Railroads

[Dearmad]

As long as they aren't as fugly on the map as they have been in EVERY civ since this one, I don't care!!!!!!

 

[Texan General]

While I like the idea of improving RR capacity through buildings in each connected city I feel this should only affect food, production, and other import. Such measures should be reserved for supply measures if implemented at all. I would rather see the train units as proposed earlier. You could build as many cars as you like to transport as many units as you like around the map. This would also allow for the kind of air duels that were observed in both WW's over trains themselves rather than just the tracks. Afterall, the tracks (in reality) can be repaired much more quickly and easily than a million dollar locomotive. Wrecking locomotives could prove to be an interesting addition as well. Every time you destroy a train it remains on the tracks, blocking movement until someone either repairs it or clears the wreck. I also feel that rails should have limited movement to start out with. Afterall, when they were first invented they didn't move all that fast and they required tremendous upkeep (still do in alot of ways). Trains had to stop every so often to take on more water and coal to fuel the boilers with. Ultimately this limited both the range and the speed of the train. It has only been with the discovery of more and more technology that we have managed better, faster, more efficient trains capable of circling the world a couple of times. This should be simulated in the game allowing you to both upgrade your rails and trains themselves through the discovery of better technology. I might add that the production bonus of rails should be removed. It creates an unrealistic number of rails and second one of the ugliest effects I have ever seen in a game. Perhaps we could allow you to put multiple rails in a tile to both keep the workers busy and to simulate the fact that trains cannot travel opposite directions on the same rail. Ultimately I find that one of the most important things about rails is that they should be used within a new supply system for the military. ("An army marches on its stomach" - Nappy himself) They should become crucial centers of wartime conflict and peace time commerce.

 

[Shigga]

hm but the things that you are suggesting do not really feel right with the rest of the game concept. You would end up doing nothing but producing wagons and then you fire up the tankfactories. I think this would add a no-fun-feature they try so hard to remove. Plus it would be a great effort to implement it that way, whereas doing it like I proposed could be easily done even in beta now.

 

[Own]

I like infinate rail movement. And it does have a challenge, the AI can move unlimited as well. It would take, what, 5 days to cross the US by railroads. Turns 1950-2050 are 1 year, and 5 out of 365 pretty much is unlimited movement. The solution is to make boats faster.

 

[Iron Beagle]

I like infinate rail movement. And it does have a challenge, the AI can move unlimited as well. It would take, what, 5 days to cross the US by railroads. Turns 1950-2050 are 1 year, and 5 out of 365 pretty much is unlimited movement. The solution is to make boats faster.

My God, I can't believe that anybody actually likes the railroad system. There's no strategy to speak of when one side can instantly move to any square within his empire. You can't distract the enemy, can't launch a feint, can't divert his attention. You just land everybody in one location and slug it out as he throws everything in his arsenal at you at whatever point you pick. The side with the most numbers wins.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Which is exactly what makes Limited Capacity such a good thing. It retains the 'realism' of the unlimited movement system, whilst making the use of railroads more than just a 'the guy with the most units wins' thing.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sickman]

Which is exactly what makes Limited Capacity such a good thing. It retains the 'realism' of the unlimited movement system, whilst making the use of railroads more than just a 'the guy with the most units wins' thing.

But how it should be implented?

You could build as many cars as you like to transport as many units as you like around the map.

And Texan even though you many times have good ideas this idea is just utterly silly. I bet nobody really wants to start to play railroad tycoon while they are playing civilization. The scope is simply different.

As I suggested earlier trains should be able to move units from one tile to another in railroad system but it would mean the units lose their ability to attack in that turn and also makes them not to have any kind of bonus against possible attack in the next turn.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Like I said previously, Sickman, every city you connect via the RR automatically grants you a set number of 'Capacity Points'-how many depends on the size of the city connected and your current tech level. This base capacity is then increased by increasing tech level, increasing population-obviously-and the construction of specific improvements and Wonders.
The beauty of the system is that capacity is generated via the very same behaviour that players engage in regardless (i.e. connecting up their cities with a rail network), and the Capacity is used up automatically every time you move a unit on rail (though the option should exist to say you don't want to travel by rail).
Every Capacity point you use, your per turn income drops by Xgpt.
Does that answer your question?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sickman]

every city you connect via the RR automatically grants you a set number of 'Capacity Points'-how many depends on the size of the city connected and your current tech level. This base capacity is then increased by increasing tech level, increasing population-obviously-and the construction of specific improvements and Wonders.
Every Capacity point you use, your per turn income drops by Xgpt.

