The Coefficient of sliding friction....

[mad-bax]

.... should be greater than zero for rails.

I know railroads must have been done to death but....

... I believe that ...

1. It should not be possible to branch off a railroad except at a city. In other words there should only be one rail link between cities.

2. It should not be possible to start or end a rail journey between cities.

3. It should not be possible to journey through more than say 3 or 4 nodes (cities) in one turn, and should increase with tech level (steam-3, diesel-4, electric-5,).

4. It should not be possible to rail mountains except in the case of 5...

5. It should be possible to tunnel mountains at huge cost, and then rail them.

6. The tax slider should be split into treasury and public sevices. The lower you have the public services slider the more chance of a public service decaying beyond the point of use. Particularly railways.

7. It should not be necessary to road a tile in order to rail it.

 

[warpstorm]

I disagree if a turn is a year or more.

1. IRL, I can get on and off rails at many minor towns and junctions. In fact, many rails just go to corporate loading docks and junctions.

2. ditto

3. Even Steam locomotives could get across the country in less time than a year.

4. Isn't that high cost already factored in when it takes a long time to build it (since you might be paying gold for your workers).

5. ditto

6. Why add this complexity? How will this be more fun?

7. I agree. But I probably would anyways.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

I agree with 3 & 7. That's about it.

Response to other comments:
1. Don't you know how they have switches in between railroad stations, so that two different trains can use part of the same railroad to go to two or more different places. There are those, and also, I'm sure there are railroad hubs where the train doesn't stop but just changes its course and there are many intersections.
Besides, do you really think that in real life (as in the US) that cities are placed so far apart? NO! Most of the cities/towns/rural villages in the US are about between 1 and 4 minutes drive apart, and that's driving on roads & highways at about 60 miles per hour, which means minimum of 1 mile to maximum of 4 or 5 miles. Now, in Civ, the "cities" that you build are only the REALLY IMPORTANT cities. all of those other places in between are either fields, where some people live, and some small towns that simply aren't shown on the map.
2. One thing you have to remmember is that when the railroads are used (not for commerce), they are used by your military and workers. And, if you control the train carrying your military and workers, you can tell the train stop here, and let us off, and they will do it because the military are trying to protect the cities.

Another thing is that cities and many places should have

 

[mad-bax]

My argument is not for realism - but for gameplay. Frictionless motion means you can defend your entire empire with half a dozen infantry and a couple of tanks and most games, right to deity level if a seaborne invasion is required.

Rails are so powerful that if the AI is in the modern age, if you can get to steam and have coal and iron you can brush the AI aside.

Constructing a rail system with the restrictions I describe will be more interesting than stacking workers in groups of 6 and inchworming them around the map. That exercise may aswell be automated IMO.

Don't confuse gameplay with realism. Suspension of disbelief through absorbing gameplay is much more important to me. Heck - I play Quake and UT for heavens sake and I'm 40 years old.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

I agree with 3 & 7. That's about it.

Response to other comments:
1. Don't you know how they have switches in between railroad stations, so that two different trains can use part of the same railroad to go to two or more different places. There are those, and also, I'm sure there are railroad hubs where the train doesn't stop but just changes its course and there are many intersections.
Besides, do you really think that in real life (as in the US) that cities are placed so far apart? NO! Most of the cities/towns/rural villages in the US are about between 1 and 4 minutes drive apart, and that's driving on roads & highways at about 60 miles per hour, which means minimum of 1 mile to maximum of 4 or 5 miles. Now, in Civ, the "cities" that you build are only the REALLY IMPORTANT cities. all of those other places in between are either fields, where some people live, and some small towns that simply aren't shown on the map.
2. One thing you have to remmember is that when the railroads are used (not for commerce), they are used by your military and workers. And, if you control the train carrying your military and workers, you can tell the train stop here, and let us off, and they will do it because the military are trying to protect the cities.

4 & 5. Mountains already take 3 turns just to make a road around it, and about 9 turns to make a railroad on it (so that's considering placing all of the rails and tunneling the mountain), if you think we should increase the time for building railroads on there, maybe we should, but we shouldn't make it be that you can't build railroads there unless you have a tunnel going through and that tunnel will cost a lot extra.
6. I think its better just to have a public services slider with a minimum cost of something like 1 gold per 10 roaded squares per turn and 3 gold per every 15/20 railroaded squares per turn, which would make people be careful where they put their roads and railroads. Also, roaded squares wouldn't include city squares, because they already pay for their roads. Also, I think there should be a mantainence slider for roads and maybe some others for other stuff, and depending on how high you slide it up, the condition of the roads & railroads increase, and therefore so do the speed of the units moving on them (and commerce increases slightly from it--because, face it, most people don't prefer to drive to their local blockbuster on a dirt road rather than a paved road

 

[mad-bax]

At the risk of repeating myself...

