 |
| |
|
|
Melboz99
|
|
Rockford, Illinois, USA
May 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
Sorry if I didn't read everything, but here's my take on things.
Railroads have never really been used by the military. I mean, come on, what military today rides the rails?
What we need is an improvement on the road system.
What I'm talking about is upgrading all those dirt roads to interstate (or autobon if you prefer) highways.
Think about it, what did Hitler do before making his invasions? He built the autobon, the first nation wide highway system.
That is how Hitler got all his troops on the border of Poland so fast, he built a highway to it. He did not advance on Rails, rails were use for shipment of goods and supplys, not military personel.
Furthermore, what brought about the great urbanization of America was the American interstate highway system. America would not be where it is today without it.
Sure, rails are what moved people great distances fast in the 1800's, but that was then, this is now. Today very few people ride the train (at least in America) execept for the morning commute on the subway or the L.
When the vast majority of people need to get somewhere in todays world they hop in their car/truck/suv and get on the highway.
This includes the military. I have seen plenty of military vehicles moving on our highways here in America. One time I was on my way to northern Wisconsin and for about 3 hours of the 6 hour trip, we saw military vehicles of all types driving the opposite direction. There were hundreds of them, all moving 60-70mph on the interstate, NOT the railway.
And oh yeah, for those that don't know, America's Interstate was based on the German Autobon.
Dan O.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
I'd just go with an airport-style system; you can move your units along railways by taking them to a city with a rail link and giving an order to move to another city on the same network. Maybe have a limitation on the number of units you move in this way by having a 'rolling stock' limit, based on number of cities connected by rail, so you can't just move ten million conscripts along your one newly completed railway. You can increase your rolling stock limit by advancing in tech, and building a 'central station' improvement in your cities. A moderately advanced nation should have no trouble moving large numbers of units in this way. However, should you run short on, say, coal, your rolling stock limit will be penalised.
As for sprawl, one way to reduce it would be to have railways as a point-to-point improvement. In other words, you build railways between tiles, not on them. And a maintainance cost for excessively large networks, as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Melboz99
|
|
Rockford, Illinois, USA
May 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
This is really quite untrue. Since the advent of railroads, troop movement has been largely conducted via rail. It's more efficient and less costly to move a military unit by train versus rail.
In fact, even today's US military has a huge reliance on railroads. Given an option, the US Army will transport their armored units via rail to and from the front.
In WWI, the war could not be averted by a last minute diplomacy bid, because the German military leaders told the Kaiser it was too late the stop the troop trains.
Sorry, rail is integral to warfare. I haven't gotten to supply. |
Well, I have never seen this.
In my town of about 200,000 there is no train station. If you want to ride the train from Chigago to New York it takes 3 days to go the 800 miles because of all the stops, and it costs just as much as a plane ticket.
The only time I have heard of someone riding the train was when they were headed out west to a reseveration in New Mexico.
I know of very few people here in the states that ride rails of any sort other than the morning commute on the L or the Subway.
Matter of fact, I just Googled it. I found the National Trasportation Statistics page, and found statistics for long distance travel.
Here is the page.
It says that out of 2.6 billion person trips, about 21 million take the train. That equates to about 0.8%..
Now, I'm not a military man, but my brother is. He's in the USAF, and I've never heard of him riding the rail to any place he's been stationed at.
When he went to California, he drove, when he went to Texas he drove. When he went to Hawaii, Japan, Turkey, Germany, and Belguim he flew.
Maybe the Marines and the Army are different, I don't know.
I can't find any charts on google, but the fact of the matter is that there should be a highway system built into Civ IV.
For one thing, the US Interstate Highway System changed America. No longer did were by born, raised, and died in the same town. People started taking trips to visit distant relatives, going on vacation on the coast.
There is a huge percentage of trade that goes over the Interstate. If you've ever been on any US Interstate, you would know that there are millions of trucks driving tons of goods from point A to point B daily.
The US Interstate has had a huge impact on our Economy.
In my town I would hazard to guess that there are about 5,000-10,000 trucks on the road daily, yet it has been years since I have heard a train whistle.
I for one think that a highway system should be part of Civ IV.
Dan O.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Melboz99
|
|
Rockford, Illinois, USA
May 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I'm not arguing against a "highway system", I'm just stating that militaries rely on railroads extensively. I'm not talking about off-duty officers getting home or civilian travel statistics - but real military procedures. Sure, individuals in the military drive or fly, but heavy military gear goes by boat or rail a large percentage of the time.
