rrrrr man! i hate this argument lol im going to say my valuable opinion one last time: rr imo shouldnt be unlimited for the simple reason its unrealistic and stupid. you can mobilise your entire army in one turn on land which is a load of cak. it took russia months in ww2. it also leaves the airports with no point unless over different continents
infinite movement with RR fix
- Thread starter covenant
- Start date
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well I'll state a slightly diverging opinion
I think that the problem is not how fast RR are but how slow the other method of movement is.
I think to make it reasonable
1. Make ships move much faster: crossing an ocean should take at most two turns
2. RR in someone else's territory count as roads, allowing you to make major gains before their whole army comes barrelling down on you.
Esssentially I think a Long war should be 10 turns, 20 should be a Very long war, 5 turns should be normal (this fits very well with the time spans they have)
I think that the problem is not how fast RR are but how slow the other method of movement is.
I think to make it reasonable
1. Make ships move much faster: crossing an ocean should take at most two turns
2. RR in someone else's territory count as roads, allowing you to make major gains before their whole army comes barrelling down on you.
Esssentially I think a Long war should be 10 turns, 20 should be a Very long war, 5 turns should be normal (this fits very well with the time spans they have)
Kosez
Sitting Wool
I think units should move on rr only between two cities (train stations). In one turn, you could load units in one city and unload in other city, and units would have no more movement points left. Distance between two cities shouldn`t matter, nor should matter through how many cities unit went. You could only load/unload certain number of units in one city in one turn.
Opposing armies would still have to approach each other on a traditional, slow way. So you wouldn`t be able to destroy opponent in one turn and your opponent wouldn`t be able to destroy your entire assaulting army.
Cities near border would gain in importance, specially if there are units in stacks (armies), cause you couldn`t be able to transport your entire stack in one turn.
You would be forced to observe your enemies more carefully, and deploy more units within range if necessary.
In that way, small civs would have an advantage, as units could still use roads under rr, and smaller civs have smaller distances, don`t they.
And yes, roads should be useful redardless the fact they are in enemy`s territory.
Opposing armies would still have to approach each other on a traditional, slow way. So you wouldn`t be able to destroy opponent in one turn and your opponent wouldn`t be able to destroy your entire assaulting army.
Cities near border would gain in importance, specially if there are units in stacks (armies), cause you couldn`t be able to transport your entire stack in one turn.
You would be forced to observe your enemies more carefully, and deploy more units within range if necessary.
In that way, small civs would have an advantage, as units could still use roads under rr, and smaller civs have smaller distances, don`t they.
And yes, roads should be useful redardless the fact they are in enemy`s territory.
covenant
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 162
Kosez idea seems like a good inbetween step for civ 4. I like Aussies ideas but I was trying to think of a more moderate step that we could actually see in civ4.
Kirk... darn right. Boats should be seeing drastic increases in movement. All through history, troops would go way out of their way to use boat travel cause it was so much faster and save alot of time overall. Boats in Civ 3 terms should be moving 6 to 8 turns to start and after that increasing to like 20 with modern frigates and destroyers. This would make navies alot more important for one.
Kirk... darn right. Boats should be seeing drastic increases in movement. All through history, troops would go way out of their way to use boat travel cause it was so much faster and save alot of time overall. Boats in Civ 3 terms should be moving 6 to 8 turns to start and after that increasing to like 20 with modern frigates and destroyers. This would make navies alot more important for one.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
If it was by me, all units would get more movement points. Minimum two moves for infantry units, cca. 5-6 for tanks and modern infantry, 6-12 for navy,...
Since there is no much use of rr outside your cities in my previous suggestion, I think we should conceive ourselves some freights, that could transport 1 infantry unit + 1 artillery unit ( attached on back of a truck like a trailer), and would move as fast as tanks.
Loading/unloading would be done automatically, stack wouldn`t been broken if there was enough freights.
Since there is no much use of rr outside your cities in my previous suggestion, I think we should conceive ourselves some freights, that could transport 1 infantry unit + 1 artillery unit ( attached on back of a truck like a trailer), and would move as fast as tanks.
Loading/unloading would be done automatically, stack wouldn`t been broken if there was enough freights.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, I personally think that a combination of 'Infinite Move/Finite Capacity' for railroads, combined with higher movement rates for units-and the roads they move on-is the best solution to the overall problem.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
I think that units should keep infinite RR movement, but with a caveat: if they must use rails to get to their destination, they cannot then attack or fortify until the next turn. If their destination is within their current range (assuming they use roads), they are free to do anything; this only applies when they must use infinite RR movement.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I read several things that seemed to be worthwhile:
- Infinite RR 'Rebase', but you cannot fortify or attack after that move(Mewtarthio)
- RR Capacity(Aussie_Lurker with strategic edits by Sir_Schwick)
- Increase speed of non-RR links(Kosez)
Kosez also mentioned the idea of 'mechanized' logistics and transport. Under my idea of how transportation should work in general, you would also have to build into road 'capacity'. If that capacity is exceeded, units can still use roads. However your economy cannot transport any more goods. These roads 'capacity' units would work with Rail and Air capacity units to provide logistical support to your trade economy and military. Obviously 'road' capacity will allow units to travel faster on roads or even flat terrain.
- Infinite RR 'Rebase', but you cannot fortify or attack after that move(Mewtarthio)
- RR Capacity(Aussie_Lurker with strategic edits by Sir_Schwick)
- Increase speed of non-RR links(Kosez)
Kosez also mentioned the idea of 'mechanized' logistics and transport. Under my idea of how transportation should work in general, you would also have to build into road 'capacity'. If that capacity is exceeded, units can still use roads. However your economy cannot transport any more goods. These roads 'capacity' units would work with Rail and Air capacity units to provide logistical support to your trade economy and military. Obviously 'road' capacity will allow units to travel faster on roads or even flat terrain.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Infinite transport seems crazy, yet the turn it occurs in is in one year.
I too like the idea of rating a 'capacity' for the transport system. Even with a ton of rail system, you still need to be able to efficiently run it via your locomotion devices (trains, buses, etc..).
How about a very simple solution: a "Locomotion Infrastructure" rating for each civ that affects both its economic capacity as well as its military logistical capacity. It wouldn't directly be the number of roads and rails, but would reflect the total locomotion capacity (more along the lines of a vehicle pool rating---the more and better the vehicles, the higher the rating). The rating would be mix together crucial techs achieved, productions spent on small wonders (there'd have to be a wonder and at least a few techs attached to the idea). It wouldn't reflect the number of rails/roads, again.
The effect would be the higher the rating, the higher bonuses applied to wealth and production (like fixed percentages rated vs. the); This would reflect increased 'instantanity' of the transportation of goods to market.
Also the bonus would be rated so X number of military units could be moved infinitely per turn. So then it'd no longer be as many units as you had at infinite movement, but only a number equivalent to your true transportation capacity. The higher your capacity, the larger the X number would be.
Scaling and balancing the charts would then be the task to make it playable
Somehow Airports would have to fit in here, and probably Seaports (at least reflect improved logistics processing of ships).
I too like the idea of rating a 'capacity' for the transport system. Even with a ton of rail system, you still need to be able to efficiently run it via your locomotion devices (trains, buses, etc..).
How about a very simple solution: a "Locomotion Infrastructure" rating for each civ that affects both its economic capacity as well as its military logistical capacity. It wouldn't directly be the number of roads and rails, but would reflect the total locomotion capacity (more along the lines of a vehicle pool rating---the more and better the vehicles, the higher the rating). The rating would be mix together crucial techs achieved, productions spent on small wonders (there'd have to be a wonder and at least a few techs attached to the idea). It wouldn't reflect the number of rails/roads, again.
The effect would be the higher the rating, the higher bonuses applied to wealth and production (like fixed percentages rated vs. the); This would reflect increased 'instantanity' of the transportation of goods to market.
Also the bonus would be rated so X number of military units could be moved infinitely per turn. So then it'd no longer be as many units as you had at infinite movement, but only a number equivalent to your true transportation capacity. The higher your capacity, the larger the X number would be.
Scaling and balancing the charts would then be the task to make it playable
Somehow Airports would have to fit in here, and probably Seaports (at least reflect improved logistics processing of ships).
Kosez
Sitting Wool
Sir_schwick: I understand your idea with capacities. I have some questions though:
a) capacity works only inside your borders?
b) is capacity for units unlimited?
c) would roads and rr`s work the same way as they do now (no interruption of movement when going from rr to road or from road to normal tile)?
d) capacity generates gold always or only when trading goods?
Sorry, but somehow I don`t imagine how would your system work. Guess I`m just dumb or sometin`. Maybe it`s because your system is so different from existing one.
