Railroad nonsense

[Isak]

Originally posted by TheDS
I suggest a single building, rather than the Civ2 approach, to continue with the streamlining-style that Civ3 has going for it. Why waste all day building farms on top of irrigation, or super-mines, and why build supermarkets and all that other stuff. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Why be overcomplicated when it's no fun to do so?

In another game I would have agreed with you, but without the super-farms and mines, your modern day workers would have absolutely nothing to do. Now, personally I would love to make them useless (I'm considering starting a Call To Power Public Works fan-club ) but workers are in the game and I don't think we would make Firaxis remove them, so we should make sure they at least have something to do.

Besides, you would be neglecting the strategic importance by placing the tile-improvement inside the city.

Other than that, you have a lot of good points - I especially like Battlefield Destruction idea, and I'm not even ruling out the Superhighways - Civ3 is in desperate need of City Improvements that affect the Food production of a city directly, IMHO.

 

[GI Josh]

Originally posted by TheDS


First, your Workers can concentrate on the useful stuff, like linking cities, mining, and irrigating.

Second, those roads/rails are actually important now. Lose that road and your cities get cut off.

Third, if you have foreigners in your territory, they can get even more annoying than they already are. I feel you should be able to walk through them myself, but if you have a war going on, it's a lot more important to you to take those guys out before they cut your roads

I suggest a single building, rather than the Civ2 approach, to continue with the streamlining-style that Civ3 has going for it.
<end quote.>


TheDS is exactly right. There should be two limitations on roads/railroads - they cannot be too close to each other, and there should be an upkeep charge and/or they deteriorate. This way there are limited roads and railroads which have real strategic significance. A civ w/o a rop/attacking civ should not be able to use the railroads, but should be able to use the roads. In most wars, control of highways or cutting of railroad links is extremely important. By placing a steep upkeep charge, a player is forced to build limited infrastructure.

Another option instead of an upkeep charge is to force the player to choose - mine, irrigate, *or* railroad. This way the player is forced to choose between extra food/production and extra transport. The whole point is to have distinct routes of transportation and not the entire world becoming one large railroad depot.

Also, railroad should cost 1/9 of a movement point. You move fast, but not unlimited.

 

[captain walrus]

If you really want to stop wall-to-wall carpeting and just have railroads going from city to city...then stop messing around with dumb ideas and just ask Firaxis to make workers only build railroads from a city to a city (or resource or colony) and you cannot just build a railroad tile, you have to build the whole railroad. There I just solved your problem.

 

[GI Josh]

Originally posted by captain walrus
If you really want to stop wall-to-wall carpeting and just have railroads going from city to city...then stop messing around with dumb ideas and just ask Firaxis to make workers only build railroads from a city to a city (or resource or colony) and you cannot just build a railroad tile, you have to build the whole railroad. There I just solved your problem.

Wow, it's suddenly so clear. Now I can stop messing around with dumb ideas. But what am I supposed to do with all of my free time?

 

[Isak]

Captain Walrus: You sure did - except that rather insignificant part about the production bonus which is what's making the AI (and myself) build railroads like crazy, in the first place

 

[PaulNAdhe]

This subject comes up from time to time and most everyone agrees that the map is ugly. But, it is not unrealistic to have RR's in every square. Check out this map from the Chicago area: www.coopsmaps.com/trains/rrmapsmple.html

Quite some time back a map was posted of the entire US and it was just as extensively covered with rail.

 

[royfurr]

Any actual changes like these, I think, could very well have significant side effects. Thus to prevent problems there would need to be extensive playtesting. That doesn't seem to be Firaxis's strong suit, but hey things change and lets give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, changing RR around so effects so many things that I think it is best left to Civ4. I DO agree with everyone that the RR carpet is quite ugly, but I also think that the posters who relate the RR/highway effects (saying essentially, that the RR in every tile is NOT unlike real life, IN EFFECTS, although not literally), are right. Even making movement say 1/10 instead of infinite would have severe echoing effects, IMO.

So, leave it for Civ4. BUT it should be a priority there! (Along with reworking the Naval aspect of the game, but I digress ..)

One of the very best ideas in this thread, I think, is the Battlefield Destruction concept, although I think it should ONLY apply to the Modern era, and perhaps the Industrial era- preferbly the last half- maybe link it not to era but to techs- sort of a negative side effect of say Mass Production or Motor Transport (the partifcular one is debatable). This (Battlefield Destruction) is a terrific idea- Firaxis, make a note for Civ4!!

Civ on.

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by royfurr
Any actual changes like these, I think, could very well have significant side effects. Thus to prevent problems there would need to be extensive playtesting. That doesn't seem to be Firaxis's strong suit, but hey things change and lets give them the benefit of the doubt.

Well they did ask for playtesters recently - hopefully they are going to use them for something.

Still, changing RR around so effects so many things that I think it is best left to Civ4.

