Things I have waited for since the first Civ

[Trade-peror]

Sir Schwick, I like your proposals, especially the ones regarding infrastructure and trade, because they can be easily implemented, but still reflect one of the core ideas in my UET II model--the direct economic costs of warfare.



I, however, would like to know how the value of commodities will be determined--as you mention that this is a factor in determining trading priorities. In addition, would this value have any effect on the trading benefit derived from the product, or would it merely affect priorities? The former would seem more reasonable, but at this stage I do not have enough information on your proposal to be able to say.


By the way, how did you make the "Spoiler" boxes? I have never seen them before, and they are !

 

[Sirian]

If Firaxis says its 10 miles, how can you prove that it's not?

If Firaxis claimed the sky was orange, would you believe them? Or would you believe your own eyes? I don't care who says something. If it makes no sense, then it makes no sense. Maybe someone slapped on a figure they liked without thinking it through?

At ten miles per tile, on an orthagonal grid 100x100 (the size of a standard Civ3 world map), with global east-west wraparound, we're looking at an equatorial circumference of less than 750 miles. I'm sorry, but a planet that small would lack for sufficient gravity to prevent a grasshopper from launching itself into outer space.

There's creative license, and then there's outright absurdity.

But go ahead, stick with your story. Ten miles is the "official" figure, so we must swallow that hook, line and sinker.


- Sirian

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

OMG! These are some of the longest posts I have ever seen. Thanks Aussie Luker for making them summarise I'm still a bit lost on everything though.

 

[frekk]

OK, thanks for that Trip and Frekk-that made things a darn sight easier !
The first thing I can say is that, regardless of whether movement is finite or infinite, the 'capacity' idea is VERY good and should be included! The best solution, I feel, might be to leave infinite as the 'default' setting, but give the player the ability to set a movement rate in the editor (not 1/3 or 1/4, though, but a set mp as Trip suggested).

Also as Trip suggested, I do believe that the amount of capacity should depend on both amount of rail and tech level of the rail system. The only problem is how to do the former without leaving it open to rampant exploitation (i.e., lots of 'railways to nowhere' simply to garner extra capacity) The only way I can think to do it is to give RR's a cost per turn and/or make capacity only count IF the railway connects two distinct points (a city to a city, or a city to a specific tile improvement?)

Another factor would be to tie the value of unused capacity into the wealth and average population of the nation, thus preventing sprawling empires from overexploiting extensive rail networks, as quality of the empire the network connects will be of greater importance than the SIZE of the empire!

On this subject, though, I'm beginning to think that perhaps ROADS should have a capacity as well, one which also improves with each successive upgrade of your roads. Worth considering I reckon !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

In regards to amount of rails affecting capacity, big countries are usually at a disadvantage (eg the Soviet Union). If you get points for the number of rail tiles, or even just a point for every city connected by rail to the capitol, no matter what you do big empires will always have the advantage. In the real world, small countries usually have a higher capacity for several reasons but primarily because the rail infrastructures they have are developed better. So, although in one sense its more realistic because more track does help capacity, in another sense it's less realistic because the advantage goes to big countries.

Eliminating rail sprawl is as simple as removing tile bonuses for rail. I've tested this in Civ2, it works fine.

 

[Jon Shafer]

If Firaxis claimed the sky was orange, would you believe them? Or would you believe your own eyes? I don't care who says something. If it makes no sense, then it makes no sense. Maybe someone slapped on a figure they liked without thinking it through?

At ten miles per tile, on an orthagonal grid 100x100 (the size of a standard Civ3 world map), with global east-west wraparound, we're looking at an equatorial circumference of less than 750 miles. I'm sorry, but a planet that small would lack for sufficient gravity to prevent a grasshopper from launching itself into outer space.

There's creative license, and then there's outright absurdity.

But go ahead, stick with your story. Ten miles is the "official" figure, so we must swallow that hook, line and sinker.

Certainly. Firaxis can do no wrong!

Eliminating rail sprawl is as simple as removing tile bonuses for rail. I've tested this in Civ2, it works fine.

Not true. People (and AIs) will still build them everywhere. After you get a transport net up and there's nothing better to do roads and rails end up everywhere in due time anyways.

 

[Jon Shafer]

OMG! These are some of the longest posts I have ever seen. Thanks Aussie Luker for making them summarise I'm still a bit lost on everything though.

Hehehee... You've never seen Sirian and I go at it for real then.

 

[croxis]

One idea that i have not seen yet is increasing the 'cost' of rails in terms of ammount of time it takes to build them; it would mean that there would be less rails and take longer to flood the map with them. However on one side larger civs could produce more workers (or larger PW pool) to build them, but smaller civs have less area that would need the infrastructure. I suppose some kind of balance could be reached giving neither side an advantage to networking the nation.

