30-06-2004 14:32									#1
	Railroads? Increase the size of your Attachments

I think the railroad zero movement cost is ridiculous. Id like to see it gone. There is no balance road-railroad. Additionally, railroads make airlifts obsolete on pangea maps...

	30-06-2004 16:25									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Instant movement is a bit OTT. Factoring down to, say, 1/6 movement cost would be a good move I think.

	30-06-2004 18:28									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree that it should just be a uber road. I'd go as far as 1/9th movement (easily modable), continuing the tradition of roads tripling movement.

	30-06-2004 23:22									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I suggest a compromise.

1.75?

	30-06-2004 23:24									#5
	Remove this text

On a serous note, I don't believe they will change it. Railroads is a concept separate from roads. Perhaps they'll add some minor tweaks, like increasing the cost of passing through cities or some such, but I believe infinite movement stays.

	01-07-2004 00:24									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I love infinite railroad movement. Same with Leo's Workshop.

	01-07-2004 00:26									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

They could have it start at 1/9 and move up to higher numbers with later technology. Perhaps as high as 1/18?

The problem with infinite rail movement is that it cuts down on strategy, since you can respond with your entire land army in one round. You should need to think a bit more about how you are going to place your troops, imho.

-Drachasor

	01-07-2004 03:33									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Would it be possible if there was an option to allow infinite movement railroads as a custom rule right before the game starts? I think that way, those who like or dislike infinite movement can choose whichever one they want.

	01-07-2004 04:21									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Options are always good.


And it's a good way to deal with "traditional" rules that some people are attached to, despite the rules being completely stupid.

	01-07-2004 06:32									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

I would think that adding optional rules at the game's start should be limited to more important concepts. I mean really, if you had to have an option to follow or not to follow every single rule that you could change, the list would get riduclously long. It should be limited to important game deciding options such as Victory conditions, etc.. Wether or not railroads have infinite movement is a bit obscure, don't ya think?

	01-07-2004 06:33									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you have it moddable in a text file somewhere, I think that would satisfy everyone.

	01-07-2004 07:25									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns If you have it moddable in a text file somewhere, I think that would satisfy everyone.

hopefully this is one of the things they are going to keep in xml or somehting

	01-07-2004 07:26									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think unlimited movement should remain, with some modifcations.
Call it strategic movement. I would like to see two variants, one for roads and one for railroads. Essentially any cities connected by roads or railroads may move units between them, strategicially. If by roads, the unit may not attack or defend in the city, and will be destroyed if the city is captured. If by railroad the unit may defend at 1/2 strength. These penalties represent the disorganized nature units would face in having men and materiel moved vast distances in a hurry, but is also realistic, considering the time span of the turns we're dealing with. Normal movement by railroads should be double roads.

Additionally, I'd like to see some way for units to capture enemy railroads and roads, to be able to use them for benefits of moving units, which is a fairly normal occurrence in modern warfare. A new action, called secure road/railroad, which would allow a unit to take over control of the enemy road/rail tile movement bonus. Securing lasts until the following conditions are met: peace is declared or enemy retakes and rescures the square. Units need at least 1 MP to secure the road/rail. This would increase the value of the hill and mountain railed by the enemy.

	01-07-2004 09:19									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

I favor the infinite railroad as well. Keep in mind how many years are in each turn. You can go far on a rail in 1/2/5 years. Airlift doesn't compare to rail. Those heavy lifters cost alot. Rail can haul more cargo cheaper.

As for roads, I think the movement as it is (1/3) is a little slow. On large and huge maps I've changed roads to 1/6 or even 1/9.

	01-07-2004 11:58									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I love unlimited movement.
In the early game defense is about strategy.

In the late game it's about having enough units and a balanced economy, and *most important* diplomacy.

	01-07-2004 12:14									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Roads should still be 1/3, perhaps have a "superhighway" improvement at 1/9 or more and railroads should have infinite moviement BUT only if you load/unload in a city and the load process takes a turn.

	01-07-2004 12:24									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No 3rd options. I'm glad cIIIv removed some unnessecairy tile-improvements. You keep improving otherwise.

roads and railroads are good enough.

Pherhaps a better idea:
roads: 1/3
railroads: 1/9
superhighways: infinite: 1gold/tile/turn

That forces you to think about the places you want to build superhighways. You most probably will only connect cities through superhighways and not flood your entire country with it.

	01-07-2004 14:17									#18
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen railroads should have infinite moviement BUT only if you load/unload in a city and the load process takes a turn.

Too many restrictions, IMHO. A superhighway at 1/9 sounds good as an improvement to existing roads that becomes available to workers.

	02-07-2004 00:09									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The problem is, superhighways -- historically -- came after, WAY AFTER, railroads.

I prefer a return to the superhighways of Civ2 as city improvements that increase commerce. This seems the most acurate simulation.

What I would like to see is a small wonder called Interstate or Autobahn that creates the effects of the Civ2 superhighway in all continental cities.

	02-07-2004 00:30									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 I favor the infinite railroad as well. Keep in mind how many years are in each turn. You can go far on a rail in 1/2/5 years. Airlift doesn't compare to rail. Those heavy lifters cost alot. Rail can haul more cargo cheaper.

With that reasoning your Legion should be able to move 10 or more squares a good-sized map each turn. Movement isn't realistic time-wise, that's just how it is.

