Railroads in Civ4

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Now that Civ4 is in development, I think serious attention should once
again be brought to railroads, a fantastic but much too simplistic
feature.

In Civ3, in all Civs, railroads are always the same. Whether you're
society is early industrial, late modern or even space age, your
railroads:

- never break down (and no, I'm not suggesting micromanagement is the
solution to this)
- have unlimited carrying capacity
- can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY*

Now, I ask you, if the British could have INSTANTANESOUSLY transported
50,000 troops from South Africa to Afghanistan, would 17,000 British
have been massacred there in the 18th Century?

Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.

Otherwise, land-based powers get way too much of an advantage over
Sea-based powers, as soon as somebody invents the steam engine.
I hope this is remedied in Civ4.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept at
1/3rd]

Also, modern naval ships should be able to go faster in both
international waters and their own territory.

Also, I think the irrigation and mining bonsuses of railroads should be
greately reduced to cut down the litering the landscape with rails.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept at
1/3rd]

Also, modern naval ships should be able to go faster in both
international waters and their own territory.

Also, I think the irrigation and mining bonsuses of railroads should be
greately reduced to cut down the litering the landscape with rails.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept
at 1/3rd]

yeah. let's say 1/9 when you're in the industrial age and 1/18 when
you're in the modern age. this would reflect increased transport
capacity as well as speed.

> But land-based powers *do* have an advantage over sea-based ones.
> Especially if they have the interior lines of communication.

that's an excellent point; land-powers should have certain advantages
in transportation and communications, especially when they leverage
railroad technology. i'm just saying that said advantages shouldn't
come so dramatically and suddenly, and that there should be at least
some gradations in railroad technology.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 7 Dec 2004 11:48:26 -0800, joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

>Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept at
>1/3rd]

I think there should be two or three levels of railroad that
grant increasing bonuses.

Given the time scale instantaneous is right for the modern
era--railroads can get you there in far less than one turn.

>Also, modern naval ships should be able to go faster in both
>international waters and their own territory.

Yeah, ships are too slow compared to land units. I would say
that in the modern era ships should have unlimited movement in
friendly waters.

>Also, I think the irrigation and mining bonsuses of railroads should be
>greately reduced to cut down the litering the landscape with rails.

That's never bothered me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

<commandoLine@yahoo.com>

> Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
> limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.

Perhaps in North America.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

This still no other transportation system on Earth that can move as much and
as fast, as train. A train can move 20,000tons at 50 to 60 miles per hour,
any fast with that tonnage would probably be unsafe. Beat that.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:
>Now that Civ4 is in development, I think serious attention should once
>again be brought to railroads, a fantastic but much too simplistic
>feature.

>In Civ3, in all Civs, railroads are always the same. Whether you're
>society is early industrial, late modern or even space age, your
>railroads:

>- never break down (and no, I'm not suggesting micromanagement is the
>solution to this)
>- have unlimited carrying capacity
>- can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY*

>Now, I ask you, if the British could have INSTANTANESOUSLY transported
>50,000 troops from South Africa to Afghanistan, would 17,000 British
>have been massacred there in the 18th Century?

>Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
>limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.

For some reason I long ago (Civ II days) thought that a bonus
of 16 on a railroad was sufficient. It would allow the rapid
concentration of forces without allowing a player (the AI never
seems to do this) to temporarily strip all the super-offensive
units out of his cities for an attack and then return them
before they are really missed.

>Otherwise, land-based powers get way too much of an advantage over
>Sea-based powers, as soon as somebody invents the steam engine.
>I hope this is remedied in Civ4.

But land-based powers *do* have an advantage over sea-based ones.
Especially if they have the interior lines of communication.

But sea-based powers have their own advantages as well. However
the mechanics of Civ usually prevent this from being exploited.

--- Paul J. Gans

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:06:04 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
wrote:

>But land-based powers *do* have an advantage over sea-based ones.
>Especially if they have the interior lines of communication.
>
>But sea-based powers have their own advantages as well. However
>the mechanics of Civ usually prevent this from being exploited.

It occurs to me something that could help fix the balance
problems with land and sea: Reaction orders. Give a unit a react
order and it will engage any enemy that moves into range. This would
allow sea movement to be increased in modern times without making
hit-and-run attacks overly powerful.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

<commandoLine@yahoo.com> wrote...

<< - have unlimited carrying capacity >>

Have you seen how much freight gets shipped across the US rail system over
the course of a year?

<< - can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY* >>

Over the course of a turn, sure. Unless you're modding the game, the
shortest turn length is a year. Why wouldn't you be able to send a unit, by
rail, anywhere on a landmass over the course of a year that has rail
service? Taken in context it makes sense.


Peter Smith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 7 Dec 2004 11:48:26 -0800, joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

>>Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept at
>>1/3rd]

> I think there should be two or three levels of railroad that
>grant increasing bonuses.

> Given the time scale instantaneous is right for the modern
>era--railroads can get you there in far less than one turn.

Ok.

>>Also, modern naval ships should be able to go faster in both
>>international waters and their own territory.

> Yeah, ships are too slow compared to land units. I would say
>that in the modern era ships should have unlimited movement in
>friendly waters.

Whoa! That's the railroad problem again. Nobody could mount
a landing on your shores because you could concentrate every
naval unit you had on them in one turn.

But I would up it a bit. The problem is that the map is really
too small for large movement bonuses. Realism (whatever that
is) has to be balanced by game play.

>>Also, I think the irrigation and mining bonsuses of railroads should be
>>greately reduced to cut down the litering the landscape with rails.

> That's never bothered me.

It does keep the worker types occupied... They might riot
if idle... ;-)

---- Paul J. Gans

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Roger T. <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

><commandoLine@yahoo.com>

>> Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
>> limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.

>Perhaps in North America.

Well, we already have that, don't we? You can't use the
railroads in another nation's area.

I know that in Europe various nations used different gauge
roads to prevent what one can do in Civ II...


>Cheers
>Roger T.

>Home of the Great Eastern Railway
>(Site now back up and working)
>http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

Roger: that site is FANTASTIC! You are clearly a master.
How big is the layout? It looks, from the photos, to be
enormous.

----- Paul J. Gans

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"

>>> Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
>>> limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.
>
>>Perhaps in North America.
>
> Well, we already have that, don't we? You can't use the
> railroads in another nation's area.
>
> I know that in Europe various nations used different gauge
> roads to prevent what one can do in Civ II...

The most wide spread gauge is four feet eight and a half inches, known as
"standard gauge" and this is Europe's principal gauge.

Yes, there are exceptions, but all mainlines in Europe, except in Spain, are
standard gauge.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1102457113.924890.274150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>> Personally, I think that rails should cost 1/9th a MP [if roads kept
> at 1/3rd]
>
> yeah. let's say 1/9 when you're in the industrial age and 1/18 when
> you're in the modern age. this would reflect increased transport
> capacity as well as speed.
>
>> But land-based powers *do* have an advantage over sea-based ones.
>> Especially if they have the interior lines of communication.
>
> that's an excellent point; land-powers should have certain advantages
> in transportation and communications, especially when they leverage
> railroad technology. i'm just saying that said advantages shouldn't
> come so dramatically and suddenly, and that there should be at least
> some gradations in railroad technology.

If you're going to improve rail speed with time, road speed has to
be increased as well. Roads and transportation in general are a lot
faster now than they were 5000 years ago.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Kevin 'Keeper' Foster

> If you're going to improve rail speed with time, road speed has to
> be increased as well. Roads and transportation in general are a lot
> faster now than they were 5000 years ago.

Yes, I have no problem with that.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 on Tue, 7 Dec 2004, wrote :
>Now that Civ4 is in development, I think serious attention should once
>
>Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
>limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.
>
>Otherwise, land-based powers get way too much of an advantage over
>Sea-based powers, as soon as somebody invents the steam engine.
>I hope this is remedied in Civ4.

Yes, a phased improvement would be a good idea - say : Steam Engine,
Diesel Engine, Maglev - each allowing for improved speed.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Paul Hyett"

> Yes, a phased improvement would be a good idea - say : Steam Engine,
> Diesel Engine, Maglev - each allowing for improved speed.

Yeah but maglev's no good for freight and probably not that economical for
passenger either. It's tremendously expensive to build that concrete "glide
way" and when it comes to switches/turnout/points, well that's another
expensive story.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote in
news:0d6ec27254ab9eb9dd67376a2d465e0f@grapevine.islandnet.com:

>
> "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
>
>> If you're going to improve rail speed with time, road speed has to
>> be increased as well. Roads and transportation in general are a lot
>> faster now than they were 5000 years ago.
>
> Yes, I have no problem with that.
>
>

Maybe road and rail disasters should get added in too.

Just a thought.
data64

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> Over the course of a turn, sure. Unless you're modding the game, the
> shortest turn length is a year.

Well, an entire player cycle --where all players complete a turn -- is
a full year, but one's player's turn is just a fraction thereof. The
nature of a turn based game, as opposed to real-time, is that a single
player's turn represents something more like one day in a much larger
span of time; in this case, everybody gets one day in a year in which
to make their moves.

> Why wouldn't you be able to send a unit, by
> rail, anywhere on a landmass over the course of a year that has rail
> service?

