Railroad instant movement bonus is silly

[whereagles]

Get rid of it. It is unrealistic. Make it free movement for the first 5 or 10 tiles, but no more railroad move that turn.

Also, railroading every tile is not realistic either. Have it give not a production bonus but only a city link trade bonus. As in, cities linked by railroad have 50% trade increase (total, not in the tiles), but no food/production increase.

 

[mastertyguy]

This is good. But I don't know how it could work. Maybe making pay maintence for rails and road.

 

[ainwood]

I agree - I hope that the infinite movement for rail is gone (or if its not, its moddable).

As for railroading every tile - that would certainly cut-down on micromanagement if the need for that could be removed. As you suggest - cutting the production bonus would be a good start.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Said it before but: 1) Pay maintainance on Terrain improvements (road, rail, mines, farms).

2) Joining cities with roads or rails generates CAPACITY POINTS-based on tech level on the size of the cities joined. Capacity points are used to move troops, form trade routes and moving food/shields. Troops moved on RR's still get infinite movement, you are simply limited to how many units you can move in this way.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Xen]

I find it more unrealitic to have to cross europe in 400 years on civ3 roads, inw hat could be acomplised in a good months marching for any half-assed Roman legionary

 

[North King]

Make roads faster, and railroads limited, but large movement. Maybe 5 tiles for the one and 10 for the other?

And Maintainence? DEFINATELY.

 

[Nobody]

who pays for road in neutral land? the person who bulit it, or does it wear away (last say 20 turns).

 

[Hygro]

Maitnance is a bad idea.

The game is abstracted, and since the commercial and productive benifits FAR outweigh costs of maitnace, theres no reason to put it in. It's just not rational.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Since when does the game being abstract justify not having maintainance? If city improvements and units can all have a maintainance cost, then why not tile improvements? It seems like such a ridiculous exemption to me!! You also say that there should be no maintainance costs because the financial and productive benefit to them is so great. I would argue that this is exactly why there DOES need to be tile improvement maintainance. It is another way, IMO, to further reduce the Snowball Effect-by partially decoupling success from total land you possess (something which has ALWAYS bothered me!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[antonio]

Unlimeted RR movment is rediculas.But because turns consist of a year at the least on normal games then it would be posible for you to travel round the world in a turn.The road movement bonus is pretty pathetic and should definatley improve to say 5 to 10 tiles.The bonuses for railways should be taken away because having a railway dosent mean you suddenly produce extra food or more goods having a ccomercial bonus yesbut not productionb or food.I think personaly that if you reduce the the RR movment bonus that you should reduce turn length to say a month or 3 months it would then make the game much more realistic.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Unlimeted RR movment is rediculas.But because turns consist of a year at the least on normal games then it would be posible for you to travel round the world in a turn.

I think this is bad argument.
Movements need to be consistant.
If ship can travel finite number of turns per year, if tank can travel very limited number of tiles per year, then RR movement should be consitant and similar to them.

There are also, ancient units traveling only one tile per 25 years or so.

 

[Quebec Patriote]

Nope. Railroad movement is fine the way it is.

Moving a infantry unit from one end of your country to the other through rails shouldnt take 3 or 5 years!!! One year is already too much.


If anything should be changed it's bigger ship movement and bigger road movement for modern units.

 

[player1 fanatic]

And moving infantry unit from one end of your country to the other through roads or even unroaded areas shouldn't take 3 or 5 years either. But it is that way to keep strategic element of the game.

Anyway, all movment need to be balanced to each other to keep startagic element fluid. Having most units with slow movment and infinite RR is not the way to go.

 

[Quebec Patriote]

That's why I said modern units and ships movement should be increased. Modern warfare is about speed and firepower. If your enemy has 5 turns i.e years to wait for your infantry unit to get to the front, there is not much strategy involved to start with - not to mention complete lack of realism.

People often say that the modern age isnt has good has the first years in CIV. I think movement is a big part of it. It doesnt take 20 years to invade a contry if you are stronger.

I'm not saying unlimited movement on roads, but increase it for armors and the likes. I would be in favor of voiding unlimited railroad movement if road and non-road movement was increased for modern units. I know it's all about balance for gameplay but I feel it could be improved.

 

[hclass]

Nope. Railroad movement is fine the way it is.

Moving a infantry unit from one end of your country to the other through rails shouldnt take 3 or 5 years!!! One year is already too much.


If anything should be changed it's bigger ship movement and bigger road movement for modern units.

Yes, it should be like what it is now, unlimited move!

But please, there are those who can't handle mass attack from everywhere in a single turn, I suggest make it an optional, "unlimited move on rail" or "a long distance but with limited moves".

In my case, I will be very disappointed if I can't take some 5 to 10 cities down in one turn simply because I can only move N tiles with rail...

 

[numidian]

Regarding movements and time... I kind of like the idea of dividing up movements into two parts. First you'd have 'attack' movement, which would have the same movement as usual but just for fighting purposes. But there would also be a 'transport movement', which would represent long distance travels and might be 3 or so times the range of attack movement. So instead of a ship or tank taking 20 turns to get across the map, it might take only 7 turns in 'transport' mode. The reason for the slower attack movement is that in a real life battle situation you have two opposing forces which are making moves and reacting to each other's moves in a very dynamic way. This isn't the case with, say, a tank that is just trying to get from A to B. I think this concept could be applied to a limited railroad movement in the same way. A railroad would just increase the rate of movements. And by the way. I agree with the original poster. The free movement is not realistic.

 

[stormbind]

I find it more unrealitic to have to cross europe in 400 years on civ3 roads, inw hat could be acomplised in a good months marching for any half-assed Roman legionary

That's a good point. Back in the Civ3 ancient era, the poor soldiers had to recruit replacements and they would never live long enough to see a message delivered

Maybe we have to assume that 99% of travelers are eaten by invisible lions or something, which is why it takes 10 years to cross a hill.

 

[hclass]

First you'd have 'attack' movement, which would have the same movement as usual but just for fighting purposes. But there would also be a 'transport movement', which would represent long distance travels and might be 3 or so times the range of attack movement.

The reason for the slower attack movement is that in a real life battle situation you have two opposing forces which are making moves and reacting to each other's moves in a very dynamic way. This isn't the case with, say, a tank that is just trying to get from A to B.

The reasons you quote is too subjective. I mean is sorely your own reasoning. I can easily quote you another set of reasoning which is exactly opposite:

When war, either side try to act (including attack, defend and move) as quick as possible and as far as neccesary. But when come to transport purpose, units are not under great pressure to do so, as a result 'attack' movement should be faster and at longer distance in comparison with 'transport' movement

IMO,
In real life there is not such thing as a fix "mode" which always boost movement speed or distance to go, it all depends.
We are talking civ game anyway, not real life, so just keep the unlimited railroad movement, it is fun!

 

[stormbind]

Militaries will go to any length to get the job done, no matter how ridiculous the solution: See WW2 and German Soldiers catching taxis to the front line.

During war, cost is not an object and debt should be allowed.

 

[GenMarshall]

Since Civ2-3's railroads have instant movement, I find it very unrealistic. CTP series did a good job on it by only granding tiles with railroads 1/5 movement points. I find it that having railroads granting 1/5th movement points seems fair .