The curse of railroads

[storealex]

I think railroad is way too overpowered in civ.

First of all, it look really unrealistic with rails in every single square of land on the map. It's just not right.
Secondly, it ruins a lot of fun you otherwise might have, such as conducting special operations to pilliage strategic railroads, to cripple the enemys moves.
It should be either much more expensive to make rails, or it should not give you the economic advantage to have them within your city radius.
By the way, is it possible to change this in the editor, and if you do, will the AI still build the every where?

An other nuissuance about railroad is that units can travel unlimmited distances on them.
Example:

I was invading an AI on it's own huge continent. I launched the attack at it's nothern end, but because of those damn railroads the AI was able to bring in every single offensive unit that it had to front in one turn!

The conclusion is, that railroad takes away a lot of the realismen of the game.

Any suggestions to help me are wellcome.
________
Friend Advice Advice

 

[rychan]

I think you're right about a lot of things.

Railroads are too powerful, and unlimited distance too good. It's faster than airlifting, for instance. That's a good suggestion about fixing the economic side- as long as the city is connected by rail to the capital city, all of its road squares get the economic bonuses associated with railroads. And likewise make railroads 3x as slow to build.

I also think it would be neat to tie the idea of telegraph and railroad together, as they were historically. (why isn't telegraph a technology?) The fact that telegraph is connecting your cities could also reduce corruption further once a city is railroad-connected to your capital. (any communication technology helps mitigate distance factors). (would need some way to address this across continents)

Having sparser railroads would be graphically more pleasing, and strategically more interesting. That way you could do exactly as you suggest- attack railroad junctions, and if that suddenly caused a huge economic hit to the disconnected side away from the capital, that would be realistic.

And I agree railroads shouldn't be unlimited movement. Maybe 1/9th movement cost. And airlifts should cost one movement or less, not an entire turn. Also why can't you airlift settlers or armies (even empty ones)?

I agree with you, hope I haven't threadjacked.

 

[capslock]

I agree with you 100%. Have you ever played CTP? Their system for terrain improvements was much better that the civ series, in my opinion. Rails gave 1/10 movement cost, roads 1/3. Also, they did not give any other terrain bonuses and because of the PW system, cost much more. As a result, transportation networks were much more realistic. I am afraid you can not change RR movement in the editor.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the problem, but less sanguine about any solutions. It could get pretty boring on a large map moving units across the map every turn because you have to cover large swaths of territory. With the 2 gpt maintenance for units in Republic, this could kill that government (because you would need more troops). But maybe that's a good thing. Trick is, we don't know without testing.

As for the game as it is, the only thing I can think that would move towards that solution is increase the cost of railroads. You could simply up the worker cost so that it took a lot more turns. But that might make the basic rail net take too long. Who wants to hit the modern age with a handful of rails?

I cannot remember of the top of my head whether you can take away rails without also taking away road ability from a worker. If you can, I'd experiment with taking away rails from the existing worker. Then add a rail worker that is expensive. I'm guessing that the ideal would be something like 30-60 shields, 2 gpt maintenance, and cannot upgrade a worker to do it. You get them with rails. Leave the rail worker cost where it is, or even lower it. (Maybe change it so that when all is said and done, one of them can build a rail in 2 turns.) Thus rails will be expensive to make, and you'll get them slowly. This will put a premium on the rail net, as opposed to every square.

 

[KaNick]

In case you don't notice the following is disputing the former posters point by point. I just didn't do a very good job of organizing it

I think that it is fine the way it is. The only reason that they may be overpowered is because the AI does not use them effectively sometimes. It is realistic to have them one every tile on the map, if you every go on a road trip in the country you will see what I mean. It may make the game less fun for you but for those of us who like to become good at the game and not make the game match our strategy "special missions" are foolhardy. It already is pretty expensive to construct rails, 6 turns until RP or unless you are in Dem. or Fascism.

Rails do require a change in strategy, mainly bringing allong deffensive units.

Again the unlimited movement is very realistic. Having railroads connected to the city and having all the tiles bennefit because of this doesn't make sense realisticly or in terms of gameplay (that would be faster not slower). Telegraph isn't a technology because radio is, there isn't enough time to include every tech that there is. I personally like the look of railroads better than roads alone.

 

[rychan]

How can you argue that moving unlimited distance is "very realistic" with respect to the fact that it takes a full turn to get anywhere with a plane? There's a reason fedex doesn't have a fleet of trains- because it's slower than both a) planes and b) trucks.

You're right that railroad is laid pretty densely across the country.

I don't think you should be so dismissive of someone's desire to have "special missions" and seek out unique strategic targets. (rail junctions, if they were rare). It's more realistic with respect to history and it makes the game more interesting without adding complexity or new game mechanics. It would simply be made possible by making railroad much more expensive/rare by modifying some existing game mechanism.

and of course you're right that they don't have room for every technology through history, but I would argue the telegraph had more of an influence in the governing of nations than radio ever has. Radio is a pretty uninfluential technology in game, unfortunately.

