Railroad Tunnels are missing
- Thread starter budweiser
- Start date
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
In Civ II Engineers could modify terrain types extensively. Any terrain could be turned into any other iirc (except for water)... And the funniest thing was that the overlaying resource would change along with it! There was a weird logic to it where wheat on grassland would turn into a bird in a forest and wine would turn into silk instead (I don't remember the specific patterns, just a random example). While I don't think I'd want to see this in Civ V to such an extent, something like a National Wonder for making a 5-tile canal or flattening 5 mountain tiles would be pretty nice.
Edit: Call it 'Earth Works', comes in the late Industrial Age and lets you change 5 tiles any way you'd want. More hills for production, a new sea route - or even mountains to block off an invasion, if you're desperate. Could work wonders (pun intended
) in one city challenge games! 
JanghanHong
Enrico Trololo
It's a good idea, and it shouldn't change how mountains are used as a defensive terrain if you can only build it in your border, and it takes 2,3 times as long.
Also, I think we should have highways replacing railroads. You could reduce micromanagement by constructing a building in a city with a modern tech that requires 1 oil (to represent asphalt maintenance and to prevent it from being spammed). This will turn the present railroad connection from the capital into highways, so you don't have to use the workers for the third time again.
The advantage of highway over railroad could be that your own population moves between cities connected by highways in World-War style invasion, or even stimulating urbanization by shifting population for your non-productive size 8 cities into your productive pop 25 ones, going from 25 to 30 would be more valuable than going from 8 to 3 would hurt. or reduce the bonus of railroad a bit and add the rest to the highway. I don't think highway should be faster though.
The disadvantage would be higher maintenance and oil requirement, so not all cities and towns would get it, some remote towns in Canada is only connected by rail, and it seems approporiate for mining towns. Also, if the population did shift between cities connected by highways and not rail, that would be valuable for remote outpost towns that is a mining town for strategic resources that you want to keep population at a certain level.
Edit: Also, I just had an idea, if you apply my highway idea to the railroads and make railroads appear immediately in cities that's already connected through the road if you construct a building that requires +1 iron (for the railroad tracks), you can save the repetitive worker micromanagement and the uselessness of iron in the industrial age at the same time!
This would also make Russia the world leader in railroad construction, that's be supremely entertaining, maintaining a huge trans-Siberian empire while other countries have to pick and choose most important cities.
Someone from the studio, please read this.
Also, I think we should have highways replacing railroads. You could reduce micromanagement by constructing a building in a city with a modern tech that requires 1 oil (to represent asphalt maintenance and to prevent it from being spammed). This will turn the present railroad connection from the capital into highways, so you don't have to use the workers for the third time again.
The advantage of highway over railroad could be that your own population moves between cities connected by highways in World-War style invasion, or even stimulating urbanization by shifting population for your non-productive size 8 cities into your productive pop 25 ones, going from 25 to 30 would be more valuable than going from 8 to 3 would hurt. or reduce the bonus of railroad a bit and add the rest to the highway. I don't think highway should be faster though.
The disadvantage would be higher maintenance and oil requirement, so not all cities and towns would get it, some remote towns in Canada is only connected by rail, and it seems approporiate for mining towns. Also, if the population did shift between cities connected by highways and not rail, that would be valuable for remote outpost towns that is a mining town for strategic resources that you want to keep population at a certain level.
Edit: Also, I just had an idea, if you apply my highway idea to the railroads and make railroads appear immediately in cities that's already connected through the road if you construct a building that requires +1 iron (for the railroad tracks), you can save the repetitive worker micromanagement and the uselessness of iron in the industrial age at the same time!
This would also make Russia the world leader in railroad construction, that's be supremely entertaining, maintaining a huge trans-Siberian empire while other countries have to pick and choose most important cities.
Someone from the studio, please read this.
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
about highways, i think combutsion should just increase road movement by another 1 point
while railroad could function in a completely different manner: providing rebase ability for land units. (the same ability could be given to cities with seaports to reduce tedious embarkation)
while railroad could function in a completely different manner: providing rebase ability for land units. (the same ability could be given to cities with seaports to reduce tedious embarkation)
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Population import/export between cities is sorely needed in Civ imo. It hasn't been in any of the games by default; in Civ II you could send food caravans, but iirc there was a limit of 8 food per city on the receiving end, and of course in the late game it'd take a long while for a city to grow to a decent size that way.
