(Firaxis: READ) Railroad Movement in Civilization IV

[yoshi]

(If you don't like the infinite movement system, you'd best be voting in this poll.)

[NOTE: THIS THREAD IS ON RR MOVEMENT, NOT OTHER EFFECTS.]

Links to threads where all of the above options are outlined:

New RR model

Micro management

rail rouds (that's Vietcong's spelling for you )

General thread : road, RR sytem

The Coefficient of sliding friction....


* Just to be clear on how option (7) works (described in one of the above threads and only briefly therefore I'll elaborate so it doesn't get confused with options (2) or (3)):

A unit's ToTAL Movement Points are consumed when moving between Railroaded tiles as opposed to movement being consumed per MP.

Unlike Roads, when a unit moves between two Railroaded tiles, the unit's movement is consumed as fraction of ALL of it's available movement points as opposed to a fraction of EACH individual available movement point.

This means that a faster unit has no advantage over a slower unit as they both use up the same movement (proportionally).

Example:

If Railroad multiplier = 20 then unit of 3 MP (Tank) expends .15 per tile moved and unit of 1 MP (Infantry) expends .05 per tile moved.

(I set the multiplier value at 20 but this is only an example. The value can be anything, the effect is the same.)

After moving 4 tiles on Railroad:

Tank = 2.4 MP (used .6 of 3 MP)
Infantry = .8 MP (used .2 of 1 MP)

[If my math is wrong...forgive my retardation.]

Both units have lost the same fraction of total MPs (proportionally).

[Very important that you get the "proportionally" part of it.]

Pros:

- Units can move quickly but can still be intercepted.
- Does not degrade ground unit strategy (i.e. strategic placement).
- No infinite movement loops.
- No micromanagement (unless you consider Road movement to be MM).
- Civ4 will be the first game to use this AFAIK.

Cons:

- Unit MPs still consumed (albeit equally).
- Too simple.

[NOTE: This is based on the TheNiceOne's posts in this thread in the 'C3C request' forum (now in Archives).]

NOTE TO MEMBERS:

Again, this thread is on Railroad Movement, NOT economic effects. Also, this is a poll meant for the Firaxis guys to determine what players really want. If you're just going post your own stuff without debating any of the options in the poll, open your own thread or post in some other RR thread--there are quite a few of them.

I went through this forum and the Civ3 forums looking for all the main RR ideas posted thus far and I believe I've covered them all (ignoring minor variations, as it's the general mechanics that are important here). If you want to clear something up do so, but refrain from using this thread as your own personal RR-idea billboard.

 

[dh_epic]

How about "something that isn't unlimited and doesn't require heaps of micromanagement".

I guess I'd be happy with an "any change is good change" option.

 

[ybbor]

simpler: rails move at .25 $3,000 please

this is a horrible idea, are you trying to tell me a cavalry would move just as fast as an infantry? that right there creates a serious flaw in the system

 

[azzacanth]

ybbor - of course they would. Do you see horses running faster on a rail than infantry? No you see them all loaded into trains. The trains move at a set speed. The horses would just have more movement left over at the end than the infantry.

 

[dh_epic]

But movement points don't represent "how far you can go before you get tired".

If movement points were how far you could go before you got tired, then horses would be able to board two trains for every one train that a footsoldier uses.

Movement points represent speed. And if people are standing on a train, they're all moving at the same speed.

Be that as it may, the most important debate is not how we improve railroads. It's whether we improve them at all in the first place -- as evident by the number of people who insist that railroads should be infinite.

 

[paulfish]

the big problem with railroad is two fold .

1. infinite movement.
2. they use railroad as a production bonus.

To solve number one we need to solve number two .

ways to solve the production per tile problem is to have different techs allow more land improvements other than mine and irrigate. .

once this is done we can have railroads go from city to city using half of a movement point to board the railroad and a half to leave. This lets the units with more than one movement point still have an advantage.

 

[Princeps]

I think that railroads should remain as they are, but you'd have pay maintance for the railroads. So that rail should be build only where it's profitable.

 

[Aegis]

While RR's may be a little overpowered with their infinite-movement ability, it doesn't exactly take a train 5-10 years (one turn) to travel the width of any continent, so in respect to that, RR's work just fine.

But for the sake of gameplay, I believe that they should either operate the same as roads or all units should move at a constant rate without having to build boxcars and micromanage.

Perhaps the answer lies in having it work similarly to airports. Perhaps, in order to transport troops from city to city, both departure and destination city must have to build a rail station city improvement. Or maybe just the departure city. Each city could only depart 5 units per turn or however many would help balance the game. That would eliminate the need for further micromanagement and building boxcars and make the game more strategic, aka "fun".

As far as I am concerned, as soon as you have RR's, the game is practically won, so I think that this should change.

 

[sealman]

simpler: rails move at .25 $3,000 please

this is a horrible idea, are you trying to tell me a cavalry would move just as fast as an infantry? that right there creates a serious flaw in the system

As earlier stated, both would move at the same speed.

However, the infantry would move on and off the train faster.

 

[rhialto]

sigh, yet another rail thread. Well, since this one has a begging letter for firaxis to read attached, I suppose I'd better summarise my model AGAIN.

1) Tile based transport improvments include roads (1/3 move) which later upgrade to highways (1/5 move). No tile based rails.
2) The city improvement "rail depot" gives a 25% bonus to shield production, reflecting the bonus that rails gave in civ1/2/3.
3) Any city will a rail depot improvement can send units using the rapid transport network (RTN). Sending a unit costs gold (amount depends on unit size, so tanks cost more than infantry to transport).
4) To send a unit, the unit must start in the city. Using the RTN ends that unit's turn.
5) Valid destinations include any city that has a rail depot improvement AND has a link by road/highway. Rails are assumed to exist between any pair of cities that meet these criteria.