Why don't the existence of roads in Civ3 count as a "highway system". Civ2 had the city improvement "superhighways" that improved trade...which was dropped in Civ3. What exactly are you proposing in this thread for cIV?
I think a reduction in the road/irrigate/railroad every tile would be welcome...I think I would accept any configuration of this model if they would make it a bit more aesthetic. |
Yeah, I'm not saying take away the rail system either. Rails have their place.
It's just strange to have 100 worker units riding the rails to the work site. I mean, if each worker represents a few thousand, it get's pretty rediculous.
I have a few friends in the construction buisness, and it would be rediculous to ask them to ride the rails to the construction site.
Sure, it happened when we built Hoover and Panama, but I doubt that many construction workers really ride the rails. Subway maybe, but a train?
And to those that think we aughta limit rail movement, I don't think so.
Think about it, by the time you get rails, the average turn lasts about 2 years. Does it really take 2 years to get from New York to LA by rail? I should hope not!
That's another thing I think we aughta talk about. The modern transport shouldn't take 10 turns to get from one side of your continent to another. Think about that, that's over 20 years!
Matter of fact, Christopher Columbus went from Europe to the Carribean in about 5 months, and that was in 1492! When we use these ships in Civ, it often takes over 50 years!
If anything ships should be able to move further than they currently do. This would better represent reality.
But yeah, mining, roading, then railing every square is a PITA. Something should be done about it. Besides, it looks plain WIERD.
Dan O.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Melboz99
|
|
Rockford, Illinois, USA
May 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Shogun Gunner [/SIZE
Why don't the existence of roads in Civ3 count as a "highway system". Civ2 had the city improvement "superhighways" that improved trade...which was dropped in Civ3. What exactly are you proposing in this thread for cIV?
|
They don't count as a highway system because in Civ3 any non-fast unit can only move 3 tiles on a road. By the time the 1950s technology is available, moving only 3 tiles is rediculous, as by this time any movent across the highway system should take at the most a week.
I could probably drive from Alaska to Mexico City in about a week, maybe two. If highways are represented by roads in Civ III, then why does it still take several years?
Edit: Also, roads do not generate nearly as much commerce as an Interstate Highway system should.
I think a cool idea for cIV is to have a small wonder of the Interstate Highway. In reality, the Interstate Highway system is modern wonder.
Once it is built, it should allow all land units to move by a faster amount within their own territory. Perhaps even instantaneous movement in their own territory.
Dan O.
Last edited by Melboz99 on 21-02-2005 at 10:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ward
|
|
Why not treat the railroad system like the airport? Create a rail station and allow point to point movement (unlimited) like the airlift, but that ends the movement. The next turn would then move the unit to the next spot. That way the units couldn't move and attack in one turn from one side to another. I agree that modern roads should be able to carry units much faster than ancient roads.
Why not have the different era roads have different movement capabilities? More modern roads in the modern eras allow faster movement.
We can't say that just because there is no rail movement between Rockford, Elgin and Chicago that the rail system can't work. We are creating this and it works in Europe. I watched Armored vehicles unloaded and transported all the time in Germany and the Autobahn was just minutes away. Open your minds and see the possibilities that are there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Metaxa
|
|
A few months ago I played a scenario which had no railroads in it and since then I play only those without railroads, because the infinite railroad kills the game.
We all know the combat tactics of infinite movement railroads: We need defend only our cities which can be reached and assaulted in single turn and when we are slugging it out with the AI, we can pull every unit that we own into the war. Its one great reason why we can beat the AI when we have forces that half or quarter theirs. The concept of the stategic placement of armies is nearly absent from the game.
Without infinite rail, we must maintain appreciable forces on all fronts to guard against an incursion. Sure during a war one can skim a bit off of the various fronts to bilster your war, but if you strip them too much, you'll leave the door open for even a much weaker civ to come rolling in. It also adds a leveler on huge empires: It can get pretty costly to maintain those armies to proptect those corrupt cities.
In place of the infinite railroad, I'd like to see a railroad that might cost a half or third the cost of traveling along a road. Also, I wouldn't mind having the railroad travel bonues only given to certain units. Its not that I give a hoot about historical whatnot, but from a playablity standpoint, it would be nice to see more then just modern armors and mech infantrys all over the place come the modern age.
