CivAgamemnon
King
Ask FurX to do that, perhaps as an scenario editor option. Or perhaps some bright lad around here can find a way to do that.
Revisiting the Maginot Line
- Thread starter Gray
- Start date
Hellfire
Prince
Originally posted by DJ54
Perhaps everyone keeps forgetting this is a game, and not reality.If you want reality, join the armed forces or become a politician.
You work with what you have. If don't like what you have, mod it!
I'd love to... now gimme an editor that works on the Mac....
Oh wait... it's coming out today or tomorrow
*schoolgirl squeal of delight*
Michael York
On Sabatical from Civ
Good & bad roads would be nice. How about communication effecting corruption? (Add telegraph & telephone, while assuming that all railroads come equiped with telegraph, but are upgraded upon researching telephone)
Railroads do seem to be fairly accurate. Road movement is standing still compared to rail movement considering the logistics. As a railfan, railroads literally did criss cross the US & UK. If you don't believe me, find a map of either the Pennsylvania RR or the New York Central System. Every little town had a railroad running through it.
When we completed our transcontinental railroad (railway for you brits, being an avid reader of Heritage Railway Magazine), it took a month or two trip and turned it into a week long adventure (or better) Once the super power hit, we had Nickel Plate 2-8-4's rolling 100 car PFE reefers at 70 mph almost non stop.
Railroads do seem to be fairly accurate. Road movement is standing still compared to rail movement considering the logistics. As a railfan, railroads literally did criss cross the US & UK. If you don't believe me, find a map of either the Pennsylvania RR or the New York Central System. Every little town had a railroad running through it.
When we completed our transcontinental railroad (railway for you brits, being an avid reader of Heritage Railway Magazine), it took a month or two trip and turned it into a week long adventure (or better) Once the super power hit, we had Nickel Plate 2-8-4's rolling 100 car PFE reefers at 70 mph almost non stop.
Mitch Paige
Chieftain
Civ rules. Plain and simple. It is the head of it's genre, and although others have tried, nothing can measure up to Civ.
Anywho, I never really though of using fortresses. I always have a surplus of units waiting in my cities, always prepared to attack. Question: Do fast units only retreat if they have 2+ moves on their motion qeue?
Anywho, I never really though of using fortresses. I always have a surplus of units waiting in my cities, always prepared to attack. Question: Do fast units only retreat if they have 2+ moves on their motion qeue?
northcountryman
Chieftain
I only wish the EL moved that fast. I agree with ironfang...
This isn't meant to be rude, but I sense that the people posting on the board that railroading every square is unrealistic are from the USA. Here in the UK, prior to Dr Beechings review in the 1960s, there was easily the equivalent of a railroad on every map square.
Hellfire
Prince
While I am from the USA, I would tend to agree.
The reason why is because I understand the tunnel vision the US has when it comes to railroads. It also has to do with tunnel vision basically everyone seems to have with "roads" in civ3.
The way I see it, roads in Civ3 are basically undertakings to make terrain more passable than before. Without roads, you have to hike through the woods, or up a hill or mountain or forge rivers with no bridges, etc. With roads you have a flat easy way of walking, driving a cart, or whatnot.
Railroads, which appear early in the industrial age, were one of our first examples of motorized transport. In fact, I find "motorized transportation" to be inaccurate because a Train is motorized transport, its just not personal and its not an internal combustion engine, its a steam engine. Trains, as people have pointed out previously, helped people cross the continent much faster, perhaps weeks instead of months or years as it was before.
Now the whole process of movement is out of proportion, or at least isn't explained, when it comes to the modern era. With the modern era and modern cars, speedwise there is little difference between trains and cars. In the US and Canada we have a huge road infrastructure and you can drive just about anywhere. In Europe, the roads are so old its harder to work with them and using existing rail lines or creating new ones is the way to go.
Its also a cultural thing, in the US we value the personal freedom of a car, while in Europe a car isn't as important because of all the infrastructure that has been given to public transportation. The London Underground easily dwarfs even the New York transportation system, and creating things like Eurorail and the Chunnel would have never occured in the US even if the geographic conditions were similar. There are places like the autobahn to drive but they don't handle the same level of traffic.
