Things I have waited for since the first Civ

[rhialto]

ok, most people don't like infinite move rails because it leads to the strateguy of pooling a huge rapid response force in the centre of your territory, able to smash anything on any border at a moment's notice. While realistic, this is also not fun, as it effectively removes the need for any forward planning beyond the need to have troops around in the first place.

otoh, Having finite-move rails (aka very fast roads) doesn't make sense, as there is no good reason why a cavalry unit should move faster than riflemen on rails.

otth, Slowly moving entire armies across the entire map is not fun.

So...

Take rails off the map entirely. Have "roads" and "highways" as tile improvements, and "rail depot" as a city improvement. Assume an abstracted rail line exists between any pair of cities in the same nation that have rail depots. A rail depot can do a civ2 style airlift on any unit. This action uses the unit's entire move, and costs a small gold fee. This allows for quick troop movements, avoids the realism problem of the enemy using your rails, makes all units move on rail at the same speed, and makes an opportunity cost (the rail-lift fee) for usng the central reserve force strategy.

 

[eromrab]

i think you may be on to something... i don't know that i like the cost factor though... if it's free to airlift, i don't wanna pay to train my troops... and i don't want airlift to have a price either

what if, instead... you just placed a limit on the amount of troops that could leave and come to each city? say... 5 troops can enter any train station per turn, and 2 can leave each? or any combination of numbers... those are just random examples

the "pile up" strategy would still be able to retain SOME effectiveness, but it would require more REAL strategy as well...

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Take rails off the map entirely. Have "roads" and "highways" as tile improvements, and "rail depot" as a city improvement. Assume an abstracted rail line exists between any pair of cities in the same nation that have rail depots. A rail depot can do a civ2 style airlift on any unit. This action uses the unit's entire move, and costs a small gold fee. This allows for quick troop movements, avoids the realism problem of the enemy using your rails, makes all units move on rail at the same speed, and makes an opportunity cost (the rail-lift fee) for usng the central reserve force strategy.

There's a good idea. I also don't think the small fee would be a good thing, but apart from that it's a great idea.

 

[Dida]

road gives 3x movement, highway can give 9x movement, and maybe maglev can give 27x movement or infinite movement but in the modern era?

 

[rhialto]

I didn't mention it in my first post, but I think airports should also have a transportation fee just like the rail depots. It would be more expensive that rail (jet fuel ain't cheap!), but have the advantage that it requires neither road connection (ie an abstracted railway) nor even be on the same continent.

Maglevs should NOT be a tile improvement. In terms of the way things move on them, they are an advanced rail, not a better road. Perhaps once maglev tech is discovered, the rail transit fee gets reduced instead.

In terms of rail transit fee, I was thinking that it would be 1 gold for standard infantry, 2 for heavy vehicles, zero for 'small' units (spies, covert special forces). Airlift would cost 1 extra on top of that, maglev would reduce gold cost by 1 for rail transit. Until you get oil, cost would be raised by 1 (coal isn't as efficient) for rails.

 

[Trade-peror]

One interesting thing about this movement issue is that Civ assumes all units to be the same as far as transportation goes, but this is clearly a deviation from reality. For example, someone mentioned that cavalry should not have an advantage on finite-move RR over infantry since the cavalry would be packed onto train cars anyway, like the infantry. This is a reasonable concern, and a possible fix mentioned is having the RR give "RR movement points" that are essentially added onto a unit's normal cache of movement points, and have the unit expend the RR points while on the RR. This would fix the cavalry problem, but what about more modern units like tanks? I doubt that a reasonable way to transport them would be to load them onto trains and speed them to the front. How would RRs help in that situation? And if tanks are simply not allowed to move on RR at all, then they will be at a major disadvantage and much less useful than they are now.

A possible way to fix this is to allow the construction of highways, which would truly be "advanced roads" in that they allow for a multiplier of movement (perhaps 6x or 9x) since their purpose is to facilitate movement but not actually provide it.

Therefore, a road system will work well until the Industrial Age, when RR would greatly ease transportation in time for WWI-type wars involving a lot of infantry, and eventually the introduction of more motorized units will prompt more widespread construction of highways to transport the motorized units more effectively. Note, however, that RR have not become obselete, because it should still be faster to transport infantry by railroad compared to highway (since railroad adds a certain number of RR movement points to infantry's one normal movement point, while highway multiplies the number of normal movement points, which infantry have only one of). This is fairly realistic--a train can probably carry more troops than a hum-vee, and therefore on a larger scale, the train is faster than using a large number of hum-vees to carry the same number of troops.

Perhaps a strategic element could be introduced by the fact that RR and highways cannot occupy the same square (although they can cross each other), and therefore some planning will be necessary to ensure the most efficient troop deployment.

