Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
I like my idea from my economic model, here:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=123184 . Just have a slider for how much you spend on rails which changes how fast they let you move - easy.
Railroads
- Thread starter Iron Beagle
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, Meleager, why not meet half-way? Instead of investment boosting movement, why not have investment boost Capacity? I think that could work very well.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I have to say Aussie_Lurker I can barely understand your system for railroads. And I fancy myself a bit of a civ-fan. I doubt many new players would have much of a chance of understanding it either.
Simplisicity is the key.
Railroad should have large general changes, which encourage limited, strategic use, rather then complicated rules, that enforce it.
For example if you take away the bounus that RR gives each square, there is little incentive to railroad your entire empire, just do city to city links.
If you charge say 1gc per 5 RRs you always put a disincentive on expansive rail networks, which ruin strategic placement. This would also give small empires an edge over larger empires, which is something that civ needs more of.
Simplisicity is the key.
Railroad should have large general changes, which encourage limited, strategic use, rather then complicated rules, that enforce it.
For example if you take away the bounus that RR gives each square, there is little incentive to railroad your entire empire, just do city to city links.
If you charge say 1gc per 5 RRs you always put a disincentive on expansive rail networks, which ruin strategic placement. This would also give small empires an edge over larger empires, which is something that civ needs more of.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Whats not to understand??? You connect cities via RR, doing so generates CAPACITY . This is further boosted by tech level and investment.
Each point of Capacity allows you to move a single unit an UNLIMITED DISTANCE along the Railroad.
Very simple to understand, not complex at all. The only vaguely complicating elements is that using RR capacity eats up your gold per turn for that turn AND you also have to pay maintainance on the RR-above and beyond the cost of using for military purposes.
Even with those elements in, though, it is a very basic, simple system that I would say even a 6 y.o could understand.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Each point of Capacity allows you to move a single unit an UNLIMITED DISTANCE along the Railroad.
Very simple to understand, not complex at all. The only vaguely complicating elements is that using RR capacity eats up your gold per turn for that turn AND you also have to pay maintainance on the RR-above and beyond the cost of using for military purposes.
Even with those elements in, though, it is a very basic, simple system that I would say even a 6 y.o could understand.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
alexchunha
Chieftain
Aussie Lurker, as I understand it, these are your suggestions:
1. Railroad movement remains infinite.
2. Railroad capacity is limited by capacity points (cp), the number of which is determined by number of cities, population, and tech level.
3. Each unit that uses rails that turn uses up a capacity point. Once all available capacity points are used up for the turn, no more units can use rails for that turn.
4. Each capacity point that is used costs a certain amount of gold (which is deducted from your gpt income rather than your treasury, as I understand it). Thus, even if you have, say, ten capacity points, if your economy is in shambles (already running deficits, small treasury), you may only be able to use three or four without totally destroying your civ's economy.
If this is correct, then I must say that I think it is an excellent idea. I'm not a fan of railing every darn tile in the game, and infinite movement with unlimited capacity does seem a bit too unrealistic, while simultaneously destroying strategy.
However, I think there are some gaps that need to be addressed. First of all, based on this system, I think that roads and rails should be clearly separated (realistically, it makes sense, since roads don't disappear when rails are built). If a unit is sitting on a tile that has both roads and rails, the unit should have the option of using either one. Thus, if you don't want to use your capacity points on a specific unit, it can just use the roads underneath it (in the same manner as in previous civ games, since no one seems to have a problem with the way road movement is handled). On the other hand, if you want the unit to use rails, you could click a "transport by rail" command button, and then specify where to drop it off. In this case, you would consume a capacity point. (And I think the presence of a command button or command key would ensure that only the units you need are transported by train, thus preventing you from wasting capacity points on units that can reach their destination by roads).
Maybe roads and rails should even be completely separated (graphically as well), so you could have a tile that has only roads, only rails, or both. If a unit is on a tile with rails, it has the option of using them (at the expense of capacity points and gpt). If the tile has roads, it will use the roads automatically, unless you specify that it should use rails (using the command button and clicking where to transport the unit, much as it already is now).
Otherwise, I think the idea of capacity points is good, because this way it takes a few turns to move all of your forces from one end of your country to the other, which, of course, is more realistic (in terms of gameplay and strategy). To keep track of capacity points, the screen could show (perhaps next to gpt) how many are available on a given turn, and how many have already been used (as well as how much gpt is being spent on rail transport). That way it would be easy to keep track of how many units can still use rails, and its effect on your economy.
