Railroads

[Iron Beagle]

Does anybody know how railroads will operate in the new game?

The railroad system is the worst feature of Civilization by light years. Not only is it ugly as sin but it eliminates the need to place your units wisely, since any unit can reinforce any point anywhere in your empire instantly. I always end up modding railroads right out of my scenarios. I hope they've come up with a new system.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I seem to recall a developer stating the infinte rail movement will be kept, as it's a part of the Civ legacy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I haven't heard a single word-from any developer-in regards to RR. Perhaps because they are actually still waiting for Playtesters to give them feedback regarding Railroads. Also, I have to say that 'it is part of the Civ Legacy' is a pretty lame cop-out for keeping Railroads in. After all, so is pollution and corruption.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Legionary37]

I seem to recall a developer stating the infinte rail movement will be kept, as it's a part of the Civ legacy.

Oooh no....

Now, I'm a civ purist. I wanted to keep the production stuff "sheilds" rather than hammers, etc. etc. But seriously, when you have a gameplay issue likethis, it needs to be changed, weather it's been in the previous 3 games or not.

 

[Ramalhão]

Just a simple question: if naval and air movements are very limited, why is land movement unlimited?

 

[ogmoir]

Just a simple question: if naval and air movements are very limited, why is land movement unlimited?

A good question. An armoured division can move by rail across the world in one turn, whereas even the fastest battleships can take as long as 15 turns to make the round.

I really think they should reduce the rail movement to a finite number. I also think they should take heed of the wonderful Rhye's CivIII mod where the movement of most ships depended on whether they were on coast, sea or ocean. That was a very nicely working and realistic model.

 

[Jaca]

Just a simple question: if naval and air movements are very limited, why is land movement unlimited?

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? Obviously transporting over sea now requires boats, and with pretty limited capacity - I regretted the curragh having no capacity at all for instance (1 would have made a nice difference, opening the ability to board settlers on them early in the game...).

Kind regards,
JaCa

 

[Legionary37]

I think railroads defenitely need to have some kind of limit on movement. The "Rhyse of Civilization" system for fleet movement was also a very nice touch.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

THe Railroad problem is more symbolic of the bigger problem in civ and that is the socio-political-economic strategic v. military tactic disconnect.

Basically turns are too long for military tactical manuevering to be taken into account.. WW2 in civ terms takes ~4 turns (1938-1946)... wheras normal Civ WW take decades (as many as a dozen turns) or centuries if in the Ancient Age.

The main problem they are dealing with is that at almost any stage of the game a unit should be able to get around the world in one turn (provided it can go there at all), of course there are issues with supply/support/maintenance, etc. that prevent the units from moving that far, but these are Range limitations rather than speed limitations.

 

[skisphereo]

Railroads make sense if you apply it to history. Think about it, it took people six months to travel across the country in the early 1800s. However, after transcontinental railroads were built they could do it in a matter of days. I think to make it more balanced, maybe adding an upkeep fee? Transportation isn't free you know. Also maybe limiting the number of units that can be transported on a rail at a time, there are only so many railroad cars available. Or perhaps you have to build trains, which would be a regular unit similar to a transport, to run on the tracks, and they could have a set capacity. Just a few thoughts.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I truly believe that it is time to move the debate away from the movement rate of railroads, and onto their CAPACITY .
The point is that, from a realism and micromanagement perspective, infinite RR movement makes sense, IMHO.
However, from a purely gameplay perspective, an ability to move your entire army from one end of your nation to the other-in a single turn-takes away much needed strategy from the game.
So, as I have stated elsewhere, I believe the solution is to leave RR movement intact, but impose a limited capacity (i.e. number of units per turn) based on the number of cities connected by rail, the city sizes of those cities connected by rail and the level of 'Rail Technology' which that civ has achieved (with the last two factors being the largest contributors).
As the player uses up Capacity Points to move units, then their per turn income drops-to reflect the impact on the economy of the comandeering of civilian infrastructure and rolling stock for military purposes. How much impact it has depends on both the strength of the civs economy (i.e. current surplus) and the total number of starting Capacity Points the civ had.
Such a system would not only force players to make much tougher choices in what forces to move in any given turn, but will also force players to bear the true economic cost of going to war-something not adequately reflected in the game-IMHO.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rschissler]

You know people complain about railroads infinite movement, but it isn't some free bonus. It takes a lot of time and a lot of workers to get the railroads in place. And in enemy territory, you have to worry about them being captured, so you have to hold back or make sure you have enough defensive units to protect them.

That being said, I could support some change to the infinite movement. Such as maybe they can only move 30 or so tiles at a turn.

