 |
|
Optimizer
|
 |
Stockholm
Feb 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
What kind of railroad model would we like for Civ 4?
Last edited by Optimizer on 27-01-2005 at 00:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
I just voted, but would like to add that a monetary/resource maintenance cost should be applied to all terrain improvements. Roads & Railroads should grant no other bonus, but the movement bonus.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
I voted for 3 options: "No rail bonus in enemy territory (like Civ 3 model)", "Utilization limit for railroads - only a limited number of units can get rail bonus from a square each turn" and "Monetary/resource cost for railroad maintenance".
Now, the way I envision this is as follows: Your railroad system has a certain maximum capacity, for game purposes represented by a maximum number of units that can be moved for free by rail each turn. Now, you can increase the capacity of the rail system to allow for more units to be transported, but that would increase the maintenance cost of the rail system. So, I imagine you'd have a default number of "free unit moves" which would be related to the total size of your railroad network, and then you could choose to increase capacity beyond default values - for a certain price.
Now I see a couple of people voted for "Rail bonus should only apply when travelling between cities". In my opinion, this is a silly artificial limitation that has nothing to do with realism. Trains don't need a city to be able to stop! Of course, if we're talking tanks, artillery and heavy equipment, it may be a bit of a hassle to unload this in the middle of a forest, but it's really quite amazing what the military can do in times of war. If Civ 4 is to be the greatest Civ game of all times, the last thing we need is to add silly, unrealistic limitations!
"Disallow tanks, cavalry and other heavy units from rail movement bonuses"
Once again, we're talking silly, unrealistic limitations that I hope we'll never see. Disallowing tanks and cavalry from traveling by rail makes about as much sense as disallowing them from traveling on roads! Moving big, bulky, heavy stuff from A to B in a fast, cheap and efficient way is exactly where the railroad is second to none and always has been.
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Civ3 movement is almost good. It should probably get small changes to avoid the Railroad-blitz, but that's it. |
You mean moving a bunch of workers into newly captured territory to build railroads the same turn you captured it and then move your forces through at no movement cost to attack the next city within that same turn? Yeah, I do that a lot in the late game. The Zulus once went from being the second largest empire in the world to being completely wiped out in just 2 turns, thanks to this strategy. Perhaps that was a little "over the top", but I'm not so sure we want to get rid of the "railroad blitz" capability alltogether.
Think of it. In a standard Civ game, one turn represents a whole year or more. Historically, there are more than a few examples of railroads being built in a matter of weeks during times of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
In a standard Civ game, one turn represents a whole year or more. Historically, there are more than a few examples of railroads being built in a matter of weeks during times of war. |
Oh man, I'm so sick of this argument...it doesn't allright, all it does is add a bit of flavour, it's sounds better than reading that you are currently playing "turn 267". That's all there is to it.
quote:
only a limited number of units can get rail bonus from a square each turn" |
Not against this in principle but the thing, all one would have to do is build parellel rail-roads to work-around that limitation and this force more MM on the player.
-
I personally really dislike unlimitted movement, in each and every game I have played, I started loosing interest as soon as railroads came online.
Last edited by alva on 28-01-2005 at 17:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
|
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alva
quote:
In a standard Civ game, one turn represents a whole year or more. Historically, there are more than a few examples of railroads being built in a matter of weeks during times of war. |
Oh man, I'm so sick of this argument...it doesn't allright, all i does is ad a bot of flavour, it's sounds better than reading that you are currently playing "turn 267". That's all there is to it.
|
Well, all right. I agree that the "1 turn = 1 year" thing is not to be interpreted too strictly, since a lot of things tend to make very little sense if you do. (Travel times and build times way too long, aircraft can only fly one mission per year, etc...)
But that's not really the point here anyway. Even if we suppose that a turn could represent a month, a week or even just a couple of days, it would still be possible to build a railroad in that time if you had the manpower, the resources and the will to do so.
quote:
quote:
only a limited number of units can get rail bonus from a square each turn" |
Not against this in principle but the thing, all one would have to do is build parellel rail-roads to work-around that limitation and this force more MM on the player. |
Not if you're a railroad freak like myself who likes to plop down railroads all over the place in any case. If you don't like the "micromanagement" this entails, then just pop out a few workers and set them up for automatic railroad construction. 
quote:
I personally really dislike unlimitted movement, in each and every game I have played, I started loosing interest as soon as railroads came online. |
I don't see why. There's nothing even remotely unrealistic about placing your units on a train and having them travel across your nation in a single turn. Of course, if your empire covers half the planet and you're thinking 1 turn = 1 day, then sure - that would be stretching it a little, but even a nation the size of the USA can be crossed from coast to coast in less than 3 days.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:28
|
|
Maintenance costs sounds like a good idea, but then there's the question of who pays for maintenance-whoever has the nearest city, or what? I voted for it anyway, though I suppose use costs might be a bit more realistic. But use costs would do nothing to stop that godawful sprawl.
I'm inclined to support lazjar's idea, except possibly for the usage fee bit. Railroads as a forerunner of airports makes sense, and a "limit on use" would be easy to implement in that case, by giving each city a railroad use limit per turn. But that might cause a hassle trying to remember which city has used its RR already on a given turn, so perhaps a money-for use model would be in order, though the transport fee might be scaled somewhat to the value of the unit. The only thing it doesn't simulate is the risk of interception, and that can be compensated for by the same means as aerial intercepts in Civ2. Getting flight and radio could allow true "airlifts," which would be somewhat less expensive due to the flexibility of air travel as well as avoiding interception by non-AA units. If you want to be able to get off at a point other than a city, build a fortress/base there, or whatever. I don't know if there were similar things in Civ3, since I gave up trying to play it pretty early. Yawn.
Ideally, I think Civ's limitations should be based to some degree on the limitations of the real world. We do sort of cover everything with railroads IRL, don't we?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-01-2005 00:00
And if this should turn out to be removed, then there should be different movement rates in different world sizes.
|