(Firaxis: READ) Railroad Movement in Civilization IV

[rhialto]

@gskyes
That is almost exactly my current idea, and as it happens is exactly the same as onbe of my old draft ideas for rail.

 

[yoshi]

This is off-topic, but anyway....

Where do you have this knowledge from? Didn't they mention things like "simplification", "replacement" et alia? Not to mention they claim the code to be completely redeveloped?

Yes, it's a new code but the game format is the same, and that's exactly my point: Civ4 isn't going to be a great leap from Civ3 in that way. How do I know? Because they've said so in their mission statement, interviews and word-of-mouth. It's no secret.

BTW, my reply was intended to bring some finality to that discussion.

Who came up with the brilliant option 7, btw?

AFAIK, TheNiceOne thought it up (see the thread I linked at the bottom of the intro post).

Just out of curiosity, how are 3 and 7 different?

The difference is in simplicity (both for program and player--the former being important to the people designing the game and plays a role in the decision to add/remove stuff):

In (3), the program must record a separate value that tells it when a unit has used up all the RR movement allowable in a single turn.

If the player is to calculate the number of RR squares a specific unit he has left to move, the value must be visible to the player.

If the value is visible to the player (and even worse if it isn't) then you have the same problem as you have in CP (i.e. 'RR points'), which means MM.

If you have it so the unit consumes MP when entering an RR square, it gets even more complicated.

In (7), there is no additional value; just the movement value, which is going to be there anyway.

The downside of (7) is that units use up movement (albeit proportionally to the RR bonus--so the unit makes it the whole 40 squares or whatever in that turn before running out of movement, regardless of the unit's number of MPs). But that's inevitable if you're going to have this level of simplicity.

...maintainance costs for infrastructure will NEVER be in the epic game. Well, if thats true, then equally they will NEVER take infinite RR movement out of the epic game either (especially if it means replacing it with a complex system like yours) in which case this entire thread is MOOT!!!

Yes, complexity is a big factor, but you still haven't told me what makes my suggestion complex. (You said it fails to deal with differences in unit MP but didn't elaborate on that and just dismissed the model based on that. As was pointed out to you, the model in fact does deal with MP difference but neither you nor anyone else followed up on that.) Adjusting infinite movement to limited movement with the same strategic result (namely, that fast units recieve no advantage) implies a small change that many players would agree with--if they understood WTF I was talking about. Adding tile improvement upkeep is not a small change but rather implies a whole host of implications to gameplay.

Lastly, may I suggest that if you cannot handle criticism (which you apparently can't) then don't be so eager to dish it out.

I most certainly can handle (and am eagerly awaiting) real criticism of option (7)—and every other option for that matter.

I looked through your model and every other model and posted some basic criticism of them further back in the thread. Got back plenty of hostility but very little in the way of defense. For example, you (or anyone else) haven't proven that the CP model won't result in excessive MM.

One of the criticisms of teleporting via 'stations' is that moveing workers around requires a high degree of MM (esp. since getting the AI to do it automatically is not easy). AFAIK, no one has yet to counter this. (There is of course the arguement in favor of eliminating Workers altogether but unit-based tile improvement is a hallmark of the game so I don't think this is likely.

@schwanenfeldii: See my reply to rhialto for cons of this system.

BTW, the poll is for Firaxis but the thread is for players to view/discuss and make their decision on what to vote for if they haven’t already decided.

So far, no one has found a single fault in option (7) (which meets the requirement of limiting RR movement while not losing any of the other Civ3 RR functions) and yet it gets only 3 votes...right next to 'get rid of RR altogether.'


[Updated Intro post:cleaned up, added links]

Poll results thus far:

(1) 33
(2) 17
(3) 8
(4) 15
(5) 9
(6) 8
(7) 3
(8) 3

 

[rhialto]

BTW, my reply was intended to bring some finality to that discussion.

Finality? In this forum ? Please tell me you're joking.

I most certainly can handle (and am eagerly awaiting) real criticism of option (7)—and every other option for that matter.

I think one issue is that if we are going to change rails radically (and anything other than infinite move is a radical change), it would be nice to add some real decision making to the process. The rail capacity ideas, the only to/from cities idea, the point behind all these is to make some opportunity cost type decisions, and to give a definite reason for the player not to rail everything in sight.