So basically how does one translate this into Civ3? Well who knows, but I for one feel its not adequately represented. This is because once you have railroads, you can go from one side of a continent to another with no loss of movement points. There is no movement upgrade after railroads because there would be no point movement wise. Maybe a "highway" improvement could grant a civ a commercial bonus or something, but who knows.
I think if the roads in Civ3 as those kind of dirt roads you see in africa and south america, or a cobblestone road or a brick road like you may see in pictures of ancient europe. Passable, and drivable, but they are not conducive to massive excursions by tens of thousands of cars the way a modern Interstate in the US can.
The reason why is because I understand the tunnel vision the US has when it comes to railroads. It also has to do with tunnel vision basically everyone seems to have with "roads" in civ3.
The way I see it, roads in Civ3 are basically undertakings to make terrain more passable than before. Without roads, you have to hike through the woods, or up a hill or mountain or forge rivers with no bridges, etc. With roads you have a flat easy way of walking, driving a cart, or whatnot.
Railroads, which appear early in the industrial age, were one of our first examples of motorized transport. In fact, I find "motorized transportation" to be inaccurate because a Train is motorized transport, its just not personal and its not an internal combustion engine, its a steam engine. Trains, as people have pointed out previously, helped people cross the continent much faster, perhaps weeks instead of months or years as it was before.
Now the whole process of movement is out of proportion, or at least isn't explained, when it comes to the modern era. With the modern era and modern cars, speedwise there is little difference between trains and cars. In the US and Canada we have a huge road infrastructure and you can drive just about anywhere. In Europe, the roads are so old its harder to work with them and using existing rail lines or creating new ones is the way to go.
Its also a cultural thing, in the US we value the personal freedom of a car, while in Europe a car isn't as important because of all the infrastructure that has been given to public transportation. The London Underground easily dwarfs even the New York transportation system, and creating things like Eurorail and the Chunnel would have never occured in the US even if the geographic conditions were similar. There are places like the autobahn to drive but they don't handle the same level of traffic.
So basically how does one translate this into Civ3? Well who knows, but I for one feel its not adequately represented. This is because once you have railroads, you can go from one side of a continent to another with no loss of movement points. There is no movement upgrade after railroads because there would be no point movement wise. Maybe a "highway" improvement could grant a civ a commercial bonus or something, but who knows.
I think if the roads in Civ3 as those kind of dirt roads you see in africa and south america, or a cobblestone road or a brick road like you may see in pictures of ancient europe. Passable, and drivable, but they are not conducive to massive excursions by tens of thousands of cars the way a modern Interstate in the US can.
Naval Power
Sailing the Seven Seas
Jagura you forget the power of Air power. Fist bombers fly into your territory and cut off all the RR's to a ceratin city then out of nowhere the attack force comes and your reinforcment have a tough time getting there.
Ironfang mentioned that and I totally agree.
Ironfang mentioned that and I totally agree.
Hellfire
Prince
In single player, the AI has no ability to really breach a good maginot line. In multiplayer, you are dealing with many clever players so it would be about surprise, mobility, and proper use of the terrain. Plus against other humans its impossible to turn out the production necessary to create a proper maginot line unless you have a really nice choke point to prevent land attack.
As far as the "world of roads/rails" not looking right, I believe it looks completely realistic. The world isn't going to be completely made up of a couple of hundred cities and metropolises, and while most of you probably do live in cities in real life, there are easily 10 times as many small towns and villages as there are large cities in the world. In the game, you can think of each irrigated tile as a small farming village, and each mined tile as a mining town, just like you have towns and villages clustered around cities in real life. And of course, those little towns and villages are going to have to have a network of roads connecting them together, and to the big cities. And once you develop railways, they'll need those, as well.
And infinite movement along rails is far from being unrealistic. Like everyone has said, it only takes a couple of days to move an entire division of armor from one end of the continent to the other, while turns last an entire year (at least!). On the other hand, of course, when you don't have that kind of infrastructure, it can easily take months to move even the smallest distance. It took american forces what, an entire month just to cross Iraq, when that country even has roads? And remember how many decades (centuries?) it took the europeans to cross america when it was first discovered, and had no infrastructure of any kind? Even when you do have roads, railways make a gigantic difference. It certainly did for Napoleon when they were first used, anyway. So, I think it is completely realistic the way it is. The naval system certainly has to be reworked, but that's another can of worms altogether.
