Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Railroads in Civ4

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:09:19 PM

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.

More about : railroads civ4

Anonymous
December 7, 2004 2:48:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 2:48:51 PM

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.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:05:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:17:23 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:32:15 PM

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/
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:35:11 PM

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/
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:06:04 PM

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
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:06:05 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:40:22 AM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:48:13 AM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:54:00 AM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:54:01 AM

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/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:06:15 AM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:06:16 AM

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/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:18:16 AM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:18:17 AM

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/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:45:33 PM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:57:32 PM

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
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:32:39 PM

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
December 14, 2004 1:58:18 AM

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.
December 14, 2004 2:00:20 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:06:37 PM

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>
---------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:11:28 PM

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?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 5:42:08 PM

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
December 14, 2004 5:42:09 PM

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

On 14 Dec 2004 14:42:08 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
<thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:

>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?!


Actually, this was pre-conquest days, but I created a very large map,
it may have been gigantic, but I can't remember all the specifics.
However the east coast and the west coast were separated by a small
amount of water. The unit I was moving would make it better than 2/3s
the way to the distance city in one move. I don't remember if it was
a strait line or not, it may have been a border-rail wrapping down to
the south and back up again. When I own an island or most of a
continent, I build RR around the coastal cities first so I can get
troops to invaders quickly. In this case I was conquering the world.
I remember that I didn't have the domination victory as an option at
that time. I don't think it was available. Faster troops would, of
course, make the trip in one turn, but I think it was cannons or
armillary, or something that only had a movement of one.

Buck
--
For what it's worth.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:32:26 PM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:00:20 -0500, Buck <Buck@your.guess> wrote:
> 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.

In civ3 you've had this? Are you sure you had full RR coverage?

Dave Hinz
December 14, 2004 7:54:27 PM

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:06:37 -0600, Brandon Supernaw
<bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.


Not if the unit has only one movement point.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 7:57:59 PM

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

On 14 Dec 2004 16:32:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:00:20 -0500, Buck <Buck@your.guess> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>In civ3 you've had this? Are you sure you had full RR coverage?
>
>Dave Hinz


I never played with Civ 1 or 2. I started with Call To Power and then
converted to Civ 3 when it first came out. I do know it was a very
large map and a very long route to get unit moved, but I don't
remember how large. I have played around with a world as large as 300
x 300 several times in the past with few opponents. It made for an
interestingly long game and one could effectively forget about
conquering the entire world.
Buck
--
For what it's worth.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:58:59 PM

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

"Buck" <noone@aol.com> wrote in message
news:q7our053uk53dt094agpom238c2ocffmlk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:06:37 -0600, Brandon Supernaw
> <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Not if the unit has only one movement point.

Yes, that will work with a one MP unit as well.
December 14, 2004 8:33:33 PM

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:58:59 -0500, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
>"Buck" <noone@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:q7our053uk53dt094agpom238c2ocffmlk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:06:37 -0600, Brandon Supernaw
>> <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Not if the unit has only one movement point.
>
>Yes, that will work with a one MP unit as well.
>
That's interesting. Ah, I am accustom to loading from the shore and
not from in a city. That may be the difference. I know that movement
is affected by loading and or unloading in a city, but for me, I load
ships at once with large groups in a group move.

My normal strategy is to group my units into tens or twenties and move
them together. I find very few cities that can withstand an attack
from a group of 20 attackers.

As for the movement, i'll have to experiment with that again. I may
setup one of those gargantuant (is that a word?) worlds and test the
rail movement.

I'll mark this thread and let you know what happens.

Buck
--
For what it's worth.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:19:44 AM

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

Buck <Buck@your.guess> wrote in
news:cg4ur0hks5du95l8sip172q3mb71gjrqjo@4ax.com:

> On 14 Dec 2004 14:42:08 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>
>>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?!
>
>
> Actually, this was pre-conquest days, but I created a very large
> map, it may have been gigantic, but I can't remember all the
> specifics. However the east coast and the west coast were
> separated by a small amount of water. The unit I was moving would
> make it better than 2/3s the way to the distance city in one move.
> I don't remember if it was a strait line or not, it may have been
> a border-rail wrapping down to the south and back up again. When
> I own an island or most of a continent, I build RR around the
> coastal cities first so I can get troops to invaders quickly. In
> this case I was conquering the world. I remember that I didn't
> have the domination victory as an option at that time. I don't
> think it was available. Faster troops would, of course, make the
> trip in one turn, but I think it was cannons or armillary, or
> something that only had a movement of one.

There must have been roads somewhere along the line. Maybe it was
at the point when we had the no railroads inside a city bug.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:24:47 AM

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

commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1103047888.574379.66720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
>>
>> 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?

Given that the road movement is already in the code, adding
different speeds should be trivial.



