High Speed Rail

[Khan Quest]

Available at Superconductor.
Replaces existing road or railroad, if any.
3 worker turns/tile to complete.
2X movement of standard rail.
A city connected to one or more cities via HSR gain an addition trade route.
Does NOT increase production in tiles with sawmills or mines.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm for the unlimited rail move. I'm also for the shield bonus on sawmills and mines. And i'm also for a commerce bonus from roads, like in Civ2.

 

[Takhisis]

...or civ III.
Many people actually ask for improvements on civ IV which are standard features in civ III. How odd.
Improving on civ III... I'd like having roads and highways but not the limitless movements from trains.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm for the unlimited rail move.

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?

 

[Silurian]

khan Quest proposed twice the speed as existing rail

High speed rail carries people not tanks or trucks.
High speed rail should not give any bonus to movement.

High speed rail should give trade/ gold
Maybe in addition to one trade route one gold for each city within 10 tiles along the high speed rail line

 

[frizzy]

I'd much rather see roads upgrade to highways than rails upgrading to high speed rail, if anything. Not that there's anything wrong with rail upgrading, but first things first. Having rail upgrades without first addressing roads will just make it even more obvious that your Future Tech 2000 AD Civ is still driving around on the very same cart tracks your loincloth-clad workers built 3000 years ago.

 

[Silurian]

I always assumed that railways were also highways hence the spaming all over the place

 

[frizzy]

I have too. And I'm okay with that assumption.

I'm saying that there's going to be some complexity added to roads and rails, start with roads.

Actually, start with bridges.

 

[Khan Quest]

khan Quest proposed twice the speed as existing rail

High speed rail carries people not tanks or trucks.
High speed rail should not give any bonus to movement.

Thanks for the responce.

This is true for the actual history of the world. No country with high-speed rail has been at war with troops invading its borders. I believe if invasion threatened the sovernty of a nation and HSR were available, the military would find a means make use of it.

Remember that Civ is an alternate history.

High speed rail should give trade/ gold
Maybe in addition to one trade route one gold for each city within 10 tiles along the high speed rail line

I would rather see this managed with trade routes. Partly to avoid spamming of the HSR on every tile.

 

[Khan Quest]

I'm for the unlimited rail move.

Thanks for your responce, but I disagree.

As mentioned, this leads to unlimited defence. I think planning and military intelligence should be rewarded. This would give too much of an advantage to very large civs.

I'm also for the shield bonus on sawmills and mines. And i'm also for a commerce bonus from roads, like in Civ2.

Again, I disagree. HSR is point to point between cities, with no stops in between. If it stopped in every tile, so to speak, it would not be high speed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is true for the actual history of the world. No country with high-speed rail has been at war with troops invading its borders. I believe if invasion threatened the sovernty of a nation and HSR were available, the military would find a means make use of it.

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....

 

[CivMyWay]

Roads are always intended as highways (look at the standard civ zoom-out).

I would say no to high speed rail (as movement); way too unbalancing. Even if you gave the attacker the same bonus, it would spell nightmarish speed and I think make the game less fun. Happy to be proven wrong.

However, you could always have High Speed Rail as a civic-related issue... it should cost maintenance (to avoid spamming), or perhaps it can ONLY be constructed between cities, but would allow for less pollution weariness (less traffic) and a trade bonus to connected cities. It would probably only be acceptable to those who don't care if it bends history a little.

 

[Camikaze]

Was not being able to bomb railways fixed in BtS (I don't have it, so I don't know)? Because if not, that would be something to definitely consider if implementing even faster railways.

 

[Silurian]

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.

 

[frizzy]

Roads are always intended as highways (look at the standard civ zoom-out).

Yes, but there's a bit of difference between what people living in 1000 AD called a "highway" and what we call a highway. In-game, there's no difference. Again, what I'm saying is that if - if - it makes sense to have a rail upgrade occur in game, then it makes even more sense for a road upgrade to occur. Not convinced we really need either.

To put it another way, a modern highway carries more commerce, and carries it a lot faster, than a 1000 AD highway - which is the same argument people are putting forward for introducing modern rail.

And, on the subject, high-speed rail systems are very shiny and pretty, and allow tourists and execs to travel comfortably between cities, but they actually carry only a tiny fraction of trade between cities. The grimy, slow, old-fashioned diesel-electric trains are what do most of the rail hauling.

 

[Silurian]

I always assumed that railways were also highways hence the spaming all over the place

frizzy@

high-speed rail systems are very shiny and pretty, and allow tourists and execs to travel comfortably between cities

The tourists spend money - trade
The execs conduct trade! (or if they are travelling for fun they are tourists) - trade

A high speed train is quicker than flying for short journeys especially with airports outside cities so give a benefit to trade.

 

[frizzy]

The tourists and execs will come anyway, if there's reason enough to visit the city in the first place. I'm not convinced that high-speed rail makes enough difference to model in the game. I highly doubt that high speed rail makes more difference than the difference between AD1000 cart track highways and AD2000 paved highways.

 

[Silurian]

Cart tracks are not represented in the game. Top speed 4mph
Roads as represented in the game are Roman roads etc which would allow the tourists and execs to get up to 20mph in a coach and a supply of horses. In modern times roads represent smaller roads. Freight 5mph

Railways allowed the tourists and execs to get up to 100mph. Freight 60 mph.
Railways also represent modern highways which allow allowed the tourists and execs to get up to 80mph. Freight 60 mph.

High speed railways allow the tourists and execs to get up to 200mph and increasing

The faster the transport the further the tourists and execs will travel.
Time is money for execs and tourists do not want to waist their time travelling.

$bn are being spent building high speed rail lines every year I am sure it is for a reason

 

[frizzy]

Real-world Civs are like AI Civs. You cannot assume they are spending their money on what is most needed or most wise, and they are often following scripts.

Cart tracks are not represented in the game. Top speed 4mph

Just exactly what do you think a "highway" ca 1000 BC looked like? Roman roads were not paved except in rare cases mostly immediately around Rome and other large cities (inside the BFC, in game terms). Can I even begin to get you to concede that there might be some slight difference between highways now and then?

You continue to ingore/evade my main point that roads never evolve in the game, so my secondary point about rail upgrades is lost on you.

 

[Silurian]

Roads of Roman road standard started to be built about 500 BCE they started being paved with tar about 700AD.
In the games I play most of the roads are built after 500 BCE.
In general roads did not evolve significantly from 500BC to 1900.
They only started to improve with increased volumes, speed and weight of traffic.

Modern highways give similar benefits to railways in turns of speed and haulage ability.
Railways are better for long distance (1- 2+ tile and highways are better for short (0 to 2 tiles)
So railways and highways (which were developed 70 years latter) are represented by railways.