 |
|  |
 |
|
Lewsir
|
 |
Paris, France
Jan 1970 time: 06:34
|
|
The more I play C3C the more I'm begining to find railroads too powerful now - the +1 shield/commerce is nice, but the fact that you can get your entire army from one end of your continent to the other makes certain things just too easy.
I would vote for reducing it to 1/6 or 1/10 movement cost (compared to roads at 1/3). Come to think of it, is this modifiable? I've never checked.
The other thing that would be good is that if something is stopped on the railroad (between turns), other things can't pass. And perhaps that any segment of the railroad only works if it is fully connected between cities. Would make it properly vulnerable to attack.
Thoughts?
Last edited by Lewsir on 18-03-2004 at 19:04
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
Wow, hexagonian managed to reply to a topic in a Civ3 forum, without spamming about mentioning you-know-what? Even though the mentioning would be even on-topic? How did you resist the temptation? 
Seriously, I agree with you on this issue. The infinite railroad movement may be historically correct, but is a strategic killjoy. Historic accuracy is not the goal of a 4X game, anyway. Why would we have infinite RR movement, if we don't have infinite naval movement? Does a modern carrier really need many years to circumnavigate the world?
But it has always been a part of Civ (the real one) and probably will remain so even in Civ4. It makes the AI more competitive, just like the lack of real ZoC, since it can't think strategically. Less fun and depth for multiplayer games is not an argument, because Civ is mainly a single player game. Sadly but true. Who doesn't like it, can always play CtP2 (there, I did it).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jomateix
|
|
The main problem is the fact that build any improvement doesn't need a mantainment posteriorly, ad -1 G per road and -2 per railroad and resolved.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Plotinus
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Donegeal
Now in the US (once the railroads were in place), did it still take 2-10 years to cross a continent? Not a chance.
|
And did it take the Romans several decades to travel from one end of their empire to the other by road? The problem here is that rails as they stand are realistic, but nothing else about movement is.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Even though the mentioning would be even on-topic? How did you resist the temptation? |
OK, I'll mention it...CTP1/CTP2 does not have infinite movement/gold bonus RR (Rails are 1/5 movement cost in CTP2) as as such, present a better implimentation of this 'feature' from a strategic gameplay standpoint than civ3...
With a 1/5 movement cost modifier, you still have the ability to quickly deploy forces, but in a war where a loss of a couple of turns may mean the difference between holding and losing a city, you still have to be careful.
And eliminate the gold bonus - make RR and roads strictly movement-based and create an additional set of gold-bonus enhancements to remove the blight that RR/Roads create on the map
I think this is the first time Ralph and I see eye-to-eye...
I agree that this 'feature' is more for the benefit of the AI too, since it provides it a way to mount instant defense while the player is limited on movement when he is attacking. (If a player makes a move toward a particular city, the AI can more easily fill that city with defenders if it has unlimited movement.)
A way to offset the need for this 'infinite movement feature' for the AI would be to create a greater priority for the AI to quickly create alliances with other civs when it it is attacked by an human aggressor. This would lessen the need for it to need infinite movement as a stopgap when it could count on other civs to provide military relief. Players would then have no choice but to manage troop deployment too.
Actually Ralph, I do find a lot to like about civ3 - sure, its a game with its own set of flaws, but it has good features too...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
I do agree that RR's are WAAAAY to powerful, but not just from a combat perspective. The way that they grant bonuses to commerce, production and food is not only VERY unrealistic but also encourages RR sprawl ! In order to combat this element, then, I think the following should be done:
1) A city connected to the trade network, by a road, should recieve a bonus equal to +5% of the current commerce/production/food produced by all cities in the trade network, which are on the same land mass.
2) A city connected to the trade network, by a RR, should recieve a bonus equal to +10% of the current commerce/production/food produced by all cities in the trade network, which are on the same landmass.
The thing about these bonuses is that the city gets it if you build 1, 3 or even 10 railroads (or roads) to that city. i.e. It doesn't matter HOW many roads/RR's you build from that city, it won't alter the level of bonus the city recieves.
3) Both RR's and roads (and all other terrain improvements, btw) should have a maintainance cost. Roads should have a cost of 1gpt/X tiles, and RR's could have a cost of 2 gpt/X tiles (with X being editable, but initially based on map size).
The combination of these factors may well force players to be much more....'strategic' in their placement of RR's as the benefits would now have to outweigh the costs. This might help balance the strategic (read: combat) side of the game too!
To further balance RR's for combat, the following could apply (any or all of the suggestions could be utilized):
1) Give RR's a 1/6 or 1/10 move bonus.
2) Allow unlimited movement, but only if the square was entered from a city or tile improvement (like a fort). Otherwise the RR will only count as a road for movement purposes.
3) Again, allow unlimited movement, but every city your unit passes through will cost that unit 1mp!
4) Give tiles a 'support value'-i.e. the number of units it can hold for more than 1 turn without suffering from 'degredation' (lost attack/defense strength, hp etc) This way, you will have to stagger the movement of your forces, rather than moving SoD's! This could be further helped if you gave units variable 'support costs', say 1 for infantry and other foot units, 2 for artillery and mounted units, and a 3 for mechanized units! This would force players to adopt a 'combined arms' strategy in order to move larger stacks along the road/rail network, rather than just stacks of tanks for instance!!
Anyway, those are my ideas. Hopefully the next XP pack will contain a few (if not ALL) of the suggested changes !
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Allemand
|
|
Olympia
Feb 2000 time: 05:34
|
|
I think the worst thing about railroads in CivIII is that a unit can attack three or four times at different ends of a continent, without worrying about a counterattack.
Absurd!
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|