Sure, these changes could have profound effects - OTOH I'm only asking for two new tile improvements, and reduced effect on an existing one. Of course, the really great addition would be if we could just be allowed to add and modify tile improvements ourselves, but I digress... I'm not optimistic about any of these changes making it into the PtW expansion, but you never know

I DO agree with everyone that the RR carpet is quite ugly, but I also think that the posters who relate the RR/highway effects (saying essentially, that the RR in every tile is NOT unlike real life, IN EFFECTS, although not literally), are right.

They are, but why should RR movement be realistic when every other in-game movement aspect is not? Why does it take a year to move out of your backyard on foot? Why are ships so goddam slow they take several years to cross the Atlantic? Realism is not really important IMO, but gameplay is, and compared to other types of movement, Railroads are terribly unbalancing - the shift from roads to RR is comparable to mounting a jet engine on a pigeon IMHO. Add to that my previous posts on depriving the game of tactical depth... AND being a pain in the...ehrm...eye

One of the very best ideas in this thread, I think, is the Battlefield Destruction concept, although I think it should ONLY apply to the Modern era, and perhaps the Industrial era- preferbly the last half- maybe link it not to era but to techs- sort of a negative side effect of say Mass Production or Motor Transport (the partifcular one is debatable).

This idea is just getting better and better. Now there would be something to occupy all those inactive workers I always end up with.

This (Battlefield Destruction) is a terrific idea- Firaxis, make a note for Civ4!!

I'll second that - now if only gamedesign was a democratic process

OT: A Heinz Guderian fan, are we?

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by Isak

...
OT: A Heinz Guderian fan, are we?

HiYa Isak

Although you kinda "deconstructed" my post, I must appluade (sorry- sp.) you on yours above being a model of what a good "contra" post should be- no name calling, logical, etc. Good for you!

I am by nature very wary of the effects of "big" changes, as Civ is like an ecology- changes in one area have unintended and unexpected effects on other areas, as everything is so inter-related. And RR movement is one of the most consequential things in the game. I agree that "infinite" RR movement is a little disconcerting, (I remember my reaction to it the first time, way long ago in Civ the First). And maybe some limits are a good idea. The changes in production effects would need very careful balancing in costs, as even with creating other alternate ways of getting those shields or food, it now takes more time to build those production mechanisms- not a lot, but its another item to build, to decide WHEN to build, etc- it takes up resources twice, not once as in building RR. Currently, if you have mine and RR and want more food, you just irrgate the mined tile, and don't need to also redo the RR. Each time you want to make such a change under the new regieme, you'd need to also rebuild the "alternate to RR production mechanism", (SuperFarm or SuperMine, whatever) . This is not a Bad Thing, necessarly, (it'd create a premium for predicting what your going to need and building it first, etc). But it would make a little more inerta in the game. Maybe that would be good. But playtesting that effect would be very very important. That is part of why I feel maybe Civ4, not PTW. I do agree that RR need to be looked at, for sure.

Re: Herr Guderian. A ground breaker and maverick in his field, and a vastly influential figure in military history, one can admire the man his talents, while deploring the fact that they were used by such an evil regieme. Truly a Tragic Figure of Grecian dimensions. Had only he (1) lived in one of the "Allied" countries and (2) that he been listened to as much there as he was in Germany!

Not sure if "fan" is quite the right word, but, I'd rather have had him on my side rather then the other.

The quote, I think, fits well on how I try to to deal with the ai's in the game.

Civ on.

 

[Isak]

Sorry about deconstructing your post like that Royfurr
I think we more or less agree though - but with the prospect of the expansion pack just around the corner (I know, most likely a 6 month corner, but still...) I just wanted to at least try and make Firaxis reconsider the implementation of railroads. I know the chances of them reading this, much less agreeing with it, are slim... I still had to give it a try.

You are however absolutly right that it would demand excessive playtesting, and I'm sure with the other changes already announced, the playtesters already have their hands full, so I'm in no way optimistic.

I think I would settle for an option in the editor allowing us to change the basics - movement rate and tile bonus - of the railroads.... that way we could do the playtesting ourselves

I admit 'fan' was perhaps an inappropriate word to use with regards to Herr Guderian - I knew the quote from a friend and former neighbour, who is a self-appointed military historian, and had a nasty habit of beating me and our mutual friends at Risk (the boardgame) and uttering quotes by Heinz Guderian and the like (with a thick, german accent) as he sweeped our units off the board .... Losing was the least of our troubles...

If we ever play multiplayer together, I'll be expecting the same sort of behaviour from you

and yes, regardless of the fact that H.G. served the 'wrong' side, his talent for warfare can only be admired - even by a peace-lover like myself.