However, I don't think the use of a cp should immediately cost your civ gold. I think it would be unreasonable to incur a hefty cost when all you are doing is shuffling a few troops during peacetime (perhaps to replace outdated defenders with new ones). Otherwise, the player that can minimize troop movements would gain an economic advantage (perhaps a large one, and that would be a nightmare to keep up with, as you would constantly second guess yourself when moving troops by rail). You might move a unit to a certain city, costing you gold, then decide you didn't really want it there, and move it back, costing you more gold, all for nothing. Rather, capacity points ought to represent how much you can transport for free. Once you've used up all of your cp's, you would have to start paying big money to transport more units. It would be kind of like buying cp's, but you could only do it up to limit, beyond which you could no longer transport more units at all.
Here's how it would work out. Let's say your civ has ten capacity points. You can move ten units for free anywhere on your rail network. Past that, you have to start paying for it. Once you have transported ten more units, you can no longer transport via rails anymore. Thus, you can actually transport up to twice the number of cp's, but only the first half is free. Past that it starts to cost a lot of money (representing massive mobilization and its subsequent economic cost).
I also agree that rails should only give an overall bonus to a city, rather than to each individual tile. That would prevent massive railing of your territory. Perhaps each road and rail tile should even cost upkeep, since that would also prevent massive railing, and would be more realistic since roads and railroads cost a lot of money to maintain in the real world (no joke, the federal government spends billions of dollars maintaining decent highways). And I think the bonus given to each city ought to be related to (among many other things), the number of cities connected to the network. If only two cities are connected, the bonus would be small for those two cities. But as more and more cities are connected, the bonus for each city should rise, representing the increase in the availability of raw materials and manufactured goods.
Just my two cents.
-Alex
1. Railroad movement remains infinite.
2. Railroad capacity is limited by capacity points (cp), the number of which is determined by number of cities, population, and tech level.
3. Each unit that uses rails that turn uses up a capacity point. Once all available capacity points are used up for the turn, no more units can use rails for that turn.
4. Each capacity point that is used costs a certain amount of gold (which is deducted from your gpt income rather than your treasury, as I understand it). Thus, even if you have, say, ten capacity points, if your economy is in shambles (already running deficits, small treasury), you may only be able to use three or four without totally destroying your civ's economy.
If this is correct, then I must say that I think it is an excellent idea. I'm not a fan of railing every darn tile in the game, and infinite movement with unlimited capacity does seem a bit too unrealistic, while simultaneously destroying strategy.
However, I think there are some gaps that need to be addressed. First of all, based on this system, I think that roads and rails should be clearly separated (realistically, it makes sense, since roads don't disappear when rails are built). If a unit is sitting on a tile that has both roads and rails, the unit should have the option of using either one. Thus, if you don't want to use your capacity points on a specific unit, it can just use the roads underneath it (in the same manner as in previous civ games, since no one seems to have a problem with the way road movement is handled). On the other hand, if you want the unit to use rails, you could click a "transport by rail" command button, and then specify where to drop it off. In this case, you would consume a capacity point. (And I think the presence of a command button or command key would ensure that only the units you need are transported by train, thus preventing you from wasting capacity points on units that can reach their destination by roads).
Maybe roads and rails should even be completely separated (graphically as well), so you could have a tile that has only roads, only rails, or both. If a unit is on a tile with rails, it has the option of using them (at the expense of capacity points and gpt). If the tile has roads, it will use the roads automatically, unless you specify that it should use rails (using the command button and clicking where to transport the unit, much as it already is now).
Otherwise, I think the idea of capacity points is good, because this way it takes a few turns to move all of your forces from one end of your country to the other, which, of course, is more realistic (in terms of gameplay and strategy). To keep track of capacity points, the screen could show (perhaps next to gpt) how many are available on a given turn, and how many have already been used (as well as how much gpt is being spent on rail transport). That way it would be easy to keep track of how many units can still use rails, and its effect on your economy.
However, I don't think the use of a cp should immediately cost your civ gold. I think it would be unreasonable to incur a hefty cost when all you are doing is shuffling a few troops during peacetime (perhaps to replace outdated defenders with new ones). Otherwise, the player that can minimize troop movements would gain an economic advantage (perhaps a large one, and that would be a nightmare to keep up with, as you would constantly second guess yourself when moving troops by rail). You might move a unit to a certain city, costing you gold, then decide you didn't really want it there, and move it back, costing you more gold, all for nothing. Rather, capacity points ought to represent how much you can transport for free. Once you've used up all of your cp's, you would have to start paying big money to transport more units. It would be kind of like buying cp's, but you could only do it up to limit, beyond which you could no longer transport more units at all.