 

[rhialto]

... but what about more modern units like tanks? I doubt that a reasonable way to transport them would be to load them onto trains and speed them to the front. How would RRs help in that situation? And if tanks are simply not allowed to move on RR at all, then they will be at a major disadvantage and much less useful than they are now.

Why not transport tanks on a railway line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

Since an immobilized tank is an easy target for mortars, artillery, and the specialized tank hunting units of the enemy forces, speed is normally kept to a minimum, and every opportunity is seized upon to move tanks on wheeled tank transporters and on railways instead of under their own power. Tanks invariably end up on railcars in any country with a rail infrastructure, because no army has enough wheeled transporters to carry all its tanks. Planning for railcar loading and unloading is crucial staff work, and rail bridges and railyards are prime targets for enemy forces wishing to slow a tank advance.

It makes perfect sense for tanks to move on a rail line.

 

[Xerol]

Read the first few posts; skimmed the rest, so skin me if this has been said:

Why not make it 1/2 of a movement point to do ANY rail travel to ANYWHERE? One movement could be considered any movement made between other actions by the unit(or selection of other units), so if you moved to somewhere, then picked another unit, then picked the first one again and decided to move it again, that'd count as two moves totalling 1 movement point. Or anything beyond a certain distance would also take up extra halves of movement points(40 tiles?).

 

[Trade-peror]

How interesting! I never knew that tanks were transported in such a manner...well, in that case, the highways would be redundant (at least as far as transporting tanks).

In any case, I would like RR benefits to be in the form of "RR movement points"--the unit might expend some number or fraction of movement points to get onto the rail, but while traveling on the rail, use only the RR movement points. Getting off would then also expend some amount of movement, perhaps the same amount expended to get on. This way, transporting infantry, cavalry, tanks, or any other land unit by rail would go the same distance, which would make sense since the RR is doing the work, not the unit itself, so the unit's movement capabilities should be irrelevant.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, first up I would like to say that you and I ARE on the same page this time Trip (guess there had to be a first time eh? !) We just didn't see eye-to-eye on the possible solution (though your criticism of my idea was completely valid, as I hadn't considered it thoroughly!)
How about these possibilities?

1) Units can only embark or disembark RR's at certain set points IF they want the benefit of infinite RR movement-these points would be at points where the RR connects with a city, outpost or fort. Otherwise, the RR counts only as an improved road (perhaps 1/4 or 1/5 mp).

2) Give RR, and other terrain, squares a 'stack limit'-meaning that you can't have more than X units on one RR at any one time. This would force players to 'stagger' the movement of their forces (eg, bring 6 units into a city, then move them as a stack along the RR. Until they disembark, no other units can travel on that particular section of RR)

3) Units which disembark and fight on the same turn will do so at a high penalty, to reflect the period of 'organisation' prior to battle. Also, after disembarking, all units have only 1mp irrespective!

4) Possibly still have a movement cost associated if you pass through a city whilst travelling on RR, but perhaps have it as 1/4 of the movement points of the unit doing the travelling.

Anyway, I really am just bandying ideas around on the 'assumption' that infinite RR's will still be in Civ4. I do like Rhialto's idea, though, and I can see how it could retain the historical importance of rail, but without the strategic problems which infinite RR's produce. Another possibility under Rhialto's system might be to tie the cost of the RR 'lift' to the unit type. The reason being that tanks and cavalry take up more ROOM on rail stock than a similar sized infantry unit. Therefore, it should cost more to move one tank unit than to move 1 cavalry unit which, in turn, would be more costly than moving infantry. Additionally, perhaps if each city could send and/or recieve x units per turn based on the city's size? This could prevent the exploit of a wealthy nation sending 100's of units to the 'arse-end of the empire', when said recipient city only has a population of 2!!!! If this idea were combined with one that a tank=3 units and cavalry=2 units, then it might push players away from the 'stack o tanks' approach to war which is currently being used in civ3 !
Anyway, like I said, I'm just really throwing random ideas out there. Please feel free to tell me what you like, and what you hate, so that I can work on creating an overall MODEL for RR movement !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Glad to see we're on the same page for once, AL.

I don't mean to sound condescending or to talk down on people, I'm just a very opinionated person... a game designer in the making, as well.

There are a number of things I'd like to see added to the Civ series for my own personal enjoyment that I recognize would be bad for the series as a whole. One has to keep in mind the key points in the series and push those forward while trying to eliminate current weaknesses. I see the weaknesses as the excess of micromanagement, the lack of peaceful options and things like infinite movement that imbalance things in some situations.

Anyways, enough of my ranting for today.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, thats two for two Trip ! I also HATE excessive MM, infinite RR movement and the imbalance of the game towards warmongering (though they HAVE improved this element between civ2 and civ3!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[frekk]

Well, I can think of one way to make railways highly realistic and true to history, at the same time as preserving infinite moves but limiting the ability to mobilize the massive central army to any point.

