infinite movement with RR fix

[covenant]

While I agree with infinite movement for RR late in the game, it is silly that you can move thousand troops to one point to counter an invasion. So why not do like airports, you can move say a maximum of 3 or 5 troops to one point on the rail. After all you can only have so many trains in one area....

I hope they show trains moving in this new 3D engine

 

[Colonel]

that doesnt do anything but make it slower to move in that turn but once all the troops are there you can just attack or you could just move them one at a time. Unless you mean they cant move after they moved on the rail.

 

[Own]

i think railroads should give 6 movements per movement point. then, after that, say a highway, would give 9 movements per movement point.

 

[dh_epic]

This discussion has taken place many many times... but I'll have it again, because I just like having it.

I think this is a fair solution because it recognizes the problem -- infinite movement allows you to move "thousand troops to one point to counter an invasion". So you need some kind of limit on movement.

The problem with using some kind of "train" system is that it would add huge amounts of micromanagement. While it would be strategic, forcing the player to decide how many and which units to move, there would be all kinds of effort for loading and unloading trains.

Not to say that this idea would be an absolute failure. If you could find a way for trains to work completely automatically, as easy as it is to move a unit on roads or grass, then you'd have something. Otherwise, I'd probably put my stock behind high-but-not-infinite movement rails.

 

[sir_schwick]

Not to say that this idea would be an absolute failure. If you could find a way for trains to work completely automatically, as easy as it is to move a unit on roads or grass, then you'd have something. Otherwise, I'd probably put my stock behind high-but-not-infinite movement rails.

I do have a way that has you only tracking one number; capacity. Capacity is added by building 'train infrastructure'(I suck at naming) in cities. This adds to the total number. Once a unit has used a 'train' from the pool, they can get that movement anywhere. Using rails counts as a full turn. The beauty is that you have to invest in logistics aheadof time, but not worry about where your trains are or loading/unloading. This system could have more applications or extrapolations, but its a simple solution right now.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Gee, Sir_Schwick, that ALMOST sounds like the Capacity Point system suggested by Frekk and myself ! Still, given that fact, you know I pretty much agree with you-in principle at least !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

So imagine that you had 10 capacity points this turn.

By moving a single unit onto a rail, you'd drop one capacity point? (9)
Moving a second unit onto a rail, you'd drop another capacity point? (8)
Going back to the first unit, and moving him around a lot, you wouldn't lose any additional capacity points... (8)
But then you move a third unit and lose another... (7)

It's definitely got the best of both worlds. No additional micromanagement... but additional strategy -- you can't just teleport 1000 troops across the continent.

But it puts the emphasis on a good UI that lets you see which units are benefiting from rails, so you can keep track of who you can still move infinitely. And it puts the emphasis on some good math, to keep track of which units can still move infinitely, and which units will have to start taking regular roads.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, the easiest way to do it is to have it in bold within an 'Empire Management Screen' (much like the one from from CtP I and II). In addition, when you click on a unit, it should tell you how it is moving-by rail or by road.
Perhaps, next to its movement points, you can have either a RR track symbol or a road symbol. If you are going cross-country, then no symbol would be present.
Another thing I was thinking, though, was to REALLY ramp up the movement value of friendly roads, but attach a similar capacity point system to them (only 1 road between cities would give many more capacity points than 1 RR).
Lastly, as I have said before, as you use Capacity points for moving units, your per turn income should drop-to reflect the transfer of rolling stock and infrastructure from your domestic economy to troop transportation. How much your per turn income would drop would depend on the overall strength of your economy-meaning that using CP's has a greater impact on larger economies than smaller ones. If you also have to pay for the roads and rails each turn, then this cost is exacerbated, particularly for nations which cover a large amount of land mass. The reason these factors are so important to me is because together they help to solve TWO key problems in civ-the Land-driven economy, and the Snowball effect-at the same time as you solve the flaws of the current Infinite movement system.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Gee, Sir_Schwick, that ALMOST sounds like the Capacity Point system suggested by Frekk and myself ! Still, given that fact, you know I pretty much agree with you-in principle at least !

Its the small things that make the key difference, although our basic premise is the same. If I am not mistaken, under your proposals capacity was tied into the actual infrastructure you build. I wanted to avoid that and make it something you constructed.