Here's how it would work out. Let's say your civ has ten capacity points. You can move ten units for free anywhere on your rail network. Past that, you have to start paying for it. Once you have transported ten more units, you can no longer transport via rails anymore. Thus, you can actually transport up to twice the number of cp's, but only the first half is free. Past that it starts to cost a lot of money (representing massive mobilization and its subsequent economic cost).
I also agree that rails should only give an overall bonus to a city, rather than to each individual tile. That would prevent massive railing of your territory. Perhaps each road and rail tile should even cost upkeep, since that would also prevent massive railing, and would be more realistic since roads and railroads cost a lot of money to maintain in the real world (no joke, the federal government spends billions of dollars maintaining decent highways). And I think the bonus given to each city ought to be related to (among many other things), the number of cities connected to the network. If only two cities are connected, the bonus would be small for those two cities. But as more and more cities are connected, the bonus for each city should rise, representing the increase in the availability of raw materials and manufactured goods.
Just my two cents.
-Alex
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
alexchunha just fixed my one real problem with Aussie_Lurker's model. The Cp should be the amount that can be moved for free. Provided that the interface is good enough to tell you this and people don't do too much "bean counting" to figure out which units to move (and which not to) it should work well.
And tieing the rail budget and the CP's would be a good idea. And Aussie I wouldn't get mad at people for not understanding the model it was a bit confusing when you first mentioned it. Infact i think alexchunha has explained it better than you have (if that is indeed what you meant).
As i said the biggest risk with this is bean counting i think.
And tieing the rail budget and the CP's would be a good idea. And Aussie I wouldn't get mad at people for not understanding the model it was a bit confusing when you first mentioned it. Infact i think alexchunha has explained it better than you have (if that is indeed what you meant).
As i said the biggest risk with this is bean counting i think.
alexchunha
Chieftain
ilgross said:
It doesn't seem all that complicated. Rails still give infinite movement, except now you can only transport a limited number per turn.
If Civ were a real time game, unlimited capacity might be acceptable, but since Civ is turn-based, the ability to move your entire military to any point on your border on a single turn gives the first-striker a significant advantage. Granted, that is always the case in war, but in this case I think it's too significant an advantage. It's possible that you could blitz your way over an entire civ in a single turn by taking advantage of unlimited capacity and infinite movement on rails, even if that civ is equally powerful and at tech parity. If not the entire civ, then at least a significant portion of it, perhaps enough to break its back. Not realistic, in my opinion, and not fair to the defender, who has to wait for his turn to move anything to protect himself. It makes a surprise attack with movement-three units far too powerful. Limited rail capacity would solve that problem by simulating the constraints of logistics, transportation, and infrastructure.
ilgross said:
There still should be some benefit to building rails and linking cities. But otherwise I agree that the bonus to individual tiles ought to be nixed (or at least adjusted so that not every dang tile benefits from it, since it is neither realistic, fun, nor esthetically pleasing to rail every tile).
alexchunha
Chieftain
Meleager said:
Definitely. The interface would have to be easy to follow. I don't think this will be a problem in Civ IV, though, since they've been focusing on creating a very easy-to-use interface. Keeping track of capacity points shouldn't be hard to do on the interface. Like I said, just post it next to gpt and treasury stats.
5(10)
-0gpt
The above could represent what it looks like. It indicates that you are using five cp's out of a possible ten, and that you aren't consuming any money on rail transport yet.
Or, alternatively
15(10)
-50gpt
This means you've exceeded your capacity, and now must pay a hefty economic price for it.
And I think it would be necessary to have cp's represent free capacity, because that way you don't have to be paranoid about minor troop movements eating up your cash. It would reduce "bean counting".
ogmoir
Arctic Troops
I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have the current model than any of your MM nightmares. 
If you ask me, railroads are something that should always work the same without the need to tweak their capacities and such and without having to think how many units I can move through this part of the RR.
If you ask me, railroads are something that should always work the same without the need to tweak their capacities and such and without having to think how many units I can move through this part of the RR.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
The real problem is not with railways, but with units. A tank has 2 movement, so it can move 2 tiles every turn and 6 tiles if it's on a road. So it can take more than 4 years for a tank to get to the border of your empire and be prepared for attack. This is the main problem. In our days, a tank can get from Spain to China in a less than a month. The railways just help with this problem. Movement on railways should be limited, but only when the problem of units' movement is solved. They could give more movement to ground units or they could make very small turns after 1900. But I heard there will be 400 turns (not 540, like in Ci3) in Civ4 so I don't know how this problem will be solved. I hope railways will be limited (or maybe not used) in Civ4, but only when they will increase movement of ground units. It is clear that infinite movement is not good, but without this we need increased movement for ground units.l
Combat Ingrid
Spy Unit
Here's an article about the USSR offensive in Manchuria, august 1945: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
Not only was it very beautifully executed in a Civ-like fashion
it also showed the strategic importance of railroads for massive troop redeployment over long distances. All in all, I think it's fairly close to the current civ-model, where you can instantly move all your troops across your vast empire.
Not only was it very beautifully executed in a Civ-like fashion
it also showed the strategic importance of railroads for massive troop redeployment over long distances. All in all, I think it's fairly close to the current civ-model, where you can instantly move all your troops across your vast empire.Combat Ingrid
Spy Unit
Good points, but extending this argument and having taken a look at the amount of air on this planet, we should be stupid to use railroads, right? So capacity should count for something. I realize this has been simulated already to some extent in CIV III (one air drop per city with an airport), but introducing a limited RR capacity as well could lead to a bit more realism and slightly improved strategic game play, couldn't it?.
Kind regards,
JaCa
Kind regards,
JaCa
alexchunha
Chieftain
ogmoir said:
What micromanagement nightmare? Rails work exactly the same as in previous civ games (unlimited movement), except you can only move a certain number per turn.
Now, I understand that with railroads, you should be able to redeploy a massive amount of troops in a short period of time, but because civ is a turn-based game, the ability to redeploy all of them in a single turn is bad for gameplay. If the game were realtime, your enemy could redeploy at the same time, and then there would be no problem. But in a turn-based game, your enemy has to wait its turn. Thus, you could redeploy your entire military and attack before your enemy can make any moves. After all, allowing you to move all of your units in chess in one turn would obviously be bad for gameplay (okay, not quite the same, but you get the point).
Plus, its not like the Soviet redeployment of troops you mentioned above didn't strain their transportation capacity. That's something that ought to be simulated in civ.
And don't get messed up with time. Just because you can redeploy an army a hundred times in one year doesn't mean you should be able to do it in one civ turn. The argument that "one turn equals one year" is not sufficient to warrant infinite movement and unlimited capacity. You have to think of it as "number of turns" rather than "number of years". Otherwise civ doesn't make a lot of sense.
alexchunha
Chieftain
Combat Ingrid said:
First of all, that picture shows that not all tiles are railed. Second, the reason why rails are so prevalent on that map is because in real life, cities and towns are far more common than in civ, and they are built much closer together. So naturally, all of those towns and cities should be connected by railroad, but in civ that's not a problem, because we only deal with a few cities scattered at relatively large distances from one another.
Plus, if you think of Great Britain in terms of a civ game, the dense build of rails would probably reflect a dense build of cities. After all, one of the best ways to offset the disadvantages of small territory in civ is to utilize a denser build. Take a look at a map of a larger country, such as Russia, or even the United States. Not every bit of land is crowded with rails.
And the argument against railing every tile isn't so much about realism as about gameplay. If every tile is railed, there is no strategy to troop placements. In the case of the Soviets and their redeployment of troops across Siberia, the trans-Siberian railroad was key. If it had been bombed or destroyed in some way, they would have been screwed. That's not something that can happen in civ if every tile is railed.
And even if we're going to be stuck with railing every tile, they should at least try to make it look better!
Combat Ingrid
Spy Unit
alexchunha said:
Which is exactly what the Russians did
As for your comments about the dense British rail network, sure. I wasn't entirely serious, you know.
I agree with your points about the trans-siberian railroad. I would prefer a system where you don't rail all the tiles, rather than a system where you have to micromanage the capacity of your railroads. As it is now, you often have to bomb quite a few railroads to slow down the enemy, which is frustrating and not very realistic. I suspect the hard part is to get a system which both the AI and the human player are able to handle well.
alexchunha
Chieftain
Combat Ingrid said:
That always seems to be a challenge. Kind of like artillery in Civ III. The AI either didn't use it, or used it poorly, thus giving the competent human player a decided advantage in war.
Similar threads