That is, to have some sort of infrastructure rating that limits the amount of units that can use the railways in a round. That's very much historically true - as any rail network always had a maximum capacity that limited the total amount of troops that could be moved by rail. One way would be to have actual trains in the game, which would limit the capacity of the tracks to the carrying capacity of the train units, but I fear this would be too much micromanagement. So, the other way is to do something in the style of Imperialism, and that is to have a national infrastructure rating, which could move only so much per round. Beyond that everything would be forced to move on the hoof. And you could implement the kinds of limitations where it costs more rail points to move a tank than an infantry, though in a way I disagree with this, because independant tank and cavalry forces are typically organized in units which are far fewer in number than infantry forces, and so take up about the same amount of space. Also, its just less simple to have different costs.

Other than defining a limitation to the number of units able to use the rail network, this wouldn't change the rail rules all that much, but it would still solve what some seem to see as a 'problem' while preserving some measure of realism.

I don't like the idea of paying for transportation, because then you're going to get into people asking why you don't pay for normal transportation: gas, or massive supply caravans for foot armies, or what have you. In the real world it always costs alot to move stuff no matter how you do it. In Civ, its just assumed, and frankly, I like that - it gets too complex otherwise. Perhaps you could spend money to build your national rail points. And again, paid movement is an added layer of complexity, and the key is always to keep things simple.

The problem I see with rail depots is that if they work like airports, it takes away the essential strategy of building and protecting your rail lines and makes it impossible to cut them off. If you keep rail lines, then why bother with the depots: it just adds an extra bit of micromanagement. A national limit would work better, prevent a surfeit of depots everywhere, and be very very simple to manage.

You take a single city on the offensive and the enemy can INSTANTLY relocate its troops anywhere to stop you from getting any further. Battles like Germany vs France in 1940 or the USSR vs. Germany in late 1942 at Stalingrad are impossible because there's no way to trap or encircle opponents without them being magically whisked away at the slightest hint of danger. That is what I mean by there being no strategy.

Hold on a minute here. If you have them encircled and pillage their rail lines, how are they going to be whisked away?

There is no risk of leaving a front underdefended to protect certain cities more, because they're all equally protected with everything a civ has because of infinite movement. It makes intercontinental invasions almost impossible because the turn you get ashore is the turn the enemy can bring its entire army to bear on you.

Sounds a lot like June 1944? Actually, no, it doesn't, because if Germany could do that then D-Day would have failed. More historical inaccuracy.

Actually, no. It's quite accurate. If Germany didn't have to worry about the Eastern Front, they could have responded to D-Day with overwhelming power. The problem wasn't getting troops there, it was a lack of overall units, just like what happens in Civ when a nation is getting overwhelmed on multiple fronts by more numerous opponents.

 

[sir_schwick]

Anyone who has played C-evo would recognize this system.

First, take current movement points and multiply them by 100.
Moving into flat terrain cardinally costs 100 MP and orthogonally 150 MP. Rougher terrain had additional costs, of course.

With roads and RR, the cost was a percentage of the original cost of the terrain. 40/60 for Roads, 8/12 for RR.

Its a simple system to understand and those numbers could easil be fixed to wherever they needed to be.

 

[frekk]

I agree that it's a simple solution to understand, but practically speaking when you've got a massive empire with lots of units, it's harder to play. It's difficult to remember how much force you've got enroute to any given area, but infinite move is a feature of civ precisely because it alleviates this at the same time you need it most, when your units have grown to an unmanageable number. If you like playing small civs, it is probably not that big of a deal, but as Firaxis has said, they want more support for taking over the world (something that is currently a headache in Civ3).

It's still a heck of alot simpler than rail depots though, when all the factors are considered. And it doesn't have the drawback of favouring the aggressor which rail depots do, especially when a turn penalty is assigned to load and unload. The other reason I would prefer it over a depot system is that because, like an infrastructure rating, it's simpler. I want a Civ4 that reduces the number of decisions and clicks and picking things from lists and "ok/no not nows" to a minimum amount, to reduce all this to just the most important and vital and fun things. Depots have to be built, remembered or located when you want to plan movements, and then the boarding business - click another button to load and one to unload, and all that. I realize altogether it is not alot but it is cumulative with all the other things in the game, which is already too much for ease of play in big empires. Either a simpler system of movement (like just an MP cost) or a total limit of units that can be railed in a round is going to be infinitely simpler and easier to cope with than a rail depot system.

Also, I think past a certain number of units, and also once units which can reach and take a city from outside the border in one round (eg cavalry) appear, it becomes necessary to have *some* measure of infinite rail, both for ease of play and also to give defenders a chance to make at least a limited response in time. That's why I would simply propose capping it with either a fixed number, or a number that could be raised by some means.