 

[eromrab]

i still like the idea of making railroads have a maintenance cost and drop the "improvement" of trade... yeah it sucks having to pay for things... but i'm sure it could be balanced into the game well enough to where it wouldn't be horrible on a country... and it would be proportional to the size of your empire... smaller countries would pay less (they have less RR) and larger ones would pay more (they have more RR)...

 

[frekk]

It would be a good solution, making rails take a really long time to build would work too. I think increasing the work-time is simpler and more elegant as a solution, but - paying maintenance for them would work without a doubt because you'd want to be very careful how you build your rails.

The only thing is, you shouldn't *suffer* for building a rail network.In the real world, it takes money to maintain track, but, they also generate alot of revenue too. Usually more than they cost to maintain (or the tracks are ripped up).

I think it's simplest just to make the work-time really, really high. It's not 100% realistic but it is simple. If they take a long time to build there is not any reason to build track in every square. In the interior of your empire, you don't need it to get to any square: all your cities being connected by rail means that generally, its no more than 2 squares to any particular tile by road (assuming cities with 4 tiles in between, or less, so that the radius meets). Also if you have a limited capacity there will be even less incentive, because it's only going to affect a small number of units anyway, making it less worthwhile.

At borders you might still build a bit more track, but this will be limited by the fact it's always difficult to work borders anyway - especially if building rail takes a long time, you'll probably be using large stacks of workers to build it, and you don't want those anywhere near the border.

 

[eromrab]

well, if you charged a cost for RR it would be worked into the game so that it wouldn't be a huge problem... i'm talking just a small cost... somethign you'd barely even notice if you built the RR properly and wisely... but enough to stop people from filling their landscape with them...

the other option that i like for making the sprawl disappear is something that i see in The Ancient Mediterranean (TAM) mod that was done... once a terrain square is completely worked, the RR design disappears... and all you see is the irrigated or mined square. it would seem like you wouldn't be able to know where the RR's are, but somehow it's not hard... they still appear if you have just a line stretched out...

 

[Spatula]

I'm sorry, but a planet that small would lack for sufficient gravity to prevent a grasshopper from launching itself into outer space.

Eppur si muove

 

[frekk]

well, if you charged a cost for RR it would be worked into the game so that it wouldn't be a huge problem... i'm talking just a small cost... somethign you'd barely even notice if you built the RR properly and wisely... but enough to stop people from filling their landscape with them...

I've been converted to an idea of maintenance fee for tracks in another forum now. My problem with it at first glance was that by paying a maintenance fee for tracks, nations which developed rail would be poorer than they were before they had rail, which doesn't make much sense.

But you're right, there is a way to work it in the game.

Cities connected to a rail network get a bonus. Depending on other factors and models having to do with rail, which I won't get into here, it should either be a commerce or a production bonus. Under the rules as they are now, it would be production but there are other models (like disruption of bonuses for moving units) that would require commerce for gameplay reasons.

Then, each tile of rail costs maintenance. So in effect, you are encouraged to connect cities but only as efficiently as possible. You don't lose money by having a smart rail network, you make a little because of the connection bonus. And, you are discouraged from sprawl because you want to build your rails as efficiently as possible - otherwise you'll end up losing money.

The connection bonus should be tailored so that you never really make alot of money - but if you were smart with building rail tiles, you could make some pocket change. Each connection bonus could be a fixed amount, enough to pay for maybe 5 tiles of rail. If you were really silly about building rail tiles, you would lose money.

Credit to wrylachlan for the general idea.

I love it because it doesn't rely on any particular system of rail movement to work; its neutral to all of them and independant.

I also like it because it is simple and easy to explain:

-Connect a city by rail, get 4-5 gpt bonus.
-Build a tile of rail, pay 1 gpt maintenance.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Any attempt at prevening every tile from being turned into a spaghetti mess requires that past a certain point new improvements either A) cannot be constructed or B) cost something.

Increasing the time to build rails will not solve this problem, because if you have enough Workers you WILL eventually finish the "required" rail net and will start building rails anywhere and everywhere.

To impliment A) above that would mean only allowing rails to be built between cities. That seems kind of silly.

I like B) better. Charging gold per tile will prevent them from being built everywhere, when balanced.

However, rails have had a profound impact on the industry of nations, allowing the transport of goods in much greater quantities. I also think that you should be able to build rail depots (or whatever), which increase the output of tiles within 2 tiles of the improvement. That would prevent them from being built everywhere, and it would also promote the construction of RRs and the related infrastructure in industrialized areas.