Finally, concerning the dailogue concerning train use, I only comment on this because transportation is my profession and it really doesn't have much to do with the game. Firstly,
quote:
Furthermore, what brought about the great urbanization of America was the American interstate highway system. America would not be where it is today without it. |
The interstate highway system did not bring about our urbanization. On the contrary, it fueled our suburbanization at the expense of the city and to the unmitigated glee of McDonalds, Wal-Mart and any other cookie cutter, utterly un-unique merchandizer who preys on the suburbs.
Secondly,
quote:
In my town I would hazard to guess that there are about 5,000-10,000 trucks on the road daily, yet it has been years since I have heard a train whistle. |
Roughly 40% of the freight in the United States is sent by rail. And the United States, because of our fantastic wealth and our love for the freedom of the automobile (including the freedom to pay escalating gasoline prices, the freedom to get price gouged by the insurance company, the freedom to wreck the atmostphere and the freedom to get rooked by the car makers into putting thousands of dollars into the only investments which lose value with time) we depend on railed transport less then most other countries, so its even higher in other nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
About Railway movement:
Britains Industrial revolution, and then that of the rest of the world might never happened as quickly were it not for railways.
Going to Scotland from London in 1850 took 8 hours on a train, before it could take a week.
If we scale it into the timescale of Civ 4 then movement should be instant regarding railways- It took King Harold only 3 days to march his victorious army from York down to Hastings to fight the Normans- still considered incredible to this day by historians, in the context of foot-slogging for a tired consript army.
Sooo, If you start in 4000BC, then once Railways occur, then yes, movement is certainly instant by comparison.
For large nations like the US, then from a military point of view Air travel might well seem more logical should a rapid mobilisation ever be needed.
From a European point of view, with much smaller nations, the railway system remains our quickest method, with the fastest French and German trains able to travel at 350mph, rather than a plane at 450mph, the capacity of the train still wins in Europe, and the railway network will get you to almost anywhere.
Regarding Military and Railways, Britains were built for industry, begining in the 17th C, passengers came late, Bismarck in Germany built the entire network to connect military bases to borders, and again passengers were an afterthought. Surely Bismarck would be spinning in his grave within this game, were not movement instant upon it, from a military perspective, relative to speed of Warfare at THAT time?
Toby?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Shogunner,
I find the modern era extremely boring.
I want to play for longer in the other era's, but Civ 3 rushes through the interesting period in no time at all, leaving us with the bloody railway+ era.
Most don't want it, but the programmers are obsessed with making us all suffer it, regardless of the game title.
Shiny metal rails are great- but I'd like to spend a lot more time before I have to see them. Shiny metal spears fits more with the evolution of Civilisation (real historical one that is).
By the time you have the choice to build railways, the game should be nearly over, not beginning as it tends to be.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
Actually, Rails were used extensively by both sides during the US Civil War to bring newly formed units to a few days march from the front lines. As well as transfer units from one theater to another. (Again bracketed by a few days march.) The North had faster effective rail because the northern side had pre war already been standardized, while the southern side featured several incompatable train gagues.
On WW II and Germany, yes, but past that point for the Russian campaign it was rail thru Poland, and then by foot once the ex-USSR was reached. And those that fought as part of the major german thrusts generaly had to get there on foot.
The idea for the US Interstate system was a military one when it took two months during WW I for a unit from San Francisco to get to St Louis. (Ike's) During the 50s though, the big city mayors successfully got the system to connect major cities instead of going clear around them. This led to suburbia greatly expanding along the interstates, and also contributed to rural population far from interstate declines while rural population along interstates stayed the same or increased. It also led to the bussiness centers of towns virtually relocating a few miles over, especally as non-Interstates started adopting the interchange model. As anyone going a good sized distance along a US Interstate knows, the divided highway allows them to still carry traffic in both directions thru construction zones. Including presenting two seperate targets for bombers trying to take out bridges.
Light rail is also popular in Chicago, downtown Portland, download Atlanta, and downtown St Louis. (For those who both live and work in a conventent enough location) Much more efficent than the buses that are stuck in the same traffic jams the cars are.
In many cases the US Highways have taken over the earlier role of railroads. Inter-city rail in the US is very unpopular (except for the North East) Generally much faster to drive than take Amtrack. And in many cases it would be cheaper on the US govt to hire taxis to transport the few passengers than operate the train.
