Railroad Madness

[DaDoo]

The thing is if RR a tile doesn't give you any production or trade bonus, you have a choice not to RR everything.

By the way, if there's a maintanence for road and RR, then why not just eliminate the trade bonus? Wouldn't it be about the same?

 

[Mad Bomber]

Ok folks, whats the real issue here?

1) I don't like the way the map looks when all of the tiles have RR's on them

2) RR's unfairly impact gameplay because of the bonuses they give.

3) RR's unfairly impact gameplay because of the 'instant teleportation" of units.

If your answer is that you don't like the way it looks then I sympathize with you, but I hardly consider it a reason to ask Fireaxis to chande the game, even more so when you consider the many more areas of the game that truly need their attention.

If your answer is that the bonuses are unfair, Well its better than putting 2 more improvements that we would have to build in our cities. The bonuses just represent the increased productivity that comes with increased transportation. Materials arrive faster, more produce can be sold because it reaches market faster, resulting in less spoilage ect. Also if the bonuses were not there then cities would not be over the size of 20.

The movement factor represents the increased movement associated with the steam engine, personally I think that all movements should be increased, but tanks with a movement of 15 WOULD alter the gameplay, so I think the RR movement is a great way to counterbalance the lack of realism in the normal movement of units.

In short,PLEASE LEAVE RR"S THE WAY THEY ARE!

 

[Snobok]

Personally, I don't really care about how the terrain looks all blanketed in railroads. I, being the militaristic type, appreciate the fact that you can move units all the way across continents to defend borders easily. Not to mention, for the building type of folks, railroads are really useful for cleaning the pollution out fast/ My question: Who cares how the terrain looks blanketed in railroads; looks are not important, conquering the world is.

P.S. It may be unfair, but all is fair in love, war, and Civ III.

Just thought I would add my two cents.

 

[DaveMcW]

Obviously you care enough to ressurect a thread that's been buried for 11 months.

 

[Portuguese]

Yeah, it seems that July is previous to June in this thread

 

[cavemanf16]

This comment most likely belongs in a "Creation and Customization" thread somewhere, but here's my thoughts on railroads:

Technically, it is VERY realistic to be able to transport units to anywhere in your own continent in '0 turns' by the Modern era. I mean seriously, why should it take my Mech. Inf. a turn or two to move all the way from New York to California over the course of a few years??? Remember that the turn length is a year in the Modern Age.

Secondly, the reason so many people find it "unrealistic" is because the graphic engine isn't quite advanced enough (I thought it would be by Civ3, but alas, it's not) to handle "railroad sprawl." I think what really needs to happen is for the designers of Civ3 to improve upon this problem by simply making a graphical coding change that allows for graphics that represent an ever-sprawling "suburban" look to the terrain around railroaded squares within a cities' limits when the city is size 25 or greater (or something like that), and some sort of "improved landscape" terrain overlay for all other squares that are "railroaded" but not a part of a size-25 city. This would kill off that ugly "railroad sprawl" problem, while at the same time retaining the playability factor of the Modern Age.

 

[Portuguese]

"Technically, it is VERY realistic to be able to transport units to anywhere in your own continent in '0 turns' by the Modern era. I mean seriously, why should it take my Mech. Inf. a turn or two to move all the way from New York to California over the course of a few years??? Remember that the turn length is a year in the Modern Age."

Yeah, and it is completelly normal to take several to do it by sea: Sea and Land are unbalanced (Main reason why sea is crap in CIV). And yes, a turn could be 1/2 or even 1/4 of year in Modern Age, but that's another subjet...

Yet, no cost and the graphics remain things to change in CIV4...

 

[Pembroke]

And this entire argument would be done and over with if railroad movement rate, food/shield/trade bonuses, and maintenance costs simply were adjustable in the editor!

Standard Out-Of-The-Box Game:

RR movement factor: 0 (=infinite)
RR improvement bonus:
--- irrigation: shields:0, food:+1, trade:0
--- mine: shields:+1, food:0, trade:0
RR maintenance cost: 0 (=free)

And if you thought railroads are fine as they are then, well, fine: you leave the settings as they are. But if you wanted a little variety you could have:

RR movement factor: 12 (=each move costs 1/12 point)
RR improvement bonus:
--- irrigation: shields:0, food:0, trade:0
--- mine: shields:0, food:0, trade:0
RR maintenance cost: 10 (=10 railroaded tiles cost 1gpt to maintain)

And everyone would be happy.

"Change if you want, don't if you don't."

And don't forget the scenario makers! Consider:

Change the name of "road" to "dirt road" and "railroad" to "paved road" with appropriate graphics and in the editor do:

road movement factor: 2
railroad movement factor: 4

and voila, you have now two grades of roads for your scenario set in the Middle Ages...