05-11-2003 16:34									#1
	movement irony Enter the AD-FREE zone

i appreciate the new air unit rebasing limit of max 6times their operational range (although i still think world sizes should influence such stuff), but i can't stop noticing the irony in the movement:

railroad takes you at light speed to the other edge of the continent without losing a single movement point, while for air movement you can barely operate behind the outer city rim and need a whole turn to rebase.

i know changing the RR rules was ruled out because of "legacy", but i still think that 3-4x road movement would be a lot more appropriate!

at least let us have an option in the editor for this

	05-11-2003 16:40									#2
	Re: movement irony Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf railroad takes you at light speed to the other edge of the continent without losing a single movement point, while for air movement you can barely operate behind the outer city rim and need a whole turn to rebase. at least let us have an option in the editor for this

Thats a really good point. I never did quite get that myself. I thought you should have either planes with unlimited movement or railroads with limited movement so that way it just makes more sense. Hopefully this can be changed.

	05-11-2003 17:45									#3
	Re: movement irony Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf i know changing the RR rules was ruled out because of "legacy", but i still think that 3-4x road movement would be a lot more appropriate!

The problem with this (as was pointed out in some other thread) is that it makes no sense that a "2" move unit would move faster on a railroad than a "1" move unit. So a simple multiplier wouldn't work.

	05-11-2003 17:51									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

true... so a constant value should be used.
a unit shouldn't be faster on road than on rail (let's say a 4-MP-unit can get you 12 fields on the road but RR only gives you 10). in that case it should be the minimum function:

min(RR-constant, road movement*MP).

	05-11-2003 17:59									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The railroad problem is as old as ... Civ3 (or is it Civ2).

If rail movement could not go adjacent to an enemy unit (you had to move the last tile), that would be an improvement.

OTOH, since it would probably be a ROADED tile, it probably wouldn't make any difference. Comes out in the wash, I suppose.

	05-11-2003 18:04									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yep, IMO best thing is to have ( hopefully via editor ) free RR movements limited to 10 squares,regarding air units old planes should have an editable numbers and modern bombers shouldn't have the editor limit of 8 if I rember right,but instead a max of let's say 40,so every player could set the proper limit. Maybe 15-20 for medern bombers is good enough.

Gunter

	05-11-2003 18:29									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

the RR issue is from as far back as Civ1

I think it makes sense

you can transport very fast by train, while planes can move far, they can't move and than opporate from far

if you think about it, every plane order is what the plane is suppose to do over a period of time

it is not just one movement (this is doen much more realistically in civ3)

Jon Miller

	05-11-2003 18:30									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

a plane rebasing corresponds to moving all of its ammunition and oil and the like to the new base

and than opportating from there

Jon Miller

	05-11-2003 18:41									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The railroad thing makes perfect sense (even on amtrak it takes less than a year to go NY to LA ). The problem to be resolved is naval movement ...

	05-11-2003 19:46									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Templar The railroad thing makes perfect sense (even on amtrak it takes less than a year to go NY to LA ). The problem to be resolved is naval movement ...

However, there is a limit to which an Amtrak train can travel within a year based on fuel, wear and tear, etc. Infinite movement does not make sense.

Were this a real time game like EU or something, it wouldn't be an issue, but since it's turn-based, having unlimited rail movement is a problem.

	05-11-2003 19:52									#11
	Got spare money?

hey Boris

long time no see

(and I think that Civ3 assumes a much bigger rail netwrok than we in the states have)

Jon Miller

	05-11-2003 21:00									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Given how powerful planes are now, I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that they cannot be Rebased to anywhere on the map.

My take on infinite movement: it's bad. It should be something like Move cost 1/10 on RRs first appear, to be reduced to 1/25 somewhere in the Modern age. I'll leave it to someone else to worry if this should be scaled for map sizes.


Dominae