1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Railroad Madness

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Essex, Nov 16, 2001.

  1. ibliss

    ibliss Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6
    maybe a mechanism similar to the appearance of pollution could be used then to make railroads on some tiles broken? like indeed the amount of traffic that passes over them.. more traffic means a accumulating higher percentage of breaking down... (which makes sense because the longer a railroad 'lasts', the more prone it will become to break down)
     
  2. GI Josh

    GI Josh Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    67
    The problem with RRs now is that there is no drawbacks to RRing every square. Every thing in Civ should have both benefits and drawbacks - the strategy comes in how you mix and match. Right now the no-movement RR every square overpowers artillery and there's no distinct movement corridors. I have several suggestions that would be easy to code and would not make the game more complicated (I think having to deal with rail transport units would make turns even longer and more tedious than they are now):

    (i) for each tile, choice is mine, irrigate, *or* RR and RR provides no bonus beyond a road. You can't have RR *and* the other. Bring back farmland to compensate for the lack of extra food by RRing and some sort of improvement to get the extra shield.

    (ii) charge a maintenance fee for upkeep, perhaps 1gp/turn for every 3-5 tiles of RR.

    (iii) make RR cost 1/10 or 1/12 of a movement point.

    (iv) keep the rule that the opposing civ cannot use RR in enemy territory, but allow it to use roads in enemy territory, but at slightly reduced rate, i.e. each move on enemy road would be 1/2 mvmt point.

    (v) when an area flips, whether by conquest or culture, all RRs should be destroyed (this simulates loss of rolling stock).

    The overall result of these changes would be that:

    (i) there would not be the massive ugliness of RR every tile

    (ii) there will be distinct transportation corridors between cities, which will become strategic points for capture/bombardment in war. a player will have to balance having redundant transportation corridors with the loss of extra food/production - this ties in nicely with the general military v. other considerations in the game. having distinct transportation corridors will add a wonderful complexity to strategic choices, particularly once MP comes out.

    (iii) by having RRs automatically degrade to roads upon conquer, players will have to include workers in their combined arms attacks. furthermore, the unrealistic and (more importantly) unbalanced ability to conquer half the world in a turn or two will be greatly reduced.

    (iv) by having a small movement cost to RRs, players can shift their forces along interior lines quickly, but will not be able to defend an extensive RRed empire solely with a stack of 30 artillery as is currently the case. players will be able to employ diversionary tactics effectively, which currently are no longer possible after the discovery of RR.

    The only downside to these changes is that the AI will have trouble making strategic decisions as far as building transportation networks - it will up the relative advantage of having an organic brain.
     
  3. Allemand

    Allemand Chief

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    218
    Location:
    Olympia
    Some nice ideas, GI Josh. I like them.
     
  4. Lostman

    Lostman Thread Killer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    IL USA
    I agree with GI Josh. Some points of this game lack on the realism.
     
  5. Portuguese

    Portuguese Vassalising Spain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,848
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal (duh)
    Maybe that 1/10 or 1/12 could be different in tiny or huge maps, because it is a BIG difference between that valors in those maps! :)

    And maybe after mass transit tec (or another from the period...), roads could change from 1/3 to 1/5, make them more atractive...

    Hope to help...
     
  6. MightyMick

    MightyMick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    Maybe I'm alone on this, but I really like when my whole nation has every square RR'd, "borg-style." I don't play Civ for the insane challenge, so much as for a feeling of God-like power.
     
  7. Pembroke

    Pembroke Tribune

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    622
    I will admit this right at the start: railroading every square results in a landscape that is downright UGLY. Changing graphics won't help because that's not the issue. It is somehow more pleasing to the eye having a "normal" railroad grid. You know, something like what is the result when you first connect your cities with railroads.

    Actually I have this same objection to roads, too. Roads on every land tile is just not pretty. It is efficient, it is strategically sound, it is economically advantageous. All that and more. But it is simply ugly.

    Having said this I fully admit that there are people who like having roads (railed and otherwise) everywhere. I don't mind that. What I do mind is why am I not given a choice in this?

    I refuse to believe that it is impossible or even very hard to add, for example, the following changes:

    1) Railroad movement factor: similar to road movement factor, freely settable in the editor, default value "infinite". Thus standard game stays the same but anyone could set it the way he feels it ought to be.

    2) Road and railroad bonus: food/trade/shield bonuses freely settable in the editor with zero being one option. Default values as per now.

    3) Road and railroad maintenance cost: X gold per turn per road/railroad (separate entries) deducted automatically from your treasury. Default value would be zero, i.e. what it is now. If you can't pay then random tiles "fall in disrepair" and the road/railroad improvements disappear until your budget is balanced. If you want a say which pieces of rail are more important then do it yourself and pillage the least important improvements before the game does it for you. Roads in unowned territory are not paid by anyone but instead have a percentage chance every turn of disappearing, also adjustable in the editor with the default being zero. If you want to maintain that silk road then keep on repairing it with your workers.

    This, or a similar, solution would be in line with the Civ tradition: "Keep what you want, change what you don't, and have fun."
     
