Why is Coal required to build Railroads in the modern Era?

[Kevin Nash]

It doesn't make much sense. Once refining is discovered Oil shows up on the map, wouldn't it make more sense to allow civs with access to Oil to build railroads? Modern rail runs on diesel fuel, not coal.

I bring this up because I was playing a game where I had Oil, Aluminim and Uranium but couldn't built a friggin rail system in my civ because I didn't have access to Coal. I ended up having to trade for it, until the civ I was trading with decided to declare war on me.

What kind of civilization can build spaceships, rockets and tanks but not a railroad?

If civs have access to coal allow them to build rail like normal, but once refining is discovered you should be able to use coal OR oil.

 

[Enemy Ace]

It would make more sense to have steel/iron as the requirement for railroads. The earliest train engines ran on chopped wood.

 

[Pounder]

Maybe it has something to do with needing coal to fire the furnances to make steel rails. I don't know if oil would burn hot enough to melt iron.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Interesting point.

 

[RougeKing]

I think this is a case where the game follows history. Coal and iron = railroads.

I can relate to your problem of not having coal. I have had games where I pushed to get Horses as a technology only to find there were none in my territory.

 

[Chieftess]

You could argue that the first cannons were made out of trees (they were), and to include Timber as a resource. Maybe that could be a feature for Civ4 or something - progressive resources, where to build a better railroad, you need better resources.

 

[Salte]

I agree with your point, in modern times coal should not be required to build railroads. Railroads are extremely important, and not getting hold of any coal has ruined a few of my games. Most resources one can just trade for and the upgrade a load of units the next turn, but railroad takes quite a lot of time to build, and this makes coal a lot more important than most other resources.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The CivIII resource system is of course oversimplified. You could make a case for all modern units requiring Coal, since it's used for making steel (as is iron, making all modern units require Iron!).

 

[Sprint]

Civ is a very abstract game. My guess is that "Railroads" are a catch-all improvement for the economic and infrastructural improvements of the 1800's.

Coal was a CRITICAL element for that period.

That said, the same way you don't need saltpeter for Riflemen, you shouldn't need coal for 20th century railroads.

 

[sealman]

Maybe the civilizations in the game never learned how to make other types of trains other than coal power.

 

[Pounder]

I agree with Sprint.

Railroads represent the Industrial Revolution.

But there reaches a point when resources like coal and saltpeter become readily available and maybe should just be a cost to produce.

Maybe a number of years after you discover the steam engine or maybe after you make a new discovery like combustion. Then maybe coal could no longer be a requirement for your Civ, but could still be traded with a Civ that depends on it.

 

[Atotarho]

I have no problem with coal and iron to produce railways. Face it without both of them it never would have happened. And its a good reason to go to war to get it .

What I cant understand is how a coal fired train in the 1800s can go as far and fast as a diesel power loco. Travel on rails should be limited at least until the discovery of oil.

 

[slothman]

It is needed basically because Civ doesn't allow an "either/or" method for creating improvements and such.

 

[Sparrow3]

Maybe it should allow an either/or method of creating improvements.

 

[Mercade]

Originally posted by Sprint
Civ is a very abstract game. My guess is that "Railroads" are a catch-all improvement for the economic and infrastructural improvements of the 1800's.

Coal was a CRITICAL element for that period.

That said, the same way you don't need saltpeter for Riflemen, you shouldn't need coal for 20th century railroads.

Originally posted by Pounder
Railroads represent the Industrial Revolution.

But there reaches a point when resources like coal and saltpeter become readily available and maybe should just be a cost to produce.

Maybe a number of years after you discover the steam engine or maybe after you make a new discovery like combustion. Then maybe coal could no longer be a requirement for your Civ, but could still be traded with a Civ that depends on it.

Amen! Shouldn't be too hard to implement either. Of course coal is a vital element in the earlier years of railroad, but after some relatively advanced discovery, not requiring it anymore sounds like a sensible step. You may not be a front runner without coal, but you shouldn't be totally incapacitated because of it.

 

[zurichuk]

totally agree, would be interesting if you needed coal and railroads to make the first railways but some later tech/resource allowed you to do it anyway without coal, it would still give an advantage to the ones with the resource but later you could still have a chance to catch up

 

[kokoras]

So a kind of solution to this problem could be by simply changing the Strategic resource needed for making railroads in the Modern times.Until then coal works just fine as it is was the main resource for trains anyway.The only ''problem'' is that electricity isn't a S.R,so what could be the sourse for the Modern Times railroad:Iron!-Aluminium!!!-Uranium!!!!!!

 

[Reynoulds #]

Most nations on Earth still use coal.

Aside from the obvious nations that still use steam locomotives (such as Cuba & China), most nations use coal too.

Most places that use electric locomotives (such as the TGV, Acela, ICE, Thai Bullet, Shinkansen, most of Europe) use a combination of power plants including coal plants.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Also coal is used to produce quite a bit of the electricity which is used to power many but not all rail systems. I would guess that making oil too important unbalanced the game.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Aside from the power plant argument, it needs to be pointed out that at least in the US, a substantial portion of the railroads' income is derived from hauling coal to those power plants. So, no coal, equals no incentive for your your RR barons to build track (no profit), thus, no railroads