High Speed Rail

[frizzy]

The Roman road system was very well built, and indeed wasn't superceded in quality until 1900. Almost an anomaly in ancient times. But, in game, the Aztecs' and Mongols' roads are just as good. There's no real differentiation in roads in the game, and I don't think it's really necessary. And I have contented myself with the assumption that "railroads" include modern highways. So if roads are going to be abstract, then leave railroads alone, IMO. But that's just my 2c.

 

[moscaverde]

Is coal needed to build modern highways?

@OP: I dislike this idea because speed rails are comparatively rare in our world (for now, of course).
Maybe as a project, crossing your entire nation and making more money to the cities it cross.

 

[frizzy]

Is coal needed to build modern highways?

No. But, then again, modern highways aren't built by railroad construction .

And, modern railroads don't need coal .

100% realistic? No.

 

[Khan Quest]

Isn't it more likely that if the country could make use of the high speed rail, then the invading army would use a few guided missiles to destroy it before invading? After all a high speed rail line could be 300 miles long between city stops, but it'd only take one bomb blast at one key point along the line to render the entire 300 miles useless....

Sure. In Civ, it's done with bombers and fighters attacking improvements on tiles.

 

[Khan Quest]

Khan Quest@
High speed trains (and the track they run on in some cases) are not designed to carry vehicles.
Infantry units could move by high speed train but would have to leave their heavy equipment that could not fit through the doors behind. They could get on or off anywhere but they would not be able to fight at full strength until their heavy equipment caught up.

The only way they could be used for mechanized units would be for Reforger units.
US prepositioned equipment in West Germany then planned to fly in troops in if WW3 started.

Freight / military trains could use most high speed lines but they may have to run at slower speeds than normal due to the increased weight on the track and bridges. They could also damage the track for high speed trains. Also if you are running slow trains on a high speed line the high speed trains will not be able to go at high speed.

I'm still ok with it. Keep in mind that this would be available after "super-conductors" is researched, i.e., super-conductors are mass-producable. In this "alternative" history, perhaps the government could mandate HSR to be able to carry X tonnage. This is no less realistic than ancient pyramids allowing futuristic governing methods or aquducts in modern cities making people healthy.

The "high speed" is, in part, because it runs from city to city with no stops. Thus, the penalty of no mine or lumbermill hammer bonus as would be the case with standard freight rail.

 

[Silurian]

Khan Quest@

In this "alternative" history, perhaps the government could mandate HSR to be able to carry X tonnage

A High speed rail train designed to carry large military vehicles, tanks, missile launchers, artillery etc would be a completely different to trains designed to carry people at high speed (or the French post trains). They would have to have larger engines and completely different rolling stock. After you have loaded your tank onto the wagon a wind shield may have to be installed to reduce the wind resistance. I don’t think the additional cost of running such a train would not be commercially viable but for the military money is no object – so I have no objection to a Military High Speed Train unit. But there are a lot of other units that should be introduced ahead of that IMO

The basic game should be realism but not at the expense of game play.
Other wise why not have say the battleship submarine unit - the French (I believe) had a submarine a large gun on and a seaplane hanger - so a submarrine with a 16" gun turrets front and back that could surface, shoot then submerge is a good idea.

With regard to the Pyramids this is obviously unrealistic but you have to have a reason to build them and other wonders. It it is better that they have different benefits.

I am sure that the citizens of New York would be a bit unhealthy if their aqueducts were blown up and water was rationed

 

[Khan Quest]

Khan Quest@



A High speed rail train designed to carry large military vehicles, tanks, missile launchers, artillery etc would be a completely different to trains designed to carry people at high speed (or the French post trains). They would have to have larger engines and completely different rolling stock. After you have loaded your tank onto the wagon a wind shield may have to be installed to reduce the wind resistance. I don’t think the additional cost of running such a train would not be commercially viable but for the military money is no object – so I have no objection to a Military High Speed Train unit. But there are a lot of other units that should be introduced ahead of that IMO

The basic game should be realism but not at the expense of game play.
Other wise why not have say the battleship submarine unit - the French (I believe) had a submarine a large gun on and a seaplane hanger - so a submarrine with a 16" gun turrets front and back that could surface, shoot then submerge is a good idea.

With regard to the Pyramids this is obviously unrealistic but you have to have a reason to build them and other wonders. It it is better that they have different benefits.