You mean the capacity points are granted for whole empire (those connected to particular railwork) and not just for each city? So basically "capacity points" show both quantity and quality of railroads, trains and whole railsystem?
If yes, then I was apparently just plain stupid.

But should be the movement still be infinite?
I mean if empire rich enough with enough capacity points can still do whatever they like with their forces in one turn. I agree there should be cost but is it enough?

as I said earlier I did like the capacity points but I think it should be mixed with possible other restrictions in order it to work.

I think we all acknowledge the fact that current system is total crap and example "capacity points"-system is better.

 

[Don Uittone]

Every Capacity point you use, your per turn income drops by Xgpt.
Does that answer your question?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hmm, could you elaborate a little? I understand the basic concept but how the relationship between the cp's and gpt would actually work?

Oh and by the way Aussie_Lurker, I like your posts a lot. You're the first person whose name I've learned (besides Thunderfall) so congrats for that.

 

[Sickman]

OFFTOPIC:

Oh and by the way Aussie_Lurker, I like your posts a lot. You're the first person whose name I've learned (besides Thunderfall) so congrats for that.

Before you start lick his boots I better join the fun.
Aussie_Lurker has been impressing me with his posts very much too. (There are also others)
I just would like him to use some kind of avatar so his messages would be clearer to recognise from all the other crap these forums produce.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Sickman. Essentially yes-Capacity Points are an abstraction of the entire rail infrastructure and rolling stock of the entire nation. To do it on a city by city basis-IMO-would simply add too much micromanagement, wheras this system is one the player doesn't even really have to think too much about (i.e. he can either move a unit on rail, or he is out of capacity-in which case the player will be informed-and can possibly wait to move said unit next turn).
Also, having Limited Capacity allows Railroads to retain their unlimited movement-which is good from the point of view of realism and keeping out unneeded micromanagement.
One of the other benefits of this system is, because CP's are based more on city size-and tech level-than on the sheer number of cities, it emphasises Quality over Quantity (i.e. reduces the Bigger=Better phenomenon).
Also, if you also incorporate a cost for infrastructure, like rail and roads, then it allows compact nations with a few very large cities to maintain lots more CP's-at lower cost-than a sprawling nation consisting of a dozen or more smaller cities.
As for how much of your gpt you lose per CP used, I feel it should be based on two key factors-the amount of money in the national treasury, and the total number of CP's the nation has. I confess though, that I have yet to come up with a well balanced system to accurately reflect this cost. My concern is that if you have more CP's, then you stand to lose less per unit moved (unless you have a large treasury) which I feel unfairly benefits cities with a bigger capacity (though you guys might think it perfectly fair).
To explain, my original thought was, if you had a city with 800gold in its treasury, and a total of 20 Capacity Points, then each CP used would cost (1/20*800) gpt. In this case, each CP used would cost 40gpt. If the nation had 1000gold, then each CP would cost 50gpt. If the nation with 800 gold had 40CP's, however, then each CP used would cost only 20gpt.
As I said, though, I am not entirely sure that is a fair system, though it does reward people who invest sufficient time and money into both their underlying infrastructure, their transportation technology and developing their connected cities. It also means that those with the bigger economies have potentially the most to lose from disrupting their civilian economies in order to go to war-as they might quickly find themselves in a deficit situation if they try and move too many units in one hit.
Anyway, sorry for the convoluted post, but I hope it makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, how do you get an avatar, btw? I would like to get one, but haven't really looked into it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Darwin420]

2,314 posts and you don't know how to post an avatar? Too much civ, I think.

In your user panel there is an option to either use a default avatar, or to upload one of your own, if you like. You can also change the tagline beneath your user name in there. I think it's under profile properties, but I could be wrong on that.

Nice posts, btw. Why aren't you in the game design business? You could make one heckuva game with your ideas!

 

[Sickman]

Essentially yes-Capacity Points are an abstraction of the entire rail infrastructure and rolling stock of the entire nation.

Also, having Limited Capacity allows Railroads to retain their unlimited movement-which is good from the point of view of realism and keeping out unneeded micromanagement.

At least I understood then it in the second time

This may sound crazy but I actually like micromanagement. I think it mainly is because many of strategy games have played are so complex that I have kinda used to it rather than just making "major strategic decisions. Example I loved it in colonization. Why? Because it adds so much to do and also keeps you all the time awake making decisions rather than just pressing the "next turn"-button.
However micromanagement doesn't fit into game of Civilization very well. But it's always the battle between too much complexity vs too much simplicity.

The system of capacity points for whole nation is much better and I think whole concept also very well fits into whole "Civ-theme". I would even say it's almost perfect. Even thought there are still issues but the main concept is absolutely clever.

As for how much of your gpt you lose per CP used, I feel it should be based on two key factors-the amount of money in the national treasury, and the total number of CP's the nation has.

But doesn't the player already pay from the all infastructure of railroads?
Do we need more costs when they are in military use?
This of course would mean that you have to pay from building the actual railroads. Example if railroad stations and such add into capacity then I think the cost should be go through them instead of trying to figure out of some kind of more complex system based into empire's treasury.

As I said, though, I am not entirely sure that is a fair system, though it does reward people who invest sufficient time and money into both their underlying infrastructure, their transportation technology and developing their connected cities.

No system is ever fair to all but you are correct that system should reward those who build their infastructure and also those that use those railroads efficiently in warfare. I think it would also mean that opponent could attack the railroad infastructure with aircraft and other ways to make opponent unable to use it into his advantage. This certainly adds strategic value.

Nice posts, btw. Why aren't you in the game design business? You could make one heckuva game with your ideas!

I think you Darwin420 answer this question yourself:

2,314 posts and you don't know how to post an avatar? Too much civ, I think.

 

[Texan General]

@Sickman - I think you misunderstand what I was getting at. Honestly I phrased things poorly and my explanation is very rough. I am still working out the details. I appreciate the input and I will be taking it into account. I agree with your assessment that people would be forced into building cars and locomotives all the time in the situation I proposed and agree it should be taken into account.

That said, I have to agree. I have been very impressed with Aussie myself. I have yet to find an idea of his design which did not bear significant merit (probably more than any of the actual developers of the game). I do not agree that the capacity should be nationalized however. This does not take into account the fact that some parts of the country may be more poorly developed than others and physically cannot transport as many troops as the more developed portions(perhaps I missed something?). I particularly like his ideas on rail transportation's effect on economy but I think it can be taken a step further in the implementation of supply. Beyond those two complaints I fail to find a fault with his plan. I look forward to Aussie's response.

 

[andvruss]

Yea, maybe 2 forms of RR? Military transport and commericial, where commericial would give the normal RR bonus, but would act like a road for transportation, and the military transport would act like a normal RR, but no bonuses?

 

[Jaca]

Ummm, how do you get an avatar, btw? I would like to get one, but haven't really looked into it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The only avatar that reflects this guy's unstoppable stream of (idealistic) CIV ideas and words per post, is the Niagara Falls - or would Marengo Falls (after quickly googling "tallest waterfalls" Australia) be a better picture!? This is meant to be a complement, Aussie!

Kind regards,
Jaca

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OFFTOPIC. Thanks for the compliments guys . The good thing about being idealistic in your ideas for Civ-IMHO-is that every so often it does produce real outcomes-if only because developers meet you half way.
Case in point, I have been a strong advocate of Minor Nations in Civ4 and, judging from the recent Gamesdomain 'preview' barbarians in Civ4 will be able to build their own cities and units-sort of like 'Mini-Civs' (their words, not mine). My point is that though it doesn't necessarily encompass my entire vision for Minor Nations, it does mark a major step in that direction-and is an idea ripe for expanding upon in future patches and game expansions!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[J-S]

Good point. I also wonder about the infinite transport capacity over railroads. I mean how to transport the units if there are no trains, or no sufficient trains?

The problem with infinite movement is that later on in the game the minimum time for turns is 1 year... wich is more than enough for almost any unit (ground, air, sea) to cross a world... a few times even.
Maybe this could be solved by:
a. having turns reduced later even more later in the game (maybe even get to 1 turn = 1 month)
b. having railroads cost 'trains' for units to move. As in, the give infinite movement bonus to any unit if you have 1 train unit 'stacked' to use on that unit that turn (something like the fleets in MOO2).