Europe has the population density to support intercity rail, the US does not [except for the NE]
The big difference between the German autobahn and the US Interstate highway system, is that there is a speed limit on US interstates even when there are 10+ miles between exits in sparely populated areas. In the 70s, Montana was forced to put a speed limit on highways (and several others forced to lower them.) The other choice was no federal highway funds. Montana was in the dozen that placed it in their state law that the fine for exceeding 55 MPH on interstates is a flat $1.00 no matter how fast the driver was going and whenever the feds abolish the national speed limit it would immedately revert to the pre speed limit status. (A few other states placed the same $1.00 fine as well.) The Texas Highway Patrol manual for a while read don't pull someone over for speeding on US Highways unless they are going over 85 MPH unless they are also presenting a traffic safety problem [excessive weaving] The Feds caught on and so they took that guideline off their manual and made it an oral one with no paper trail. The ironic thing in Montana under the no speed limit rule is that average speed droped by 1 MPH. Montana had reverted to a $68 fine for going "too fast for road conditions" and people weren't quite sure what too fast was. (Montana's Highway Patrol said under ideal conditions, 100 MPH, but cautioned that most of the citizens would say that's too fast.) Montana legislature a few years later voted in a 70 MPH limit. I doubt it's enforced for those going under either 80 or 85 unless needed as a tool to get weaving drivers off the road. (Like the rest of the US where the speed on expresways to get steady speed drivers pulled over is generally 10 or 15 MPH above the posted limit.)
quote:
Originally posted by Melboz99
Sorry if I didn't read everything, but here's my take on things.
Railroads have never really been used by the military. I mean, come on, what military today rides the rails?
What we need is an improvement on the road system.
What I'm talking about is upgrading all those dirt roads to interstate (or autobon if you prefer) highways.
Think about it, what did Hitler do before making his invasions? He built the autobon, the first nation wide highway system.
That is how Hitler got all his troops on the border of Poland so fast, he built a highway to it. He did not advance on Rails, rails were use for shipment of goods and supplys, not military personel.
Furthermore, what brought about the great urbanization of America was the American interstate highway system. America would not be where it is today without it.
Sure, rails are what moved people great distances fast in the 1800's, but that was then, this is now. Today very few people ride the train (at least in America) execept for the morning commute on the subway or the L.
When the vast majority of people need to get somewhere in todays world they hop in their car/truck/suv and get on the highway.
This includes the military. I have seen plenty of military vehicles moving on our highways here in America. One time I was on my way to northern Wisconsin and for about 3 hours of the 6 hour trip, we saw military vehicles of all types driving the opposite direction. There were hundreds of them, all moving 60-70mph on the interstate, NOT the railway.
And oh yeah, for those that don't know, America's Interstate was based on the German Autobon.
Dan O. |
Last edited by joncnunn on 08-03-2005 at 02:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
OK, lets analyze this...
You respond to Maq's post when he says civ4 might have a propped up AI because it is a distinct possibility the designers will keep the 'crutch' of infinite RR. And this is a possibility because infinite RR has been part of the entire Sid civ franchise.
The thread is titled 'Keep Infinte Railroad', meaning that people should probably post opinions on why it should/should not be in the game. I posted that it is a crutch - and clarified the reasons when asked (as it was initially posted by GenMet).
Here's the part that was not clear...
At the same time, in the initial discussion, you do not post that you are against infinite RR. In fact, your initial comment can be taken that you were pro-infinite RR, as it comes across more as a knee-jerk reaction to the poster who is clearly against infinite RR...(and I'm sorry that I do not have the time to track through all of the threads on this site just to get your viewpoint on this - it certainly was not in this thread until your last post)
Perhaps you should of posted this instead...
Words that may go good with crow, and a bit of salt. But I would like to see infinite RR removed because...(list opinions here)
Hey, I have hope for civ4. I'll glaldly eat crow if the AI in civ4 is good. I play games because I enjoy them, not because of some sort of blind loyalty to a franchise or creator.
But I will also realize that if infinite RR is in civ4, that AI will be propped up in the same way that it is now in civ3 with its AI bonuses/AI see the entire map/AI slanted trade agreements, and so on.
I hope I'm not sensing some sort of a personal bias against Maq and I... (my guess is that it's probably there anyhow) But, as I said before, and will repeat here, it's just a game, and in the great scheme of things, is not all that worth getting worked up about...
enjoying a good laugh at work
Last edited by hexagonian on 09-03-2005 at 21:47
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-02-2005 20:19
to your post.
|