Roads and Rails

[Sqwerlpunk]

Raider, if you wanted to do that, you should also increase road upkeep through the ages, which would be... annoying, to say the least.

hewhok, even modern day helicopters are extremely limited by fuel, giving them a huge movement/turn would be kinda weird.

 

[Silurian]

Helicopters can not just fly off into the sunset they need to move their logistics just like the tanks

 

[playshogi]

Maybe there won't be any roads to build in civ5, but instead, the unit's mobility will be assume a certain level of infrastructure.

 

[LeonardoDFinchy]

I'd like to see different transport systems improving trade. For example, rather than simply having trade routes, there is an element of trade capacity, and trade speed. The more links you have, the more capacity, but some provide a greater capacity bonus, like canals, others speed, like air. This would then be balanced by maintenance costs, to reduce the temptation to build everything, everywhere.

Of course anyone who lives in England knows that it really is criss-crossed with both road and rail, so it's not that out-of-the ordinary.

I think a return of 's (and Rise of Mankind's) policy that infrastructure improves yields should return. Mining a buttload of coal is useless if you can't transport it anywhere. Then, people will consider more connections to improved tiles, and prioritise those over empty space. Judicious application of improvements taking longer on mountains, in forests, etc., will again make deciding what to prioritise on a further element of strategy.

 

[Lutefisk Mafia]

I agree that the road/railroad spam would NOT be welcome in Civ 5. Drives me nuts in Civ 4. Except to aid in some movement and connect resources it serves no function and looks like crap.

Another thing that I do not like is the "inflation" that Firaxis used in Civ 4 to control the effect of money exopansion in mid- and late-game play.

So why not kill two birds with one stone? Upkeep of a road should cost money each turn, just like maintenance costs on a building. Failure to set enough money aside each turn for infrastructure will result in random failure of roads: they degenerate and disappear.

Railroads would cost more per turn to upkeep.

Keeping up all this infrastructure would soak up much of that mid and late game money explosion.

Might make sense to have a slider for infrastructure, just like research, culture and money?

Any feedback?

 

[Souron]

A slider would not make sense, unless there was some benefit to having surplus. Better to stick it under expenditure.

 

[D551]

Wow thats a cool insight, that would be really awsome i have to agree with that as i love things that would add more stratagy to the game.

 

[Traitorfish]

I have never really understood the reason why railroads (and roads) give such ubiquitous advantages in all of the civ games. I don’t know about you but if my hometown had its roads replaced with railroads I would be pretty ticked off.

Railroads are a representation of industrialised transport, which is abstracted for simplicity's sake- something which a Civ player should be used to by this point. Railroads are simply the most obvious representation of this, because they are introduced at a more appropriate time than high/motorways, are more obviously distinct from roads, and, ultimately, because they represent a far more significant piece of infrastructure.

 

[Savoir10]

I'd rather have it in that in each city you can build a railroad station; once two or more cities have them, a railroad appears between cities across the tiles via the path of least resistance. This way rather than the map being covered in railroads, you'd have roading in most tiles with railroading between cities.

Civ + Panzer General + Railroad Tycoon. I love it.

 

[Berba]

But i really think that building a road or a railroad will come with a benefit, like +1 commerce +1 production and -1 health, or something like it, by now the only thing roads do is to transport units faster, which is good but it should be more advantages or disadvantages