Originally posted by mad-bax
My argument is not for realism - but for gameplay....

 

[warpstorm]

Maybe if the AI understood that it could defend its empire using the rails...

 

[Nad]

I agree with Mad-Bax, though I'm not sure exactly how to implement this. Rather than lots of extra limitations I would prefer one larger limitation, such as the maximum movement provided by rails could be 10 per movement point, eg, infantry can move 10 tiles, tanks 20 tiles, cavalry 30 tiles etc.

And like Mad-Bax, for me this is also a gameplay issue, not a realism issue.

The realism issue doesn't cut it anyway. For sure if a turn is a year I can expect to get anywhere by rail. But I wouyld also expect to be able to circumnavigate the globe in a modern battleship in a year, so why don;t battleships have unlimited movement like rails? For balance, of course.

 

[rcoutme]

Regarding trains: The more logical move for all of this would be to have railways built and trains produced. Create a unit (train) and give it a large movement value, but only on rails you or an allie control! The train could carry one unit at a time and would have (perhaps) a movement value of about 30-50. Picking up or dropping off would cost 1mp for each unit (i.e. the train and the unit carried) however, a unit could be dropped off regardless of lack of mp.

This causes the nation to have to upkeep the trains (and if you want, you can have two iterations of train tech, although I think this is not a good idea due to complexity issues) and allows for a limited reaction to invasion by making the train actually go pick up all those infantry, et.al. and drop them off. If you really want to limit the movement by rail, have a limit of how many trains a civ can have based either on the number of cities or the amount of railtiles it has.

This would allow the superfast movement of the railways, but limit the quantity of troops moved (a much more realistic scenario, IMHO) than allowing the units to move on the tracks as if they carrried trains with them.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Well, that's why they should make the turns not be yearly, but more like semiyearly or something. Also, I agree that it should have movement points, not just "instant teleport". But, hey, I would like to once play a game of running a civilization that was very realistic. Besides, realism makes things more complicated and makes you think more, which is exactly what every strategist should do. Any good general doesn't follow patterns like in War3 where its build 5 grunts, 4 shamans, etc. every time. I think that everything that makes it more realistic (without excess, becuase then its hyperrealistic, and therefore unrealistic) is good. Since you're going to be rewriting history, so your railroads shouldn't let you teleport, just like you should have to pay maintenance for railroads and roads, and just like it should a smaller minimum than 1 year/turn, but of course, it would then be EXTREMELY boring to go over 6,000 years. Maybe they should keep the game the way it is with the road and railroad needing maintanence, as well as other things, and then, make the editor EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE, even releasing new options for the editor every now and then, along with the patches.

At least that way, you could make an extremely realistic version of a certain time period.

 

[Bilko]

The reason you don't pay maintenance for rails is because a) they improve production much more than they cost to maintan and b) they are run by private companies, which maintain them anyway, so the government shouldn't have to pay anything.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Well, still, I think there should be some drawback so people wouldn't always use it. Besides, the government must pay for maintaining roads. And, you would have to pay for rails if you were communist or another government that has no private organizations, where they're all government owned.

 

[Bilko]

Communism is the only form of government currently available in civ where the government would have to.
But, in communism, nobody has to pay for anything, so they wouldn't have to pay maintenance for the rails anyway. And even if there were money, they would just end up making the profits that the rail company would have made, which as I said, outweigh the maintenance.

The bottom line is simply that the AI needs to be improved. If you're fighting with a long border, the rails won't make much of a difference, as you won't be able to concentrate all of your units in one area anyway. However, with a smaller area, or an amphibious assault, the AI just needs to learn how to use combined warfare. That shouldn't be too difficult to do for Civ 4, considering it won't be coming out for a year or two anyway.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by ShADoW^HawK
Besides, the government must pay for maintaining roads. And, you would have to pay for rails if you were communist or another government that has no private organizations, where they're all government owned.

Hah, in Finland we do have only one railroad-company and that's owned by government, but we sure as hell aren't communistic!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, I personally believe that changing RR's falls into Warpstorms own idea of where realism should be sacrificed to some point-for the sake of gameplay!

I personally, don't have a problem with units taking advantage of RR if they don't enter them from a city-but I don't think that they should get unlimited movement if they do! I think that, if you move onto a RR from outside of a city, then you should get a movement of 1/5 hexes (to simulate the fact that your forces are travelling along the highway/freeway system). If you enter a RR square from a city, fortress outpost, airbase or colony, then you should get the full, unlimited movement bonus!
In addition, I don't have a problem with units moving OFF of a RR between cities. However, if they do, then they should lose ALL of their remaining movement points-wheras, if they move off in a city then they retain all of their movement points for attack!
As for branching of RR's between cities, I don't have a problem with this AT ALL! I'm also not entirely sure about what kind of limits should exist as to the number of cities a unit can pass through when travelling on rail. I do believe, though, that some limit should exist. There is nothing more frustrating than planning the perfect invasion, only to see it scuppered when the enemy moves all of its units from the other side of the CONTINENT! Even if gameplay issues were not in question, you must remember that we're not simply talking about the speed at which trains travel here-there is also the logistics of moving SO MANY units, so fast, across a continent-especially in the modern age!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[warpstorm]

I like Aussie's suggestion. I would like the AI to understand the strategic use of whatever railroad scheme is developed though.

 

[Bilko]

Shyrrammar: No, Finland would be Socialist, but that's completely beside the point.
The point is that if the government owns it, they're making profits off of it anyway, and if they don't, then they don't need to worry about maintenance, so it really shouldn't matter.

And Aussie: It obviously wasn't the perfect attack plan, then.
If you want to prevent that from happening, then pick a landing point with hills and mountains, then use your ships to destroy all of the railroads and roads in that area, then unload everyone onto a mountain or hill, and be sure to bring enough workers with you to build a fortress in one turn, and a few defensive units. Then, when they use their entire army to attack you, they will be committing suicide (fortified mech inf in a fortress on a mountain is pretty tough to destroy)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, no matter WHAT kind of limitation they place on RR movement, I really do want to see turns broken up into a movement phase, a combat phase, and second movement phase. At the very least, I'd like to see a seperate movement and combat phase. i.e. everyone moves their units (and do all of their city/empire maintainance stuff) THEN resolve all combats-by theatre!
As for the economic side of Roads and RR, I think that rather than the bonus food/commerce/shields you now get PER Railroad-which promotes RR sprawl, connecting to your trade network should work this way instead:

1) Cities connected to the trade network are able to move shields and food to, and from, the civ-wide pool. Obviously you can move more, per turn, via RR than via Roads.

2) If you are connected to your civs trade network, then you should get a 'wealth multiplier' for that city, based on the NUMBER of cities currently hooked up to your trade network. For example, you might get a 1.5x bonus for 5 cities, 2x for 10 cities and so on. The number of cities required to increase this wealth multiplier would be less for RR's than for roads (for instance 6 cities/.5x multiplier for roads and 4 cities/.5x multiplier). Obviously I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, with the actual numbers being based purely on gameplay balance. The important thing, though, is that you get this bonus no matter HOW many roads or RR's you connect that city up with! My hope would be that this would help to limit Road/RR sprawl!

OK, thats the economic PLUS side of roads. The downside is the maintainance cost. Roads would cost less, per turn, than RR's, and the total cost, per turn, would be based on say a Xgpt/Y hexes formula. Of course, if a system of private sector investment were introduced into cIV, then it might be possible to sell X hexes of rail or road to the private sector. You could still use them for military purposes, and for transporting shields/food, but you would lose both the maintainance costs and the wealth benefits of those roads as well.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmmm, OK, even as I was writing that last post, I suddenly changed my mind !
The amount of food/shields you can move, per turn, should be based on the number of roads/RR which connect your city into the trade network. Note, though, that this is not PER SQUARE, but per RR/Road. At the same time, that absolute MAX. number of foods/shields you can move in a turn should be limited by tech level.
By the same token, the wealth multiplier I mentioned should also be based on the number of Roads/RR's connecting your city to the trade network-though the number of cities IN that network should also be a factor (maybe it would create a ceiling on the max multiplier you can get at any given time!)
Anyway, I still think that this would reduce RR sprawl, as there would no longer be any incentive to RR every single tile in your city radius!
Everything else I said in my last post, though, I stick to !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[MattII]

There should be the option of railroad (iron, coal) or highway (rubber, oil) as a long range transport system. Railroad IMO should be limited to 15 squares/move and highways to 10 squares/move, but highway would be quicker to build than railroad because the terrain doesn't have to be so flat.