--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
December 15, 2004 11:52:18 AM

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:33:33 -0500, Buck <noone@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:58:59 -0500, "The Stare"
><wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Buck" <noone@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:q7our053uk53dt094agpom238c2ocffmlk@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:06:37 -0600, Brandon Supernaw
>>> <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not if the unit has only one movement point.
>>
>>Yes, that will work with a one MP unit as well.
>>
>That's interesting. Ah, I am accustom to loading from the shore and
>not from in a city. That may be the difference. I know that movement
>is affected by loading and or unloading in a city, but for me, I load
>ships at once with large groups in a group move.
>
>My normal strategy is to group my units into tens or twenties and move
>them together. I find very few cities that can withstand an attack
>from a group of 20 attackers.
>
>As for the movement, i'll have to experiment with that again. I may
>setup one of those gargantuant (is that a word?) worlds and test the
>rail movement.
>
>I'll mark this thread and let you know what happens.
>
>Buck


Last night I built a world 362x362 (the maximum size) and modified the
BIQ so I would have a unit that could quickly build railroads. I
built a RR around the outer edges of the continent so there was a
complete loop, but when I destroyed one link in the loop, it developed
a problem. The unit sent to one side of the link went about 2/3s the
way around the loop, jumped track and parked itself there as though it
were the end of the loop. I guess I exceeded the length available in
the code somewhere. However, it was a lot further than I remember the
other going. I am using Conquests now and it has been a couple years,
i think. I guess it is possible that I am remembering the old
Call-To-Power days, but I still feel like it was Civ3.

Regardless of that, as much work as it was last night and the fact
that it only happened once that I can remember, it is really a trivial
matter anyway. I guess if I want to test the distance of one turn on
a railroad with a single-movement piece I could create a strait piece
of RR x number of squares and count the number of times the warrior
can go back and forth before it runs out of movement points. Next
time I feel like testing it, i may do that, but it won't likely be any
time soon. lol. That was a lot of work last night.




Buck
--
For what it's worth.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:56:51 PM

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

data64 wrote:
> "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

Increased speed is represented by move movement points. Considering that
civ 3 originally tracks turns in multiples of 50 years and goes down
to one year at the modern age that seems to reflect greater speeds
rather well.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 10:04:20 PM

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

Buck wrote:
> 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

How? Perhaps not super realistic, certanly the heavy artillery of modern
ages moves much faster than the catapult in the middle ages. If you can
move it by train then the speed difference is enormous than having to
pull it through forests and tall grass.
December 20, 2004 10:04:21 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:04:20 +1000, Rastilin <rastilin@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How? Perhaps not super realistic, certanly the heavy artillery of modern
>ages moves much faster than the catapult in the middle ages. If you can
>move it by train then the speed difference is enormous than having to
>pull it through forests and tall grass.

Fortunately for everyone there is a lot of time compression in these
games, but even the US takes a while to get all troops to there
locations. A ship still takes lots of turns to get across an ocean,
but a cannon can cross a continent that makes the width of the USA an
isthmus instantly.
Buck
--
For what it's worth.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 4:14:06 AM

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

Rastilin <rastilin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>data64 wrote:
>> "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

>Increased speed is represented by move movement points. Considering that
> civ 3 originally tracks turns in multiples of 50 years and goes down
>to one year at the modern age that seems to reflect greater speeds
>rather well.

Huh? It took my warrior 50 years to move one square?

I guess he was still a knuckle walker.... ;-)

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:15:11 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:

> Huh? It took my warrior 50 years to move one square?
> I guess he was still a knuckle walker.... ;-)

It improves once stirrups are invented.

Dave "I am _so_ sorry." Hinz
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:05:45 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Huh? It took my warrior 50 years to move one square?
>> I guess he was still a knuckle walker.... ;-)

>It improves once stirrups are invented.

>Dave "I am _so_ sorry." Hinz

Yeah, but mainly because the clock speeds up...

I find some of the game antics fun. I take the view that
the game is *not* reality (I know that's a heretical view)
and that the rules of physics are somewhat bent in the
game world. I regard playing the game as an exploration
of another universe as much as I regard it as a simple
game.

It's more fun that way.

It saved my sanity more than once in Civ II once the AI
began cheating in bunches. On the other hand, the cheating
is one of the charming features of Civ II. It is as if the
computer-run civs have allies on Mars who are all-knowing and
all-seeing and can drop rocks on you no matter how far your
cities are from any earthbound enemy.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:30:31 PM

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

I think thats a good idea,
although isn't there three already?
there are in CTP.
roads, railroads, and maglev.
in would be nice to have paved roads, too I guess.

On 14 Dec 2004 10:11:28 -0800
commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> >
> > 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?
>
!