 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
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 |
Actually, he was just being a flaming *******, and I pointed out that he may be in for a course of crow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I was flaming who with the what now?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Notyoueither;
You have one of the best names on the internet, you have a lot of knowlege about the Civ series, yet still you disparage new players to the game by calling them "nOObies" or something like it.
Exactly how will this encourage new players seeking to ask an entirely innocent question about Civ 3?, and correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not once a nOObie as you call it your self? You became an "expert" by playing/repeating the task in hand.
I really dislike this type of attitude on the net- and there is no other option to the net- Why are you so special that you can call others "nOObies"- Do you instantly know all about a game the second you opened the box?
Nobody else on this board has this attitude, sadly you are the first to reply.
If I'm wrong, can I buy the "instant knowledge potion? you must have?
I personally start from the perspective that the questioner knows little or nothing of the game, or else they wouldn't have spent 10 minutes typing the question they want an answer to.
Bar that, how about a private email argument about attitude.
I am fully aware about the many crap posts I've made, whilst drunk or tired, but I'm not seeking to earn brownie points either.
I reckon if we met in a pub, we'd get on fine, as you'd have to explain your attitude to the "nOObies" that daren't post because of it, and I'd ridicule you for so doing, but we'd still have a laugh.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Rubbish!!
Have some faith in humanity!
Take people as is.
I look forward to us arguing this privately, but doub't you'll go for it.
You already assumed all questors were "emerging under a bridge"- What? Nah, not good enough mate, perhaps they were asking a question, plain and simple.
The only person that has made a stink is me, and I've been ignored due to it. I feel the game was poor. gave a few reasons why, but clearly stated I wish to move onto: Civ 4, not allowed it seems. I'm bored with Civ3- it's both a diplomatic and soldery nightmare, it represents neither whilst pretending to support both- It's crap.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I am against infinite rail movement.
For the same reason that other people already posted, i.e. that it makes defending your borders too easy (and boring).
Just create a system like in CtP, with Railroads giving the Units more movement points.
Not necessary the same amount as in CtP (where 1 MP could move you 5 tiles on Railroads instead of the 3 tiles on roads), maybe somehow larger (for example 6-10 tiles per MP) but not infinite.
All units should be able to move on Railroads (as in reality, you could load Tanks and other heavy equipment on trains) but every tile with a railroad on it should have an utilization limit so that for example only 12 units would be able to use a railroad movement bonus of a certain hex per turn, perhaps with heavy equipment like tanks counting as 2 units.
Ah for enemy units using your raiolroads, I think that it should be possible, but that the movement boni for railroads / roads within enemy territory should be lower than those in own territory (for example being halved) reflecting, that the enemy could have taken countermeasures against Intruders using their transportation system (for example mines) and also taking into account, that Units who wish to take the train in enemy territory first have to find a train engine and waggons to use (whereas the owner of the territory would know where the depots are andf just could tell them to move a train to a place he wants) and also reflecting the fact, that, at least during WW1 and WW2 you had armored which were sometimes patrolled the traintracks [and would have to be avoided by any enemy unit wishing to use the railroad system]
What about a system with simple Roads (allowing 3 tiles per MP), paved Roads (allowing 5 tiles per MP) and Railroads (10 tiles per MP)?
Whereas the enemy would get just 2,4,6 (with railroads having a larger malus, as it probably would be more difficult for the enemy to use the enemy railroad system than enemy roads)
*edited: It´s tanks, not trains, which should be transported on trains
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 11-03-2005 at 21:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xorbon
From a realism point of view, it would make more sense if movement on rails was fixed instead of dependent on movement points. That is, infantry should be able to go as far as cavalry or tanks when on rails. |
Good point.
It could give you plain 20 MP regardless of the type of unit (after which you couldn´t move the Unit you transported (as it has to be unloaded for the rest of the turn)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GreenCrescent
|
|
There are two reasons why infinite RR movement needs to be removed. First it doesn't sit well that you can move halfway across the continent in one turn with a cavalry unit on a railroad and then proceed to move across a whole enemy city radius and capture a city whilst a Modern Armor has to wait a turn after it has been airlifted. Wasn't the whole point behind strategic airlift be that it can get you somewhere faster than a train or ship ever could?
Secondly with inifinite railroads the game becomes highly defensive. It depends less on your position of attack (hitting the enemy in weakly defended area, like MacArthurs invasion of Inchon or the Schwartkopf's attack into southern Iraqand not just Kuwait in the first Gulf War), and more on how many units you have compared to your opponent. Limited railroad movement (1/4 or 1/5) will reintroduce a level of defensive strategy lost in the civ games once the industrial age rolled around. The industrial benefits of the railroad (like perhaps three extra shields for hills and two for plains) should be emphasized instead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
I'd go for stopping infinite Railway movement the moment the AI stopped cheating on knowing every unit you have in each city. Until then, it's needed to counter that huge cheat. (not having the reload facility would turn the game into a parody of Civ.
The publishers simply had to make research 8x/9x etc longer for a challenge on the harder levels, instead they wasted hundreds of hours programming in AI cheats.
The result was a game based upon cheating, rather than the players skill level, forgivable, but poor.
