Railway Complaints

[antbak]

Some people have complained that railroad movement is to fast and unbalances the game. In real life the problem is not the speed but the amount of traffic one can put on a line. This was the problem for the Germans in WW2 not the speed of movement but the numbers of troops.

I suggest therefore that as a possible improvement railways should still have unlimited movement but should only be able to take a limited number of units each turn e.g. 2 or 3 and then reverting to roads. And so you would have to have lots of railway lines if you wanted to ship your entire army from one place to another.

 

[antbak]

Does anyone have any suggestions on if this is a good idea or how it could be improved.

 

[Citizen_K]

No.

 

[royfurr]

I think its a good idea, BUT-

it would probably slow the game down, maybe a lot. The program would have to constanly keep track of the amount of traffic every turn in every tile with rail, then reassign that tile to road when required, then reset it to rail the next turn.

But it does seem wrong that basically you can move your entire land military instantly to anywhere. (I pretty much build RR in every tile except for a few. I don't care about the visual pollution {actually I care but not enough to give up the rail movement}).

 

[simwiz2]

I build RR's on every tile anyway, so i could move all my army anywhere even with the limitations, and it would probably triple the system requirements. I wouldnt be able to play civ3 anymore on my 1997 celeron.

 

[korusus]

I don't think it unbalances the game. Late into the game you simply have to move ALOT of units, and I would just give up playing if I had to move 50 units in one turn without a railroad (and the new stacking movement).

Railroads, in my opinion, are a necessary luxury.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Limiting the units that can travel by rail is senseless without FIRST being able to decide on how many waggons one builds. Too much micromanagement.