Infinite RR Movement == Evil!

[Kyborgi]

IMO the problem isn't with RR's but with the stupid turn-time ratio of the game. However, if either is fixed, it'll greatly balance the gameplay later in the game where attacking is already hard enough, making it just hard instead of impossible.

 

[warpstorm]

Longasc, look at a rail map of the US or Western Europe some time. Most every 'tile' will be roaded and railed (from your location you appear to live in Germany, you probably have rails within a mile or so of you current location). And as has been pointed out they generate more money than they csot (if they didn't they would have rusted away due to non-maintenance in the Capitalist sections of the world - as this didn't happen, they must be profitable).

I propose infinite movement, but have rails only have a certain capacity.

 

[warpstorm]

Kyborgi, against the AI, I find the Modern railed era the easiest to attack in and the the easiest to defend in. Against a human the ability to quickly shift defenders would make it very hard (as you say) to attack a prepared defender (if an MP game ever lasted that long).

 

[Bibor]

As i said before - make that railroads can junction (cross each other) only at cities. This way railroads can be nuked, bombed, pillaged, missile destroyed, off-shore bombed etc.

I this kind of railroad for a particular reason though - can nicely stack units and then make two-three armies (okaay... 5,6,7...10 artillery here, add three modern armor... one infantry, wake all, move units in stack here )

-bibor

 

[Longasc]

The German Bundesbahn is not making any profit, quite the opposite (they are glad when they make less loss than in the years before) - in Europe railroads are primarily founded by the state, they just cost more money than they generate! Public transportation at least. In Bayreuth you would have been right, but in Tettau there is no railroad within 6 miles form here that is in use. But we are not talking about the problems of railroad companies here.

In game terms, railroads are the ultimate defense, warpstorm. They also give added commerce bonus. The upside is they make arranging units in the industrial age easier, continental rally point e.g.

How do you think that you can limit the capacity of railroads? This would also be an interesting concept for airports. That thingy that you can only launch one transport per airport but land all of them on ONE airport.

 

[Arathorn]

I *LOVE* infinite move railroads. It makes the game so much easier. It helps cut down on some tedious micromanagement.

That said, I agree with Trip. Infinite move moves no strategic issues. Just keep a reserve force anywhere and you can go bonk heads anywhere they're needed. Two-front wars aren't a problem -- just insta-move the artillery from hot spot to hot spot as needed with no worries or qualms about where they'll be needed next. That's too easy and decreases the strategic element of the game.

I agree 100% that it should be externalized and people can do what they want with it -- I'm normally in favor of that and making it external shouldn't be any more coding work than making anything else external and moddable.

I'd miss it. I might swear a little because it's gone. But I agree infinite RR movement should go, for the strategic good of the game.

Arathorn

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think infinite rail movement should go. Basically for the same reasons as Trip; it makes strategic defense a no-brainer. (Try removing RR altogether for a game or two - it actually makes those random naval landings by the AI something of a threat.)

Restrictions might work, but I don't see any that wouldn't entail more MM than just setting RR to, say, double rail movement (which is still alot - a modern armour stack would still be able to cover a big area).

 

[Jon Shafer]

While I respect and agree with your desire to see a more demanding set of operational military problems in the latter eras of the game (and a smarter AI able to handle them), I think your history is a little fuzy.

The Russian front was not the decisive theater of WWI. The Russians were unable attack Germany effectively and signed a seperate armistice with Germany in December 1917, while the war on the western front lasted until 1919. The Russians dropped out of the war because they were preoccupied with the communist revolution.

I assume this must be a typo and that you are refering to WWII. But you should realize that the invasion of France which began in May 1940 was effectively over by June 1940. The German attack on the Soviet Union did not happen until June of 1941. The Germans had more than ample time to ship as much of their army as they wanted to the eastern front berfore begining operation Babarossa.

Actually I was referring to WWI.

The German von Schlieffen plan which entailed swinging the crux of the German Army through Flanders and around to the English Channel and into Paris was diverted further eastwards due to the fear of being overextended, due to the German Army being weaker than anticipated.

This was because the Russians had mobilized faster than Germany had expected, causing 2 German Armies to be diverted from the west front where they were desperately needed to the East Front to keep the Russians from overunning Prussia, ultimately leading to the Battle of Tannenberg which the Germans won decisively, avenging the Teutonic Order's crippling loss to the Lithuanian-Polish forces at that same location in the year 1410. Thereafter the Germans were quite successful in defeating the Russian armies, however, the damage was done and the Germans would never have such a good shot at ending the war in the west because of the failure of the 1914 offensive on the Marne.

I think you'll see my grasp of history is quite complete. Being a history major specializing in European history will tend to do that.

The ability of Russia to move large numbers of men to decisive battles like Stalingrad by rail was indeed critical to stopping the Nazis. This was very definitely a case where the use of railroads helped the strategic defense.

There is a tendency in the West, especially in America, to think that the Germans were defeated because of the problems of fighting a "two front war". While there is some truth to this, it is largely a myth. The American and British armies didn't attack Germany in Europe until June 1944 (D-day). From June 41 to June 44 the vast majority of all the fighting in Europe was on the Eastern front. It was mostly the Red Army which stopped the Nazis.

I never said that RRs shouldn't help strategic defense - I merely stated that it should not allow teleportation of units, which is essential a cheat within the game engine, IMO.

And I'm well aware of the true circumstances of WWII and the Eastern Front.

 

[Jon Shafer]

IMO the problem isn't with RR's but with the stupid turn-time ratio of the game. However, if either is fixed, it'll greatly balance the gameplay later in the game where attacking is already hard enough, making it just hard instead of impossible.

The time-per-turn "issue" is really only to give you a sense that time is passing at all. Would it change the game at all the remove the date entirely, and simply count things by turn number? Would that silence the proponents of infinite movement?

As I've said about other issues, if people are in favor of infinite movement because it reduces tedium and micromanagement then it's a bandaid. Find ways to remove or abstract the micromanagement and tedium, do not mess with the rest of the game to try and cover over it - all it does is imbalance other parts of the game. Fix the problem, don't cover it up with another problem.

 

[tcjsavannah]

Well, improve the AI then, don't cheat for it.

This is not a knock at your suggestion, Trip, but it seems to me that 90% of these suggestion threads about what doesn't work in Civ III can be summed up in this one phrase.

Not sure what that's worth, but it's just an observation. And I'm probably not the first to make it, either....

Personally, I like railroads the way they are, but I'm also a horrible strategizer when it comes to wars, so I like being able to defend against the stack o' infantries that come knocking on my door with my entire army.

 

[Jon Shafer]

This is not a knock at your suggestion, Trip, but it seems to me that 90% of these suggestion threads about what doesn't work in Civ III can be summed up in this one phrase.

Not sure what that's worth, but it's just an observation. And I'm probably not the first to make it, either....

Personally, I like railroads the way they are, but I'm also a horrible strategizer when it comes to wars, so I like being able to defend against the stack o' infantries that come knocking on my door with my entire army.

My point is that using infinite RR movement for the AI's benefit is a cop-out. I already gave my example that since it's a game system that can be used by both the player and the computer, you can always get the better of the AI when you know enough, and turn the tide against it in a very ugly manner.

Ultimately, I believe the solution is to have a system that does not require such micromanagement which lends itself to improving the game through such an exploit-like mechanism. Worker gangs, public works, whatever it is or how you impliment it, there's a better way to do things. That is my point.

 

[Merc]

I just got rid of RR in my game (well, by that I mean I made the last tech in the game the prerequisote for it; I never get that far, usually.) It was just WAY too easy to win with infinte movement. Now I have to position my army to stop invasions in more than just one place.

Some things I did to counter the loss of RRs was to

1. Make every laborer produce 1 shield to offset the production bonus from RR. This probably unbalances the game early on, but it doesn't count toward units, so it doesn't bother me too much.

2. Made commercial docks give +1 food in coastal squares to counter loss of food production. Inland cities get the shaft, but the world's biggest cities are all on the coast, anyway.

3. Gave naval units a massive boost in moves. Historicly ships were always a faster way to transport units than on the ground.

Also, using helecopters and airbases is a lot of fun. All you have to do is make an airbase with a captured worker and you can airlift a bunch of units to the front. I made infantry a lot stonger along with marines so infantry airdrops are actually effective. I find the game a lot more fun than my old 200 tank steamroll of the AI.

 

[dh_epic]

I think a lot of movement is almost as good as infinite movement, without the lack of strategy. Infinite SOMETHING means zero strategy, for that concept.

Like all units can move 10 squares in a turn (and mounted units get no additional movement benefits).

 

[Bibor]

Why don't you guys like my idea with trains that can be loaded as transports?


And only transport trains could go on railroads anyway. Units would move at regular road speed on RR. I did an extensive text on some part of this forum, but i don't remember where

On the other hand, its almost impossible to comprehend HOW THE HECK can a TANK (industrial era, just to remind you) be airlifted? Mark I was a zillion-ton behemoth and planes were... umm... paper and wood? Even today i think they're not trasporting armored units via planes. Or they do, but with *very* specialized planes which are not available in, like, infinite supply.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why don't you guys like my idea with trains that can be loaded as transports?

In one word: micromanagement.

 

[Bibor]

Micromanagement =

moving 563 units
+assigning 172 workers to different tasks
+4328 terrain tiles that can be "improved"
+75 still growing cities that have 426 specialists and governor never uses these to generate police units (for corruption reducement)

Not micromanagement:
reducing the number of units
+ putting more strategic capabilities on (now reduced) number of units
+ smarter governor
+ smarter workers (=234 workers, 188 frozen in cities while only 2 per tile (slaves to that) chop jungle)

 

[Jon Shafer]

Don't know any games I've played with 172 Workers. Even though I'm a huge personal micromanager. Most I've ever gotten is about 50 on a standard size map. If you have that many units you're playing on too big of a map, and have no right to complain about micromanagement.

Having to load all of your units on other special units (which have a finite supply with a rather small number, probably 5 or fewer) is adding micromanagement however you look at it, and I personally think there are better solutions, no offense.

 

[Colonel]

i still to fix this this problem is add more turns and have short time span over turns

 

[Jon Shafer]

The actual date is irrelevant. Forget about it, it's only added to give a sense that the game is passing through time. Changing it from "4000 BC" to "Turn 1" makes no difference. The issue is how it fits in with gameplay.

 

[Colonel]

yes but it is a big part when u think about the type of game if it were togot to turn one i wouldnt like it as much but if it were to go from 4000bc and go say five years foward and be longer i think it would be better