1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Railroads.

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Ksupirates, Feb 22, 2018.

  1. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    Industrial Revolution in general was probably the most important change between 3000 BC and 2000 AD, in my opinion.

    Before industrialism, regardless of what civ are you talking about and at what period, something like 80-90% of humanity was farmers, peasants, fishermen, hunters and gatherers. Vast majority was illiterate and not urbanised too.
    Before industrialism, logistics was terrible, most of humans never travelled far, communication was terrible, supply was terrible, army movement was incomparably slower...
    Industrial Revolution changed the way humanity works.
    Industrial Revolution was so massive change, that nations which adopted it had devastating advantage over those who didn't and were basically capable of doing whatever they wanted, regardlessly of numerical advantage of their pre-industrial foes.

    I fantasized about Civ game which turns IR into the major gamechanger, when once-powerful-empires may completely fall and small underdogs may dramatically rise, depending on each nation's capability to industrialize. Where once somebody researches IR it all turns into OOOOH MAAAN WE GOTTA CATCH UP OR WE GONNA DIE, an industrial race of manufacturing and efficiency.

    It would make late game quite dynamic, too.
     
    gokinmen, Leyrann and nzcamel like this.
  2. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,797
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Sounds a bit like Victoria I and II from Paradox. It’s the Victorian era from 1830-1920. You have industrialized nations and a lot of pre industrial revolution Nations. It’s super fun and challenging to industrialize Siam or Peru or Persia, etc.
     
  3. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Progress is a real thing. Games made by 90s standards wouldn't work well now. And avoiding micromanagement is a real game tendency too. I should say Civ5 road maintenance was a part way to brilliant Civ6 system - with it amount of roads was greatly decreased and some strategic choices were made behind them.

    Interesting question. On standard map size in Civ6 I don't see any problems moving my troops around on land in Industrial era (where railroads usually start to appear). Surely people playing huge maps are likely to have different experience.

    But anyway, it's not only about players, it's about game itself. A single and situational (as it depends at the map size at least) bonus can't justify such big change in game mechanics.

    Constructing improvements with gold could be a big idea in Civ7. No joking, it could be interesting replacement for builder charges.

    On the other hand for Civ6, automatically moving engineer, eating gold each turn, is quite alien concept. It doesn't fit the rest of the mechanics at all. Can't say it can't be done.

    Railroad district and stations improvement could be really cool. But again, it needs more than movement bonus to justify spending tiles, production, etc. And it's likely to be more than just bonuses for trade routes output.
     
  4. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I play on huge cos I want the world to be bigger - even when the roads are improving and rails are online, I want continents that take time to cross still. I'm not sure why someone who got frustrated with the movement would play huge maps. That'll just exacerbate their frustration.
     
  5. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,927
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I believe the call to power games allowed you to place improvements with gold. Not a bad system, though I often forgot to do it. I only played ctp2 a little, the game had other problems and didn't feel right.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  6. Athmos

    Athmos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    236
    IIRC, you had a slider for public work that allowed you to divert part of your production toward tile improvement, just as you had the civ 1-4 commerce sliders to convert it to gold, science and culture/entertainment.
     
    Thormodr and Duuk like this.
  7. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,603
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    It was CTP2 that allowed you to devote part of your budget to public works and spend it accordingly.

    I think it was the ideal system, I've mentioned it in several threads, and I wish they would steal it for Civ and bring it back.
     
    Thormodr likes this.
  8. Phoenix1595

    Phoenix1595 Lord of the Two Lands

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    771
    Speak of the devil, I miss Civ4's corporations. I know they were controversial, but it was fun for me to line up the requisite resources in order to create each specific corporation. I don't think they would work on a practical level in Civ6 though.

    Anyway, back to the topic on hand, I agree railroads should play some role in Civ6, even if it merely is an increase to production/gold yields. As for other concepts of "historical importance" not yet in the game, I would echo the calls for slavery, which could be a policy card similar to corvee that grants a production bonus but, like a dark age card, would have a detrimental effect. If the designers could create negative AI diplomacy modifiers for individual policies, not just government types, I could see how slavery might be fairly interesting (e.g., AI: "We dislike slaveholding nations, and denounce you accordingly,").
     
