Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the issue of RRs and infinite movement. 
Infinite RR Movement == Evil!
- Thread starter Jon Shafer
- Start date
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Who cares about realism?
The fact that it causes a game imbalance should be enough to change it.
If you wanted things to be realistic then modern ships should be able to move infinitely also (since they can cross the world in at least a year, can they not?). Same with Tanks with no RRs, or airplanes or any other motorized/mechanized units. Having them all capable of infinite movement, aka rounding the globe in under a year, aka being "realistic" is bad for how the game plays.
The fact that it causes a game imbalance should be enough to change it.
If you wanted things to be realistic then modern ships should be able to move infinitely also (since they can cross the world in at least a year, can they not?). Same with Tanks with no RRs, or airplanes or any other motorized/mechanized units. Having them all capable of infinite movement, aka rounding the globe in under a year, aka being "realistic" is bad for how the game plays.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
As I said, I care about the game plays more than realism. That is not a perfect robot idea, it's about how I want the games I play to be fun and balanced.
Should every unit in the modern era have infinite movement simply because the turns are at least a year and every unit can get around the world in that amount of time?
Should every unit in the modern era have infinite movement simply because the turns are at least a year and every unit can get around the world in that amount of time?
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
If you wish to engage in name-calling, then you're asking to be banned from the forum. 
That having been said, you didn't answer my question, so let me repeat:
Should every unit in the modern era have infinite movement simply because the turns are at least a year and every unit can get around the world in that amount of time?
You want realism - it's realistic. So according to what you're saying, all of them should have infinite (or 100+) movement.
That having been said, you didn't answer my question, so let me repeat:
Should every unit in the modern era have infinite movement simply because the turns are at least a year and every unit can get around the world in that amount of time?
You want realism - it's realistic. So according to what you're saying, all of them should have infinite (or 100+) movement.
i didnt mean to call you a name i asked if u have a vision problem NO I AM SAYING MAKE TIME THAT ELLAPSES IN THE GAME BE LESS SO THEN MAKE EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME KEEP NORMAL RATES OF MOVEMENT THEN MAKE ANY UNIT ON RR GO TO 1/12 OR 1/8 THE MOVEMENT
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
You just made it sound confusing... my point about not caring about realism is the fact that I was using it as an argument against infinite movement, and you responded to that, making me think you were in favor of it.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah dudes, I'm with Trip. Not that 1/8 moves per turn isn't the solution, because it is. But the problem isn't a lack of realism, it's a lack of strategy.
When I can move 100% of my units infinitely, to anywhere in the world, and launch a huge sneak attack... there no longer is any strategy. For me, I know I can take a city if I mobilize all my troops to one location. For the enemy, they just have to protect every single one of their cities on the border.
No choices. War becomes a recipe, an algorithm.
There's too much of that in Civ as is.
When I can move 100% of my units infinitely, to anywhere in the world, and launch a huge sneak attack... there no longer is any strategy. For me, I know I can take a city if I mobilize all my troops to one location. For the enemy, they just have to protect every single one of their cities on the border.
No choices. War becomes a recipe, an algorithm.
There's too much of that in Civ as is.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
After all this read, I have only one more thing to say about RailRoads. The biggest problem with those is that the AI is not using them correctly. Yeah, sure, he sends two stacks of 20 cavalry and infantry to my territory by railroads. I eat it up. But when it comes to defence, AI still has 4-10 units in a single city. He's not amassing defensive units in his border cities by RR. It would be far more difficult if AI would use his 107 infantry do defend 3 cities...
This way the human is yet-again exploiting the AI by RailRoads.
Formula:
Built railroad the tile closest to enemy city (great if 1 tile to it). Capture enemy city, build RR to new city. Repeat the process as needed.
This way the human is yet-again exploiting the AI by RailRoads.
Formula:
Built railroad the tile closest to enemy city (great if 1 tile to it). Capture enemy city, build RR to new city. Repeat the process as needed.
It would be really neat (provided you don't mind the extra management issue) if railroads worked via a system of support and scheduling. Building the railroad itself is infrastructure only, and doesn't confer any real bonus... the only way to get the benefit is to build railway stations in much the same way as airports are built.
The railroad infrastructure itself should require a considerable degree of money to support - this cost would be based on how long the track is. Units are sent from a city with a station to another city with a station - this consumes the unit's full movement allowance (like with an airdrop).
To further restrict railroads, it could even be set up so that it takes a certain number of turns to traverse a certain distance... travelling from one city to another within 20 spaces could be a one turn move. Sending a unit one hundred spaces may take three or four turns. As new technologies (and new trains) are researched, the time to take journies could be shortened.
The extra cost would mean that only vastly rich civilizations could afford the kind of 'full coverage' railroads that are currently the norm, and the requirement for stations to be built would make it more costly to tie a new conquered city into the main 'grid'. The length of travel would provide for a few turns grace while your opponent fortifies their position. This grace period would lessen as the game progresses, but by that time you should have the air and sea support required to smash the railroad infrastructure before an invasion.
The railroad infrastructure itself should require a considerable degree of money to support - this cost would be based on how long the track is. Units are sent from a city with a station to another city with a station - this consumes the unit's full movement allowance (like with an airdrop).
To further restrict railroads, it could even be set up so that it takes a certain number of turns to traverse a certain distance... travelling from one city to another within 20 spaces could be a one turn move. Sending a unit one hundred spaces may take three or four turns. As new technologies (and new trains) are researched, the time to take journies could be shortened.
The extra cost would mean that only vastly rich civilizations could afford the kind of 'full coverage' railroads that are currently the norm, and the requirement for stations to be built would make it more costly to tie a new conquered city into the main 'grid'. The length of travel would provide for a few turns grace while your opponent fortifies their position. This grace period would lessen as the game progresses, but by that time you should have the air and sea support required to smash the railroad infrastructure before an invasion.
i have to point this out if u make it cost money to cover every little bit of land with it, then why wouldnt you just get around that by building RR between cities and then along border put RR all the way around it would save money and u could get aroun d spending while still beening able to put them anyway, so i say if u make it so it so u can go farther on RR but not infinte it works
big_hairy_yeti
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 18
Reduce infinite movement, it IS evil.
First reduce movement to a set figure, regardless of unit type.
Then make railroads only boardable at Cities.
It should take one turn to board the railways, and additional movement to disembark, to represent the logistics of managing the boarding of a large force onto trains.
Also, units still on a railroad, attecked by enemy units should have a substantial defensive reduction, to represent the vulnerability of the units carried on the train.
Disembarking, would cost the unit half its movement.
I believe these changes may significantly increase the strategic thought put into the use of railways and eliminate the no brainer teleporting armies.
First reduce movement to a set figure, regardless of unit type.
Then make railroads only boardable at Cities.
It should take one turn to board the railways, and additional movement to disembark, to represent the logistics of managing the boarding of a large force onto trains.
Also, units still on a railroad, attecked by enemy units should have a substantial defensive reduction, to represent the vulnerability of the units carried on the train.
Disembarking, would cost the unit half its movement.
I believe these changes may significantly increase the strategic thought put into the use of railways and eliminate the no brainer teleporting armies.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Longasc said:
I'm all for one turn = one city distance. The question is how to calculate it, execute it, and come up with an interface for it that doesn't involve too much micromanagement. Simulating the train-transport effect can be done, I think, just without all the tedium of building a unit and loading / unloading.
Similar threads