Well, I think movement needs to be improved, capacity is suppose to take care of trade, road and railroad issue, so it sounds kind of appealing.
a) capacity works only inside your borders?
b) is capacity for units unlimited?
c) would roads and rr`s work the same way as they do now (no interruption of movement when going from rr to road or from road to normal tile)?
d) capacity generates gold always or only when trading goods?
Sorry, but somehow I don`t imagine how would your system work. Guess I`m just dumb or sometin`. Maybe it`s because your system is so different from existing one.
Well, I think movement needs to be improved, capacity is suppose to take care of trade, road and railroad issue, so it sounds kind of appealing.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
It is kinda radical departure from current systems.
a) Obviously for trade purposes, no. You can use your 'logistical' capacity for some operations outside your territory. It might be a neat rule that it takes one turn to modify rail/locomotives for newly occupied rails, or some variation in order to use.
b) Each unit uses one capacity points, but more on points below.
c) That is a good question and I would assume the answer is that using multiple mediums requires multiple transport modes.
d) This gets kinda complicated, but it automated. There would need to be an underlying economy based on materials -> products that are sold and possibly turned into more products. Materails can be common or luxury, whatever is around. In order for this trade to occur, it must rely on tremendous logistical support. In exchange for the trade, you earn commerce arrows. Like commerce earned from tiles, it gets turned into Gold/Research/Happiness according to your tax ratios. In fact the commerce is simply added to the home cities commerce.
Logistical Points:
Roads/RR/Airports and other infrastructural features only exist to allow use of transportation. Without cars roads are just long stretches of asphalt. This 'logistical reserve' is built in incrememnts in cities like any other unit. However instead of forming a tangible unit, it goes into a pool. There is a pool for ground, rail, water, and air. These numbers would be expressed on the side of the screen (Points Avaliable/Total Points). Of course how they are expressed could change, but it would be easy to tell. You also pay a cost for the amount of logistical support you have, even if it is not all used. Hopefully trade will well make up for this though.
Spoiler Ground Logistics :
Spoiler RAILROADS :
Spoiler MARINE :
Spoiler AIR :
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You know, Sir_Scwhick, it seems that-on broad principles at least-we pretty much agree on how infinite RR's can be made more balanced. Even on most of the details I feel we see eye to eye. Its only on some details that I am not 100% with you. Still, I do like your model and-were it to be introduced into civ4-I would be very pleased indeed (though I would still most prefer to see my model-obviously 
!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!)Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh, BTW Sir_Schwick, how do you do that whole 'Show/Hide' thing? I wouldn't mind doing that for some of my models!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
[*spoiler=SPOILER NAME]SPOILER TEXT[/spoiler] (just take out that *)Aussie_Lurker said:
Nifty tag.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
sir_schwick said:
Yes, that sounds nice. It is like in civII where you can trade many things to your`s or to other civ`s cities. But in civII it was optional, it had no real impact on happines and production capability of cities.
As I understand, you suggest a system, where trading luxuries would affect happines, raw materials production capabillity, etc...
I strongly support that.
But I warn you, If this concept is automated fully or to much, we get the same situation as in civIII, we can presume trading is going on, but we don`t have no effect on it, it just brings us money no matter what we do.
In this case, system would not represent itself as a challenge to a player, and would have no meaning at all.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
The player has these reponsibilities to his merchants:
1) Make sure they have the logistical support they need. That requires building into the logistical pool, which can be converted over to military purposes when necessary.
2) Making sure routes of trade are secure economically and militarily. This is where navies, armies, and air forces become powerful weapons. Also treaties are very important for ensuring foreign markets are profitable.
The parts that are automated is how Coal in Pennsylvania is sold to Japan to make Steel that is sold to Detroit to make Cars that are sold in London. All you need to know is that to get the most efficient profit(not most profite period) you need 'x' amount of various logistics around. In fact your economic advisor would have the few basic tiers of logistical support auto-calculated.
1) Subsistence - This is the minimum amount of logistics needed for large scale trade to even occur. Below this level no raw materials are not getting to production centers.
2) Maximum Efficiency - This is the amount of logistics that has the highest commerce arrows vs. quantity of logistics ratio.
3) Maximum Trade - This is the amount of logistics that is required for 100% of trade to occur. Of course you are getting less commerce arrows per unit of logistics, but more commerce arrows overall.