    Thormodr likes this.
  9. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Ah, thank you for the clarification. In fact, I also had little problem with Civ VI roads on Standard Maps, but on a Large Pangaea Map it seems to take forever to cross even part of the continent to accomplish anything.
    On the one hand, I want to say movement increases should be tied to Map Size, on the other hand, playing on a larger Map is a Player Choice and therefore you should expect to have different problems and challenges than you have on a small or standard map. Either way, the movement available in the Industrial Era and later, and the effects of that movement in the current game, simply do not reflect the historical reality - and if we're going to disregard the historical template entirely, then the game is marketed under completely False Pretenses, instead of merely Partly False (Immortal Leaders, etc)

    In fact, no way am I arguing that railroads had only a Movement Influence. The effects of speeding up land movement by people and cargo by an Order of Magnitude were profound on personal, national, micro- and macroeconomic levels, and should be modeled in some way in the game.
    Just for example, the rapid movement of people by rail made possible modern Tourism - not just a few Rich making the Grand Tour as in the 18th - early 19 centuries, but masses of people heading out to Atlantic City, Brighton Pier, Glacier National Park, or Baden-Baden Every Year.
    In an even more profound change, it is no longer expected that a crop failure around a city will cause starvation in that city: Food can and is regularly shipped hundreds or thousands of miles by rail or rail/sea combinations - even from other countries by Trade Agreements involving millions of tons of 'raw' foodstuffs.

    In fact, I have proposed elsewhere that the next Expansion for Civ VI should be Trade and Economics focused, including a form of Commercial/Economic Victory, massive upgrading of the importance of early sea travel and trade, and inclusion of International Business (stealing some of the current mechanics used for International Religion, perhaps), and the addition of Railroads, modern Superhighway Systems, and the revolution in shipping by rail, sea and air brought on by Containerized Shipping in the Atomic Era. Among many other advantages, such a focus would 'beef up' the latter stages of the game which are now pretty barren.

    Using Gold as a Substitute for Manpower is another Artificial Game Solution to the problem of Infrastructure. Neither is entirely satisfactory, but a combination of the two is be better than either one exclusively, and we have that in Civ VI already.

    Right now, Builder Charges allow 'instant' construction of Improvements, and you can buy Builders with Gold, so we have the Gold/Manpower Improvement construction in the game.
    Forming Units and constructing Buildings can also be done ('bought') with Gold, so we have an alternative to Turn by Turn construction there, as well, which is very well, since otherwise, it would take me 200+ years to form a single unit of Slingers or build a Monument in the Ancient Era. I assume in that case the monument is being gnawed out of stone by workers using only their teeth...

    To get the Full Effect of the Gold Construction Method, I suggest some Policies/Techs that provide more Gold early in the game (earlier Sea Trade Routes?), coupled with some other restrictions that prevent rampant Abuse of the system by Human Players.

    Perhaps, it would be as simple as allowing Builder Charges to be used to construct Buildings as well as Improvements, and Multiple Charges to construct Districts? The rising cost of successive 'waves' of Builders would provide an In-Game Brake on the worst abuses of this system, and even 'marginal' cities late in the game could be made useful by sending a couple of Builders with the Settler. The Production 'Points' of the cities would remain as now, but would be, especially early in a new city's development, more of a Back Up system than the primary construction resource.
     
    dunkleosteus likes this.
  10. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,927
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I would probably leave builders as is, but have railroads able to be built by gold (because of the large amount of capital it took to get them running) and offer production bonuses in return.
     
  11. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,693
    By far the most important things that aren't in the game - and in one case hasn't been in any Civ game - are disease and migration (Age of Exploration and later slavery essentially being a subset of forced migration in terms of its demographic importance).

    Civil war is an important driving force of societal change and in some case collapse that hasn't been in the last couple of generations of Civ games.
     
  12. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Some say that the social policy 'Triangular Trade" is a representation of the Atlantic Slave trade. I have no idea if that's accurate, but the name seems to suggest something like that.
    Of course sustained serious political opposition to slavery didn't exist till the late 18th century; so we need to be careful how much a dislike for it is put into the game pre Industrial era.

    Movement increases should absolutely not be tied to map size! I play huge for reasons that involve everything taking longer and being more epic! I think you'll find most huge players feel the same way - why else play on huge?

    I'm really not sure why you think that movement in the late game isn't realistic? A case could be made that rail speed up transport more than Industrial roads reflect in game, but the majority of people still traveled on roads (or what passed for them) most of the time up to the 20th century. Rail was still new and expensive infrastructure before then that most people used sparingly. Armies utilised rail, but not as much as they should have even into the early 20th century either. Modern roads are fine movement wise; and given the small size of even huge maps you don't want units moving any faster than they do.
     