Because like I say, one player's turn represents not a full year, but a
fraction thereof. I can't tell you how many times I've done something
like this:
- Used a tank to kill an infantry man in Vladivostock, then zipped the
tank to Madrid to take out another infantry, then, having taken up no
movement points, zipped the tank down to a himalayan fortress to defend
a key position there during my enemy's next turn. That's just silly,
especially when you're in the early industrial age, moving cavalry and
musketmen.

In any case the graded movement scale for railroads would address the
problem.
I agree with the previous poster that there should be about three
levels, whatever you want to call them.






Peter Smith wrote:
> <commandoLine@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
> << - have unlimited carrying capacity >>
>
> Have you seen how much freight gets shipped across the US rail system
over
> the course of a year?
>
> << - can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY* >>
>
> Over the course of a turn, sure. Unless you're modding the game, the
> shortest turn length is a year. Why wouldn't you be able to send a
unit, by
> rail, anywhere on a landmass over the course of a year that has rail
> service? Taken in context it makes sense.
>
>
> Peter Smith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Roger T. <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

>"

>>>> Early railroads, which historically went 15 miles per hour, need to be
>>>> limited in how much, and how far, they can transport troops and trade.
>>
>>>Perhaps in North America.
>>
>> Well, we already have that, don't we? You can't use the
>> railroads in another nation's area.
>>
>> I know that in Europe various nations used different gauge
>> roads to prevent what one can do in Civ II...

>The most wide spread gauge is four feet eight and a half inches, known as
>"standard gauge" and this is Europe's principal gauge.

>Yes, there are exceptions, but all mainlines in Europe, except in Spain, are
>standard gauge.

Now, yes. But was that true prior to WWI?

----- Paul J. Gans

 

[Buck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 8 Dec 2004 13:57:32 -0800, commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:

>In any case the graded movement scale for railroads would address the
>problem.
>I agree with the previous poster that there should be about three
>levels, whatever you want to call them.
>


I am prone to agree with that too. I work hard to get to RR because
of their advantages, but it is a big jump from going one space per
turn to crossing the country with an artillery.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.

 

[Buck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 7 Dec 2004 10:09:19 -0800, commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:

>- can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY*


Pretty close, but I have actually had two cities far enough away that
it took two turns on a railroad to make the trip. It takes a really
large continent for that tho.

Buck
--
For what it's worth.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Around 12/13/2004 10:00 PM, Buck proclaimed for posterity:
> On 7 Dec 2004 10:09:19 -0800, commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>- can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY*
>
>
>
> Pretty close, but I have actually had two cities far enough away that
> it took two turns on a railroad to make the trip. It takes a really
> large continent for that tho.
>
> Buck

Surely you've got an incomplete rail network there with a few bits of
roads that the unit has hit along the way, yes? Pure rail traffic takes
no movement points whatsoever, regardless of the distance, as long as it
is all your territory or you have an ROP with whoever's territory you're
moving through.

Heck, I've run units from one side of a continent to another, loaded
them into a transport at a port city, zipped them across a narrow
channel to another port city on a different continent, unloaded them,
and moved them across a second continent via railroad, and attacked.

--
Brandon Supernaw - <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net>
---------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

>
> Heck, I've run units from one side of a continent to another, loaded
> them into a transport at a port city, zipped them across a narrow
> channel to another port city on a different continent, unloaded them,

> and moved them across a second continent via railroad, and attacked.

yes, and if the unit had more than one movement point, you could then
zip the unit back to the port city, put it back on the transport, move
it back across the channel and zip it back to its starting location,
all in the same turn.

i still think RR modification would be a great part of civ4, as much
for gameplay as realism, but do any programmers out there know how hard
it would be to mod this?

I guess you would have to amend the tech tree. Instead of one RR in the
tech tree, there would be 3, the last of which would be dependant on
miniaturization?.

And instead of having workers re-build the railroad (hard to capture
visually, and doesnt really make sense -- tracks have already been
cleared/dug/laid), you would just buy upgrades in gold -- say, 20 gold
per square. Right-click on the square and select 'upgrade to ....
Railroad' ?

Now that I think about the nuts and bolts, this is not a very simple
mod after all is it?
Nevertheless, any ideas/estimates on how hard this would be to mod?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Buck <Buck@your.guess> wrote in
news:0kosr0thurpu11eh5919rf7u0l722h234g@4ax.com:

> On 7 Dec 2004 10:09:19 -0800, commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>- can transport units anywhere *INSTANTANEOUSLY*
>
>
> Pretty close, but I have actually had two cities far enough away that
> it took two turns on a railroad to make the trip. It takes a really
> large continent for that tho.

What?!

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison