New RR model

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, personally, I think a combination of Oda's idea and the Railroad Capacity system I proposed above would work best. Basically, units which enter a RR tile from outside an 'appropriate' structure (airbase, city, fortress, outpost, colony) will get movement as a road, and not cost any capacity points to use. Otherwise, you get the unlimited movement BUT you lose a Capacity point for that turn.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

Capacity point = one more number to keep track of = not an idea I'm fond of. Civ is *about* perfect in how many numbers you need to keep track of ; adding capacity points to it complicate things a fair bit.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, while capacity is a decent idea, managing it shouldn't be more of a pain than movement is already. While I hate how unstrategic infinite movement is, it's very easy to manage. We shouldn't throw that completely out the window. Even roads are pretty manageable seeing as you only have to watch movement points (1/3).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, the way Frekk explained it initially, the way you both CREATE and USE capacity points was very easy and, essentially, automatic. Every unit which made use of a RR for infinite movement reduced Capacity by 1 point (and this would show up on your screen), your treasury would lose money accordingly as well. When you processed your turn, your capacity would go back to maximum again.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[yoshi]

I was thinking of an idea along the lines of rhialto's idea (i.e. airport-style transport that requires both cities be connected) but I realized that it wouldn't be different from the present system except that there is a range limit [and yes, I would like to see a range limit on airlifting]. That is, you just instantaneously go from point A to B wherever there is railroad with the added disadvantage that units are limited to only travelling b/w cities.


No, there is a solution that is truely simple and elegant (and realistic for that matter):

Railroad Movement Consumes from TOTAL unit MPs (rather than 1 MP as Roads do).

As a result, faster units do not have any advanatage (e.g. 1MP unit loses 1/3 of movement per RR square = 0.3 MP, 3MP unit loses 1/3 of movement per RR square = 1MP).

The remaining MPs for each unit are still proportionally the same (i.e. the faster unit has no advanatge over the slower unit--unlike it has on Roads).

No need for the program to 'remember' how much movement unit consumed last time it was on RR or resort ot simple having a 'faster' Road improvement or use abstract teleporting solutions that create more problems than they're worth.


Amazingly simple. No sacrificing anything. Everyone's happy.


(And yet just watch, Firaxis will doggedly go for that stupid infinite movement solution...again.)


[Note that I didn't actually think of this. Someone in the Civ3 Request Forums did (before C3C came out)--I was stuck coming up with ideas that were completely inappropriate to Civ's simple interface.]


That said, I'd like to at least have the option of setting movement to 'infinite' for modding purposes--but definitely not if it means using it in the epic game.

Oh and if you want RR to incure cost just have tile improvements cost gold when built (i.e. give RR a value if you want).

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie, how would you be able to tell which rails had been used up and which hadn't? Would they change color or something?

Did I miss the point?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The main point is that RR capacity Points are a NATIONWIDE POOL. It doesn't matter WHERE they are generated or WHERE they are used, they deduct from the NATIONAL POOL! So, if you have a RR capacity of 10 (based on RR connecting 5 of your cities, say), then you can move 10 of your units an infinite distance on ANY of your RR infrastructure-so long as you moved onto it from an appropriate location.
If you used all 10 Capacity points, though, then you would lose ALL the income those points generate, whilst at the same time still having to pay the costs of your RR infrastructure.

The benefits of this sytem might be:

1) Helps uncouple empire size from military and economic strength (as capacity points are largely generated based on HOW MANY cities you have connected, not the # of RR tiles-wheras cost of RR's is based on # of tiles covered)

2) It retains the ease (and 'realism') of Infinite RR movement, whilst still making RRs more strategic.

3) It makes things like roads and rail even more vital to your nations economic well-being, meaning that an enemy can cause you great harm by disrupting your road/rail connections between cities.

4) As capacity is created by JOINING two points, it will help to reduce RR sprawl.

Hope that makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Even the ability to move a dozen units per turn infinitely is kind of unstrategic, no? Is it really that much of an improvement over the ability to move an infinite number of units infinitely?

 

[Dida]

Railroad, an invention of early industrial age is somehow superconducting materials that move units across frictionless surface, going at speed of light? That is ridiculous. Nothing should give infinite movement. Of course, no railroad at least. We all know it is freakin slow. Maybe MagLev can give infinite move.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In both Gameplay and Realism terms, infinite movement on RR's does play an important role in the game. Trust me, I used to feel the other way about it, but have sort of come around to the idea. That does not mean that it can't be regulated better.
As to how 'strategic' my system is well, consider this:

1) You would now have to pay for infrastructure like RR's, this will help make RR sprawl a thing of the past because, unless the infrastructure produces some kind of MAJOR benefit, people probably won't want to foot the bill of spurious RR.

2) Every capacity point generated by your infrastructure would generate a per-turn income for the player-based on his overall economy (i.e. each CP=x% of total national wealth/turn). However, CP's used to move units in a turn are denied to your economy. As you also pay for the rail regardless, this makes the mass movement of units EVERY TURN a very costly exercise-forcing the player to think about more appropriate movement of his forces each turn (and perhaps instituting phased movement and moving more units by sea).

3) Units only get infinite movement IF they enter the RR square via a city, fort, outpost or colony. All other 'RR' movement is considered the same as road. Again, this will force players to move their units into position BEFORE they can 'move them out' to the frontlines.

All in all, I feel this maintains the benefits of 'infinite' RR moves (such as realism and ease) whilst removing some of the exploit value and increasing their strategic nature.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[yoshi]

Aussie, capacity point system is too complicated for Civ.

I refer you to my earlier post that for some reason has been ignored:

Railroad Movement Consumes from TOTAL unit MPs (rather than 1 MP as Roads do).

As a result, faster units do not have any advanatage (e.g. 1MP unit loses 1/3 of movement per RR square = 0.3 MP, 3MP unit loses 1/3 of movement per RR square = 1MP).

The remaining MPs for each unit are still proportionally the same (i.e. the faster unit has no advanatge over the slower unit--unlike it has on Roads).

This is the solution. It keeps with Civ's format exactly (i.e. basically roads that consume a fraction unit's total movrment instead of a fraction of 1MP) and deals with the problem effectively. Why bother with anything more complicated?

 

[rhialto]

Personally, I don't want to see rail tile improvements at all. I'd rather see various road upgrades, similar to the upgradeable irrigation/farm tiles proposed in another thread. Having upgradeable roads and rails too would just make the map too messy in my opinion. That's why I'd rather have a city improvement that gives the industrial benefits of rails to the city and acts as a strategic movement node for rail movement.

One point about rails that AL misses is that it doesn't need to connect two major urban centres to provide an industrial benefit, any more than a road needs to connect two major urban centres to provide an economic benefit. For the industrial bonus, it is enough that the rail connects the urban heartland to its hinterland, which is adequately represented by having a city improvement instead of tile improvements.

@Dida

I don't know about where you live, but round here rails are damn near amazing in their speed. It is possible to travel from Akita in northern Japan to Hakata in Kyushu (1838 km) in a little under 11 hours by train, including the time spent waiting on the platform. Average train speed around 180 kmph (111 mph).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't see how Capacity points are so complicated Yoshi! I mean, they are generated pretty much automatically via standard player actions (building RR's, improving tech level of rail system (industrial/commercial techs), building relevent improvements and increasing the physical size of your cities (thus to some extent promoting quality over quantity of cities)). It could be as simple as 1 RR connection=0.4CP's in the early industrial age, with the value increasing to 0.6CPs, 0.8CPs, 1CP etc with each subsequent tech boost. Improvements and Small Wonders could be a flat 25% boost to existing Capacity Points. Then, each Capacity point might increase your per turn income by 5% of current rates (so, for instance, a nation which earns 300 gpt might get +15gpt for every free capacity point). Of course, these numbers are just arbitrary, and would rely on game balance.
The benefit of the CP system is that it not only solves the MILITARY anomolies of the Civ RR system, it also helps to solve the ECONOMIC anomolies-as it would replace the rather ridiculous +1 'gold' per RR tile in your city radius system. Instead, the number of PHYSICAL connections your RR's make AND the size of the cities it connects to, will determine the amount of extra income your rail system generates-balanced against its costs.
Of course, the key issue is that, whilst CP's are generated per connection, cost of the infrastructure is based on a per tile (or per x tiles), meaning that empires which cover more territory and/or have smaller cities, will have to pay more for the RRs they need in order to generate their capacity. At the same time, more prosperous nations will have much more to lose in land wars, as the 'cost' of moving units could become prohibitive!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair, Rhialto, the tying of CPs to connection of two points is, IMO, a neccessary game play feature-to reduce the chance of abuse. Note, though, that I count capacity points as being generated by the connection of ANY 2 discrete points, so long as one is a city. So, connecting a fort to a city, a colony to a city, an airbase to a city or an outpost to a city will still generate CPs which, in turn, generate income.
Also, though, I wouldn't hold your breath about them EVER removing RRs from the game entirely-I have a feeling that they are here to stay, so it really comes down to how to make them better AND less ugly !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

AL, one other flaw with your system I feel is that the primary benefit of rails wasn't trade (roads and canals already did that job in any area where rails were built), but industrial output. It made transport independant of weather, allowing factories to reliably receive raw materials, simplified mining, and gave a boost to the steel industry. Granted, it also allowed for commercial traffic, but it did not increase the commercial traffic - that was traffic that was already occuring, and wasn't reliability-sensitive in the way that factory supplies were. Your model only allows for a commercial benefit (gold) instead of the industrial benefit (shields) that my model allows for.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Railroad, an invention of early industrial age is somehow superconducting materials that move units across frictionless surface, going at speed of light? That is ridiculous. Nothing should give infinite movement. Of course, no railroad at least. We all know it is freakin slow. Maybe MagLev can give infinite move.

Turns actually take a year at lowest. You could walk across a continent at that rate. Maybe time needs to stop during a war.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Aussie, capacity point system is too complicated for Civ.

I refer you to my earlier post that for some reason has been ignored:



This is the solution. It keeps with Civ's format exactly (i.e. basically roads that consume a fraction unit's total movrment instead of a fraction of 1MP) and deals with the problem effectively. Why bother with anything more complicated?

Why would it make sense for a horseman to go any faster on a rail than a warrior? They are both limited to rail speed.

 

[Dida]

Turns actually take a year at lowest. You could walk across a continent at that rate. Maybe time needs to stop during a war.

I have said this, and I will say it again. Civ is a TURN based game, NOT a YEAR based game. 1 turn is 1 turn, NOT 1 year, or 2 year, or 100 years.

If we take your point, that is take year into consideration, then a turn in ancient era is about 100 years. A horseman can walk across a continent in 100 years easily. By the same reason you gave, a horseman should be given infinite movement no matter what he is traveling on. The same logic implies to every unit, if we adapt your reasoning, movement point for all units should be abolished, all unit will be zipping across the globe instantly.

 

[Dida]

Why would it make sense for a horseman to go any faster on a rail than a warrior? They are both limited to rail speed.

This can be easily explained.

There is a train unit, that transports other units on railroad track. This is needed because horseman or infantry don't themselves travel on the railroad. Instead, they take a train.

The train unit can travel 10 squares per turn on railroad track. The unit being transported doesn't use up their own movement point while in the train. However, it takes one movement point to get on and off the train.

If we have to load each and every unit, it will be really annoying. So what we should do is to abstract the idea.

When we move an unit on rail, one movement point is deducted automatically to simulate the 'getting on and getting off' of the train. And then the unit move 10 squares for free.

The end result of this simulation is that, a horsemen with 2 movement can travel 20 squares on rail by getting on and off the train twice, while an infantry can only travel 10 squares.

This is the same as giving each unit x10 movement. So in the program, the programmer will just do x10, while playing, the player can mentally imagine the unit getting on and off the train.

The unrealistic aspect you mention can thus be easily explained.

 

[Dida]

Many things in the game is unrealistic. But I think the positive gameplay value of making railroad simply x10 outweights the negative side effect of being unealistic.