I am sure that the citizens of New York would be a bit unhealthy if their aqueducts were blown up and water was rationed

Ok, I think we're going down a rat-hole in our exchange, but what the hell.
In the era of Future Tech when a Noah's Ark-spaceship can be built...
Imagine two parallel monorails for high speed passenger transport in each direction. Wonderful for tourism and commuting. War breaks out. Flip around one of engines so they both face the same direction. Add a second or third pair of engines, as is done on modern-day freight trains. Mount a snap-on aero-dynamacizer nosecone between the two engines, and cross-rail, car-to-car, freight-bearing supports. Select the military commandeer option in the HSR control software and your good to go.

Sure its not realistic - But, I think it's as reasonable as anything else.
For game play, you get: Something for your workers to do late game. A way to quickly move troops that compliments airlifts. You manage a new system that will offer some advantages that you won't spam in every tile, lest you suffer some disadvantages.

(You get the last word. Please enter in a follow up post. )

 

[Silurian]

Khan Quest@
Google Surcouf

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, about infinite movement on railroads, and about making defense overpowered, I would say that considering an average world size, say Standard, and an average size of civ, say half a continent (at best), in Civ4 the 10 movement on railroads is already virtually infinite if one puts his troops in the middle of his country. However, I've not seen until now anyone complaining against the 10 movement Civ4 railroads.

Infinite movement on railroads would only make the thing more practicable and handy, without the random problems one can encounter in the Civ4 system (for example if one civ is compact, and another one is stretched, the compact one has an advantage in Civ4, just an example)

 

[Silurian]

How is where you chose to build your cities a random problem - its your strategy!

 

[CivMyWay]

Of course a concentrated civ is easier to defend than a sprawling one... that's about not expanding too fast...

 

[Naokaukodem]

How is where you chose to build your cities a random problem - its your strategy!

OF course you can choose to build on the sea...

Of course a concentrated civ is easier to defend than a sprawling one... that's about not expanding too fast...

No. You don't limit your expansion if you can expand just for taking advantage of the 10 railraod movement. Plus, I was talking of already expanded civs. (the time railroads to appear, you can't expand on free land)

----

Well, nice replies on just one example from the whole post!

 

[Silurian]

What has building cities in the sea got to do with High Speed Rail

Wouldn't limitless movement be really, really, unbalancing towards defence, considering you could defend any city with all your units in one turn, whilst an attacker would have to go around without the use of any movement bonus?

I agree with Camikaze.
If high speed rail can carry units ( I think not) then it should be x2 railway speed as Khan Quest@ proposed

 

[Naokaukodem]

What has building cities in the sea got to do with High Speed Rail

If you are on a peninsula, there's no mean that you will be able to shape your country in order to profit from Civ4 limited railroads speed.

I agree with Camikaze.
If high speed rail can carry units ( I think not) then it should be x2 railway speed as Khan Quest@ proposed

See my previous posts...

 

[Silurian]

If you are on a peninsula, there's no mean that you will be able to shape your country in order to profit from Civ4 limited railroads speed.

If you are on a peninsula, there's no mean that you will be able to shape your country in order to profit from Civ4 limited railroads speed

QUOTE]


If you do not like peninsula why not play on map with no sea.

By its nature the sea creates problems for transport.
You have to develop your stratergy too cope

 

[Naokaukodem]

It's not that i don't like peninsula, it is just an example of the kind of unfundamental problems that a limited railroad movement can create, from time to time, on a normal game, where those problems are not determinent but can cause several disadvantages in some circumstances.

That said, if it's not seas, it's the other civs. Should I play a game without any civ but mine?

 

[Camikaze]

Well, about infinite movement on railroads, and about making defense overpowered, I would say that considering an average world size, say Standard, and an average size of civ, say half a continent (at best), in Civ4 the 10 movement on railroads is already virtually infinite if one puts his troops in the middle of his country. However, I've not seen until now anyone complaining against the 10 movement Civ4 railroads.

Well, perhaps this is a problem on small maps, but on most maps, your Civ would be big enough so that you cannot, even with the current movement multiplication by railroads, move all your units into a city under threat within one turn. Supposing you put all your units in the centre of your Civ, it would have to be awfully small (by the time of railroads, remember) to be able to get all those units to any given city. And getting from periphery to periphery would be even harder.