I believe Civ3 made it so you can't use enemy roads, correct? I for one, think this needs to be done away with, as not being able to use roads is unrealistic. Rails is a bit more understandable, but the whole reason this was done was to prevent Civ2 era fights where you took over half a Civilization in 1 turn (or maybe the whole thing). Instead, cap movement on rails, and you also have gone a long way to solving the problem. "Capturing" rails and road should merely be understood when you use a railway (you don't really capture a road, you just have troops use it).

Perhaps troops in military bases inside your territory should rush to defend cities under attack. This would happen even if it wasn't your turn. Perhaps you set them on "sleep" or "defend" and they'll do that, and fortify keeps them in place.

Both limited movement and auto-defending troops would eliminate the reason why you can't automatically use enemy rails and roads. Anyhow, I understand the popularity of the unlimited movement, and auto-defending mobile troops might be sufficient, if they eliminate the rail splurge (via not needing rails everywhere). However, the mobile troop idea works best with limited movement, less everyone rushes to defend the furtherest city (though perhaps some sort of radius on the auto-defend would work).

-Drachasor

-Drachasor

	02-07-2004 00:59									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And it's a good way to deal with "traditional" rules that some people are attached to, despite the rules being completely stupid.

You play industrial-era C3 on anything larger than a small map without zero-move RR's and then tell me how you like the MM

I think workers should get zero-move on railroads, even if military units do not.

	02-07-2004 01:00									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How about auto-destruction of improvements occupied by troops in hostile territory. This could represent burned ground strategy, conducted by civilians/retreating troops. It it would keep the gaming mechanic, and also motivate stopping the enemy at the borders instead of hiding in the cities. Perhaps you could even make it an option set globally by each civilization. If the civ suspected an impending surprise attack it would turn this auto-destruction on, to slow enemy advance. This is quite close to the preparations of war that many countries have in their contingency plans.

	02-07-2004 01:03									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Another thing - the economic bonus from RR's must be removed. As I've said before, with it there it's SUICIDE not to RR every tile. And there should be a gpt upkeep.

With that, and a "capacity" for railroads (with zero-cost move still), we'll have effectively the same thing as a simple move bonus, except the RR's would be connectors between cities, not things covering every tile of your empire.

	02-07-2004 01:16									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

repost of the idea

Pherhaps a better idea:
roads: 1/3
railroads: 1/9
superhighways: infinite. maintanance: 1gold/tile/turn

That forces you to think about the places you want to build superhighways. You most probably will only connect cities through superhighways and not flood your entire country with it.

	02-07-2004 02:22									#25
	Support Apolyton

What's worse current railroad movement, or taking a year to travel 4 squares on a railroad?

	02-07-2004 02:27									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Japher What's worse current railroad movement, or taking a year to travel 4 squares on a railroad?

I am not following, are you talking about roads or railroads? They're 3 movement, and that's unrealistic as well.

Proposals for Railroads have been about 9-18 tiles/1 movement point.

As I said before (do people read?) all movement is unrealistic time-wise. All wars are unrealistic time-wise. It isn't going to change, and I don't understand why everyone isn't used to it now.

-Drachasor

	02-07-2004 03:32									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: As I said before (do people read?)

I don't know how

quote: all movement is unrealistic time-wise. All wars are unrealistic time-wise. It isn't going to change, and I don't understand why everyone isn't used to it now.

maybe because people would like to see a little air of reality thrown into the game. that's the whole point of this thread. Just saying it ain't going to change ain't an argument.

I was just trying to point out that each turn is year or more. Thus, instant railroad movement is not all that unrealistic or at least not all that rediculous.

	02-07-2004 04:52									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Simply making it only a better road is not going to work at all - with the POSSIBLE except that you make workers get infinite move on it.

	02-07-2004 06:46									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Simply making it only a better road is not going to work at all - with the POSSIBLE except that you make workers get infinite move on it.

Well, all I know is I don't like the ability to ship every single troop on your entire continent to defend one city in a single turn. This completely eliminates anything related to strategic troop placement. The fact that I can have my entire force fighting two fronts on different sides of a continent in the same turn is ridiculous. Oh, the Americans just make a sneak attack on one of my northern outpost cities. Well, as long as the railroad is intact we can just ship our 100 tank units to defend it.

Please explain your argument further, I don't understand why we can't make it just a better road. It would allow a 3 or 4 turn delay from forces that are tied up elsewhere. I would think that this is perfect. A sneak attack on a border city shouldn't be able to get a 'rush order' of your entire army into the city within seconds.

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Pherhaps a better idea: roads: 1/3 railroads: 1/9 superhighways: infinite. maintanance: 1gold/tile/turn That forces you to think about the places you want to build superhighways. You most probably will only connect cities through superhighways and not flood your entire country with it.

Intersting idea, but it still eliminates the importance of troop placement. We now have the possibility to make a major improvment in the way troops are handled, you could no longer just throw troops wherever you want to, you have to actually think about what border needs more protection, it would add more meaning to 2+ front wars, and might make you think twice about attacking two people at the same time.

	02-07-2004 08:46									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Perhaps troops in military bases inside your territory should rush to defend cities under attack. This would happen even if it wasn't your turn. Perhaps you set them on "sleep" or "defend" and they'll do that, and fortify keeps them in place.

I like that idea of a passive auto-defense. Perhaps they can be limited to a certain radius from their base instead of rushing willy-nilly everywhere on railroads.