  13. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    You don't have to 'build in' the modern 'civilized' aversion to Slavery, just build in the disadvantages as well as the advantages of slavery: Slavery provides Cheap Labor, but not necessarily that cheap when you consider that you have to house and feed them, as opposed to simply paying them a wage and letting them fend for themselves. In addition, slavery may provide cheap labor, but it doesn't provide skilled labor, and it includes constant concerns regarding Security agains slave revolts - from Spartacus to Nat Turner, always a concern in slave-holding societies.

    I agree, as I thought my musings in the previous post indicated. There should be consequences and different kinds of problems on the different sizes of maps, just as there are on the different types of maps.

    Not True. The majority of people may have traveled on roads for short distances not exceeding a day's travel (10 - 20 miles) but virtually ALL long distance travel went by rail or water except for Migrations where there was neither (the 'Westward Trek' in North America, which lasted for about 25 years, until the first trans-continental railroad covered the same distance). Rail was expensive infrastructure, but one astounding fact about the railroad is how fast the amount of track expanded: from a start of zero miles of track in 1820, in less than 40 years northern Europe, the British Isles and the eastern half of the USA all had virtually every major city connected by railroad.
    And armies were among the first to recognize and use railroads. The Prussian/German state actually planned many of the railroads inside its territory for military mobilization purposes, to deliver troops and supples to threatened borders (or borders they intended to threaten themselves). By 1870 - 50 years after the railroads started - the entire mobilization of armies was based firmly on Where The Railroads Ran, and the entire US Civil War can be studied as a lesson in use and abuse of railroads (and was, by European Staff Officers, especially from Prussia)

    As late as World War Two every single army used railroads as the basis for supply over land: the only exceptions were when the railroads weren't there (parts of Soviet Russia and the Western Desert) or had been too badly damaged to operate (northern France in 1944). And lack of railroads could be strategically Decisive: in front of Moscow in October 1941, the German Army Group Center was supplied by a totally inadequate rail net so that delivery of supplies could not keep up with the consumption. By the end of the month in all of the forces directly threatening Moscow there were 8 Panzer Divisions and 3 Motorized Divisions, and in all the depots supplying the forces there was enough fuel to move a single Panzer Division 60 kilometers - quite literally, they could not even reach Moscow except on foot, unsupplied! The German officers after the war blamed 'General Mud' for stopping them, and they lied through their collective Nazi-Sympathizing Teeth - it was the inadequacies of their own supply system (and a little matter of a Red Army in front of them which never quite disappeared) that stopped them, and probably lost them the war.

    Now, all that said, in the last half of the 20th century (Atomic - Information Eras in game terms), while railroads still reman crucial for long distance bulk transport (there is still no other economical way to move 10,000 tons of Iron Ore over land) in total tonnage moved and people transported, the modern All Terrain, multi-lane, 'superhighways' have superseded them. This, I think, is what we should mean when/if we talk about late-game Roads. The change isn't so much in speed (in 1930 a Name Passenger Train could cross the country in 3 - 4 days, you can't do much better than that in a tractor-trailer on the Interstate highway system today) But the highway system is immensely more flexible, and combined with the Containerization of cargos, it allows freight to be delivered untouched direct from origin anywhere in the world to the doorway of its final destination.

    So, if you've managed to read this far, here's how I see it:
    Ancient Roads - as now, not much bridging, basically tracks so that wheeled vehicles can slowly get from point to point.
    Classical Roads - basically just add bridges. The only thing I'd change is that some Civs could benefit from Really Good Paved Roads (Rome, Gaul) which don't make travel that much faster, but do increase the regularity with which goods and people can travel, so perhaps would provide extra Gold, Production to Trade Routes over them.
    Industrial Roads - become Railroads, with a change in requirements to 'Upgrade' them, but providing an increase in movement by reducing the Movement Cost to 0.25, providing Bridges, and greatly increasing the Gold, Production, Science, and other influences traveling over them. I could also make a case for a change in how Food is distributed among cities all connected by railroads, but that's perhaps for another Thread/Post
    As an Aside, the hard surfaced 'tarmac' road was not invented until 80 years After the railroad, so prior to railroads, the graded, drained 'Roman Road' was the best anyone could do, and had been for over a thousand years!
    Modern Roads - are too early. IF we assume the Atomic Era started in the early 1940s (along with aircraft, tanks and aircraft carriers) then in the 'Modern Era' the only dense network of hard-surfaced roads anywhere in the world was in northwestern Europe and the northeastern USA. Period. Instead:
    Atomic Roads - representing the multi-lane concrete/tarmac Superhighways that proliferated in the last half of the twentieth century. This includes both the limited access 'Interstates', 'Autobahns' or 'National Roads', and the network of hard-surfaced roads feeding them. The gives the same Movement Cost as Railroads (0.25), provides Bridges, and again greatly increases the Production, Gold, and Food among the cities so connected, and also, perhaps, an Amenity bonus - the ability to Go Anywhere in a private car has been an aspiration among populations, even those well-served by public transportation (Europe and parts of Asia, for instance)
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  14. gokinmen

    gokinmen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    I think having engineers or builders able to build railroads or having a specialized trader would be awesome. It could be available as early as industrialization.
     