I also agree with the idea that diverting transportation(road/rail/sea) should hurt the economy. My idea was that all inter-city/region trade(a big source of commerce -> money/science/happiness) uses up capacity. The most profitable trade happens first, with some forms of transport making some things more profitable than others. That way if you plan, you can pay the extra maintenance so you economy does not suffer. However that much of a logistical buildup should be a red-flag to any bordering parties, possbily leading to arms races.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I still think that capacity. should be based primarily on the infrastructure you build-infrastructure which you have to pay for each turn. Both technology and city improvements CAN boost the basic capacity generated by this infrastructure.
So, the way I would like to see it is that you have 3 forms of capacity-rail, road and air. Road 'capacity points' build up faster than rail, cost less than rail, but is 'slower' than rail. Rail generates fewer points, at higher cost, but allow for unlimited movement for any units that benefit from it. Air capacity builds up the slowest, is very costly, but is both fastest of the three forms of capacity.
Road capacity is generated the first time a city is connected up to ANY other city in your nation. Tech level and certain city improvements boost the basic CP's generated. Rail works the very same way. Air capacity is generated by airports and airbases-again boosted by technology.
So, what does capacity get used for? Well CP's ultimately represent the ability of your domestic economy to work at maximum levels, as represented by your per turn income. This represents your capacity's role in intra-city trade in goods and services and the collection of tithes and taxes from cities. However, CP's are also used to form trade-routes with foreign nations, moving food and shields between cities and moving units throughout your nation. Air capacity is used for airlifting units and air missions conducted by your airforce. The point is that, the more of each type of capacity you use, your ability to generate maximum domestic income drops. How much it drops depends on the KIND of capacity you are using AND the overall strength of your domestic economy. Of course, in the case of trade, the benefits accrued from the trades may overcome any income losses through the loss of capacity points.
Anyway, thats just a rough draft. I hope to put together a more comprehensive version of my idea at a later date.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree with everything but basing capacity on the infrastructure you lay down with modifiers. That just gives a big advantage to larger empires. My suggestion is that rails/roads/harbours/etc. only act as conduits for your capacity. Capacity is added to by building it, like anything else a city/region builds. This means small nations can add to their percentage of total trade utilized faster than large nations. It also means one can upgrade their capacity for war. Maybe you can explain where I missed those points in your proposals.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think infinite movement, in terms of repositioning troops for RR, is a Good thing. In terms of using it to allow troops to attack, it is a bad thing (which is why I think combat needs to be separated from movement)

I do agree that more "degrees" of transport infrastructure improvement might be useful. (besides cross country/roads/RR) some form of the capacity Idea might work.

The way I would do capacity is to have it work only in one area ie if I send more than X units over a particular road/RR, the road/RR will get 'jammed'/'run out of cars', and any new units going over that transport net, will use it at the next lower level.

That way a big empire has to build more infrastructure per unit area than a small empire because they not only have more area they also have more units to move.

Then the UI would be on the terrain, of which roads/RR were near or at the 'max capacity'

Another idea to improve it would be making Civ more like Risk or Axis+Allies, where the tiles get agglomerated together into regions and units move between regions (each region being one 'city')

So each Region would have an amount of 'Internal Capacity' and 'Capacity' with each of its bordering regions (including Water Regions, and The Air Region)

The change in the size and shape of a Region would depend on a minimum required 'Internal Capacity' of particular Techs (and the political situation, so that Luxembourg doesn't spontaneously fuse with Belgium)

Now the 'statistics' of a region would have to be more complicated than that of a single tile, but by forcibly simplifying the UI (ie Units and Cities,which are all player non-empire level interactions, are dealt with on the Region scale) the Capacity system is made much less complicated (as well as a number of other things)

 

[Volstag]

Personally, I feel this "problem" is more a function of the length of each game turn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Modern turns expressed in individual years? If so, it would be quite possible to transport millions of troops within that time frame. With each country taking 1 year turns, you're going to end up with weird results like this.

While adding "capacity" might address this, it would be a "fix" with no basis in reality. The amount of materiel, that can be hauled via rail within the USA in a single year (for example), is absolutely staggering (~2 billion tons, or 4 trillion pounds -- source: http://www.aar.org).

-V

 

[microbe]

Infinite movement might be a bit unrealistic, but realism is never my concern.

CIV is a long and tiring game. Early days you are at least excited with expansion and discovery of the world. Late game you at least have the joy of building railroads and speeding up the game.

I never understand those people who just want to take the joy away.

 

[covenant]

I guess I did not express myself well enough. My idea was more tied to how airports work. You can only have one unit leave an airport per turn, whereas any number can land at an airport. (If I remember correctly, I have not played in like a year.) For railroads I would do the same only I would max out the number that can move to a square as well. Say only 3 troops can get on the rail at one square, and only three can leave the rail at one square. Does not matter if 40 units use the same square getting to a point but they can not all enter and leave the trian from the same point.

But the more I think of it the more i realize that would not really be a good solution. Unfortunately it does seem rails need movement maxs (especially considering you need two resources to make them work giving a huge advantage to an empire with both.) Like three times a road or 9 squares. That seems fair. Basically forces you to a have a front, meaning abit more stategy. Anyways that seems the simplist solution. You could even have another tech later on improve that. Something like magnetic rails, increasing it to 15 squares or even 18 for the very late game.

Edit: And actually rail movement should not be tied to unit movement. After all a marine moves just as fast as a tank on a train. You could say the marine is faster sense it can atleast walk to the front of the train. So maybe the unit movement should be to load an unload like with a transport ship.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You forgot one thing about RR infinite movement: it is fun. And simple. As says Microbe, it is a real joy to see such a difference in your troops speed with the new tech Steam Power and Coal. This a major improvement that not only speed up your troops to a very high mobility on your territory, but also emphasise your ecomnomy, your production and your growth. More, it simulates in some way the intelligence: you can anticipate the movement of your enemy and know by advance where he will attack, what is translated by an infinite movement and the possibility of a troop repositionning. Railroad means intelligencia. After all, isn't it in trains that many of espionnage romans takes place? By extent, railroads mean also communication, modern transport and telephone web. This is very important to connect all your cities. At least, it is not automatic, you have to organize your workers in order to do so.

 

[microbe]

I guess I did not express myself well enough. My idea was more tied to how airports work.

I actually don't like how airports work. So many times I have to search the entire map just to see which ont of the zillons of airports and airfields is still able to airlift my unit. It's a tedious work.

All your points are fine, but in the big picture, the game should not force players to do tedious and repititive work.

It doesn't mean that we have to live with infiinte movement or transport capacity. For example, could there be a command saying "I want to airlift all those troops onto that location, find out those unused airfields and automate this task for me"? That would be wonderful. Or we don't even need to first move the unit onto the airport at all - as long as there is one it COULD move to, this step could be skipped and a button of "airlift" should directly show up.

So, I do not object to changes, but I hope anyone with a proposal could think more about "convenience" than "realism".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Sir_Schwick. Trust me, I have worked through this very carefully-just to make sure it DOESN'T unfairly benefit larger empires. The key factors that prevent this is NOT to make infrastructure generate CP's UNLESS it connects 2 cities. Also, this occurs only the FIRST time a city is connected via infrastructure. What I had also pointed out in my ORIGINAL model is that the average city size is a major impactor on total capacity (meaning that small nations, with a very few large cities will do better-in CP terms-than a widely dispersed nation with lots of smaller cities). This brings me to my major point, though, which is the infrastructure connection alone only generates a VERY basic amount of CP. The bulk of your nations capacity will be generated via tech-level boosts, average city size and improvements that you build in your cities. Last of all, though, is that the infrastructure with which you generate capacity has a cost per turn, which means that larger nations will often have to build many more tiles of infrastructure to get the CP's, and this will cost the larger nation much more than for a smaller nation. In addition, how much of your per turn income you lose per turn, by using CP's, will be based on the total size of your income. So, as I see it, this will actually help to reduce the land-based economy and the snowball effect by allowing smaller nations to get more CP's than a larger nation-even though they have fewer cities and cover less ground-and at a lower cost per turn.
(If you find Yoshi's post about RR, you will see that I actually did do my sums, and found that it didn't disadvantage smaller nations!)
Anyway, hope that helps.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[elementgoo]

I like railroads, but it is lame when you plan a great invasion, do a bunch or recon and see no troops (or very little) nearby, and attack only to see that next turn the entire civ's army is in front of you. (but late in the game i guess that would be realistic)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, it MIGHT be realistic Elementgoo but-as so many people here have been saying-it isn't much fun from a gameplay perspective. Not only is it not fun for the person like you who puts all that effort into planning an invasion, it is also ultimately no fun for the person who can quash your invasion without even having to think. At least with the capacity point system-you retain the 'realism' of infinite movement, whilst introducing good gameplay through making players think about TACTICS!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.