We all know the arguement. Instant teleportation = Next to no military strategy because of the speed at which you can move. So I want to know what people think of the issue. Should railroads just provide 6 or 12 movement points which is a compromise. Which do you prefer?
Instant Teleporting Vs. Strategy
- Thread starter Ghafhi
- Start date
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I think that since a turn is typically a least a year, you should be able to travel any where on a continent within a year (one turn).
The results at the end of a turn are the results of at least a year, this is not a real time game.
The results at the end of a turn are the results of at least a year, this is not a real time game.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
apatheist said:
Yes, the game is a stategy game either way.
I guess I was responding to the teleporting question, not the stategy something or other, whatever.
mitsho
Deity
strategy: yes!
Infinite movement: yes!
--> capacity points for example
Simple question, simple answer.
mitsho
PS: Realism has nothing to do with gameplay, years per turn is no argument, because that changes over the game, gameplay is the key here, not realism.
Infinite movement: yes!
--> capacity points for example
Simple question, simple answer.
mitsho
PS: Realism has nothing to do with gameplay, years per turn is no argument, because that changes over the game, gameplay is the key here, not realism.
Janos
Prince
Can you teleport instantly anywhere round the world? Then why should they in Civ? Strategy please - very high movement rate maybe, but never teleport.
Atrebates
Prince
There is a problem in that homeland incursions post-rail are hard because you have to fight their entire military in a turn (or vice versa) but on the other hand you want to get workers (OS) where they are needed quickly.
You can keep strategy though; land a small force, bombard/cruise missile/nuke the response and then land a full force. Alternatively sycronise several landings, the removal of the attack block for sea/air landings would make the latter a more realistic proposition (ie all units can attack on landing, facilitates the taking of coastal cities and forming a strong beachead before the response).
Conclusion, I'd keep the current system (but 12 moves sounds good) although I'd change certain other aspects to alleiviate the falws it presents.
You can keep strategy though; land a small force, bombard/cruise missile/nuke the response and then land a full force. Alternatively sycronise several landings, the removal of the attack block for sea/air landings would make the latter a more realistic proposition (ie all units can attack on landing, facilitates the taking of coastal cities and forming a strong beachead before the response).
Conclusion, I'd keep the current system (but 12 moves sounds good) although I'd change certain other aspects to alleiviate the falws it presents.
@Pounder
I agree with what you're saying as I also see it that way.
But you also have to consider that with a Civ "railroad" system, once connecting rails have been established, you can travel anywhere directly as long as there are no obstructions, meaning you can go north, south, east and west, going back and forth, changing directions anytime you want, as long as you want, until you either ...
a) attack and end your move; or
b) move off the tracks ending with no movement points remaining; or
c) just end your move
The problem with Civ's railroad system is that it allows any land unit to basically move around back and forth indefinitely. ONE game-turn has a defined value (1 year, 10 years, etc.) while rail movement has no defined value (infinite/unlimited movement) so you can't really tie the two together.
A solution when using railroads would be to just allow the player to designate a destination and once the unit reaches it, it can use its remaining movement as normal (i.e. treat rails as roads for that period of its move). No room for error/misclicks hehe
-Pacifist-
"I choo-choo-choose you" -Lisa's valentine to Ralph (Simpsons)
I agree with what you're saying as I also see it that way.
But you also have to consider that with a Civ "railroad" system, once connecting rails have been established, you can travel anywhere directly as long as there are no obstructions, meaning you can go north, south, east and west, going back and forth, changing directions anytime you want, as long as you want, until you either ...
a) attack and end your move; or
b) move off the tracks ending with no movement points remaining; or
c) just end your move
The problem with Civ's railroad system is that it allows any land unit to basically move around back and forth indefinitely. ONE game-turn has a defined value (1 year, 10 years, etc.) while rail movement has no defined value (infinite/unlimited movement) so you can't really tie the two together.
A solution when using railroads would be to just allow the player to designate a destination and once the unit reaches it, it can use its remaining movement as normal (i.e. treat rails as roads for that period of its move). No room for error/misclicks hehe
-Pacifist-
"I choo-choo-choose you" -Lisa's valentine to Ralph (Simpsons)
GeneralZed
look around...
@ mitsho
I've heard about this "capacity points" somewhere but I'm afraid that I have no clue what that's suppososed to mean.
I've heard about this "capacity points" somewhere but I'm afraid that I have no clue what that's suppososed to mean.
mitsho
Deity
In Short:
Every turn, each civ gets assigned a certain amount of capacity points in regard to their industrial power, the 'width' of their empire and the capacity points left from the last turn.
The civ now can use these points to move their units on the rail network. There are different approaches regarding the use of the capacity points, some want that for each unit you move, you lose on capacity point, some want that for every tile one of your units passes, you lose one capacity point.
Ah, and btw. capacity points could be called 'trains', although that would not be realistic. And I hope that Aussie_Lurker won't bash me because of this view on capacity points.
mitsho
Every turn, each civ gets assigned a certain amount of capacity points in regard to their industrial power, the 'width' of their empire and the capacity points left from the last turn.
The civ now can use these points to move their units on the rail network. There are different approaches regarding the use of the capacity points, some want that for each unit you move, you lose on capacity point, some want that for every tile one of your units passes, you lose one capacity point.
Ah, and btw. capacity points could be called 'trains', although that would not be realistic. And I hope that Aussie_Lurker won't bash me because of this view on capacity points.
mitsho
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Leave teleportation to scifi games/scens/mods.
Atrebates
Prince
I assumed the 'instant teleport' of the poll was in reference to 0pt rail movement not actual teleportation.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,978
I don't think that infinite railroad movement is gameplay sided in any way. It is just a fun feature that testify of the satisfaction that we can have to make our civilization evolve and aquire new abilities.
mokeysonice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 30
I think the unlimited movement feature of railroads makes it more possible to have bigger and better battles, and it adds ALOT of strategy to the game, making going on the offensive better while not only using fast units. However, i understand the downside of the fact that u could just move ur entire crappy army to where you need to fight ur opponents godlike death destructo legions of death (giant stacks)
I think theres a way to have both-running kindof on the idea of capacity points but not making people count, cuz thats hard ;-)
In any city connected to coal and/or iron you can build a train station, or train as a city improvement (maybe costing no maintenence) You can than load that train with infinite units and move it to somewhere else in ur rail network for free. However, trains should be vulnerable. If you leave one empty someplace enemey units can destroy/capture it. Also the train idea shouldnt be able to move somewhere, move back to station and do infinite moves in one turn- but more like a one way each turn kindof thing.....
i think thats a great solutioin ;-)
I think theres a way to have both-running kindof on the idea of capacity points but not making people count, cuz thats hard ;-)
In any city connected to coal and/or iron you can build a train station, or train as a city improvement (maybe costing no maintenence) You can than load that train with infinite units and move it to somewhere else in ur rail network for free. However, trains should be vulnerable. If you leave one empty someplace enemey units can destroy/capture it. Also the train idea shouldnt be able to move somewhere, move back to station and do infinite moves in one turn- but more like a one way each turn kindof thing.....
i think thats a great solutioin ;-)
I am the Future
Oi Oi Oi !!!
sounds entirely complicated and confusin
I think we need to look at the historical significance of railroads instead of looking at what they actually do. The introduction of railroads meant that huge amounts of men and equipment could be moved long distances very quickly, allowing armies to completely redeploy across distances they would normally have to cross under their own power. The downside, of course, is that you have to lay rails anywhere you need the trains to go.
Another thing to think about is that to load and unload lots of heavy equipment you'd need a rail depot. Rail depot could be a city improvement that needs to be built before military units can be loaded or unloaded, and units could only be loaded and unloaded at cities with rail depots. That would mean that you could load a tank unit at one city and send it off to another city connected by rail line sort of like you'd transfer a unit between two cities with airports, but they'd have to hoof it to the front from there.
That system would also leave room for a limit on how many units could be transported. Every turn a city could send off, say, two or three units to any city on the rail network, ending the unit's turn. In case of an invasion, then, the enemy would have to move only a portion of his army to the nearest city, wait till the next turn, and then start moving them out under their own power to respond to the invasion. If you could bomb nearby rail depots inside the cities, then, the army would have to move even further under its own power, allowing you to get a foothold in enemy territory before the enemy could respond with the full force of its army.
Well, that's my idea. I love any idea that allows for more strategic options, and a massive air campaign to take out rail depots before an invasion in order to cut down on the enemy's mobility, or even a strike to destroy the rail depot of a city where a big portion of the enemy's military is stationed to strand them there would be a really cool option.
Another thing to think about is that to load and unload lots of heavy equipment you'd need a rail depot. Rail depot could be a city improvement that needs to be built before military units can be loaded or unloaded, and units could only be loaded and unloaded at cities with rail depots. That would mean that you could load a tank unit at one city and send it off to another city connected by rail line sort of like you'd transfer a unit between two cities with airports, but they'd have to hoof it to the front from there.
That system would also leave room for a limit on how many units could be transported. Every turn a city could send off, say, two or three units to any city on the rail network, ending the unit's turn. In case of an invasion, then, the enemy would have to move only a portion of his army to the nearest city, wait till the next turn, and then start moving them out under their own power to respond to the invasion. If you could bomb nearby rail depots inside the cities, then, the army would have to move even further under its own power, allowing you to get a foothold in enemy territory before the enemy could respond with the full force of its army.
Well, that's my idea. I love any idea that allows for more strategic options, and a massive air campaign to take out rail depots before an invasion in order to cut down on the enemy's mobility, or even a strike to destroy the rail depot of a city where a big portion of the enemy's military is stationed to strand them there would be a really cool option.
The Dark Master
Pure Evil
it depends on what you call strategy
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Actually, Apatheist is right. This poll seeks a dichotomy where none need exist. As I have stated ad nauseum , there is nothing wrong with having unlimited movement from RR's, so long as a system exists which limits the total number of units-per turn-which can benefit from it. If this were combined with ever improving roads, then it would help to tone down the RR effect even more.
Thats my solution to the problem!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Thats my solution to the problem!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
