joethreeblah
King
Krikkitone said:
just make it so you can move like 10 squares instead of infinate
Railroads
- Thread starter Iron Beagle
- Start date
just make it so you can move like 10 squares instead of infinate
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Truronian said:
Historically inaccurate. Armour can't be moved on roads under "normal" situations because they chew them up in no time, typically it is moved by train or ship (except, of course, during an advance in combat). Also it takes far too much fuel to conduct any sort of long-range redeployment by actually driving the tanks there (especially modern MBTs whose fuel consumption is outrageous). Tanks only move on roads in a local sort of situation like training exercises, or at the front.
Well - stop your wondering ...
Well, I stand rebuffed.
However I have serious doubts about the railroad capacity idea. It seems to me to be to simply be an unnecessary addition to the large number of statistics you that you must keep in the back of your head, especially in the endgame. While I agree that it is more accurate than the current model, to much accuracy can easily bog a game down.
Maybe the best option is to simply leave the infinite rail in place, especially in light of the commando upgrade which could potentially get anywhere in your civ in one move. This threat would be enough to encourage me to lay the bare minimum in terms of road and rail. This also introduces the possibility of roadblocks and increases the use of strategic pillaging.
With regards to the argument about the infinite railroad limiting the strategic element of gameplay, ie no need to patrol, is this not the case nowadays anyway? I may be wrong, but warships etc. do not patrol to watch for invasion and have not done since the indusrial age (and even before then, the Spanish Armada was spotted from the coast).
While infinite movement is not ideal, I think its the only realistic model usable given the turn durations. Plus its a Civilization lagacy.
However I have serious doubts about the railroad capacity idea. It seems to me to be to simply be an unnecessary addition to the large number of statistics you that you must keep in the back of your head, especially in the endgame. While I agree that it is more accurate than the current model, to much accuracy can easily bog a game down.
Maybe the best option is to simply leave the infinite rail in place, especially in light of the commando upgrade which could potentially get anywhere in your civ in one move. This threat would be enough to encourage me to lay the bare minimum in terms of road and rail. This also introduces the possibility of roadblocks and increases the use of strategic pillaging.
With regards to the argument about the infinite railroad limiting the strategic element of gameplay, ie no need to patrol, is this not the case nowadays anyway? I may be wrong, but warships etc. do not patrol to watch for invasion and have not done since the indusrial age (and even before then, the Spanish Armada was spotted from the coast).
While infinite movement is not ideal, I think its the only realistic model usable given the turn durations. Plus its a Civilization lagacy.
doronron
King
One possible solution's been suggested, and mimicced (sp?) in mods as far back as Civ2. Add a city building improvement called a Railway Hub. It would work similar to the old airport building improvement, which allowed units to airlift to any other controlled city with it's own airport. The differences, though, would be that Rail hubs would not work across oceans, and that instead of the max airlift capacity being one unit arriving OR departing on any given turn, have it be one unit departing, infinite units arriving on any given turn. There you'll get your strategic redeployment (ala WW1), but provide a cap based on the total number of rail hubs you've built in your empire.
mitsho
Deity
but the workers would have no work left in the industrial age? I absolutely want the railroads to be a tile improvement, because it a) 'realistic' (units don't have to unload in train stations, but can do it anywhere) b) game-play wise better (a difference to airlifting which should be made better) c) is civilization!
Have infinite movement, some sort of capacity-points system (that benefits smaller civs (they get more points percentally whereas larger nations have more problem rebasing their whole army)) and rails costing maintenance*.
mfG mitsho
*This could be made so that every tile improvement (or just roads and railroads) needs maintenance until a certain tech simulating that as the invention got usual, it spread more and more all over the land...
Have infinite movement, some sort of capacity-points system (that benefits smaller civs (they get more points percentally whereas larger nations have more problem rebasing their whole army)) and rails costing maintenance*.
mfG mitsho
*This could be made so that every tile improvement (or just roads and railroads) needs maintenance until a certain tech simulating that as the invention got usual, it spread more and more all over the land...
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
As far as rail capacity being too much to keep track of ... no, not at all. The idea is borrowed from the old hex-based wargames put out by companies like Avalon Hill, and if it's so popular in a boardgame format to be included in nearly all those sorts of games, I can't see that it would be too much to manage in a computer game. You'd start your round, see in the box where gold etc is displayed that you have X rail points left, so it wouldn't be at all difficult to keep track of.
However I've been thinking lately of an MM problem related to capacity models, and that's that it still won't prevent people from trying to move massive armies about. Sure, good planning will mean that you distribute your forces in sectors so that ideally, if a war breaks out along one sector, the forces will already be there and your capacity would be enough to move all your new production in to replenish. But, that's ideally. If things start going bad in that sector and your flow of new production isn't enough, you're probably going to want to try to redeploy extra units from other sectors. Or, if a sector collapses, you're going to have to conduct some massive relocations of forces to cope. Though accurate, this will result in the same problem as limited rail movement, that is, too many units moving at a crawl and alot of tediousness.