 

[frekk]

I think it's easier just to say that all rail-connected cities get a straight up gpt bonus, and every tile of track has a gpt cost. You don't have to build anything extra like depots, and it induces you to build tracks to your cities, although you are free to build them wherever you like if prepared to pay the maintenance. Nice, simple, and straightforward.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The impact of RRs on industry is immense, and I think that should be implimented somehow.

 

[frekk]

Well, the other way to work is this.

Rails cost gpt per tile to maintain, still.

Benefits from having rails are derived by connecting cities, still. A production benefit is easy to implement without assuming the work of building depots or calculating their radius, though. A city connected by rail just gets a tile bonus in all of its squares as if there were Civ3 style rails covering them. Possibly, this bonus could require the building of a depot, in addition to a rail connection to the larger network. It could also simply be automatic upon connection.

There's one caveat to production bonuses though, which is why I mentioned before some rail movement models would require strictly commerce bonuses. That is that some have suggested using rails for military transport should degrade some of those bonuses, to represent the burden on industry of prioritizing military traffic over industrial traffic. Now if the rail bonus is localized, this may result in micromanagement, for instance, checking a certain city and calculating to see if the movement would delay the production of a vital unit. So, as I mentioned earlier, under current rules regarding railroad, or models that did not penalize for military transport, a production bonus would be better. But, under a model which does penalize military transport, I think for gameplay's sake a commerce bonus would be better.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You see, I personally would tie the monetary value of capacity to the average wealth and population of the cities connected to the trade network.

For instance, RR's might have a formula of 3 Cap. points=1gpt*(Pop factor+wealth factor). Roads, OTOH, might have a 5 Cap points=1gpt*(Pop factor+wealth factor). At the same time, of course, you might have RR's having a maintainance of 1gpt per 4 hexes, and roads having a maintainance cost of 1gpt per 3 hexes. This way, large empires might have a very high # of capacity points but, if they don't have enough 'high-quality' cities, then they may end up having to pay more than the capacity is worth to them! Also, from a military standpoint, having a large empire might be a good way of getting lots of capacity points, but it probably also means a wider front to defend and more places in your network for enemy special ops units to disrupt (in my model, breaking a RR line will in fact temporarily 'destroy' some of that nations Capacity points!)

Lastly, I was also thinking, should capacity ALSO be used up by resources which are spread throughout your trade network and/or shields/food which you vector from one city to another?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[frekk]

I' m not even sure I understand the formulas there. And you've got to be able to understand the formula being used in order to plan how to build.

Also, a lot of cities become "quality" only because they're connected by good infrastructure.

I guess right now this discussion has gotten to be a bit confusing; I'm not sure where capacity comes into play here, but I know that I don't want capacity determined by the number of rail tiles you have. Dense sprawling rail in the real world does have better capacity, because flow can be shunted better and also because it's easier to make arcs (direct connections, as opposed to 'milkrun' routes). But I think nobody likes rail sprawl in the game, I know I don't.

Capacity relies on other factors too. Technology is probably the biggest, as electrified rail has more capacity than diesel which has more capacity than steam. It's easier to base it on this, since in the real world there's no real correlation between the size of a country and its rail capacity. In gameplay it means a small country with equal or better rail technology can easily hold off a large empire that hasn't spent time building up a large invasion force. It also means a simpler formula.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Frekk, you have to understand that I was just throwing up a rough formula, without any real numbers in it! The general gist, though, is that a combination of a nations overall wealth and population would be a bigger determinant in how valuable rail capacity is to a nation in general. After all, you STILL have to pay the same amount in maintainance no matter how much revenue the RR's might bring in. I DO think that capacity should be linked to the amount of railway you have, but it should be an easy case of ONLY counting those RR's which connect TWO points-be they a city to a city; a city to a fort/outpost/colony or one fort/outpost/colony to another one. A player can still build additional RR's as they wish, but this would NOT count towards your national RR capacity-either for movement or revenue purposes. This would also make defense and maintainance of your RR vital, because if a connecting RR gets broken, then ALL of its capacity is lost until repaired! Oh, I also agree that technology level should also play a MAJOR role in the rail capacity!!

Lastly, let me TRY to reiteratate the formula more clearly:

Value of RR capacity=1 gold per turn for every THREE points of unused RR capacity. From this value you deduct the maintainance value of the RR (around 1gpt per 4 hexes of rail tiles). This final base value is then multiplied by a set factor based on the average wealth, culture and population of the cities WITHIN your rail network!

Hope that makes more sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I prefer the idea that capacity is the trains that run on the rail and the rails exist to connect this capacity. You build up the capacity by building it. Your nations needs a certain amount of capacity to maintain industrial activity(formula elsewhere), to provide transportation for civilians(formula elsewhere), to maintain trade(formula elsehwere), logistics(simple formula), and transporting troops(simple formula)