(Firaxis: READ) Railroad Movement in Civilization IV

[Chazbagel]

How about the only way units can have unlimited turns... if it is going from a City with a train station, to another city with a trainstation, or a transtation in the middle of nowhere....

So they can make a Train Station City Improvement, that works like an Airport... kinda.

 

[MattII]

How about a composite system, where any city with a station has access to any other road connected city with a station. In this model railroads give infinite movement, but stations have finite capacity and units can only use railroads between cities. Another use is cargo, so any in-city-radius square with railroad gets their products to the city without cost (squares send extra resources). Also, cities with stations can trade food, production and population amongst themselves i.e. food, shields and population are shared among all connected cities.

 

[yoshi]

Before I reply, could eveyone just read the intro post again because I updated it.

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

Option (7) fills both those requirements

So does (2) but it has the downside that faster units have an advantage, which defeates the core purpose of RR.

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

If you're referring to option (3) (all units literally move the same number of railroaded tiles to the RR limit, after which point the RR bonus no longer applies for the remainder of the unit's turn), then you don't get the $3,000.

Why? Let me point out the reasons:

- Program must 'remember' how many RR tiles each unit has moved per turn (i.e. an additional value per unit that must be read each time the unit moves). (If you didn't have this feature, fast units can just move into a none-RR square and then back again to move another 30 squares or whatever the RR MP is.)
- More MM, as you now have to keep track of a unit's 'RR points' (i.e. number of remaining squares that can be moved on RR by that unit) in addition to remaining MP.

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.

Yes, right now the vote is at 14 for (1), but note that if you count the total votes for alternative movement models (i.e. 2-7), you'll see that 32 voters would prefer something else. (I'm assuming that voters would still want something different even if their preferred option were not available rather than have their system or no change at all.)

(I won't count (8) as an option because that isn't saying anything against the infinite movement system, just against RR as a movement modifier/feature in general.)

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.

But what movement model are you using? Sounds like you're talking about (3) only with a cost for 'boarding.' This complicates (3) all the more and pretty much breaks it. (See the thread I linked in the intro post--you'll notice that I actually approved of that method...initially.)

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.

Then vote for option (7) as it kills two birds with one stone.

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.

This is basically option (6) only RR link is substituted by Roads/Highways.

First, what if you want to go beyond the range limit (i.e. range implies applicable squares in all directions as opposed to the equivalent movement of all those squares in a straight line)?

Second, what if you want to move your units to coordinates that are not a pre-set transport site (I'll use ToT lingo since that's esentially what this is like)?

Third, how does this deal with the problem of units not being interceptable using the 'infinite' system (i.e. how do you intercept teleporting units)?

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 is (3) as far as I can make out and I answered ybbor's post for that.

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.

You're mixing up unit strategy with economic strategy: if RR are infinite, it means you can send your units to any Railroaded square at no cost. That, putting aside any economic incentive, is reason enough build RR everywhere. Infinite movement just adds more incentive than it does to build Roads everythere. So, any wise player would still clutter the map with RR.

If you want to prevent cluttering, the only simple way to do it is to attribute a noticable cost to the building of strategic tile improvements like RR (and of course eliminate the tile output bonus).

That said, this thread concerns unit movement along RR, not economic return so let's keep it to the former shall we?

[I'll open a thread just for the question of tile improvement cost at some later date--unless someone's already done so...which I doubt.]

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.

Advanced rules are not an option. If you look at the market, few games make extensive use of that sort of thing. You buy a game, you get the whole package--whether you're a n00b or a pro. End of story.

The advantage of this system is that it doesn't require a new RR algorithm so is quite easy to do. In fact, you can even do it in Civ3:

- Create a 'Train' unit; give it 'Wheeled' ability with like 30 MP and some holds.
- Make all terrian 'Impassable to Wheeled.'
- Reduce Road Movement Bonus to 1.
- Rename Road to 'Railroad.'
- Eliminate default Railroad.

The result will be that the Train unit is the only Wheeled unit, thus can only move on RR squares. Its immense movement is useless on non RR squares. It can carry units anywhere there is RR.

Now play the game and see how much MM is involved.

The micromanagement objection this is the only real (although quite relevant) arguement against option (5): the main thing is that little moves like moving Workers around would be tedious (i.e having to load/unload each time and coordinate with Train) and deciding not to use the Train unit and just using Roads would give a big advantage to micromanagers.

If it weren't for that, it would be rather nice to use actual units instead of the abstract movement bonus (or airlifting using actual units FTM--which can also be done by modding Civ3 BTW...but still requires more MM although not nearly as much since you're not contantly airlifting Workers).

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.

Why are you repeating yourself? dh_epic's post was simply clarifying the point that unit MP should not have an effect on RR movement. So what? All of the alternative models, with the exception of (2) and (4), deal with this problem in some way or another. The difference is that they have different pros/cons.

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..

First of all, the whole problem is that virtually no-one has given my solution much thought and have in fact ignored it it up to now with the exception of some criticims that mistake it for (2) or (3). You yourself have not even bothered to raise a single criticism of (7) so I can't see where you're getting this from.

As for the CP system, it actually doesn't solve most of the problems raised by players:

- Program must store capacity points thus requiring MM.
- Infinite movement is only limited at very long ranges.
- Unit positioning barely affected as defensive positioning is local.
- Units cannot be intercepted (as long as civ has plenty of CP).

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.

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.

Both are (3) only substituting RR MP for A-B MP. Same cons apply. (See my reply to ybbor above.)


Man these arguements are too easy to shoot down, where's Bamspeedy when you need him?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The point is, Yoshi, that your system gives an unnatural advantage to faster units on RR. Fact is, a unit on a RR moves EXACTLY the same distance-regardless of how fast it would move on rail. If anything, rail should benefit foot units more than motorized one, because you could fit MANY more soldiers than tanks into a single train.
You see, if my capacity point system did not get up (though I obviously hope it DOES) then I would throw an equal amount of weight behind rail having a FIXED number of MPs per turn-say around 40. This would mean that an infantry could move 40 squares in a single turn, as could a tank. The only limitations would be that you HAVE to begin and end your journey in a city AND you lose all your MPs in the process-restrictions I wouldn't be opposed to seeing in my Capacity System.
Of course, the beauty of my Capacity Point System is that it could be easily combined with this one-to make it an even bigger disincentive to having ultra-large nations.
The one MAJOR problem with simply dealing with the movement point issue is that it leaves open the problem that-in combat-the civ with the biggest army will always have the greatest advatange. In my system, OTOH, the ability to deliver significant numbers of units to the front-in the Industrial age onwards-will be restricted by the amount of RR capacity you have-as well as your ability to pay for it. Point is, though, ANY kind of restriction to the # of units moveable per turn (much like airlift limits) would be just as useful in that regard. I just happen to like CPs best .
I think the biggest problem with Yoshi's system, is that it tries to deal with only ONE anomaly of the RR system, whilst ignoring the fact that it creates so many other more anomolies. My system seeks to solve ALL of RR's anomolies and, to some degree, bringing together the military and economic functions of the RR system. I admit that it is a little rough around the edges, but I think that with some extra input from other, my system could become much better.
What is MOST scary, though, are the number of people who clearly don't see anything wrong with Railroads as they are in civ3 .

 

[Chazbagel]

Leave them the way that they are. It is fine.... And there is more things that Firaxis has to worry about than how the railroads work. :-/

I would much rather worry about Disasters, a new 3D Engine, Religion, Sea Bridges, and other things talked about in this forum that are much more desicive in a game than railroads.

That is just what i think though.

 

[Hyronymus]

Bah, too much violence in this thread all of a sudden. Yoshi, if people don't agree with your suggestions or fail to give it a good look you don't have to react as if a bee stung you in a delicate place. I'm sure that if you check the entire development of this thread many reactions people made here are logical in at least 1 way.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You're mixing up unit strategy with economic strategy: if RR are infinite, it means you can send your units to any Railroaded square at no cost. That, putting aside any economic incentive, is reason enough build RR everywhere. Infinite movement just adds more incentive than it does to build Roads everythere. So, any wise player would still clutter the map with RR.

If you want to prevent cluttering, the only simple way to do it is to attribute a noticable cost to the building of strategic tile improvements like RR (and of course eliminate the tile output bonus).

That said, this thread concerns unit movement along RR, not economic return so let's keep it to the former shall we?

[I'll open a thread just for the question of tile improvement cost at some later date--unless someone's already done so...which I doubt.]

So you admit that this, economy included, would solve most problems?! I'll stop derailing your thread now....

@Aussie - Yoshi's system doesn't give any advantage to faster units. It does bring some more micromanaging though, and I wonder if railroads are to be limited, will there be superhighways later? and will those be unlimited instead? Regardless, I think railroads should be infinite with some off-topic restrictions to keep the micromanaging to a minimum, it would be the most simple system.
However I hope they somehow implement your system, Yoshi, so that mods if necessary could use it, since it's a good idea.

 

[Evie]

Yes, right now the vote is at 14 for (1), but note that if you count the total votes for alternative movement models (i.e. 2-7), you'll see that 32 voters would prefer something else. (I'm assuming that voters would still want something different even if their preferred option were not available rather than have their system or no change at all.)

You assume wrong in my case. If my choice (option 6) was not picked, then I'd take option 1 in a heartbeat, then as last resort, either 4 or 5 (because they involve too much micro-management for Civ for my tastes).

Option 2, 3 and 7 are even worse : they remove instant-move from the game altogether (well, besides airport, but 'ports are very-late-game effects), which is, in all ways - a BIG mistake.

"What," you say? "But RTSes have no instant move and they work just fine!"

Yes. That's because of a FUNDAMENTAL difference between RTSes and TBSes : the in-between turn.

Let's take an RTS where there IS a unit of time we can (somewhat) compare to Civilization's "turn" ; Europa Universalis (where time is measured in days).

In Europa Univeralis, moving one unit to the adjacent province will take several days - always. Moving a unit from one end of your empire to another will take months, even. But - and THAT is the difference - when a day end, the next one immediately begin. Yes, it might take as much as a full year, even 2 or 3 for a unit to move from one end of your empire to another...but a full year in Europa Univeralis amounts to *about* thirty-five seconds of real-time play. Yes, you have to wait before you can do what you were planning to do with your unit - but no more than a minute or two (unless you have other plans you want to work on, of course, but then you have stuff to keep yourself busy).

Comparatively, think of how much real time play even aiport movement entails in Civ : two turns, but two late-game turns can easily measure up to 10, 15 minutes - I believe I've heard of 20-30 minutes for larger games and lesser computers. And unlike Europa Univeralis, that wait time will NOT be spent doing something productive : the vast part of it is spend waiting for the twitish AI to finally finish its moves for the turn, and then clicking "ok" to about fifty separate "City X has finished building item Y" messages.

I don't mind waiting 2-3 minutes for my units to arrive. I'm not playing a game where I have to wait an hour or two before I can FINALLY Get to do what I wanted with a unit - chances are, I'll have lost interest in the game by then anyway.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oda, I am a little confused as to where you think the Micromanagement in my model comes from . As I have stated so often before, you acquire Capacity points very naturally via normal player actions, and you will be told when your capacity points are either about to, or have, run out. Also, current CPs would be displayed in easy sight in several relevent screens, so you always have an instant reminder of what your current rail capacity is. Truth be told, I am starting to feel that capacity should be extended to road movement and airlifting of units. They would work almost exactly like Rail capacity, with Road capacity being MUCH higher, and with less money lost for every capacity point. Air capacity (for airlifting) would be generated by the construction of airfields, airports and other similar structures, and would also contribute to revenue if left unused by a player. They would be readily displayed for ease, and the computer would allocate capacity use for troop movement on the basis of WHERE the unit is starting and ending movement, and how much of each capacity you currently have.
Oh and, btw Yoshi, re-reading your opening thread really does tell me that your polling method is VERY biased towards your own model. A good poll would have tried to give a balanced description of each model, with a short list of all of its PERCIEVED pros and cons (even ones YOU don't personally agree with).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

I've voted for 4), since I like the idea of the capacity points. Additionally, I understood it as being linked with the concept of railroad stations, which would make railroads forming a net between cities and defined places as fortresses for instance.
I don't see increased micromanagement here, as such a concept would highlight the available locations to move to.
About the "keeping track" of the CP's, according to my view this is just what a computer is built for, no? Let the engine do the counting and number crunching, let the player do the decisions.

 

[rhialto]

One issue I have with railroad capacity points is, depending on how they are earned, it would very likely result in infinite city sleaze strategies being used.

 

[wit>trope]

Anything but 1. I always get rid of railroads in Civ3 before playing any game/mod because of the infinite movement. It takes away a lot of strategy from the game.

3 and 7 appeal to me the most. 7 seems to be the most elegant solution.

 

[rhialto]

Hmm, just noticed that the server swallowed my reply to Yoshi's post. Must've been due to rolling around the 1 day mark and hitting the sponsors banner (damn adverts).

Originally Posted by rhialto
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.

This is basically option (6) only RR link is substituted by Roads/Highways.

Naturally. Did you think everyone's ideas would slot exactly into the categories you built?

First, what if you want to go beyond the range limit (i.e. range implies applicable squares in all directions as opposed to the equivalent movement of all those squares in a straight line)?

The range limit is an advanced option. That means it won't necessarily be in the default game, but will be there for mods. For example, the trans-siberian rail still takes a week in modern days assuming peak efficiency, and longer in past years. If you have a scenario with a short time scale and older, slower, trains, then distance becomes very much a factor.

Second, what if you want to move your units to coordinates that are not a pre-set transport site (I'll use ToT lingo since that's esentially what this is like)?

Then you are SOL. For tanks (yes, this is the main way tanks ar emoved long distances), this makes sense, as you need special facilities for unloading them. I admit it makes less sense for infantry which can be unloaded anywhere a train can physically stop.

However, I feel it is necessary to enforce a historical reality. If players can unload anywhere there is a rail, the sensible thing to do would be to unload right in front of the enemy advance. Historically, rail transport wasn't used to take troops into the front line trenches directly, but allowing unloading anywhere would make that the only viable tactic.

Third, how does this deal with the problem of units not being interceptable using the 'infinite' system (i.e. how do you intercept teleporting units)?

When the computer checks to see which cities are connected, it doesn't merely check for road, but checks for a path that can be made which isn't blocked by civ-2 style zones of control. From an internal plotting point of view, the unit is actually moving. From an on-screen visual point of view, it is teleporting. It's a subtle difference, but a crucial one.

 

[rhialto]

NOTE TO MEMBERS:

...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 anything in the poll, open your own thread or post in some other RR thread--there are quite a few of them.

Just noticed this new comment of yours, and to be honest, it's rather childish. You make a plea to Firaxis to read this thread above all others, and at the same time you demand that any discussion of railroad ideas beyond your pet idea and your strawmen goes to another thread. That's very poor debating style.

If this thread is really about letting Firaxis know what players really want, why are you asking players not to talk about what they really want?

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I voted for 1, because this is a characteristic feature for CIV and everybody is used to it. But 3 and 5 are possible alternatives.

 

[rhialto]

http://lajzar.co.uk/wiki/index.php?How Rails Work

Could everyone who is reaonably interested and has a unique idea please post their ideas on this wiki on the page linked (no editing other people's ideas please)? Then we can hold a proper poll on this topic where the author isn't blatantly pushing people to give a specific answer.

 

[Commander Bello]

One issue I have with railroad capacity points is, depending on how they are earned, it would very likely result in infinite city sleaze strategies being used.

Sorry, as I am not a native English speaker, I didn't get the meaning of "infinite city sleaze strategies".
Do you mean that you fear such a concept would result in the same pattern of having railroads each and everywhere as it does today?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd like to see a capacity based system. Both the amount of track and the number of units allowed to use that track (per turn) would be limited. Once you had coal and the correct techs, you could build track squares equal to the longest dimension of your nation plus X number per city. Additional track would be produced (by cities) and then workers dispatched to lay it anywhere (in one turn). "Buildings" would increase capacity: station, rail yard, roundhouse, rolling stock etc. Small wonders could include: Golden Spike (connecting all cities in home area by reail) and Grand central station.

With this or similar system, rail strategies becme more difficult to implement and loss of key cities can hurt rail capacity. Railroading every square becomes expensive and wasteful. If track is limited, then strategic destruction of particular squares can have important consequences.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sorry, as I am not a native English speaker, I didn't get the meaning of "infinite city sleaze strategies".
Do you mean that you fear such a concept would result in the same pattern of having railroads each and everywhere as it does today?

I am a native English speaker and I don't know what he means.

 

[rhialto]

Basically, in civ 2, someone noticed that a winning strategy was to build cities next to each other everywhere. It meant of course that the later improvements would be less useful, but by that time you would have a certain win anyway. Having the rail capacity depend on the number of connected cities would grant a big boost to this strategy.