Advanced options:

- "Rail Siding" tile improvements that can act as a origin/destination point for the RTN.
- Range limits on rails which gradually increase as relevant techs are researched, reflecting the increasing speed of trains.

 

[NeoT]

I think that the units that is in a railroad could move to any tile that is united by a railroad and have a "Train Station"(A simple worker action, that when its made, the worker dissapears, like colonies) or a City in it, but when the unit moves using the railroad, it can´t move again. This would make a more strategyc use of the railroad, and will add more reality, because the roads will not become obsolete, they will be still in use until the end of the game (Maybe for more realism, the roads could be upgraded to Paved road when Motorized transportation has been researched, this kind of road could make units move faster , but that´s another story) . The tile bonus given by the railroad, i think, that should be eliminated, so the workers will not build railroad everywhere trying to improve the production.

PD: Sorry for my english, It´s not my language.

 

[Hyronymus]

But movement points don't represent "how far you can go before you get tired".

If movement points were how far you could go before you got tired, then horses would be able to board two trains for every one train that a footsoldier uses.

Movement points represent speed. And if people are standing on a train, they're all moving at the same speed.

Why did noone read this point?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Couldn't they make some penalty to production/commerce/food where railroads are built? This way the map wouldn't get cluttered and you could keep the movement unlimited for simpicity's sake.

 

[Dida]

We can get rid of RR sprawl by using PW and introducing maintainence for RR tiles. Right now, RRs are free, provided you have workers, it will be stupid not to build them everywhere.

 

[BlackBetsy]

I hadn't thought of the Rail Car unit until I saw this poll, but I think it is the best solution to the Railroad issue, combined with the re-introduction of Farmland from Civ 2. I've never understood why Railroad provides such a huge advantage - both increased production AND unlimited movement. [Perhaps Sid was a big RR fan? He did put out Railroad Tycoon after all] It seems to me these should be split up a la Civ 2.

In real life, you see roads/streets all around but only RR on a city to city basis, there isn't a RR grid on a city level like there is a road grid, even in heavy RR countries like Germany, France. True, RR did improve agriculture, but agriculture benefitted more from the mechanical reaper, etc. than it did from the RR.

The Rail Car unit makes a lot of sense because the number of rail cars a country has made a HUGE difference in the ability of countries to fight wars from 1820-1950 or so. Rail cars were an essential commodity to troop movements, etc. Have a Rail Car carry 6 troops per turn (even if it makes 6 different trips), and you'll see a nice level of complexity added to Civ.

For those who complain about micromanagement, maybe there should be a split in Civ IV. Civ IV "classic" which has all the MM features, and CIV IV "new" which has less MM, etc. and only uses the big picture concepts. It seems like this is one way they can broaden the Civ audience while retaining the core fan base. I'm sure someone has said this before.

 

[Hyronymus]

I don't see any good coming from the rail car unit. First, if you add rail cars you should be consistent and add horse carts to the game too for unit transport before the RR age. Horses were the general means for transporting (heavy) units sort of fast.

Second, you have to load your units on a rail car and unload them at their destination. I'm already going frantic by moving my units as they do in Civ3 let alone if I need to load/unload them on/from a railcar.

Third: I quoted a reply in my first post in this topic: dh_epic wrote that movement points resemble speed of the unit, not the stamina. Cavalry are faster than infantry on roads but both travel at the same speed on trains. A train transporting horses doesn't speed because of the horses.

It's funny to see how everyone's mind is stuck on the explained proposal yoshi made and how (appearently) noone read the other poll options. Option #4 says:

Capacity Point System (RR movement infinite but limited use per turn)

Isn't that just the easiest and most fair solution? You allow all units to gain a benefit from traveling over railroad. Because a train doesn't make a difference between horses, infantry, tanks or whatsoever all units 'taking the RR' travel at the same speed. Every limit you impose on the use of RR is therefor exactly the same for each unit. You could then suggest a limited train journey of 10 tiles per turn per unit i.e..

 

[llib_rm]

I prefer a different option:

Unlimited movement along the rail line, but moving from A to B costs one movement point. Half a point to board and the remaining half to unload. The point is charged if you moved one tile or twenty.

 

[Hyronymus]

I prefer a different option:

Unlimited movement along the rail line, but moving from A to B costs one movement point. Half a point to board and the remaining half to unload. The point is charged if you moved one tile or twenty.

If I get you right you would charge 1 movement point for each movement along railroad track made in disregard of the distance? Then what's the benefit of laying railroads because you just made them less effective than roads (movement along roads costs 1/3 MP regardless of the distance).

 

[llib_rm]

(movement along roads costs 1/3 MP regardless of the distance).

You are right. On second thought, moving any distance beyond 3 tiles on rail lines should count for one movement point. Moving less than 3 tiles should be treated like road movement.

I do not like the current "movement without penalty" pardigm, but do not want added micromanagement. Charging movement points for loading & unloading seems like the easiest solution.

 

[azzacanth]

how about a unit can move along rail once per turn - moves from point a to point b whatever those are, but after that cannot move on rail anymore that turn. and that costs a particular amount of movement to do so, figuring hey they loaded and unloaded from the train right?

It does make sense they could get from one location to another in 1 turn given how the turns are timed. It doesn't make sense they would go from one location to another to another to another in one turn unlimitedly.