Why Limited Movement on Railroads is Bad

frekk

frekk

Scourge of St. Lawrence
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
3,151
Location
Kingston, Ontario
Play a game. Build a big empire, get to the age of rails and factories. Let some pollution accumulate - say 10 or 15 spots. Now automate 50 workers to deal with it. Watch ... and see what will be the problem. All units on a goto will have to work like this.
 
For one thing, pollution better change in Civ4 to a system other than this "whack-a-mole" tediousness.

As for railroads, I think they should be limited, or time-space would become meaningless upon industrialization. For this feature, realism cannot be a strict guide because Civ's time scaling is not realistic to begin with.

In any case, perhaps a different example could better illustrate your point?
 
You know, T-P, I have long been the strongest proponent for limited movement on RR's. That said, though, I feel Frekk made a VERY convincing point in his 'unlimited move, but limited capacity' model-and I would be happy with it from a strategic point of view-along with other changes to the combat and economic models though, of course (like maintainance costs for terrain improvements)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right. So if the pollution system is really dumb, it doesn't mean that you should create an equally dumb transportation system to make that pollution system manageable. Because that transportation system makes military strategy pretty dumb by the time 1800 rolls around.

I'm going to use the word dumb one more time because I like saying it, not to be insulting or offensive to all the smart people on this forum, who I love.

Dumb.
 
frekk said:
Play a game. Build a big empire, get to the age of rails and factories. Let some pollution accumulate - say 10 or 15 spots. Now automate 50 workers to deal with it. Watch ... and see what will be the problem. All units on a goto will have to work like this.
Click to expand...
Civ 4 will be a new game with new rules and a new engine. As has been mentioned, pollution as it exists now won't even be in the game. Depending on how the game changes, the tediousness you cite so often may not even exist.
 
Personally i love the unlimited rail road option. However, i think it shoudl be limited to being only between cities. I also would like to see a highway that has a limited movement (double of road) which would be used to sprawl out around your cities.
 
maybe a RR unit, like a cargo train that gives you the unlimited movement if you load units onto it... otherwise just acts as an advanced road.
 
alright, good point, however, i still am a proponent of infanite movement for reasonsi can't collect right now in the hectic world of work.
 
I think limmited capacity only counting for millitairy units could be a good solution.

Also realistic. Realways have enough capacity to move all the civilians needed.
When however tanks or other millitairy units have to be moved, that takes quite some extra preparation, logistics and police escort etc.
 
I still reckon that Frekk is closest to the mark here. Where you not only have limited capacity each turn, but where using said capacity denies you revenue usually obtained from the civilian use of said capacity (freight and passenger services). In addition, perhaps the more capacity you use in a turn, the greater the effect of any war weariness you might already be suffering-as peoples ordinary travelling arrangements are disrupted by the demands of war!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
No, no, no, I'm not talking about pollution - I'm talking about the display.

If the units just flick from place to place instantly, you'll get a serious headache! Plus, you won't be able to tell what's going on.

More likely they would have to be displayed moving on rails the way a stack moves on rail now, or automated workers. Tile by tile. This will take FOREVER.

The reason I used the automated worker example is because it is something you can try out and see. When you have 50 units on a goto with limited movement the effect will be similar.

The more I think about it, the more I think it might be best just to leave well enough alone and keep rails as they are - but include some optional features in the editor for specific scenarios (probably smaller scale ones). Every other way of doing it seems to kill gameplay completely.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
I still reckon that Frekk is closest to the mark here. Where you not only have limited capacity each turn, but where using said capacity denies you revenue usually obtained from the civilian use of said capacity (freight and passenger services). In addition, perhaps the more capacity you use in a turn, the greater the effect of any war weariness you might already be suffering-as peoples ordinary travelling arrangements are disrupted by the demands of war!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Click to expand...


I like the idea of military RR usage costing the player in both economic loss and war weariness. Another idea would be to reduce the RR bonus in tiles in which a certain number of military units are RRed through. Allow the player to mitigate these costs by the investment in more infrastructure, not necessarily a transport unit which loads military units, but through the purchase/production of transport capability which allows the player to move a certain number of units without incurring these costs. Make the decision to use unlimited movement more strategic.

I also like the idea that unlimited movement should be limited to between cities, and possibly only with the introduction a new improvement called a "railyard" or "railroad hub".
 
Or a train station.....
 
here's why i think unlimited movement on RR's is good, and i don't know whether or not this has already been stated in the various threads devoted to RR's. Each turn of the game represents at the least, one week. Now i haven't heard of any railroad trip on earth that takes one week in this day, except for maybe the Trans'Siberian RR in Russia. Anyway, the RR allows you to get anywhee in one turn because thats ow long it would take to get there in real life.
 
irishrussianjew said:
here's why i think unlimited movement on RR's is good, and i don't know whether or not this has already been stated in the various threads devoted to RR's. Each turn of the game represents at the least, one week. Now i haven't heard of any railroad trip on earth that takes one week in this day, except for maybe the Trans'Siberian RR in Russia. Anyway, the RR allows you to get anywhee in one turn because thats ow long it would take to get there in real life.
Click to expand...
The issue is gameplay, not realism. If you remove the time connotations from the turns (for example, you call them turn 1 instead of 4000 BC or turn 80 instead of 20 AD) then this wouldn't even make any sense.

If you want to argue that then you might as well make any unit able to move infinitely, land air or sea, with or without RRs, because every turn is at least one year - obviously that doesn't make any sense, so the argument that RRs should give infinite movement doesn't make sense either.

microbe said:
Limited railroad == more management == less fun

People enjoy industrial ages because of railroad. Why adding all those micromanagement?

Railroads are fine as is. Solve other problems first.
Click to expand...
There's already an issue of micromanagement which people don't want to have to deal with, even with infinite movement.

How about changing the system so that it doesn't require so much micromanagement (which is the real problem), with or without infinite rail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Fourth Age Victory Conditions (Technology Age, Space and Artic Layers)
Replies
2
Views
745
CidMire
C
SupremacyKing2
Where does civ go after civ7?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Eddie Verdde
Eddie Verdde
W
Civ Rev for Civ VII - Rise and Fall
Replies
0
Views
361
wuTz
W
Boris Gudenuf
Gimme dat (Only) Exploration Age Religion
Replies
2
Views
726
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Naokaukodem
Memo : finding new fun ways to build one's empire
Replies
0
Views
356
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
Back
Top Bottom