Railroad Madness

[Quokka]

I think I said that Horse, Wheeled or Vehicle troops would need to be on the trains to make use of the zero movement. So it wouldn't be time specific, otherwise the railroads are the same movement as roads. After all trains are specialized vehicles for the rail and don't do so well on roads, likewise road vehicles don't make the best use of rail, they travel faster than thru wilderness but can't get anywhere as fast as a train could. Think of the wild west, they had cavalry and railroads back then, you could have the cavalry follow the tracks and take months to cross the country or load them on trains and get them there in days, same with infantry but you didn't need cars specifically for horses or flatbeds for cannons, sure they were around but not in great numbers, and if you cannibalised the production cars from the network then production would drop, and the cars have become more specific as the weapons have gotten more specific.
I had heard about the Interstate system being something like that before, but in my area I think that if they tried to use them as airstrips then the people would riot and then sue the government. I think alot of people here would rather be Red (or whatever it is now) than stuck in traffic any longer, even if it was troops coming to the rescue.
Got me thinking of another unit idea, Rail mounted guns. Cannon that can only move on tracks. Available with Steam Power and upgradeable with Motorized Transport to something a bit beefier than regular artillery say Bombard of 20. Cannons were used like this in the Civil War, and then expanded upon in Europe, especially the Germans with their ParisCannon that they could fire from 60 miles away.

 

[Headmaster]

IMHO Quokka's idea of transport train units is great.

Maybe there should be a light train that can only carry 4 foot soldiers when you get steam power, requiring coal and iron, and a heavier train that can carry 8 land units and that requires oil and iron. And of course that artillery train [Transarctica rulez]

The transport trains should be unmovable with rebase to connected cities. It would be nice to have a train station improvement that allows loading/unloading w/o losing MPs and building veteran artillery trains.

The artillery train should be movable, but only on RR of course, and have a small defense value so that it can't be captured.

Units which are not on trains should lose 1/6 MP per square on RR representing modern roads. Making an extra worker action 'build highway' would make the game too complicated.

And I want farmland back. Farmland should increase food output by 100% while RRs increase shield production by 33% (33% only means you will build railroad only to squares producing 3 shields or more, and to areas of strategic importance --> map looks much better).

 

[cegman]

I think that most of you guys don't realize how hard it can get to rewrite stuff on a game.
The Ideas are good but think about the work it will take to get it to work right before you say they should have put this or this instead of this

 

[ferenginar]

I think that the rail network should be random hit by industrial action that shuts down a line, similar to the outbreak of pollution, and you will have to send a worker onto the line for a few turns to negotiate a settlement before it can be used again.

As for movement and getting a tank across your civ in one year, what about before road and rail are built, if you march a warrior from one city to another its going to take 4-5 turns, 200-250 years, are you calling this realistic, or should we consider more about gameplay than realism.

ferenginar

 

[ZemiGod]

The point of Civ 3 is not realism. Why are the Americans existing in 4000 BC? he only known civilization back then was ancient Sumeria. Rail is basically improved road, dont quibble over realism. Like the global warming debate. Civ3's point is not realism. It is a re-make of history. It does not take 50 years to move one mile across terrain. I don't see why rail is annoying, because I think silver rails look alot better than dusty roads. I actually supervise the workers' rail projects so that they dont accidentally connect our system to someone who we're at war with

 

[sutton]

Perhaps this isn't the right thread, but, mentions of aesthetics and land-use reminds me of a thought I have had for a while: parks- carved out of forests and mountains in relatively remote areas (like in real life). Provide happiness and commerce to nearby cities, etc. Razing a park very difficult under democracy... you get the idea.

When you have formed enough parks, you can build the national park service- a slightly corny wonder, but no worse than some.

Just thinking about ways to add to the diversity of the lanscape.

Sutton

 

[Rneilan]

Originally posted by donsig
Railroads may not up your shield production from forested squares and this may be because forests are quite different than in Civ II:

A forest can be cut down and this adds ten shields to the nearest city's production. Forests can also be replanted, recut, replanted, etc.

So forests do have their uses.

Maybe someone already brought this up, but i could have sworn it was a one time only thing for the bonus...