I can't help feeling that with either of (3) or (7), you'll still get the world covered in rails, simply because there is no incentive not to and many good reasons to do so. Even if it is no longer infinite, rails are still so much faster that it would be foolish not to maximise your flexibility if not otherwise restricted.

One of the criticisms of teleporting via 'stations' is that moveing workers around requires a high degree of MM (esp. since getting the AI to do it automatically is not easy). AFAIK, no one has yet to counter this. (There is of course the arguement in favor of eliminating Workers altogether but unit-based tile improvement is a hallmark of the game so I don't think this is likely.

Since I want a workerless model for building tile improvements, I don't see having to move workers around as a valid criticism And as for unit based improvements being a hallmark of the game, you could say that just as easily about infinite move rails

So far, no one has found a single fault in option (7) (which meets the requirement of limiting RR movement while not losing any of the other Civ3 RR functions) and yet it gets only 3 votes...right next to 'get rid of RR altogether.'

(7) doesn't meet the requirement of removing the incentive to railroad every tile on the map. As long as non-historical activities remain viable strategies, the system is flawed.

Edit: Of course rails do exist in lots of places, but not to the extent of effectively having rails in every single tile in your empire. That's is teh non-real aspect that I dislike (3), (7), and vanilla for.

 

[Dida]

I played a RR-less game, it is fun, the map was regular. On huge map it will be less fun.

 

[Commander Bello]

Yes, it's a new code but the game format is the same, and that's exactly my point: Civ4 isn't going to be a great leap from Civ3 in that way. How do I know? Because they've said so in their mission statement, interviews and word-of-mouth. It's no secret.
BTW, my reply was intended to bring some finality to that discussion.

Well, then you still seem to have acknowlegably more information than me, what very well may be. Nevertheless, this argument almost turn out against your proposal as well, since then we will have infinite RR movement in cIV as well. Period, end of discussion.

The difference is in simplicity (both for program and player--the former being important to the people designing the game and plays a role in the decision to add/remove stuff):

In (3), the program must record a separate value that tells it when a unit has used up all the RR movement allowable in a single turn.
[...]
In (7), there is no additional value; just the movement value, which is going to be there anyway.

Come on, you are not going to try to tell us that shifting a single bit in some register is going to crush the machine, do you? With just one byte, you can hold up to 256 different values. With two bytes, it will be 65536 different values. In case of the CP, it would be indeed just shifting bits. I just cannot think of a more easy task for the CPU.
And even if this (the crushing) would be the case, to a much higher degree your system in which the system has to do quite some calculations more would crush the machine. Again, your own argument turns against you.

Yes, complexity is a big factor, but you still haven't told me what makes my suggestion complex. (You said it fails to deal with differences in unit MP but didn't elaborate on that and just dismissed the model based on that. As was pointed out to you, the model in fact does deal with MP difference but neither you nor anyone else followed up on that.) [....]

Please see above

So far, no one has found a single fault in option (7) (which meets the requirement of limiting RR movement while not losing any of the other Civ3 RR functions) and yet it gets only 3 votes...right next to 'get rid of RR altogether.'

Except for the fact, that the player and the program still have to calculate the consumption of the inherent movement points of a given unit, since there will be a difference in the leftover, when a unit would have gone 3, 8, or 17 tiles per rail.
How will you deal with that?
In your own example, after having moved 4 tiles, the tank has 2.4 MP left. As now it will leave the rails, what is going to happen with the x.4 MP?
But, even worse, what is going to happen with the infantry? It now has just 0.8 MP left. Does it stop on the rail? Is it allowed to move to a non-rail tile, although it would need at least 1 MP to do so, in case there wouldn't be a road?

In other words, your model makes all infantry-type units stop on the rails regardless of the distance travelled by railroad. This for sure would be quite a change in comparison to Civ3 and therefore, as just you explained, will not happen.
The alternative is, that the engine has to deal with an exception in case of RR movement. That is not going to happen, either.
Conclusion: your system will never come to see the light of the day.