... Or wait: was it the case that in Civ III built workers took a point of population and they could be added to cities, increasing the population of new cities by their 'immigration'? Or was this some mod that I had? Or was it that you couldn't add workers to starving cities... That must've been it now that I think more of it. So the best thing would be to combine food caravans and adding workers to cities to increase pop.
There could be some cost or limitation, so you couldn't easily build lvl 30 cities overnight. But imagine a lvl 10 farming city on a fertile floodplain field supporting two lvl 25 mining cities in the barren northern wastes... It's a beautiful image! Then if the enemy would capture your bread basket, the mining towns would suddenly begin to starve. You could even expand the mechanic to foreign trade: dare you build all mines or trade posts and buy your food from abroad? (The diplomacy better be given priority in development if this is added!
)
Anyway, this is going OT a bit, as it's no longer related to roads or rails. Ofc there could also be some automatic immigration with highways or rails... Or they could be required in order to add workers to cities. In Democracies you'd have less say in how your people make their movements than in dictatorships... Perhaps you could offer cash rewards to speed population shifts.
On the topic of movement points, I'm for the Combustion adds +1 movement idea. It's simple, elegant, requires no tedious micro, and adds a better graphic to the ridiculous dirt roads of the 21st century. Railroads could offer instant movement like in Civ III imo; would speed up the mop-up phase of the game rather nicely. To compensate they should probably cost more than they do currently.
... Or wait: was it the case that in Civ III built workers took a point of population and they could be added to cities, increasing the population of new cities by their 'immigration'? Or was this some mod that I had? Or was it that you couldn't add workers to starving cities... That must've been it now that I think more of it. So the best thing would be to combine food caravans and adding workers to cities to increase pop.
There could be some cost or limitation, so you couldn't easily build lvl 30 cities overnight. But imagine a lvl 10 farming city on a fertile floodplain field supporting two lvl 25 mining cities in the barren northern wastes... It's a beautiful image! Then if the enemy would capture your bread basket, the mining towns would suddenly begin to starve. You could even expand the mechanic to foreign trade: dare you build all mines or trade posts and buy your food from abroad? (The diplomacy better be given priority in development if this is added!
)Anyway, this is going OT a bit, as it's no longer related to roads or rails. Ofc there could also be some automatic immigration with highways or rails... Or they could be required in order to add workers to cities. In Democracies you'd have less say in how your people make their movements than in dictatorships... Perhaps you could offer cash rewards to speed population shifts.
On the topic of movement points, I'm for the Combustion adds +1 movement idea. It's simple, elegant, requires no tedious micro, and adds a better graphic to the ridiculous dirt roads of the 21st century. Railroads could offer instant movement like in Civ III imo; would speed up the mop-up phase of the game rather nicely. To compensate they should probably cost more than they do currently.
vorlon_mi
Emperor
Civ 2 had caravans, which explicitly traded goods between cities -- both foreign AND domestic. You could choose how your trade routes were set up, and it was very powerful. One of the commodities which could be traded was indeed food, so that a food-rich city could support a town built in a desert or on one of the poles. Civ2 only had one unit (settler/engineer) which could improve tiles like a worker, or found cities. There were no workers; producing a settler removed one pop point from a city.
Civ3 introduced workers. Producing a settler removed 2 pop points from a city, and producing a worker removed 1 pop from the city. You could merge settlers or workers with a different city, which increased the population. One sometimes needed to do this to reduce the risk of a culture flip, since that formula included the number of alien vs. native citizens. Adding workers to a starving city was an exploit, after a fashion. Because of the order in which the game calculated city behavior, you could get the production from those citizens even though they were about to die from starvation.
Impassable mountains: Hate it! I thought it was dumb when they introduced it in Civ4, and I was disappointed that they continued it in Civ5. Workers have been building roads through mountain passes for centuries (Hannibal over the Alps?), and our civilization which can build Stealth Bomber, Radar Artillery and Giant Death Robots still can't pass through a mountain range?
I concur with all of this. I really liked food caravans back in the day. I would love to specialize a food city. Instead of making every city the same... forcing production to make them useful, a city with no mining or major resources could serve a purpose by giving food to other cities.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Bechhold
King
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 725
Depends I've spawned on the map in the Northern area where you are blocked off by one mountain to the Northeast and a mountain range to the West.
If you spawn on the southern tip then all you have is that small area and, depends as I have had both happen, if you are blocked from expanding west you are really SOL, otherwise you only a one tile slot straight up till you are blocked by the same mountains in the Northern parts.
Keep in mind you usually have another civilization on the same continent, and of course a possibly city state.
Similar threads