The big reason you might stick to 2 rather than 3 is investment of capital. The difference may not be very big until the later ages. Earlier on the difference may not justify the oppurtunity cost of not building units, improvements, and wonders.
You still have tons of strategy and have to think long term. Smart players will anticipate a large war looming ahead. Good planners may realize that upcoming technologies will increase logistical needs considerably and be prepared to take advantage of the new industries.
1) Make sure they have the logistical support they need. That requires building into the logistical pool, which can be converted over to military purposes when necessary.
2) Making sure routes of trade are secure economically and militarily. This is where navies, armies, and air forces become powerful weapons. Also treaties are very important for ensuring foreign markets are profitable.
The parts that are automated is how Coal in Pennsylvania is sold to Japan to make Steel that is sold to Detroit to make Cars that are sold in London. All you need to know is that to get the most efficient profit(not most profite period) you need 'x' amount of various logistics around. In fact your economic advisor would have the few basic tiers of logistical support auto-calculated.
1) Subsistence - This is the minimum amount of logistics needed for large scale trade to even occur. Below this level no raw materials are not getting to production centers.
2) Maximum Efficiency - This is the amount of logistics that has the highest commerce arrows vs. quantity of logistics ratio.
3) Maximum Trade - This is the amount of logistics that is required for 100% of trade to occur. Of course you are getting less commerce arrows per unit of logistics, but more commerce arrows overall.
The big reason you might stick to 2 rather than 3 is investment of capital. The difference may not be very big until the later ages. Earlier on the difference may not justify the oppurtunity cost of not building units, improvements, and wonders.
You still have tons of strategy and have to think long term. Smart players will anticipate a large war looming ahead. Good planners may realize that upcoming technologies will increase logistical needs considerably and be prepared to take advantage of the new industries.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
Cool.
It sounds great.
Interconnection of millitary, infrastructure and trade.
Not bad, sir_schwick, not bad at all.
Now, this could be used with some previous ideas, i.e.: connecting foreign cities with least transitional civs possible, securing passages, building canals, ...
Wonderful.
It sounds great.
Interconnection of millitary, infrastructure and trade.
Not bad, sir_schwick, not bad at all.
Now, this could be used with some previous ideas, i.e.: connecting foreign cities with least transitional civs possible, securing passages, building canals, ...
Wonderful.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
A while back I suggested every city have a trade route with every other city. This would ensure that global trade would be immensely powerful and ensure that wars were calculated. However there were problems:
1) No intermediaries are simulated.
2) Its a bit silly.
So here is how I suggest this could work instead:
The producers of whatever is being sold do not care about the big picture of where it eventually ends up. They care about what they make, so they will try to reduce transportation costs in their part of the cycle. This means they will ship materials to the fastest* point that will buy from them. So goods may be sold and resold with no additional processes many times before reaching its true final destination.
*certain mediums(air, naval, RR) are faster than others, meaning that intermediate sea routes are approximate to short road routes
For example:
Iron in Richmond may go to Blitheville to Raleigh(I suck at geography) to Carbondale to Chicago to Detroit. Of course Detroit really needs most of the Iron, but each city along the way made some profit along the line. This means that finding cheap ways for goods to move directly to the end vendor can be important, rather than losing some of the trade value to intermediaries.
1) No intermediaries are simulated.
2) Its a bit silly.
So here is how I suggest this could work instead:
The producers of whatever is being sold do not care about the big picture of where it eventually ends up. They care about what they make, so they will try to reduce transportation costs in their part of the cycle. This means they will ship materials to the fastest* point that will buy from them. So goods may be sold and resold with no additional processes many times before reaching its true final destination.
*certain mediums(air, naval, RR) are faster than others, meaning that intermediate sea routes are approximate to short road routes
For example:
Iron in Richmond may go to Blitheville to Raleigh(I suck at geography) to Carbondale to Chicago to Detroit. Of course Detroit really needs most of the Iron, but each city along the way made some profit along the line. This means that finding cheap ways for goods to move directly to the end vendor can be important, rather than losing some of the trade value to intermediaries.
Kosez
Sitting Wool
Correct. I would also suggest duties/trade tariffs, which could be modified on macro level, so trade routes would go through civs with lovest duties, and if you had a geographical position that would make you absolutely the shortest and safest passage, then you could increase your duties (for one, two or all civs).
Similar threads