 

[storealex]

I dont want the game to match my own very special strategy. I want it to be more realistic!
You must admit that to interfere with enemy infrastructure by blowing up, or simply cut off the rails with an army, is indeed very realistic. It happened all through out history.
It is not at all realistic to have rails all over the place, just because you in present day USA have it. Rails have always been used to connect important arreas with each other. Not to generate welth by simply being all over the place. Let me mention the Trans Sibiric Railroad for an example, or the harrasment of German rails during WW2, both by partisans, special troops and air force. Or the indian raids on american rail road etc. The examples are so many that you cannot ignore them.

Your argument that rails are actually pretty expensive is not a good one, since the really expensive rails dosn't prevent any body from building the every where.

The unlimited movement is not very realistic in all of rail history. In the early times, a train would travel at approximately 25 kmt. I think the amount off tiles you could move via rail should be extended gradually through time(turns) or advances. It should not, and should never reach unlimited movement.
________
FC SPORT

 

[CrazyScot]

But what are the alternatives, how can they be programmed, and how many people would complain about these alternatives? That's the real question.

For me, the biggest change would be limiting movement on a rail. Sure, rail tends to be faster than road, but it's not infinetly faster.

All I'd do is try to alter the movement bonus on friendly rails.

For example, infantry can move 3 land spaces under typical situations on a road.

Maybe make rail travel three times as fast, and let infantry move 9 tiles or something.

I dunno.

I don't have a problem with the way it is now.

 

[Chieftess]

Once you get into the modern era, think of railroads as getting to a trouble spot, not just by rail, but by other means (i.e., plane, helicopter). If the AI used rails correctly (i.e., start off with a rail network), then I think it would be just fine. They make you more careful of your border cities.

 

[KaNick]

How can you argue that moving unlimited distance is "very realistic" with respect to the fact that it takes a full turn to get anywhere with a plane?

I said the unlimited movement was realistic, I never said anything about airdrops. Please don't put words in my mouth.

and of course you're right that they don't have room for every technology through history, but I would argue the telegraph had more of an influence in the governing of nations than radio ever has. Radio is a pretty uninfluential technology in game, unfortunately.

It was more influential only because it came first.

I dont want the game to match my own very special strategy. I want it to be more realistic!

It appears you do. Should we make the game so realistic that it is unplayable. IMO each turn in the game should take a year to play .

You must admit that to interfere with enemy infrastructure by blowing up, or simply cut off the rails with an army, is indeed very realistic. It happened all through out history.

Yes I do. However, in this case historical accuracy was sacraficed for gameplay.

It is not at all realistic to have rails all over the place, just because you in present day USA have it. Rails have always been used to connect important arreas with each other. Not to generate welth by simply being all over the place. Let me mention the Trans Sibiric Railroad for an example, or the harrasment of German rails during WW2, both by partisans, special troops and air force. Or the indian raids on american rail road etc. The examples are so many that you cannot ignore them.

So because they haven't always been like that, they should stay that way throughout the game? Rails do generate more wealth because they are more efficient. Just because they are used in war doesn't mean that is there only purpose, remember this is not suppose to be soley a war game. I don't ignore them. The first thing that I do when I get rails is to connect all my cities. Not only is this strategically sound, it is also historicly accurate.

Your argument that rails are actually pretty expensive is not a good one, since the really expensive rails dosn't prevent any body from building the every where.

I didn't know we were trying to prevent this .

The unlimited movement is not very realistic in all of rail history. In the early times, a train would travel at approximately 25 kmt. I think the amount off tiles you could move via rail should be extended gradually through time(turns) or advances. It should not, and should never reach unlimited movement.

That sounds like a good idea, you'll have to wait for Civ 4 though. But it would have to reach unlimited movement at some point. Tell me, how many years do you think that it takes for a train to go from one coast to another.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

quote:
It is not at all realistic to have rails all over the place, just because you in present day USA have it.
end quote

I'm pretty sure that railways are just as if not more dense in Europe and some parts of Asia than in the US. There is very little long distance passenger travel in the US and trucks carry more freight.

Anyway, I also think that unlimited movement should be reduced. But it should be to a set number for all units as its the trains speed that determines travel speed. The movement of the unit loaded on to the train is irrelevant

 

[Evie]

Rails have to be handled simply, though. Making them multiply movement is no more realistic than any of the other solutions (because rails don't make cavalry units move faster than infantry), but making them give a set number of move points get very complicated, very fast.

IMHO, the best way to handle rails is to make them work like airport - when a unit is in a city, pressing the R button will allow you to instantly move to any other city connected to the first, but this eats up all of the unit's movement point.

