Railroads

[lildude]

I have always found railroads very useful. They are good for trade and military transport purposes. However, some people disagree with me about connecting my railroads to enemy cities so I can trade. They claim that they can just go to war with me and use the railroads to their advantage to kill me. I thought about this, what do you guys and gals think? Does the good outweigh the bad or vice versa?



------------------
lildude

 

[drake]

As long as you keep your railroads on a single, well guarded line, the "walk in and kill everything" method will be very difficult to execute. Don't build RR everywhere like the ai and you'll be fine....just build a single line from city to city and place forts along the line to prevent a rush. Building it through hills and mountains will make it easier to defend as well...........

RR is a must for trading in modern times

 

[Supernaut]

Those railways also make it much easier for you to kill them!!

I always build as many railways as possible round my cities - it increases production and trade, and makes it easier for me to get around (eg caravans for rush building wonders). Yes, the AI can come in and bash me, but this is more than compensated for by the speed with which I can bring up reinforcements - since the Ai tends to only attack one point, and that on the borders, it makes it much easier for me to defend.

 

[Kev]

I have to admit that lately I've been building very little railroad lines in my games. I know that they are useful when it comes to troop movements and such, but by the time I have railroad I find that I am usually ahead and I'll only build them in places like mined hills and buffalo squares to get the shield bonus. My cities can usually defend themselves well by this time, and my biggest threat usually is barbarians popping up.

If I have a rival on the same continent as mine, I am usually more interested in taking them over instead of trading. Also, I tend to trade with cities (my own or others) on different continents in an effort to get a bigger bonus. What can be nice is to put a single city near a rival's main civilization (or take over a city) and bring lots of caravans and freight there and use the other civ's rail lines to disperse your trade at various intervals.

I have my settlers and engineers settle cities when they can, build roads for trade, and develop irrigation for growth as a priority. Then would come mining and the irrigation of things like swamp and jungle before railroad lines in many cases. I am probably in the minority when it comes to my sparse use of rail, but it's just my personal preference lately.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[stormerne]

In contrast to Kev, I always build single line railroads to link all my cities on each continent. Later on I entensively railroad city squares, usually oldest cities first.

I don't railroad to the enemy except at the moment of conquest. As a preparation I railroad to the edge of the next conquest and build a fortress there. Then when I have a few dozen howitzers lined up and a large army of engineers, I quick-build a railroad to the first enemy city, three engineers per square, and conquer. Then on to the next city, and the next... all in one turn.

These are not trade routes! However, if I'm not sure of the lie of the land, I may send a fleet of freight in first along the railroad to make reconnaisance.

If there's an area which I don't usually build much of, it's offensive naval units. But that's another story...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[hannibol43]

I find railroads useful if you just use them to connect cities. It allows me to mobilize an army quickly. I am a fan of longer games and find it useful to be able to get my units from the industrial center (older cities) to the frontier for a war or to defend my outlying cities. I also use the build railroads everywhere theory to surround an enemies city with Howitzers and Heavy Armor.

P.S. Naval units are great for taking coastal cities and establishing a beachhead.

------------------
1Peace 1Love

"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[lildude]

Originally posted by Kev:
I'll only build them in places like mined hills and buffalo squares to get the shield bonus. My cities can usually defend themselves well by this time, and my biggest threat usually is barbarians popping up.

Well, I usally never have problems with barbarians, but i do like to get the shield bonus. Has anybody had any enemy use them against you? I have and it sucked

 

[Mongol Horde]

I railroad every last square that is used by my cities and of course a link between all my cities. If one city gets attacked then you have instant reinforcementsfrom your others. And what is this about the AI using your railroad to attack you, the AI uses the railroad if it happens to stumble across it not in any useful way. Railroad everything is my motto.

 

[Andu Indorin]

I find that a railnet between all my cities to be indispensible. Since I follow a policy of minimum military builds and a mobile defense, towards the end of the game I rely on garrisons only in cities that have wonders. If Barbarians should take city, I simple bribe it back since my well-developed economy can easily afford the cost. And I can't remember the last time I actually lost a city to an AI.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Andu Indorin sez:

Since I follow a policy of minimum military builds and a mobile defense, towards the end of the game I rely on garrisons only in cities that have wonders.

I am astonished and delighted to learn of this. The things we take for granted!

 

[Kev]

All right, the more I've thought about this the more I realize that by the very latter part of the game I DO indeed end up having a rail net connnecting the vast majority of my cities.

I was more or less thinking about some of the latest GOTM's where ending quickly was so important. I did not want to waste time building rail when I could be settling cities or building irrigation. As I approach the end game, my strategy is similar to Andu's whereby a mobile army can move about supported by a few stealth fighters.

Still, this is usually the end game. And there is no way I'll even consider starting a rail net until I have engineers rather than settlers.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[duke o' york]

I seem to remember in Civ I that the railroad did not apply to your city square and so although all your cities were linked, if one of your units actually entered the city, it would lose it's movement point. This meant that you had to build bypasses around every city to have any kind of mobile defence force. It was also damned annoying. in fact, almost as annoying as in Civ II when you're hurriedly trying to get your troops back home to defend against an uprising and in the excitement send one of them off the rails. In all senses. The GoTo command should be smarter (for we lazy people) in Civ III. As it is, your ground troops won't use railways all the time when it's clearly the best option, and your boats will just mess about on the high seas, showing little intention of going in the direction you asked and incapable of going round land at all. I know this is just laziness on my part, but it's not a very good feature at all. Either take it out or make it work properly for Civ III.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[Mongol Horde]

I agree with Andus mobile, minimalist defence but I think that cities with no defence whatsoever is a little bit drastic. But hey if he has never lost a city then he must be doing something right (or maybe he is playing on chieftain

). I have one mech inf in every city plus patrolling fighters- I'm glad someone else uses this excellent tactic.