement rate could be increased by "combustion" and again by "electricity".
The train-unit idea sounds good - if the AI can handle it.
Generally I don't want any changes in normal Civ3, but I like to have the possibility of edititing the RR movement rate in editor. That's the easyest way (I think) and it opened (hopefully) further additions: The movement rate could be increased by "combustion" and again by "electricity".
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Originally posted by nalves
Railroads with infinite movement are here since civ1, don't change it !!!
I don't think that in a expansion they will change that. I like the way it is .... It's Sid Civilization ......
Well, at least to give the ability for modders then to be able to customize their game, no?
Iztvan
the Terrible
The posibility of more than one level of Mining/irrigation, and more than two levels of road would be nice.
And I'dlike railroad to have an effect other than free movement, because I'd like an "autobahn/superhighways" worker job in the late game!
And I'dlike railroad to have an effect other than free movement, because I'd like an "autobahn/superhighways" worker job in the late game!
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Highways were also discussed with the RR some time ago.
Highways would be used by Trucs and APC's, RR by Train units
Highways would be used by Trucs and APC's, RR by Train units
