Instant Teleporting Vs. Strategy

[frekk]

I don't understand how people feel slower movement is at all "more strategic". You issue a billion gotos and sit watching a mass crawl to the front, or they get there now and fight; neither is essentially a strategic activity, they're both fairly mindless as it works in the game. The only way to inject strategy into the system of movement, would be to limit the number of units you may move in a turn in some fashion, perhaps by invoking logistics or command limitations. This would truly force strategic decision making in terms of using your units (not to mention eliminate SoDs and reduce MM).

 

[mitsho]

@Frekk the thing about railroads is that you can attack all attackers as soon as they left their safe borders, but the attackers can't. Inverted example: What if you could use every railroad, although it's an enemy one.
First, you could theoretically attack and take all his cities in one turn (if they all are connected). You end one turn as a mighty empire on a pangaea, culture and tech leader, everything perfect. Now, in the interturn, a civ from the other side of the world which you were massively trading at the time, declares war on you without a reason. Now, although they are on the other side of the world, they move all their units all the way through the empires of civ C, D, E and F right to your cities and attack them. As you feared nothing especially, you only positioned most of your units on the border and the cities with only 2-3 units. Now, civB attacks one city after the other, it can move to them, because railroads are infinite, and takes one after the other, no problem, because all your units are outside the city walls.
When your last city falls, you are eliminated, a humiliating loss, congrats...
Attacking something with infite railroad for the opposite is pure suicide, that's why it doesn't work.

m

 

[apatheist]

Well, that only works if you have enough healthy units to keep going. If you have that much overwhelming force, strategy seems to be unnecessary.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Actually, Apatheist is right. This poll seeks a dichotomy where none need exist. As I have stated ad nauseum , there is nothing wrong with having unlimited movement from RR's, so long as a system exists which limits the total number of units-per turn-which can benefit from it. If this were combined with ever improving roads, then it would help to tone down the RR effect even more.

Come on, do some effort and understand "instant teleporting as it". EZ...

Thats my solution to the problem!

What problem?

I don't understand how people feel slower movement is at all "more strategic". You issue a billion gotos and sit watching a mass crawl to the front, or they get there now and fight; neither is essentially a strategic activity, they're both fairly mindless as it works in the game. The only way to inject strategy into the system of movement, would be to limit the number of units you may move in a turn in some fashion, perhaps by invoking logistics or command limitations. This would truly force strategic decision making in terms of using your units (not to mention eliminate SoDs and reduce MM).

Oh, really? How that... In both cases you have to point a destination, black or white, so you have your strategic choice every time. Now what's the difference between slower units, and units that will be able to reach their destination only 1, 2, 3 or more turns after the firsts? Where is the "more" strategy in being able to move in only some turns all your units than in them just being slow?

 

[Deep_Blue]

I dont like instant transportation, I have made a senario in Civ III in which there is no coal in the map to get rid of that.

 

[Pounder]

I dont like instant transportation, I have made a senario in Civ III in which there is no coal in the map to get rid of that.

I like to play to win by Conquest Victory. If there were no railroads, I don't think that there would be enough turns in the game to make a Conquest Victory, especially on a hugh map.

I think that the railroads in there current format contribute to the balance of the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The problem is that people don't want to see their units crawling at a relative snails pace on home and enemy soil alike, but at the same time they don't want a situation where someone on home ground can fight an entire war on one front, then move his entire army to another front within that same turn.
My solution-like that of Frekk-is to retain the concept of Unlimited movement, but introducing some form of limited capacity-so that most nations would be required to implement a phased movement strategy-and really think what units they need to hold a line, whilst they bring the rest of their forces to the front. Thus is strategy implemented to the Industrial age onwards, whilst retaining the best elements of unlimited railroad movement.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I like to play to win by Conquest Victory. If there were no railroads, I don't think that there would be enough turns in the game to make a Conquest Victory, especially on a hugh map.

I think that the railroads in there current format contribute to the balance of the game.

I know , no railroads will make a conquest a nightmare. In the current game Iam playing ahainst 8 AIs+Deity + no coal + I decided to go for conquest for more challenge . you cant imagine how hard this game is , Iam superiour in military , destroyed my neighbor the Otmmans and Iam kicking Germans asses for 60 turns ..but they are very strong..the problem here it is too slow and I will not be able to even finish germany before they reach the 200K cultural victory .
I found that for no instant railroads the game must be calibrated correctly , for example making 12 movements for railroad can prove things which is way better than 3 mov. of roads and much better than infinite mov. of railroad. Nomber of movement must be balanced here.

 

[frekk]

Oh, really? How that... In both cases you have to point a destination, black or white, so you have your strategic choice every time. Now what's the difference between slower units, and units that will be able to reach their destination only 1, 2, 3 or more turns after the firsts? Where is the "more" strategy in being able to move in only some turns all your units than in them just being slow?

Because you have to prioritize far more carefully. Which units, and what kind of units, to move this round? Do you send up the elites with all the promotions and keep them moving and fighting, or do you wear him down with waves of regulars first? Perhaps you should reinforce your gains with garrisons instead, and hold off on the advance? Perhaps you should start ferrying more troops by sea, which will allow you to in effect move more units in a round - or maybe you should spend those points on warships to intercept his own shipping? Etc, etc.

Whereas moving all your units involves no decision at all. They are just mindlessly sent to the front en masse - whether slow or fast, makes no difference. The choice is always obvious, and strategy only comes into play in terms of production choices once the war is begun.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I totally agree with "frekk" , troops positioning must be vital as it is in real life. when I have instant railroad I dont care where my troops are and I even leave most cities empty and send my full power to the enemy. in real life you have to protect your borders , while in the game you dont even care about borders !!
Instant teleporting?...no thank you..we need strategy .

 

[frekk]

I've no problem with 0-move rails ... the problem imo is with unlimited logistics, the ability to move every unit you own every round. IRL, this is hardly possible. But 0 move rails do mimic the revolution in logistics and redeployment made possible by trains. From the Civil War on, most major ground battles (aside from amphibious assaults) have occured in the vicinity of railheads, with most of the participating forces having moved to the area by train. The exceptions are conspicuous; in Russia, the Germans had difficulty because of gauge differences and could not maintain an advance, in Finland the Russians were fighting very very far from their railhead in the north (in the south, they easily overran the Mannerheim Line, situated near Leningrad).

You certainly do have to worry about your borders in unlimited rail --- if you leave border cities empty, the enemy can roll in, take them, and then use the rails to move on to the next city. A cascade of conquest. Neither this, nor the defender's ability to redeploy his entire army to meet an invader, would be possible with a limitation on the number of units that can be moved in a round. Limiting rail movement would not really prevent these sorts of things from happening. Once you can move 9 tiles a round by road with cavalry, trains obviously have to be moving faster - and if you're moving, say, 12 spaces a round by rail, the defender or attacker will still be able to move their entire army with little delay (imposing a round or two delay to gather forces by reducing RR moves will not terribly affect the problem, imho, it will just make a game of conquest impossible).

 

[Deep_Blue]

If your cities are 3 tiles away from borders, you dont have to worry about borders, you simply wait untill the AI declares war and moves its forces 3 tiles deeps, then you reply next round with full attack. Also I dont like the ability to fight full power on one side then move your entire army to the other side next round.
Another thing why I hate Railroads is that you can get right of passage , position your troops perfectly in front of every AI city , then wipe the AI out in one round..thats simpy awuful. I managed in a huge map to do that trick over and over resulting in eleminating every nation in (2-5) rounds (the English took one round only!!!). that is simply ugly and makes the game very boring in the end.

 

[Naokaukodem]

frekk: you were talking about "slower movement"... maybe that if your movement is that slow, you will have to think about all this before even a presage of war? Choosing what troop to put where, in case of quick attack or multiple fronts, what unit you can let you move and what unit to stay where while conquering. Plus it would not change anything to the order of attaking units, with any stack you have to choice from which unit to attack with first; and it is rather a tactical side of civ, if there is any. Not mentionning the fact that you could perfectly wait some turns in order to have your whole army anywhere with the capacity points, if the normal way (roads) didn't beat them. (as it would probably do with sea also)

 

[TruePurple]

What do you guys think of these ideas?

To get onto a train you need to be at a train station. These can be built in cities or the map. (the map ones take gold each turn just like the city ones)

It takes 1 move to get onto a train (a command) Once on a train you can move a set number of squares, say 12, each turn. regardless of the actual move of said unit. When on the train, the unit can not leave the track. To get off the train also uses a movement point.

Otherwise getting on and off the train could use all of a units movement points that turn. That would make sense, it takes time to load up a division of horseman or tanks onto a train.

A train station being able to load and unload only so many times (1?) each turn?

I do agree that unlimited movement on tracks kind of ruins some of the strategy of the game. But that is a loaded question in the poll.

 

[Crayton]

A command like fortify: mobilize
Instead of defense bonus you get a movement bonus (even infinite movement) on the next turn. Of course, then you would have to 'mobilize' agian in order to prepare for another big move. For balance, give 'mobilized' units slightly less of a combat bonus until after they spring-out, 'fortify', or 'de-mobilize'.

 

[frekk]

you were talking about "slower movement"... maybe that if your movement is that slow, you will have to think about all this before even a presage of war? Choosing what troop to put where, in case of quick attack or multiple fronts, what unit you can let you move and what unit to stay where while conquering.

You have to make most of these choices with 0 move rail as well. There won't be much difference except that you'll be slower to react to changes, but still, most of the time all the decisions are no-brainers, with the exception of production.

Not mentionning the fact that you could perfectly wait some turns in order to have your whole army anywhere with the capacity points, if the normal way (roads) didn't beat them. (as it would probably do with sea also)

I'm not talking about capacity points - I'm talking about limitations to logistics, a set number of units (modified by things like advances, being mobilized, etc) that can move in a round *by any means* - road, rail, or air. So you could, over a few turns, amass most of your entire army in one location, but this would be rather foolish - no group larger than your move limits would serve any purpose except to defend (and too many static defenders in one spot would just be a liability to multiple-hits artillery).

 

[TruePurple]

There won't be much difference except that you'll be slower to react to changes

Thats a big difference, in early game you have to place your units to maximize both defense and potential offense. With out railroad one could see another amassing an army at a point and get ready to defend, With railroad someone could easily amass a whole army in a single turn where every they want.

Before I had railroad, I had to strategically place my calvary so they could reach a number of squares where the enemy was most likely to land if they got past my fleet. Afterwords it didn't matter, I could commit all my calvary to the front line. With a rail to the front line it was easy to move them back if the enemy landed in a surprise attack.

Without zero movement, you need to anticipate in either defense or offense. With zero movement, you don't. Without free movement provides more strategy.

.. ok read your thread. Capacity limits sounds good too.

 

[frekk]

Thats a big difference, in early game you have to place your units to maximize both defense and potential offense.

Well, yes, but one expects modern nations to be capable of rapid redeployment and even decapitation strategies. When Germany invaded Poland, for instance, it left only a very light defence along the border with France, because they knew they could easily shift everything back in no time at all, if they had to.

With out railroad one could see another amassing an army at a point and get ready to defend, With railroad someone could easily amass a whole army in a single turn where every they want.

Did the French see it coming? Did the Russians?

Before I had railroad, I had to strategically place my calvary so they could reach a number of squares where the enemy was most likely to land if they got past my fleet. Afterwords it didn't matter, I could commit all my calvary to the front line. With a rail to the front line it was easy to move them back if the enemy landed in a surprise attack.

Shades of the Civil War.

.. ok read your thread. Capacity limits sounds good too.

I should really remove that from my sig ... I've gone to a way simpler idea, which is simply limits on number of units moveable in any given round by any means (with the exception that units loaded on ships and non-military units do not count towards limits). Such limit to rise depending on advances, particularly those which influence transportation and communication.

The problem with 10 or 12 or whatever move rail, is that it will slow down the modern era (which already puts me to sleep). The most common complaint about 0 move rail - you will see it all the time phrased the same way - is that "you can move your whole army to the front" - so the complaint isn't really how far you move, it's how much you move. Rail capacity seems tedious in implementation, as does limited move on rails. The easiest solution, imo, is to simply invoke the limitations of logistics and command, and limit how many units you can move at once (by road or by rail or by any other means) - imho not only would this solve the problem of whole armies shifting about, it would vastly reduce MM in the later eras and offers all kinds of potential to give navies true meaning (either not subjecting them to these limits, or allowing them to carry troops who do not count against the limit, etc)

 

[Steph]

The problem can't be solved in Civ IV

We need a game with different scales.
One for discovery, economy, science
One for warfare

 

[Pacifist]

What do you guys think of these ideas?

To get onto a train you need to be at a train station. These can be built in cities or the map. (the map ones take gold each turn just like the city ones)

It takes 1 move to get onto a train (a command) Once on a train you can move a set number of squares, say 12, each turn. regardless of the actual move of said unit. When on the train, the unit can not leave the track. To get off the train also uses a movement point.

Otherwise getting on and off the train could use all of a units movement points that turn. That would make sense, it takes time to load up a division of horseman or tanks onto a train.

A train station being able to load and unload only so many times (1?) each turn?

I do agree that unlimited movement on tracks kind of ruins some of the strategy of the game

LOL - I was actually thinking about the idea of using "stations" hehe - at the end, I did not like it too much but since you have put up your concept, I'll put mine down

Concept:
City stations
-built like any other city improvement
-requires maintenance upon completion

External stations
-built as a terrain improvement on top of railroads
-does NOT require maintenance upon completion (for simplicity's sake)
-construction consumes gold from treasury. (cannot be started if funds are insufficient)
-cost: 1 gold per terrain movement cost multiplied by a constant value, the total instantly subtracted from the treasury. Consumes the Worker (seeing as airports were built fairly easily in Civ3)

Stations (City or External)
-construction requires strategic resources
-6 tiles minimum distance between stations

Units can ONLY travel from one station to another (no in-betweens). Any distance can be covered in ONE turn. This method of transportation reduces unit movement to ZERO upon arrival to the destination, therefore no units can move to one location via rails and attack in the same turn.


That's about it ...

I scrapped the idea for a more simplified version, which uses the idea in my previous reply with a minor change.

Simplified concept:
-Rail travel is treated as unlimited operational range (limited on the rail path)
-Units on a "railroad" which still have movement points remaining can travel to any location within the connecting rail system, making it possible for any land unit to travel great distances via rail transportation
-This method of transportation reduces unit movement to ZERO upon arrival to the destination, therefore no units can move to one location via rails and attack in the same turn
-A unit with ONE or more attack value can be used to obstruct the rail path, as well it's 8 surrounding tiles (i.e. the zone of control)
-Blocking units cannot be targetted as the destination point, therefore cannot be attacked in the same turn when using this type of transportation
-Manual movement can still be used using the unit's movement value, treating all rails as roads
-Units travelling on the rail systems of foreign nations under the Right of Passage agreement will need to pay that nation 5 gold per terrain travelled over. Manual movement requires no additional cost but treats all rails as roads.

Simple eh?

-Pacifist-
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -Albert Einstein"