 

[titanium]

Originally posted by ironfang
Well. I agree some what. I believe that modern naval vessels need to be sped up a little (maybe 2 moves more), but you understate the usefullness of transports and overstate the use of Air ports.

I am in a game now where I have invaded another continent that has 5 different civs on it (Huge world map mind you). So I had to spear head the assualt with an air craft carrier, 8 battle ships, 3 bombers, one fighter, and 3 transports with tanks, infantry, and cavalry.

I took the city, and built an air port. The next turn I air lifted in only 4 infantry (I only had 4 air ports in my main land). I held the city but ended up with a battle line not too far from that city. I had to assualt and destroy the enemies interior production capabilities. How? Transport. While rail was a HUGE advantage on my turf, it proved a HUGE advantage on the enemies turf when I invaded them. I had to invest in a new strategy. Bomb rail improvements, bomb rail improvements, bomb rail improvements, in order to cripple their ability to swiftly counter attack.

Then I had to move in with transports, backed with bombers and fighters... it got ugly to make a long story short. Sea movement... could be a little better on a huge map anyway.

ironfang

I would have to object to the suggestion that sea movement should be a little better (faster) on a huge map or for any map size for this matter. Invasion of another continent is an exciting endeavor. Securing your landing site and cutting-off their land routes is an even more exciting part of the game.

If you look at the greatest seaborn expedition in history (invasion of nothern France, June 1944), the Allied forces had to bombard the landing site before troop transports moved in. And while the bombing raid failed miserably resulting in a massacre, it just goes to show how important your planning of air/naval support is.

Going back to the game, you can dispatch your carriers and its escorts ahead while your busy packing your transports. The bomber has a range of six squares which doesn't really require you to get your ships close to land, thus eliminating the need for faster sea movements. Just remember to have at least six full carriers (4 for bombers, 1 for air defense, 1 for recon / area around your fleet) and one battleship for each carrier to pack enough punch and sustain bombardments. It would have to be real ugly (just like you said) because you would have to destroy his improvements. Afterall, it is an invasion you know!

Cheers!

 

[Archive]

On the Fast Rails/Slow ships subject: I think the best realism solution would be to treat sea units the way they treat air units, complete with "sealift" (as opposed to airlift, but between friendly harbors), and "interception" missions for those sea superiority craft like destroyers/subs. IRL sea units have limited ranges just like air units do, do recon, etc. It seems like a fairly natural translation. Doing it this way would most likely require a balancing of naval units stats to reflect their comparitavly huge "range" as opposed to striking speed. A problem I forsee with this is rebasing...a modern sea unit (ie frigate through Aircraft Carrier) stays out of port for very extended periods. I can't think of a way to overcome this hurdle of game mechanics without making sea units like those godawful Bomber or Helicopter-Type units from Civ II (every X turns must return to a City or be destroyed/loose HP every turn away from home). Perhaps a naval unit could be rebased indefinatly anywhere within operational range of your nearest cultural borders? What do you all think? Oh and How in gods name do I add a linebreak in my posts?

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Railroads are ugly, and the first time I ever saw a "borg" style all railroaded land on civ2 I was shocked and horrified. But every game I ever won ended with me having railroads every space for quick pollution cleanup, ease of movement, etc.

 

[Archive]

Me too. Frictionless deployment is the magic bullet in my games. My favorite "Wonder" from my Civ 2 days was the Trans-Global railway system, a game where I railed *every square on earth*. I'd laugh myself silly knowing that every turn my cities could bust out dozens of Howitzers and then send them hurtling towards enemy cities anywhere in the world by way of a lucky S-Shaped continent that connected the poles. I love building them but I've always hated the way rail-sprawls looked...I take comfort in knowing that they did take a LONG time to build though. They're certainly a little more elegant now that they are nice and curved when sepperate, but the tangled mass of spaghetti is no more aesthetically pleasing than the weird angular grids in Civ 1 that could extend out into the ocean. Hmm...late in the game I like to pretend that they are a system of superhighways. With, uh, weird lines across them.

 

[Maccabeus]

I must admit that I was shocked when I first made it to the Industrial Age and found that within what seemed like a few turns the civilizations that had railroads had blanketed their land with them. Not that it didn't make sense, but that I can't figure out how they did it so fast. Maybe I'm just not producing enough workers?