So ... I'm now thinking about an even more comprehensive system that will really reduce MM while allowing for a higher degree of accuracy. A general movement allowance for all units in all eras, by road or by rail or otherwise, abstracting a whole bunch of factors like logistic capability, infrastructure capacity, command and communication limitations, unit fatigue and other things. You'd start with some base movement allowance, which would be modified by things like the military trait, certain key advances (in the early age things like writing and horseback riding for messengers to help with command and control, later on things like the steam engine, telegraphs, and eventually diesel engines, computers, satellites, and realtime C&C capabilities), and perhaps some Wonders as well. Also, Mobilization would be a huge modifier, perhaps doubling your move allowance or something. Moving a military unit would take up a point, and that's all you could move in a round (nonmilitary units like workers and settlers being exempt, though).
Now that would add some real strategic decision-making as to how to maneuver your forces, and because of the limitations involved, MM would be vastly reduced. Instead of mindlessly cycling through 100's of units every round, you'd look over your empire, decide where you needed more units, decide where to draw them from, and move your limited number.
Other possible benefits of such a system: faster turns (good for multiplay, also allows increased turns between tech advances so there could be a WW2 in the span of only two or three advances), no galleys sailing around the world and returning to find an industrial society by the time they get back, giving a chance at a military role for smaller civilizations, and a better representation of the role of logistics and command capabilities in warfare of all eras.
However I've been thinking lately of an MM problem related to capacity models, and that's that it still won't prevent people from trying to move massive armies about. Sure, good planning will mean that you distribute your forces in sectors so that ideally, if a war breaks out along one sector, the forces will already be there and your capacity would be enough to move all your new production in to replenish. But, that's ideally. If things start going bad in that sector and your flow of new production isn't enough, you're probably going to want to try to redeploy extra units from other sectors. Or, if a sector collapses, you're going to have to conduct some massive relocations of forces to cope. Though accurate, this will result in the same problem as limited rail movement, that is, too many units moving at a crawl and alot of tediousness.
So ... I'm now thinking about an even more comprehensive system that will really reduce MM while allowing for a higher degree of accuracy. A general movement allowance for all units in all eras, by road or by rail or otherwise, abstracting a whole bunch of factors like logistic capability, infrastructure capacity, command and communication limitations, unit fatigue and other things. You'd start with some base movement allowance, which would be modified by things like the military trait, certain key advances (in the early age things like writing and horseback riding for messengers to help with command and control, later on things like the steam engine, telegraphs, and eventually diesel engines, computers, satellites, and realtime C&C capabilities), and perhaps some Wonders as well. Also, Mobilization would be a huge modifier, perhaps doubling your move allowance or something. Moving a military unit would take up a point, and that's all you could move in a round (nonmilitary units like workers and settlers being exempt, though).
Now that would add some real strategic decision-making as to how to maneuver your forces, and because of the limitations involved, MM would be vastly reduced. Instead of mindlessly cycling through 100's of units every round, you'd look over your empire, decide where you needed more units, decide where to draw them from, and move your limited number.
Other possible benefits of such a system: faster turns (good for multiplay, also allows increased turns between tech advances so there could be a WW2 in the span of only two or three advances), no galleys sailing around the world and returning to find an industrial society by the time they get back, giving a chance at a military role for smaller civilizations, and a better representation of the role of logistics and command capabilities in warfare of all eras.
Phoenix_56721
Prince
*This could be made so that every tile improvement (or just roads and railroads) needs maintenance until a certain tech simulating that as the invention got usual, it spread more and more all over the land...[/QUOTE]
I really like the idea of roads and railroads needing maintenance! this makes it more relistic and you will have to choose carefully where you place your railroads and you will forced to proctect them!!
I really like the idea of roads and railroads needing maintenance! this makes it more relistic and you will have to choose carefully where you place your railroads and you will forced to proctect them!!
Here's a possibility: constructing rails in a tile incurs a one-time cost of X gold. (We can consider X to be between one and ten gold; I think five is a good price.) Each turn, a nation pays a maintenance cost of [rails within their territory]/Y (where Y is a number between one and five). All fractions are rounded down. Rails cannot be built outside of a nation's territory, and any that fall outside of a nation are destroyed. The values of X and Y can depend on map size, etc.
Edit: it occurs to me that, by the time rail systems become possible, economies will probably be going strong. Paying ten gold to put down rails in a square is probably a fair price without being crippling.
Edit: it occurs to me that, by the time rail systems become possible, economies will probably be going strong. Paying ten gold to put down rails in a square is probably a fair price without being crippling.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Perhaps maintainance cost for roads and rail could be one of those things influenced by your difficulty level. So, for chieftan, it could be simpler just to have it default to 0 cost roads and rail, but in a Deity game, you might have to pay 1gpt for every tile of rail (and 1gpt for every 2 tiles of road). It certainly would make for a better challenge than simply giving the AI ridiculous production bonuses!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
The thing is, railroads are supposed to help the economy, not hurt it. I'm partial to ending the tile bonuses (as, some people say, they have) but I think maintenance costs is just a bit much. It should just be made neutral - no benefit to having them except for movement, so end sprawl that way. Having rails in every tile isn't really a good idea if you don't get tile bonuses, just makes things easier for an invader.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Which brings me to the next point. I am glad they got rid of the tile-based commerce bonus for roads and rail, but I must say that I hope they give some monetary bonus for any trade which flows through a city-the same way harbours apparently will. This would make a maintainance cost worthwhile, IMO.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
