Are Railroads too powerful?

[automator]

Still a kind of new player ... but am I the only one who thinks railroads might be a bit too strong? For the first two ages, you have units that move through your territory at 3 per turn (6 for fast units). Once you have a rail grid running through your cities, you can get anywhere in your empire without spending a single movement point. With rails, you can effectively have only one standing stack for your entire defense force (per land mass)! That's a big change from having to spread a few stacks around for adequate defense.

The only justification I can imagine is that you need two resources to be able to build rails. I've only once had an issue with getting coal, and even then all I needed was one little incursion to get it. The tech isn't justification, since it's a base tech that everyone gets.

Maybe I need to play on a higher level for rails to make sense to me.

 

[seasmath]

Yep, a lot of people think that rails are unfair, and others think that it's good because it's realistic.

 

[fishjie]

The way I think of it is like this - each turn in civ represents at minimum, 1 year. In 1 year you can DEFINITELY use a railroad system to have travelled across the entire continent. So its "realistic". If each turn were instead just a day, then yes it would not be "realistic". However its a pretty broken feature because they're so powerful and good.

 

[Renata]

I don't know if they're too powerful in and of themselves, but they're definitely out of balance with ship and air movement.

 

[vmxa]

That issue goes at least back to Civ2.

 

[MaxArt]

The way I think of it is like this - each turn in civ represents at minimum, 1 year. In 1 year you can DEFINITELY use a railroad system to have travelled across the entire continent. So its "realistic". If each turn were instead just a day, then yes it would not be "realistic". However its a pretty broken feature because they're so powerful and good.

I think it's kinda strange to talk about a game being realistic when it's turn based (and so unrealistic a priori).

That issue goes at least back to Civ2.

You meant Civ1

 

[Bartleby]

I think it's kinda strange to talk about a game being realistic when it's bturn based (and so unrealistic a priori).

You meant Civ1

(emphasis changed by me)

You meant per se

 

[MaxArt]

You meant per se

Oh well, you're right, but I think also "a priori" would fit somehow You know, when a game is turn based, you can already say that it can't be so realistic!

 

[Minesweeper]

Way back in the mac version of Civilizaion, you had railroads which upgraded to mag levs, which did allow you to move units anywhere in 1 turn. I think they are a little overpowered, but when your playing a big map with a huge empire, then you start to get a little mad when it takes you ten or so turns (using roads) to get through your empire. So, no I dont think railroads are too overpowered.


Mathias

 

[gunkulator]

For those who think rails give an unfair advantage to the defender: How realistic is it that a huge invasion fleet could arrive from overseas without being detected at all?

 

[MaxArt]

How realistic is a city that goes WLTKD after its population has decreased because being nuked?
Men, we can go on forever!

 

[thetrooper]

Are Railroads too powerful?

Yes IMO.

But it works both ways.

 

[garyg]

I don't think railroads are too powerful.
It's not like you discover Steam Power and you can intstantly move units anywhere.
You still have to build them. It takes some time to hook up your major cities, and stacks of workers. I look forward to Steam Power cause it gives my slaves something to do.

 

[automator]

I look forward to Steam Power cause it gives my slaves something to do.

Exactly. That situation is just what made me think about this. I'd gotten about 30 slaves from the Zulu and already had every tile on the continent improved. They were bored, but I didn't want to disband them. I hit steam power and set them to work.

 

[iguana1]

For those who think rails give an unfair advantage to the defender: How realistic is it that a huge invasion fleet could arrive from overseas without being detected at all?

They can be detected, you just have to build a navy to patrol the oceans and watch for them. Plus see Pearl Harbor as a real world example of a huge attack force showing up with minimal warning... Today's satelites and other detection systems make that highly unlikely but subs of today can still show up just about anywhere undetected with a full load of missiles.

IMO, rails are too powerful, especially when you consider sea and air restrictions as noted above. In a year modern naval units should be able to circumnavigate the world without too much trouble but only cover a scant handful of tiles. The range of aircraft is pathetic in comparison. Planes have to refuel and all but in a year they should be able to rebase and attack anywhere in the world. However, I don't play the game in terms of thinking about it 1 year at a time (or 10, 20, etc in the different epochs). I just see them more as 1 turn at a time only only look at the year it is on rare occasions. The problems I have are: 1) it does make certain aspects of the game too easy such as "planning" an attack of a continental enemy and defending yourself from anyone; 2) the unbalanced relational movement between air, land and sea units.

I think something like a 1/9th movement rate for rails would be more realistic and make attack and defense planning more interesting especially if modern air and naval units were given an increased range/movement. But it's just one of those things you have to accept unless you are willing to play around with the editor but that's too much work for my lazy butt...

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

I think its unrealistic that you can still use railroads EVEN IF U DONT HAVE COAL.You should need iron to build the tracks,but coal for them to be used.This would make them a bit better and worse at the same time but make it more realistic.

 

[MaxArt]

I think its unrealistic that you can still use railroads EVEN IF U DONT HAVE COAL.

Fine point. But there's something even worst: you can still use you musketmen even if you lose your saltpeter supply.

 

[seasmath]

It's a game, jeez. If you played the most realistic game modeling every aspect of a civ, you wouldn't like it...

 

[nerovats]

I don't like the 0 movement,would have preferred half the cost of movement. The tile improvement is ok, but might have been better to split those up like in civII. Rail for movement farm for extra food.

 

[gunkulator]

They can be detected, you just have to build a navy to patrol the oceans and watch for them.

Not really. Often the landmasses are close enough that they can arrive in a single turn. Usually it takes no more than 2 or 3 turns for an invasion to cross the ocean. The defensive response should be faster.

Plus see Pearl Harbor as a real world example of a huge attack force showing up with minimal warning...

Pearl harbor was a fast air attack, not an armada of tanks and infantry divisions. Also, it exploited a small window of technial oppurtunity where aiplanes, carriers, bombs and torpedoes finally developed to make the attack possible but radar wasn't quite reliable enough to be trusted yet

Today's satelites and other detection systems make that highly unlikely but subs of today can still show up just about anywhere undetected with a full load of missiles.

Sure. I have no problem with nukes, missiles and planes showing up out of the blue to attack, but large slow invasion fleets?

The problems I have are: 1) it does make certain aspects of the game too easy such as "planning" an attack of a continental enemy and defending yourself from anyone; 2) the unbalanced relational movement between air, land and sea units.

Without fast rails, you can use 10th century Vikings tactics too easily: show up out of nowhere, sack a city and then disappear before the defenders can arrive. One of the reasons Scandanavia is so powerful is they have a window of oppurtunity where you cannot defend against them. If every civ could do this, I would find this way more unbalancing than any air/land/sea unit disparity.

I think something like a 1/9th movement rate for rails would be more realistic and make attack and defense planning more interesting especially if modern air and naval units were given an increased range/movement. But it's just one of those things you have to accept unless you are willing to play around with the editor but that's too much work for my lazy butt...

This would cripple the AI and would require 3 to 4 times the standing armies currently allowed.