And infinite movement along rails is far from being unrealistic. Like everyone has said, it only takes a couple of days to move an entire division of armor from one end of the continent to the other, while turns last an entire year (at least!). On the other hand, of course, when you don't have that kind of infrastructure, it can easily take months to move even the smallest distance. It took american forces what, an entire month just to cross Iraq, when that country even has roads? And remember how many decades (centuries?) it took the europeans to cross america when it was first discovered, and had no infrastructure of any kind? Even when you do have roads, railways make a gigantic difference. It certainly did for Napoleon when they were first used, anyway. So, I think it is completely realistic the way it is. The naval system certainly has to be reworked, but that's another can of worms altogether.
The tactic is pretty sound. I used it prior to my 400 year long war against the babylonians. Simply by blocking ALL the squares along your border with units and fortifing and garrisoning the mountain and hill terrains I literally subdued the AI's entire army, destroying wave after wave of troops using my railroads and ever mobilized artillery(I had 30 to start and after a few conquests around 45). I only lost cities to deposing and never to invasion.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Hellfire: As regards rails and roads, (Western) Europe is alot more like the US than you think. In recent decades, almost all increase in land transportation volumes have been on road, almost non on rail.
I think infinite RR movement in one's own territory is a decent approximation. What gets somewhat weird is fights in areas with razed cities, where both sides get infinite movement. Perhaps RR in neutral territory should only count as normal roads. This would, of course, make it harder to crash thru enemy empires burning everything in one's path with Tanks or Modern Armor, which in my mind would be a Good Thing. You'd have an incentive to keep occupied civilians alive - you'd need them to keep the infrastructure working.
I'm not yet convinced that fortification lines are any much good in Civ3. Fortifying across a choke point can work, but fortifying longer borders is just inviting the enemy to mass all is troops for a single breakthru and then fan out to take your cities. Much better to allow the enemy to enter your territory, and then crush him with a withering counterattack.
I think infinite RR movement in one's own territory is a decent approximation. What gets somewhat weird is fights in areas with razed cities, where both sides get infinite movement. Perhaps RR in neutral territory should only count as normal roads. This would, of course, make it harder to crash thru enemy empires burning everything in one's path with Tanks or Modern Armor, which in my mind would be a Good Thing. You'd have an incentive to keep occupied civilians alive - you'd need them to keep the infrastructure working.
I'm not yet convinced that fortification lines are any much good in Civ3. Fortifying across a choke point can work, but fortifying longer borders is just inviting the enemy to mass all is troops for a single breakthru and then fan out to take your cities. Much better to allow the enemy to enter your territory, and then crush him with a withering counterattack.
DisruptiveIdiot
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 319
IMO Railroads SHOULD be tweaked. I like the idea of having them cost and less movement. I also think that there should be "stations" every 5 tiles of railroad. If you captured a station in enemy territory than you could control it and they couldn't use that stretch of railroad. Pillaging a station would make the railroad unusable until it is repaired. Other improvement should be allowed in enemy territory is you control a certain area.
Trenches should be available after an industrial tech that was cheaper than forts but gave a smaller defensive bonus and could only be used by infantry.
Trenches should be available after an industrial tech that was cheaper than forts but gave a smaller defensive bonus and could only be used by infantry.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Having RR cost maintainance doesn't make too much sense, since the increased economic activity will tend to offset (in increased tax collection) the cost of keeping the system running.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
This Reply deals both with the Railroad issue, and the defence issue.
1) Defence
Relying on a line of fortifications to be a deterrent to attack is silly, especially once you have cavalry/railroads. Wars are won with mobility and the ability to apply force where needed. Any fortification I build are put in defensive terrain. Ouposts on mountains usually have 2 defence and 5 artillery, just so they won't get mobbed, unless the enemy really wants some. There are other lightly manned fortificaitons spread out so that they can cover any square with arty fire. My army tends to be heavy on the artillery. No matter the numbers, a weakened army will usually generate elites rather than bodies.
2) Railroads
I think infinite railroads make perfrect sense for gameplay purposes. It probably would make more sense if neutral territory only counted as roads.
Know this idea probably belongs in the Civ IV forum, but I'll introduce it anyway. It is a new paradigm in how units are moved and fight.
First, Turns would have an Administration Phase, Movement Phase, and Combat Phase. The first Administration Phase would been when research, production, terraforming, and city management would be handled.