To make a long story short: I can perfectly understand that you like your idea, because otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. Nevertheless, it seems to be a good idea for you to re-think that proposal once again, as neither me nor quite a lot of others seems to understand it's benefits.
But, most probably, that is just us.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have long been of the opinion that someone resorts to abusiveness and swearing (as Yoshi did in his last post) only when they are LOSING an argument. I have shown, time and again, how my system can be incorporated without increasing MM or overall game difficulty-whilst still retaining the GOOD parts of RR movement-wheras Yoshi has YET to answer the big questions on how the AI or the player will deal with the MM involved in keeping track of the fractional MP's of dozens upon dozens of units (as is so often the case when RR's enter the game). As Cmdr. Bello puts it, Yoshi's arguments in FAVOUR of his system ultimately end up confirming why it should NOT be in the game.
So, Yoshi, until you can give me a cohesive, abuse-free response, then I don't see much point in writing any more replies to you on this subject!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Rohili]

I see no point in debating this, other than for fun, since apparently the majority wants the RRs to remain as it is. I must admit that part of me does not want such a convenience to be downgraded too, and since the AI uses it too (and freqeuntly builds them on every sigle tile) it does not cause any major imbalances.

 

[wit>trope]

The majority does not want RRs to remain as it is. Currently only 37% want it to remain as it is. 37% is not a majority! An overwhelming majority, 63%, want them to change.

 

[Rohili]

The majority does not want RRs to remain as it is. Currently only 37% want it to remain as it is. 37% is not a majority! An overwhelming majority, 63%, want them to change.

Oops, silly me. Well, debate on.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The real Question that should be asked might be: 'If Infinite RR's-as they operate now-were removed from the game, what would you prefer as a replacement?'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

The real Question that should be asked might be: 'If Infinite RR's-as they operate now-were removed from the game, what would you prefer as a replacement?'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

The majority does not want RRs to remain as it is. Currently only 37% want it to remain as it is. 37% is not a majority! An overwhelming majority, 63%, want them to change.

But neither does the majority wants any specific change. Certainly railroads should not be changed TO anything if only 17% of the players want the change you're making (and that's the MOST popular option).

 

[yoshi]

Oda, I could have made this a yes/no vote for ANY change but a yes vote could mean anything and discussion would be all over the place. Better with the options. (Perhaps someone shoudl open a new poll with just that question.)

Finality? In this forum ? Please tell me you're joking.

Yeah, I guess it was naive of me to think that.

I can't help feeling that with either of (3) or (7), you'll still get the world covered in rails, simply because there is no incentive not to and many good reasons to do so.

That's where the tile improvement cost debate comes into it (i.e. prevents building of too much RR). But where movement is concerned, I personally don't like seeing the map covered in RR (or Roads for that matter) but it's a Civ strategy that's been present throughout the francise. This is why I went for the movement modifier option rather than a more abstract one: it's the one that deviates the least from the present RR model (from that perspective).

And as for unit based improvements being a hallmark of the game, you could say that just as easily about infinite move rails

Debatable. Could argue that infinite RRs are just for lack of something better whereas if there arn't units, it's one less thing for the player to do and there's already too little to do in peacetime.

(7) doesn't meet the requirement of removing the incentive to railroad every tile on the map. As long as non-historical activities remain viable strategies, the system is flawed.

Well, I meant movement-based requirements but fair enough. Although those people who always pop in to say that historical realism is irrelevant will dismiss this point. I personally like historical realism (hence my interest in modding Civ) but the epic game is so unrealistic already that I doubt this is something the people designing Civ really put a lot of emphasis on.

I played a RR-less game, it is fun, the map was regular. On huge map it will be less fun.

I've played on large maps w/o RR--in scens--and find a marked improvement in strategy. Epic game...not so much. But then, that's why few voted for option (8).

Nevertheless, this argument almost turn out against your proposal as well, since then we will have infinite RR movement in cIV as well.

See my third reply to rhialto.

And even if this (the crushing) would be the case, to a much higher degree your system in which the system has to do quite some calculations more would crush the machine. Again, your own argument turns against you.

No more calculations than it does already.

Calculations are easy, shifting/storing bits costs more. The main argument was the additional MM for the player, which is what you need to worry about where gameplay is concerned.

In other words, your model makes all infantry-type units stop on the rails regardless of the distance travelled by railroad. This for sure would be quite a change in comparison to Civ3 and therefore, as just you explained, will not happen.