Advantages over airport would be the ability to move any land unit this way (leader, arty, etc). Disadvantage over airport would be the inability to move between unconnected cities (and thus transcontinental movement).

Yes, it's still unlimited movement (essentially), but only in the same sense that airports are unlimited (actually more limited than airports - you can't move transcontinetally and need lots of worker efforts). It doesn't allow you to do a one-turn offensive against another country by constantly railroading up, for example.

 

[mihoshi]

Railroads don't need changes. It works very realistically. In yearly times of railroads you just build skeleton roadnet, then connect everithing with rails and highways.

BTW, I think Civ's railroads represent not just literally railroads, but also highways for motorized transports.

 

[Commander Bello]

I am pretty satisfied with the railroads offering unlimeted movement, as it reflects the increased mobility we experienced when they were introduced in the real world.
As far as I know, it took 10 days to go from the eastern to the western coast of the US after both were connected by rails.

I can even live with the added shields, they provide.

About the added food, I am pretty unsure. Here I would like to see the invention of fertilizer, instead. In fact, the pure existance of railroads doesn't mean increased food production in the real world. In the game, it shouldn't mean that, either. Especially, since their is no way to transport food from one city (aka: area) to another city (aka: another area).
For forests, railroads could mean even less commerce (due to pollution and the needed routes.

For gameplay purposes, I would like to have a third means of transportation, being the highways. Those could offer the unlimited transportation feature than, while the railroad would be reduced to 12 or 15 movement points.

The main difference between railroads and air transport in the game is a reflection of real world differences as well. As we all noticed one year ago, it took the USA quite some time to move their troops to the Persian Gulf, although for sure they have a lot of air transport capacity.

After all, I agree with anybody claiming that there is a lot missing in the late game. Personally, I almost quit all my games at the end of the industrial times, just because it becomes boring then.
With artillery (first long range weapon), bombers, tanks and modern warships already available, I feel that no "decisive" factors are introduced to the game anymore. For me, that is a weakness of the area of modern times.

 

[yoshi74]

Well, better transportion enhanced every parts of industry, so also the increased food production. Fertilizers, maschines, food for cattle... everything works better with advanced transportation. But please, no more highways and other extra improvments. Worker management in the late game is already often a pain in the backside . Civ 2 had some more improvements and i remember only worker, worker, worker ...

The military power of railroads seems questionable.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The bad thing with railroads is that they kill some tactics.

For example, if you unload some invasion troops on enemy shores or land some paratroopers enemy can mobilize ALL his troops on the continent and kill you off. Too much mobility for defender.

Compared to Civ2, Civ3 fixed too much mobility problem for attacker (that was really unbalanced), but it left for defenders.


P.S.
Personally I think it would be realy cool if railroads would give fixed movment rate for all units.

 

[mihoshi]

Originally posted by player1 fanatic
The bad thing with railroads is that they kill some tactics.

For example, if you unload some invasion troops on enemy shores or land some paratroopers enemy can mobilize ALL his troops on the continent and kill you off. Too much mobility for defender.

Hm, idea here. Allow to "conserve" units, so they cost less money per turn and increase cost of units wich are not conserved. For example, unconserved units cost as 5 conserved. Uncinserving of unit takes one turn.

This way you may have a lot of reserves, but can' use all of your army at once.

Hmm... There was something similar in MOO3...

 

[socralynnek]

Originally posted by player1 fanatic
The bad thing with railroads is that they kill some tactics.

For example, if you unload some invasion troops on enemy shores or land some paratroopers enemy can mobilize ALL his troops on the continent and kill you off. Too much mobility for defender.

But isn't this realistic?
In real world, your enemy sees your force a long time before it reaches the shores and has time to set up his defence.

Combined forces is the way to go, so you need some artillery or bombers to destroy the enemy's railroads, s.t. they don't get you.
Or first, send a lot of defensive units to a mountain/hill on the shore and send offensive units only if the defensive survive the first turn, or get a ROP with a neighbor of your enemy and send your units there, or send your units to different locations....

And that's what's nice about Civ, you have to think and make up your own strategy...
And it's very realistic that naval invasions in industrial era are very hard to do!

 

[Lab Monkey]

Railroads actually promote combined arms on an attack. You're going to need to bomb out the rails surrounding your landing site in order to survive. On the human side, the AI has an unfair advantage on the attack - it knows where you are weak - so you really need that movement bonus.

 

[kaslks75]

..if you want to make the railroads more realistic - let's have an 'Amtrak' wonder - that'll make them useless

...but I do agree with those who say that it gives the 'defender' an unrealistic edge by allowing ALL of their military to basically 'teleport' to one spot instantly. Trains do not get from one edge of a continent to the other immediately. Railroads need some kind of movement point... or at least put something in the editor for those of us who would like to limit it...