Movement would be more abstract. The map would remain the same for this. Units would be organized into Armies(don't think like Civ 3 Army). These armies could move the equivalent of 10-15 spaces, based on troop composition. They wouldn't be moved, square by square, but rather you would choose a destination square. ANy roads or railroads that are friendly they use would greatly add to this range. The units would not actually move, but there destination would be logged.
Then, once all the players have decided a movement for each unit, the computer would all move them simeoultaneously one square at a time. All these units would have a "Sphere of Interation" of a full city radius. Any time two units SoI touched, a screen would come up asking each force how they wanted to engage. One could choose to fortify forces and stop movement, attack, indirectly fire, or go into combat. If a unit ended up near a city, they could go garrison in the city, or prepare to attack it.
Then once all combats are decided, the groups would engage.
Here is the combat system. Each combat occurs on a mini-map generated from the terrain involved. Each side would place its pieces and the orders for each piece(advance, hold ground, fire, fall back). Then the round would be played out and a summary would appear saying who was wounded how. Depending on era, combat would be split from 1 to 4 rounds of combat. AFter each round orders could be changed and units moved. At the end, both forces(if they survive) go to lick wounds until the next turn.
Naval would move in a similair manner, with modern units having almost unlimited movment(watch out for passing though). Unit detection would be harder, especially when subs are introduced. Also, units in the vicitingty of a shipping line(should exsit) could disrupt shipping. This would force most players to be more navally aggressive in pre-destroyer times.
Air units would be in support of ground or naval operations, similair to the re-base option of Civ III.
I know all this is a bit complicated, but I think it woudl allow for massive conflict without being a full blown war-game. It would also make more sense for exploration and naval purposes.
1) Defence
Relying on a line of fortifications to be a deterrent to attack is silly, especially once you have cavalry/railroads. Wars are won with mobility and the ability to apply force where needed. Any fortification I build are put in defensive terrain. Ouposts on mountains usually have 2 defence and 5 artillery, just so they won't get mobbed, unless the enemy really wants some. There are other lightly manned fortificaitons spread out so that they can cover any square with arty fire. My army tends to be heavy on the artillery. No matter the numbers, a weakened army will usually generate elites rather than bodies.
2) Railroads
I think infinite railroads make perfrect sense for gameplay purposes. It probably would make more sense if neutral territory only counted as roads.
Know this idea probably belongs in the Civ IV forum, but I'll introduce it anyway. It is a new paradigm in how units are moved and fight.
First, Turns would have an Administration Phase, Movement Phase, and Combat Phase. The first Administration Phase would been when research, production, terraforming, and city management would be handled.
Movement would be more abstract. The map would remain the same for this. Units would be organized into Armies(don't think like Civ 3 Army). These armies could move the equivalent of 10-15 spaces, based on troop composition. They wouldn't be moved, square by square, but rather you would choose a destination square. ANy roads or railroads that are friendly they use would greatly add to this range. The units would not actually move, but there destination would be logged.
Then, once all the players have decided a movement for each unit, the computer would all move them simeoultaneously one square at a time. All these units would have a "Sphere of Interation" of a full city radius. Any time two units SoI touched, a screen would come up asking each force how they wanted to engage. One could choose to fortify forces and stop movement, attack, indirectly fire, or go into combat. If a unit ended up near a city, they could go garrison in the city, or prepare to attack it.
Then once all combats are decided, the groups would engage.
Here is the combat system. Each combat occurs on a mini-map generated from the terrain involved. Each side would place its pieces and the orders for each piece(advance, hold ground, fire, fall back). Then the round would be played out and a summary would appear saying who was wounded how. Depending on era, combat would be split from 1 to 4 rounds of combat. AFter each round orders could be changed and units moved. At the end, both forces(if they survive) go to lick wounds until the next turn.
Naval would move in a similair manner, with modern units having almost unlimited movment(watch out for passing though). Unit detection would be harder, especially when subs are introduced. Also, units in the vicitingty of a shipping line(should exsit) could disrupt shipping. This would force most players to be more navally aggressive in pre-destroyer times.
Air units would be in support of ground or naval operations, similair to the re-base option of Civ III.
I know all this is a bit complicated, but I think it woudl allow for massive conflict without being a full blown war-game. It would also make more sense for exploration and naval purposes.
Similar threads
