Screenshot analysis!

[Lucius_]

So basically, its like how Hellmann's Mayo is Best Foods Mayo in the western US.

What?!? That's weird. But same can be said about Carl's Jr./Hardee's, so maybe not that weird.

@Quarz
Anyway, in the US, there aren't many museums that have the phrase "archeological museum" in it's name. Do a google search for that term and you find 9 out of 10 museums that come up are outside of the US. We have "History" Museums, which are usually the same thing, they are just called different. As for the whole "argument" being empty, I don't think there was an argument at all. To me it sounds weird, or awkward, because it's not a term I'm used to. Apparently Grumpbeard feels the same. It's not an empty argument, sounds to me more like an opinion due to different influences. Saying that argument is "... empty", comes across really, well some of these posts kinda sounded a little rude to me.

 

[Tantor]

I would assume that Military Engineers create Routes manually, and Traders create Routes manually, and Routes automatically upgrade to whatever the latest technology allows. So essentially, road/railroad management is more or less out of the game.

That's disappointing, but it's not a big deal, as long as you have the ability to create Routes where you need them (which Military Engineers seem to allow). It's not as if there aren't enough other systems to manange in civ 6.

I think it is a big deal.
Roads and especially railroads are important in trade and wars. If there are Railroads everywhere they will loose their tactical and economical importance. Just think how important Railroad protection and an destruction was in the American civil War and how important it was histtoricaly to buil transcontinental Railroads like the transsiberian and across USA.....

 

[Haggbart]

I think it is a big deal.
Roads and especially railroads are important in trade and wars. If there are Railroads everywhere they will loose their tactical and economical importance. Just think how important Railroad protection and an destruction was in the American civil War and how important it was histtoricaly to buil transcontinental Railroads like the transsiberian and across USA.....

The point is not that railroads are not a big deal, but rather they're so important you want to build them between all your cities anyway. So the reasoning is probably that you remove tedious micromanagment.
However, I'd like to see an interface where you could chose which routes to improve against a sum of gold pr route or something like that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The point is not that railroads are not a big deal, but rather they're so important you want to build them between all your cities anyway. So the reasoning is probably that you remove tedious micromanagment.
However, I'd like to see an interface where you could chose which routes to improve against a sum of gold pr route or something like that.

If the railroads have drawback like decreased appeal and/or increased maintenance cost you may want to not have them between all your cities.

Also, argument about boring work is important, but if upgrading road from one point to another is automated well, it will not be a problem.

 

[Haggbart]

If the railroads have drawback like decreased appeal and/or increased maintenance cost you may want to not have them between all your cities.

Also, argument about boring work is important, but if upgrading road from one point to another is automated well, it will not be a problem.

Yes that would be my prefered sollution, to have an interface where the process of upgrading is automatic but you can chose which routes to upgrade based on cost/benefit.

 

[Tantor]

Yes that would be my prefered sollution, to have an interface where the process of upgrading is automatic but you can chose which routes to upgrade based on cost/benefit.

It would be great to have a trade/infrastructure panel. It could show you trade routes, yield, distance, potential trade routes and existing infrastructure. If you on the same page could build Railroads between cities it would minimize micromanagement.

Example: Build Railroad from: London to: Birmingham-
Distance: 10 hexes
Cost 10gold/hex= 100 gold total
Time to completion 10 turns


If you want to build Railroads other Places you must use an engineer.

Or it can be like purchasing land in CiV. Click on a hex or row of hexes and Select build Railroad.....

 

[stealth_nsk]

It would be great to have a trade/infrastructure panel. It could show you trade routes, yield, distance, potential trade routes and existing infrastructure. If you on the same page could build Railroads between cities it would minimize micromanagement.

Example: Build Railroad from: London to: Birmingham-
Distance: 10 hexes
Cost 10gold/hex= 100 gold total
Time to completion 10 turns


If you want to build Railroads other Places you must use an engineer.

Or it can be like purchasing land in CiV. Click on a hex or row of hexes and Select build Railroad.....

A simple interface like in previous civ games where you could build "Railroad to" with an Engineer would be enough.

 

[kaspergm]

It would be great to have a trade/infrastructure panel. It could show you trade routes, yield, distance, potential trade routes and existing infrastructure. If you on the same page could build Railroads between cities it would minimize micromanagement.

Example: Build Railroad from: London to: Birmingham-
Distance: 10 hexes
Cost 10gold/hex= 100 gold total
Time to completion 10 turns

If you want to build Railroads other Places you must use an engineer.

That is definitely a solution I could support. It would be a good balance between investment and management on one hand and avoiding micromanagement on the other hand.

 

[AriochIV]

Let's be careful not to make any assumptions about the movement increase of railroads. Ancient roads presumably provide some bonus to movement, but watching the recent gameplay videos, it seems like the only bonus they provide is to reduce or remove the penalty of woods. Medieval roads provide bridges over rivers, but again I haven't noticed significant speed boost otherwise. It's quite possible that railroads and modern roads provide only modest speed increases, unlike the rather extreme speed boosts of Civilizations past.

 

[Magil]

If the railroads have drawback like decreased appeal and/or increased maintenance cost you may want to not have them between all your cities.

Why would we assume that railroads would have a drawback? There's no indication that roads do, so I can't imagine railroads being any different in that regard.

Remember, they were rather specific on the point in the Devs Play Brazil video that just because a concept existed in V doesn't mean it's going to come back in VI, they threw some of that stuff out.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Why would we assume that railroads would have a drawback? There's no indication that roads do, so I can't imagine railroads being any different in that regard.

Remember, they were rather specific on the point in the Devs Play Brazil video that just because a concept existed in V doesn't mean it's going to come back in VI, they threw some of that stuff out.

If they have no drawback, the automatic upgrade to railroads is the best solution. I'm speaking about opportunity to attach some strategical choices to railroads. For this they need some drawback.

 

[Magil]

If they have no drawback, the automatic upgrade to railroads is the best solution. I'm speaking about opportunity to attach some strategical choices to railroads. For this they need some drawback.

Well I agree with that at least, or at least the opposite which it implies. If there was to be an additional drawback to railroads, then upgrading roads to rails should be something the player could control.

As the process appears to be automated, I would have to assume there is no additional drawbacks. But perhaps I am being overly optimistic.

 

[kaspergm]

If they have no drawback, the automatic upgrade to railroads is the best solution. I'm speaking about opportunity to attach some strategical choices to railroads. For this they need some drawback.

Well you could approach the question from another side also: Not whether they have a drawback, but whether they should have a drawback. I think that's the underlying question. Developers seem to think no, which (I agree with you) merits a free upgrade. But I personally disagree with that decision, both from a game play and from a realism point of view.

EDIT > Actually, scratch that, I don't really think that's accurate. Not everything that has no drawbacks should come for free, quite on the contrary. Having a lot of science has no drawbacks, that does not mean you should get universities for free as soon as you research education. Likewise, having more movement has no drawbacks, but that does not mean you should get railroads for free. I do think there should be an obstacle to overcome to get them (gold cost, production cost, whatever), even if they have no long-term drawbacks - or perhaps I should rather say especially if they have no long-term drawbacks.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well you could approach the question from another side also: Not whether they have a drawback, but whether they should have a drawback. I think that's the underlying question. Developers seem to think no, which (I agree with you) merits a free upgrade. But I personally disagree with that decision, both from a game play and from a realism point of view.

It's totally possible the decision is temporary. Automated upgrade is the easiest thing to implement and requires nearly zero balance. So they could implement it to have working version and keep other variants for experiments.

 

[Quarz]

Anyway, in the US, there aren't many museums that have the phrase "archeological museum" in it's name. Do a google search for that term and you find 9 out of 10 museums that come up are outside of the US. We have "History" Museums, which are usually the same thing, they are just called different. As for the whole "argument" being empty, I don't think there was an argument at all. To me it sounds weird, or awkward, because it's not a term I'm used to. Apparently Grumpbeard feels the same. It's not an empty argument, sounds to me more like an opinion due to different influences. Saying that argument is "... empty", comes across really, well some of these posts kinda sounded a little rude to me.

Its rude to you? Im sorry then, it was not meant rude. I hope you are not trying to „win“ a battle which I personally never fought. Anyway, repeating this non-argument again and again, implies it will have some wight to you (and others). Does it? Well, to me it feels sorta ignorant(?), if you tell something like „I myself never use that phrase x, so thats why they should not use phrase x as well.“ Not sure, if you see my point. Again: I don't tell, you should not wish renaming, but – to me – this specific explanation feels a bit ignorant, or maybe selfish... (im missing better wording, but it's not meant to be rude, I hope you got what I am trying to tell. )

Otoh 'the phrase „Archaelogical Museum“ is longer then „History Museum“' would be a point, I think. „There are no such phrased museums, thats why they should rename it“ would be a reasoned thing too - IF there where no Archaelogical Museums. But there are. I named just 4 Archaelogical Museums before: Adana, El Paso, Kairo, Hamburg. If im not wrong, El Paso is actually in the US. And even if there is a lack of „archeological museums“ phrased places in US, Civ6 is not a game about the US only, right? And Firaxis is in US too, so I think, the phrase will be common somehow and at least it is reasoned (because of the game mechanics for example). Such sort of debate im trying to foster, no matter if you/I like the name or not.

 

[Magil]

EDIT > Actually, scratch that, I don't really think that's accurate. Not everything that has no drawbacks should come for free, quite on the contrary. Having a lot of science has no drawbacks, that does not mean you should get universities for free as soon as you research education. Likewise, having more movement has no drawbacks, but that does not mean you should get railroads for free. I do think there should be an obstacle to overcome to get them (gold cost, production cost, whatever), even if they have no long-term drawbacks - or perhaps I should rather say especially if they have no long-term drawbacks.

Buildings have maintenance costs.

Additionally, if roads can be used by enemy units and do increase movement speed, then that is also a relevant strategic factor to consider.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Well you could approach the question from another side also: Not whether they have a drawback, but whether they should have a drawback. I think that's the underlying question. Developers seem to think no, which (I agree with you) merits a free upgrade. But I personally disagree with that decision, both from a game play and from a realism point of view.

EDIT > Actually, scratch that, I don't really think that's accurate. Not everything that has no drawbacks should come for free, quite on the contrary. Having a lot of science has no drawbacks, that does not mean you should get universities for free as soon as you research education. Likewise, having more movement has no drawbacks, but that does not mean you should get railroads for free. I do think there should be an obstacle to overcome to get them (gold cost, production cost, whatever), even if they have no long-term drawbacks - or perhaps I should rather say especially if they have no long-term drawbacks.

I would like it if 1 resource of coal should be required for like 10 tiles of railroads, but this would not be probable if they automatically upgrade.

 

[Seek]

The drawback for rails is that you need the sailing tech line, which is pretty out of the way for inland empires.

@AriochIV
From what I've been able to tell, ancient roads make all terrain cost only 1 movement, and medieval roads simply grant bridges (though there were a couple cases where it seemed to provide faster movement).

 

[kaspergm]

Buildings have maintenance costs.

While that is inarguably true, it's a bit besides the point I was trying to make. I used the University example because in [previous] Civ games, a University is generally speaking always desirably, even with it's maintenance cost.

My point was an objection to the argument "if it has no drawbacks, it should happen automatically". I would argue completely opposite: If it has no drawbacks, it must never happen automatically. The whole point of a strategy game like Civ is you need to manage pros and cons of options the game offers you. Every time something becomes automatic like this supposed railroad upgrade, it defeats a part of the entire purpose of the game as I see it.

 

[Magil]

While that is inarguably true, it's a bit besides the point I was trying to make. I used the University example because in [previous] Civ games, a University is generally speaking always desirably, even with it's maintenance cost.

My point was an objection to the argument "if it has no drawbacks, it should happen automatically". I would argue completely opposite: If it has no drawbacks, it must never happen automatically. The whole point of a strategy game like Civ is you need to manage pros and cons of options the game offers you. Every time something becomes automatic like this supposed railroad upgrade, it defeats a part of the entire purpose of the game as I see it.

See, the thing is, whether or not the upgrade happens automatically is not in question. It does. Period. At least in the current build.

I don't think this is nearly as big of a deal as adding a new building automatically (though given how bland buildings are in the current build it might as well be, I dunno). This is more like farms producing more food when you research Biology (IV), Civil Service (V), or Feudalism (VI). Would you have argued that you should have to rebuild all your farms to get the benefits of those techs?