  8. Mad Bomber

    Mad Bomber Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    655
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Railroads may be ugly but it makes sense to have them the way they are in the game

    Railroads are intended to make travel swifter & they represent not only railroads but super highways as well. Railroads & SHW's go through terrain they don't take up all of the land (take a trip between cities from Pennsylvania to Iowa and you will realize how much country there still is in America.) The bonuses simply reflect the decreased time it takes goods to get to market (you will notice that they did not include the supermarket/ farmland from civ 2) Let the RR stay the way it is, Fireaxis has more things to fix first.

    Paying a maintenence cost for X amount of tiles w/ road or RR would be a good idea though.
     
  9. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    SSK-Like, say: roads use 1/3 movement point, rail uses 1/12 movement point. Then artillery can't move from LA to Miami in 1 turn, but still mobile enough for strategic defense.

    I agree 100%. THis makes sense with the National Defense Strategy people use as well---in the US, the Nat'l Guard isn't based in Iowa, and they just hop around wherever needed---this is what I and other people do in Civ3. In real life, in state (or section of the nation) has their own defense force. If we use your idea, then one would have to do that.

    Although I think 1/12 is a little much, how about 1/8?
     
  10. Mad Bomber

    Mad Bomber Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    655
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    I don't really use a reserve in one loc. I station one good def. unit in each city. This is usually good enough in order to deter AI opponets. If they do invade, you just move all your units able to reach the invasion force to repel invaders, this + normal production has always been enough to destroy invading force

    remember 1 turn is at least 1 year in length, I hope an artillery bttn can move from LA to Florida in a year!
     
  11. Portuguese

    Portuguese Vassalising Spain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,848
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal (duh)
    It should be different according to map sizes: compare 1/!2 in tiny and in huge maps...

    And as I said, road could be more effective after RR is discovered... to invite people not to RReverything...
     
  12. alexander dumas

    alexander dumas Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    CA
    If you really think the railroads are ugly, maybe there's a way to change the settings so that unimproved tiles look like they are railroaded, and improving them with roads and then rail changes them back to their natural state.
     
  13. Portuguese

    Portuguese Vassalising Spain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,848
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal (duh)
    I didn't say that. In fact, I like RRs.
    I'm just giving my opinion: how to remove some RRs advantages to rebalance the game?
     
  14. Mad Bomber

    Mad Bomber Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    655
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Portuguese:

    I think that Fireaxis should leave the railroads alone, They are fine the way they are. You can't use them in enemy territory so you can't exploit them in attack, so what's the beef? The only thing they should change is to add a maintence cost, and that's IT!:mad:
     
  15. graeme

    graeme Dorsai

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    34
    I think this thread is missing a whole game aspect which, I feel is really the culprit.

    That is, the fact that everyone builds cities 4 tiles apart trying to make every tile land within a city radius. If cities were spread apart, then you would in fact get transportation corridors to connect the cities (no need to RR tiles which don't fall inside a city radius).

    The problem is that Civ3 has features that force you to pack in cities, like corruption based on distance, and cultural borders that "encircle" a city instead of "connecting" cities. In my opinion, borders should sort of triangulate cities and follow geographic features, which is what really happens. Also, forts should count in the triangulation so we can have large borders without having to build a bunch of "useless" cities.
     
  16. Portuguese

    Portuguese Vassalising Spain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,848
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal (duh)
    And what cost that would be?!?

    1 gpt for any 9 tiles of RR?
    1 gpt for every tile of RR?
    1 gpt for any city with a RR in its radius?
    1 gpt per "line" of RR?

    Your idea... I don't mean it's bad... But it is a bit difficult to implement, no?
     
  17. Mad Bomber

    Mad Bomber Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    655
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Poruguese:

    I don't think that it would be difficult to program a cost for RR, e.g RR cost is 1 gold per X RR tiles, but my main objection is to give RR a movement cost. RR imovement is handled in CIV games as it is for a good reason. The difference between good roads and poor roads is a huge difference in maintaining a National defense, & the RR movement represents the fundamental change in transportation with the advancement of RR.

    .
     
  18. DaDoo

    DaDoo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    One way to do it...(granted it isn't completely fleshed out but bear with me here)...

    Make putting road and railroad on the map have no bonus at all except the reduction of movement points while travelling on it. You will still have workers out there irrigating or mining tiles. Then have 2 new city improvements that would give the equivalent road and RR bonuses to the tiles that are currently being worked on by your citizen. This way the only reason you would need for road or RR is for faster travel between cities instead of needing them everywhere to get the bonuses. Also by having it as city improvements, it should make the having maintanence cost issue easier too.

    for the record... I don't mind building road or RR on every tile :p but not needing them on every tile? what're my workers gonna do? :p
     
  19. GI Josh

    GI Josh Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    67
    read back thru the thread - that's what's been proposed - you need the addition of a constant cost to roads/RRs, otherwise every tile will still get RRed for strategic transportation reasons. if road/RR has real costs associated with it (i.e. it's an exclusive improvement and it has gpt maintenance) then players will be faced with strategic considerations in balancing cash and increased food/shields (with less RR) versus more robust transportation links which are harder to block. i think the key objective is to have defined transportation corridors, which would lead to much more strategic depth to warfare and road/RR decisions. right now it's a now brainer - road/RR *everything*.
     
  20. Raxe

    Raxe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3
    GIJosh from YR???


    -Raxe
     

Share This Page