 

[akinkhoo]

Oih but it sux that u can travel with 0 travel time in your continent if u have railroads to everywhere...there isnt any realistic in it and it makes it too easy to def your country in the later game, like in huge map where your empire is really big...and then your naval units are like turtels on land...fs. I hope this will be fixed on patch because i dont start to edit them on my own.

err, wasn't this how the german hit poland then almost immediately hit france and them almost immediately hit russian. It was say the german huge rail network allow them to move half their forces from 1 end to the other in a week.... so it ain't no joke!

but for railway to give extra resourses sux, i wish we go back to farmland and supermarkets that laying railway all over!!!

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I definitely miss the pretty look of double irrigated farmland, which went better aesthetically with the railroad. But it is realistic for the rails to give more food - it is food that would have spoiled if it hadnt been whisked away in refrigerator cars.

Clearly there would be parts of an empire that didnt need the quick defense of rails over them, but the reason I plasterrail is pollution. It is gauranteed that if you leave a place unrailed, that is where the pollution will show up, and I still have a strong pollution phobia from the days when giant skulls appeared on the land. I cant bear to waste turns having the workers reach the polluted sites, so I must build rails. Ironically, those spots are usually woods or other nature far from a city, the last place pollution would show up...

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by Maccabeus
I must admit that I was shocked when I first made it to the Industrial Age and found that within what seemed like a few turns the civilizations that had railroads had blanketed their land with them. Not that it didn't make sense, but that I can't figure out how they did it so fast. Maybe I'm just not producing enough workers?

Industrious trait in the civ, in Democracy, after Replaceable parts - real fast workers - one slave to RR a flat square, one regular to RR a hill.

 

[Maccabeus]

Not in my experience, Sultan. Pollution for me usually appears on railroad tracks or right next to a city. Even if it's not actually on a track, it will be surrounded by them.

 

[philippe]

railroads are cool......
and that bonus is just fantastic!

 

[Portuguese]

When I played Civ 1, I put railroads in all squares of Europe, Asia and Africa!! It was Beautiful [dance]
Of course that I railroad All squares in Civ 3 . It is very beautiful and it increases food|resources production and the insta-transport bonus.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Clearly there would be parts of an empire that didnt need the quick defense of rails over them, but the reason I plasterrail is pollution. It is gauranteed that if you leave a place unrailed, that is where the pollution will show up, and I still have a strong pollution phobia from the days when giant skulls appeared on the land. I cant bear to waste turns having the workers reach the polluted sites, so I must build rails. Ironically, those spots are usually woods or other nature far from a city, the last place pollution would show up...

Pollution shows up on any land tiles that city is working. If you work coastal squares only, you will never get pollution! Go ahead and test it.

 

[eighty]

A part of the problem is that rails take money to build and maintain, but once they are built in Civ 3, they are free. If it were harder to build/keep rails (i.e. costlier), then maybe it wouldn't seem to unbalance/change the game so much.

Solutions? Having to build special workers that can only build rails (or maintain them). Every time a rail is used have a RNG determine whether it will need maintenance at the end of a turn. Require city improvement (train station?) to allow construction of rails inside its cultural border. For rails extending outside a city border to link 2 cities, require some special cost (10 gold per tile or something).

Or make a function "build rail line" accesible from the domestic advisor and pay out gold to build a line between two cities (or to a resource) and bypass workers altogether. This would speed things up, always a plus. If this were done, some compensation would have to be made for losing the extra resource/food from railed tiles.

Someone mentioned the AI redundancy factor in the rail network to offest the bombardment of rail. I think that, as is, bombardment is not near as effective as is should be when used against improvements, because of that redundancy. Air missions have been used in the past to target bridges specifically, same with artillery. The loss of a bridge is usually a crippling loss for defense, and I think it would be better if this tactic were more useful than it already is.

Personally, I enjoy being able to move around my continent in 1 turn. But I agree that it shouldn't be quite so easy. It should be expensive to do so and railroads should break down, as well as the trains themselves.

This has gone on quite long enough. Later all.