 

[Don Uittone]

What about the production bonus that comes with the railroads? I think that's unrealistic and it should be changed. Now every tile from far-away deserts to huge mountains are filled with railroads. I mean, what the hell? That's not very realistic.

I'd prefer seeing the production bonus removed so there would be only point in building direct railroad lines like in real life. That would look nicer and more realistic. Of course the production bonus previously acquired with railroads should be achievable with some other improvement but that shouldn't be much of a problem and shouldn't complicate the game too much.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

keep it the way it is

RR make the game posible otherwise wars would take from 1500 till 2010 before you finally killed 1 opponent

Also it kind of normal to give an extra shield/hammer when you RR some tile because you get a better infrastructure and with a better infrastructure factorys can produce more because transportation is easy'er and cheaper.

so keep it the way it is maybe it is not realistic but it a game it can't be real life

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

What I would prefer to see is either (a) an ability to vector food and shields to and from cities connected via the RR network (thus removing the need to put a RR in every single tile in a city radius), or (b) have a RR connection to a city grant a one-off bonus to food, hammers and gold to that city. This bonus could be linked simply to the number of cities or-alternatively-be a set % of the total number of food, shields and gold already generated by the rest of the civ (or, at the very least, by all the cities on that continent).
Roads could work the same way, but grant a smaller bonus than RR.

Anyway, its just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[RickiusMaximus]

i have to say i dont mind the infinate travel of railroads, after all, if your an effective enough bomber/bombarder then the enemy rail network should be in terrible state by the time you land your invasion force.

Basically the game needs to be altered to stop people coating the whole continent in railroad, here are some methods that could achieve this-

The extra shield removed and for railroads to be for transport ONLY.

Also, how about terrain? if railroad could only be built on flat ground then that would limit their use, after some research they could be built on hills and after some more they could be built on mountains but by this stage you would have bombers which can easily destroy rail networks.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, just to reiterate, I feel the key factors in improving railroads (and roads, to some degree) are:

1) Retain unlimited movement , but impose limited capacity .

2) Have railroads grant a one-time bonus to food, gold and hammers: based on the overall strength of your nations agricultural, industrial and economic strength.

3) Have the 'comandeering' of RR capacity for military use impact the civilian economy and-possibly-reduce the railroad's ability to grant a bonus to that city.

4) Impose a per-turn cost for railroads-based on the number of tiles covered.

The effect these changes would have is to (a) leave RR's as a powerful tool to move units in the Industrial Age onwards; (b) help limit the bigger is better phenomenon; (c) provide opportunities for enemies to disrupt the civilian economy-by directly targeting its infrastructure; (d) significantly reduce railroad sprawl and unneccessary micromanagement; (e) help to reduce the Stack of Death phenomenon-by limiting the total number of units that can be moved into a stack in a single turn (by rail, at any rate).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Shigga]

make it an instant transportation device like the airport. It should work only with connected cities and should not give any movement bonus other than the "teleport". Limit the number of units a city can RECEIVE per turn, make it improvable through different buildings (f.e. trainstation +1, marshaling yard +1, depot +2, cumulative) and have them cost more upkeep. This would be a neat capacity limitation, because I agree with the others that commented it is not a matter of speed but rather one of capacity. Also, it would make for interesting offensive strats (the disruption of the enemy rr-network by bombarding key points, trying to bombard those above mentioned city improvements) and defensive strats (defending those vulnerable points, unit placement for defensive action). It would also make it crucial to improve your cities on the border either as a defensive measure or as part of war preparations.

Keep the bonus for terrain like hammers and food. But make it dependant on the city size. Larger cities = more goods. so you don't have a bonus per terrain unit but a bonus of like one hammer per city population point. The map won't be crowded with those rr's anymore since they don't give you a bonus through terrain inside the city radius.

EDIT: Come to think of it, make the same capacity limitation for airports, but give them a higher number of units they can receive per turn from start on (like 3 instead of 1 for rr)

WOW, this could actually work out pretty good!

 

[CustodianV131]

I hope they'll limit land movement and increase sea movement in comparison o Civ3. Gameplay comes first and I never felt I was being cheated that my horsemen could only move a very tine bit in 40 years of time (Which would realistically be able to travel great distances and need to replace all the men in the regiment a few times )

Gameplay first I say, reduce land movement, give ships more movement and lease avoid the "all terrain railroad blight" of the past civs.

 

[Sickman]

Even though the limited capacity sounds pretty cool system I would suggest a little bit simpler system.

When travelling by railroad unit would have to choose option "travel by railroad", by doing this it would lose it's turn but could move into any tile without (or even with) restrictions.

And capacity thing mainly doesn't work as proposed by shigga because trains should be able to stop between stations (cities).