 

[eromrab]

hmmm... i was thinking that rail depots sounded good at first... but i must admit that one thing i really don't like about airports is figuring out which ones i already sent someone from and then all the clicking... but more than that is the fact that there are no "rail lines" that the enemy can block/break to stop it from happening...

but at the same time... i'm not sure how you would implement this "limit" on the amount of people that could travel on a RR that is being proposed, unless you actually used a rail depot...

so i guess the best suggestion would be to give every unit a set amount of "rail movement points" that they could use per turn... those points are used on railroads only and the unit still gets it's full move points when done...

so, an example: i have a cavalry and an infantry. they both go from a road square to a RR square... 1/3 of a move is used... they are then assigned 20 RR mp's (random number) and move 18 squares on the RR... they get off the RR and onto a road... another 1/3 move is used... they then move 1 more space onto another road, the infantry can no longer move and the cavalry has 2 moves left, which he can use to engage in combat or keep moving... or he could go back to the RR and move 2 more squares on it.

i think that would be a feasible plan. the rail depots would work, but would be too much of a bother with clicking and such... the "max units" on a RR track might work, but seems like way too much MM and remembering how many units you already sent on it... i like the RR mp idea...

 

[frekk]

but at the same time... i'm not sure how you would implement this "limit" on the amount of people that could travel on a RR that is being proposed, unless you actually used a rail depot...

Simple. First, there are a number of methods to calculate the score that could be used. I'll give them later, because it's not really relevant to how the system itself is used.

Then, you've got just a button on all your units (like Fortify). You also have in your display window, a display of "national infrastructure points remaining". Whenever you want to have a unit use the rail, you just click on the Entrain button just as you would click on Fortify. The graphic changes to a locomotive, and you move the unit to its destination. You don't need to click any detrain button because as soon as the unit moves off the track or ends its turn, its rail move is considered over and it changes back to a normal graphic. The move is infinite, but costs you 1 Infrastructure Point. Possibly, different units might cost more, same thing with Airlifts. When you've used up all your IP's you no longer have the Entrain option. I would also suggest that no unit may Entrain twice in the same turn, but that's totally optional. So really it is just a one-click process.

There's a number of ways you could arrive at an IP score, everything from a fixed amount, to an amount based on the discovery of certain advances, to a slider on the Domestic Advisor (allocate funds to infrastructure same as science or luxuries) to paying a set amount to buy each IP permanently to permanently transferring workers from a 'national labour pool' (under that model)... etc etc, lots of different ways there.

I like RR mp's as a second choice because it too is simple, but, I still think it would be a headache for really big empires. You've still got to remember how many troops you sent enroute to this spot or that spot especially if you're fighting on multiple fronts and there is no easy way of being sure how much 'flow' is going to each front. You've still got more or less the same problem with National Infrastructure, but, at least, if you severely miscalculate, you can do something about it.

 

[eromrab]

well the reason i like the RR mp's... is cause i can click "goto" and it'll automatically figure out the quickest route, taking into account the rails and such...

if i have to click a button and such to get on a RR, then it would be difficult (i believe) to do that...

i personally like the idea of getting onto the RR from anywhere and going to anywhere along it... i don't think it should be limited to cities, as the military can say to stop anywhere they want and get off (as your payton article showed).

also, i think the RR mp idea would not give the defender too much of an advantage, nor would it give the attacker too much of one either... they would both be required to use strategy to make sure they had enough troops towards each front to quickly respond to a battle with enough trooops.

 

[frekk]

well the reason i like the RR mp's... is cause i can click "goto" and it'll automatically figure out the quickest route, taking into account the rails and such...

Yeah, but, sometimes before railroads, if I have alot of units, I've noticed it's hell trying to remember what and how much I sent where, so I never know if I've got enough reinforcements coming or not on a particular front. Same thing with settlers ... if you've got a dozen of them going every which way it is hard to remember if you sent 2, 3, or 6 to the region where you were going to build 4 cities.

if i have to click a button and such to get on a RR, then it would be difficult (i believe) to do that...

No more difficult than telling a unit to fortify.

also, i think the RR mp idea would not give the defender too much of an advantage, nor would it give the attacker too much of one either... they would both be required to use strategy to make sure they had enough troops towards each front to quickly respond to a battle with enough trooops.

RR mp's are for me, my alternate choice, if infinite rail must go. It's fairly simple, mostly easy to manage, and doesn't favor either the attacker or defender.

 

[eromrab]

i didn't mean it would be difficult for me to click the button (like fortify)... i meant, that the goto command would have to be tweaked to include the "load/unload" function automatically when it's figuring out how to get somewhere the quickest way...

and i agree with you about the forgetting how many people i sent to a certain place... i do it often with workers, settlers, and units in the pre-train era... but that's part of the "realism" i think of managing an empire... trying to remember what you did and plan accordingly...