Normal rules apply where unit leaves RR is irrelevant.

Movement cost (of 1 cost tile) rounded off to nearest MP (e.g. 2.4 = 2MP). Slow units go to 0 MP.

Conclusion: your system will never come to see the light of the day.

You say that with such gusto.

So, Yoshi, until you can give me a cohesive, abuse-free response, then I don't see much point in writing any more replies to you on this subject!

Abuse? I think you're taking all this a bit too seriously. But if it will lighten you up then I shall dispense with the WTFs since they bother you so much.

The arguement of managing many units is valid but then it's an arguement against movement modifiers (e.g. Roads) in general so any system that does so is flawed.

CPs also require MM: you have to keep track of total CPs available per turn. You keep saying there isn't any additional MM but there is. How do you account for that?

The real Question that should be asked might be: 'If Infinite RR's-as they operate now-were removed from the game, what would you prefer as a replacement?'

That's the question this poll implies only with the added option of leaving it as it is.

 

[wit>trope]

But neither does the majority wants any specific change. Certainly railroads should not be changed TO anything if only 17% of the players want the change you're making (and that's the MOST popular option).

I disagree. Most of the 65% who want it to change would want ANYTHING but the current system.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It's not that black or white, I don't care that much, whatever plays out the best is fine by me. They could keep the current system and restrict it through other features or restrict it within the concept. It's not like just because you vote to keep the current system you want it to be like in civ3.
I voted to keep it but wouldn't mind number 7 either...

 

[dh_epic]

I generally want change, but some of those options are kind of bad.

Truthfully, the question isn't what kind of change we want, but whether we want change at all. I want change, but it needs to be a new mathematical calculation, not a new user-interface.

 

[yoshi]

Well...no, I disagree. The flaws in the infinite model have been pointed out by many a civer. Just saying you want any change is too vague.

The only change I can think of that would limit the present system a bit is to limit movement outside of friendly/allied borders (i.e. RRs have no effect outside borders, let alone in enemy territory). Aside from that, there's not much you can change in the present system in terms of movement without changing the actual model. And even that would cause problems with the border system--namely that new cities with minimum border expansion wouldn't be connectable.)

Just to state clearly my stance on all of this:

Option (1): not much you can do with it (as I said above) but can't leave as is IMO.

Option (2): just a much faster Road and is moddable (remember that unlike Civ3, Civ4 will have virtually no 'hard-coded' features so you will probably be able to add in additional tile improvements with any movement bonus you like--using the present movement algorithm of course.)

Option (3): No point bothering with it and all its underlying problems when (7) is an option.

Option (4): effectively limits large armies but just leaves untouched too many of the issues associated with the present system and adds some MM.

Option (5): also moddable (and implies more MM than any of the other options).

Option (6): if it weren't for the Worker movement MM and some other issues concerning the actual RR tile improvement fucntionality, I'd probably vote for this as it is the only model aside from (5) that actually transports units.

Option (7): it's a movement modifier which I don't like either (I want units to actually be transported, not just have their movement altered).

[This may seem to contradict what I've been saying up to now but I put emphasis on this one because it actually has a realistic shot at replacing the present system IMO as it doesn't really deviate from the present format and MM is no greater than when using Roads.]

Option (8): Added that in to be fair--didn't actually expect anyone to vote for it.

 

[rhialto]

@Yoshi
It seems your main criticism against my rail proposal is the MM that would result from having workers trying to move around. Is there any reason you believe worker units are an essential featue for building tile improvements. Offhand, I have seen two other proposals which get rid of workers.

- ctp style public works (my choice)
- spontaneously grow with city

 

[sengfossil]

I disagree. Most of the 65% who want it to change would want ANYTHING but the current system.

I fully agree. Especially at bigger worlds it is nice to move your troups from the left border to the right border in one turn, but it's really a fake in the game.

My suggestion (perhaps suggested by others before, but I don't read all, sorry) is simple to implement: add a fixed movement point rate to the existing, let's say 10. A rider would have 12 points, a pikeman 11. Simple, more real, and easy to implement.

 

[dh_epic]

That's a neat one. Get 10 "free movements", before you have to jump off the train and walk it.