Why dovote all that time to cheating if you could simply programme the player research "power" at 1/10th of the AI speed? Simple.
I wish to to do as best I can, knowing the AI will simply cheat more on these higher levels is a real disincententive.- I have nothing to measure my performance against.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
infinite rail movement?!? Sure why not... but I wish it was different
unfortunately, the passage of time is the problem with CIV games, I'd like to see a system more like HoI and Eu2 where the passage of time is more realistic. That way, moving a unit across a large area doesn't take 200 years. |
Cheers mate,
Nice to get a bit of support about this attitude: a very few "seasoned" players have on a gaming board.
A player starts to learn a game as a new player, if he or she plays often enough they become "seasoned".
A decent "seasoned" player helps new players rather than deriding them for being a new player, they actually answer the question, however stupid it might seem to the seasoned player......
The sense of community and ethos of the internet may be lost if we get "you newbies" type of attitude for simply asking a question.
I certainly don't believe people sit there asking questions for the fun of typing:- they actually desire an answer.
Being called a "newbie" is a plain insult within the internet (now) as we are all "newbies" in any game we play at start. It has to be the most meaningless attitude I've ever witnessed in society.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wai_Wai
|
|
Features to Remove
RailRoad should not have infinite movement bonus.
Remove the +1 bonus to every railed tile
Reasons:
- it is unreasonable. How come you can move in anywhere in no time? A rail can be even faster than airplane...
- it standardized the strategy - build railroads at once and everywhere!
- you really need to place no defender in any city (except frontier cities). It's because when you see the enemy army attacking your weakest cities, you can send all your units in less than no time. That's really crazy!!
- it makes airlift... 
- it unbalances the gameplay
Features to Add
- fixed movement points by rail [all movements points are used after they leave the rail]
Reasons:
- No units need to walk themselves to the destination. Rather they take the rail. so they should share the same movement speed.
- Although they don't need to walk (use their own movement points), time is spent when taking the rail. So their movement point will still be deduced proportional to the fixed movement point by rail.
Eg:
A cavalry is 3MP, rail has fixed 20MP.
If we travel 10MP-long by rail, 2(1.5)MP of cavalry is used.
If we travel 20MP-long by rail, 3MP of cavalry is used.
You may imagine they take the rail in the morning, when they arrive to the destination, it is night already. So they decide to stay at hotel and continue the journey next day. If it is just afternoon, they make go further a bit until it becomes night. :P
Rail Station
Function: It's acted as a stop. Units can only be transported to nowhere but a stop.
Some options available:
a) Every city represents a rail station automatically as long as the rail is connected to the city
b) The rail station is a city improvement (which cost maintenance). It is available when a city is connected by rail
c) The rail station is a tile improvement which can be built in any railed title with restrictions imposed (eg limitations on distance between each rail station, so a player will not built rail stations everywhere)
General Bonus
- Bonus when we build rail to different cities (eg trade bonus)
- Bonus when we build rail from cities to mines (eg shield bonus) [NOt simply build a rail on the mine is not enough. Connection to the city is required!]
Reasons:
- If we can get bonus on every railed tile, we will build it everywhere which is not realistic in reality. (Have you seen any city building rail everywhere?)
- It is more reasonable for the bonuses we get. (I can't see why a railroad helps with irrigation on every tile. No government connect rail to farms!)
- The gameplay will be more balanced and diverse - we no longer reduce to crazy railroad building!
Last edited by Wai_Wai on 03-04-2005 at 04:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Wai_wai,
A fixed point system for rail movement would be great- having a single station at each city, and with railways only allowed between them would be the icing on the cake- but only if the AI didn't cheat on [knowledge of] national troop dispositions within your nation I feel.
Didn't an old game called the "US Civil War" (or something similar) use the system you describe?
Apart from the single terminal bug (on my PC) it was an excellent game and the rail use allowed was completely proportionate within the game.
Toby?
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 10-04-2005 at 06:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shigga
|
|
hm I came upt with something, what do you think of the following:
make th railroad an instant transportation device like the airport. It should work only with connected cities and should not give any movement bonus other than the "teleport". Limit the number of units a city can RECEIVE per turn, make it improvable through different buildings (f.e. trainstation +1, marshaling yard +1, depot +2, cumulative) and have them cost more upkeep. This would be a neat capacity limitation, because I agree with the others that commented it is not a matter of speed but rather one of capacity. Also, it would make for interesting offensive strats (the disruption of the enemy rr-network by bombarding key points, trying to bombard those above mentioned city improvements) and defensive strats (defending those vulnerable points, unit placement for defensive action). It would also make it crucial to improve your cities on the border either as a defensive measure or as part of war preparations.
Keep the bonus for terrain like hammers and food. But make it dependant on the city size. Larger cities = more goods. so you don't have a bonus per terrain unit but a bonus of like one hammer per city population point. The map won't be crowded with those rr's anymore since they don't give you a bonus through terrain inside the city radius.
EDIT: Come to think of it, make the same capacity limitation for airports, but give them a higher number of units they can receive per turn from start on (like 3 instead of 1 for rr)
WOW, this could actually work!!
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2005 09:15
Next round is on me!!!
|