 

[royfurr]

Isak,
I had one other thought regarding the possibilities of "alternate to RR" production increasing tile improvements. One tactic I have evolved in Civ Three which I didn't practice often in Two is, not being afraid to "re-build" ie change, the tile improvements, that is, irrigate Mines and mine Irrgation, to change the production output greatly- not just by moving citizens around, but changing the tiles production "thrust" or basis. I find myself doing this, in some cases, several times an "era", but mostly after RR exist, as they "multply" the efffect of this change from +/- 1 shield/food per tile to +/- 2. Now obviously this uses "resources" (workers time) but if the result allows you to rapidly grow or rapidly build, as needed, this is effort wisely spent. I have not noticed, although it would be hard too, the AI doing this. Having a situation where this tactic means not just rebuilding the tile basis (irrigate/mine) but also the "Super-X" impropvement (food or shield building), makes this a more costly tactic. It would have to be carefully chosen when to do this. And that is my point- a human can DO that more careful analysis, but the ai will surely not be able to do so. The result will be another advantage for the human over the ai.

And too much of that is why we have the various ai "cheats", which are better described as ai "handicaps"- otherwise the game would be too easy. (Not that *I* find it too easy ... and I merely play Regent, not the higer levels ... its all in the power of numbers, as in One Human, against 6 or 8 or 15 or whatever, AI's- its really you against them all, and anyone who doesn't think so, IMO, doesn't understand how the program works.

FOLKS- I meant no put down by that remark, so PLEASE, don't flame me (as he runs to grab his fire retardent suit ...).

So my point is that these changes to the RR rules might also greatly effect the AI's ability to cope. More reason to test this out, thus, Four, not PTW. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be discussing it ... Now IS the time to discuss these things. Man, *I* need, to start a thread on the changes needed for the Naval aspect of the game ...

Finally: you don't need to be a warmonger to respect, and have an interest in, the military tradition. Warriors have been a respected part of society for millenia. And War has ALWAYS been Hell for them ... and they were still willing to do the hard things to protect their homes, nations, tribes, families ...

Getting windy, need to move on. I need to get back to the war agains the Iroquois ... those visicious back-stabbing bast_rds ...

Civ on!

 

[TheDS]

Regarding idle workers:

You see all those size 6 and 12 cities? Well, you pop one more guy into them and wham! that city can now support more troops. (Okay, well not if you play Rep and Dem by default rules...) But you can still reintegrate them back into your cities. They can then produce money or bump up your production. If I get "everything" built across the countryside, I keep a dozen or so workers ready for pollution patrol, and over time I integrate the ramainder back into cities or escort new settlers with them. No sense in having idle hands.

Regarding railroad changes:

None of these suggestions has to be added to the default rules, but having the option for them in the Editor would be nice.

My suggestion of removing the production effect of railroads and then replacing that with a superhighway does have the drawback that your cities will have more food or production sooner than normal. I have noticed that by removing the trade bonus from roads and applying it straight on the terrain that research goes a little faster than normal. I already thought there weren't really gradual enough units (values bumped up) and have tried lengthening the research time, but I haven't gotten a chance to test that yet. (I got rid of my good computer and this computer would take way too long to process a turn.)

I also gave my workers the all-road bonus; allows them to move from one job to the next on the same turn rather than 2 or 4 turns later. And so again, my cities advance faster than they should.

BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. It means we all field larger armies and it doesn't take the whole game to bring mid-era cities up to current levels. Since all our armies are bigger, and all other effects are also universal, it's still fair. But we have bigger wars.

Now why did I bump up unit values? Not just the tank vs spearman debate, but consider this: an archer is twice as powerful as a warrior. So is a spearman. But a rifleman's increase in power over a musketman, and an infantry over the rifleman, are just about insignificant. A properly trained infantry division will make short work of a rifle division or a musket division, but not in this game. In this game they're about equal, but a spearman is twice as powerful as a warrior. So yeah, my tanks can mow down spearmen most of the time.

Regarding terrain degradation:

Thanks for your votes of confidence. Yes, I was thinking this effect should be prevalent in the Industrial age and the Modern age. Precision aircraft and artillery should not cause this though. Yes, that's right, if you research Smart Weapons, your Artillery, Radar Artillery, Battleships, AEGIS CCs, DDs, and Cruise Missiles should all be considered precision guided bombard units, in addition to Stealth aircraft and F-15.

The modern battleship can plop 4 out of 6 16" rounds into an area the size of a bus from 24 miles away. (Not that there's any of those around any more...)
Regarding the guy that beats you at Risk:

When I was doing this, eventually they started ganging up on me. They FEARED me, and sort of respected me. They often asked for advice on what battles to fight, cuz they saw that I knew what I was doing (even if the dice didn't always agree with me). It's almost impossible to fend off two nations that are each your size, especially once they've learned the proper territories to strike and where continents are vulnerable... The only thing I could do to fair it up again was to have randomly assigned territories and neutral territories that gained an army each turn.