  15. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    The Civ V Tech Tree is such an Abomination that it's hard to relate 'real' developments to it, but it appears that the 'first tier' of Industrial Era Technologies (Base Cost 845 Science) roughly mimic the developments of the mid - late 18th century. Even there they are all over the map, since the developments there include Oxford University (actually founded at the beginning of the Renaissance Era) and Ruhr Valley and Factories, which are, respectively, late 19th century and late 18th century developments, while 'Military Science' Tech includes units from Redcoat to Cavalry, or units spanning from about 1702 to 1850!

    That would appear, though, to make that Tier of Tech represent the very beginnings of the Industrial Era in England only, before the Napoleonic Wars. That makes Steam Power (Base Cost 970 Science) in the 2nd Tier of Industrial Era Techs a slightly better choice for Railroads. Of course, the game has Steam Power's Eurekas come from building Shipyards, which is laughable: the earliest Steam Engines were applied to pumping out deep mines and only much later applied to moving things over land or sea - and the railroads were already being built and used before the first reliable steam-powered warships were in service.

    If I were designing a Complete System, I'd make Railroads available at Steam Power and change the Boost for Steam Power to: Build 4 Mines over Strategic Resources. In most cases, that should allow the gamer to get it a little earlier than Sanitation or Rifling, both of which represent developments that are a few years later than Railroads.
     
    gokinmen likes this.
  16. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    But no doubt people would want that aversion to be in the game if slavery is in the game. I said in the "Inevitable thread on "Flirtatious" and "Curmudgeon" straights-only traits" that:

    "You know what they should do with late game agenda's? Add them in the late game! Have a third agenda that kicks in as a result of that leader researching the enlightenment; or something like that lol. You're anti-slavery/environmentalism/air-force/nuke/etc agenda's can come into the game then. Having another thing to juggle with each leader would make the late game more interesting; and keep valid agenda's in the game; but at a stage where it's not so jarring for immersion."

    We're not disagreeing. I would just add that the vast majority of travel wasn't long distance, even with small improvements in roads. All of that and Prussia was exceptional ;)

    Yep :)
    While no doubt this is all watered down a bit for gameplay; I think modern roads capture this well enough. Hell, till VI we've always jumped from roads to rails late in the game. I suppose bridges has always been added by a tech rather than an era; but VI has at least one more intermediary step over previous editions.

    I'm open to your ideas :)
    All n all I'm just happy that movement and roads are as great as they are in VI when compared with V in particular.
     
  17. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA

    Excellent Idea! - Are you listening, Developers?

    Ah, but the vast majority of economically important travel was the long distance movement of Industrial Quantities of raw materials to factories and finished goods to market, the travel that powered the Industrial Revolution and Industrial/Modern Eras, and all of that went by water or rail. I don't think it's an accident that England/Britain started industrializing first, since it had access to the ablate to move great quantities of goods (sea transport) ahead of anyone else.
    And Prussia was First, but not really the exception: France, Austria and Russia also designed (Government built or sponsored) railroads for strategic/mobilization purposes, following Prussia's example. In fact, I've seen it argued that the economic development of eastern Europe and Russia were partially crippled because the railroads did not run where they were needed, having been designed to move armies instead of goods and services for the economy.

    BUT I agree that the road system/mechanism in Civ VI is not Bad, just that I think it could be Better, and better reflect the enormous changes to just about everything else in human activity brought on by the changes in land transportation during the Industrial ('railroading') Era.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  18. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    That...would not surprise me :lol:
     
  19. Sostratus

    Sostratus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Pedantic Oxonians would point out that Oxford University was "founded" c 1096, solidly in the middle ages; though I submit the royal charter in 1248 might start to get close to the 1300 date some use to define the start of the Renaissance :rolleyes:
    Apologies for the off topic, not looking to start a debate on eras, I agree with the spirit of your posts
     
  20. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Who on earth thinks the Renaissance started that early? :wow:
     

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop