 |
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
My new Idea is something along this line:
Road = Movement-Costs/3 as normal.
Railroad: [Fixed Movement Points] * [Fraction of Movement the unit still has left]
Lets show the Idea by an example:
Lets assume [Fixed Movement Points] = 12
An Infantry Unit (MP = 1) walks one tile along a road until it gets to a RR-Tile (so it still has 2/3 of its MP left).
Now it can still move 2/3 * 12 = 8 Tiles by Railroad.
A modrn Artillery-Unit ( 2 MP) which moves 1 Tile along a road before getting to a Railroad-Track could still move 10 additional tiles by RR (5/6 * 12)
Why Do I think this Idea might be interesting?
Roads enhance the movements of all units by letting them move along a plain surface instead of moving over uneven ground and maybe thick underbrush.
But all units movion on roads do it by their own means of transportation, Foot-Soldiers march along the roads, tanks drive on the road.
So it makes sense to multiply the movement-Points of the units (or reduce the movements costs per tile to a fraction of the original MP-Costs).
Railroads on the other hand let you change your means of movement. Foot Soldiers as well as Tanks use the same means of transportation if they use a railroad.
But of course, a unit which already spent a fraction of the turn by moving on a road, won´t get as far by train as a unit, which embarks on a train at the beginning of the turn.
This is what is reflected by my multiplying the MP of the train by the Fraction of Movement the unit still has left.
You could also use it very well with multiple embarking/disembarking (for example a unit with 2 MP could move 6 Points per Train which costs it 1 MP, then move 1 tile of road (so it still has 2/3 MP = 2/6 of its former MP) and then could still embark another train and travel 4 tiles (2/6 * 12).
You could also implement Maglevs this way, which would use the same system as Railroads but just be faster (for example 15 or 18 MP instead of 12)
IMHO this system is still easy to use and yet reflects reality better than the previous systems used by Civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
inca911
|
|
St. Paul, MN
Jan 2000
time: 05:28
|
|
In a theoretical sense, I agree that RRs should allow any unit to move up to a fixed number of tiles per turn. The unit needs to move on to the RR tile and still have movement left to "catch the train". After that, the train is moving, not the unit itself so accounting for fractional movement is unnecessary.
However in gameplay , I don't want to micromanage transportation. One solution would be to have RRs multiply the movement base of the unit. A Cavalry that moves 3 on flat ground, and 9 on roads (3x), should be able to move ~18 on RR (6x). The multiplier for railroads would need to be tuned by playtesting and would be an easy way to limit transportation.
Railroads should have some small upkeep cost to eliminate rail-sprawl. A method to keep the unit on the railway in the direction the player is giving should be implemented to facilitate gameplay, perhaps holding down a key while moving keeps the unit on the road/railway. I RR every square of my empire partly so I can move units quickly without worrying about losing movement. It's awful when you accidentally step off a road moving a critical unit to the front, as that is a three turn penalty (one turn penalty for stepping offm one to step on, and then one to move the squares you should have moved the first turn).
It's ridiculous that I can have a ship come into port, unload units, and they can be in the AI empire on the far side of the continent and involved in an attack on the same turn. Whatever the fix is, infinite movement is a broken concept and the game will be better with some limitation in place.
Last edited by inca911 on 21-07-2005 at 19:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patcon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
aren't you contradicting yourself there? If a tank having spent nearly all his movement points gets on a train, how does this affect the movement of the train? On the contrary, shouldn't the tank be able to profit from the train's movement points now that he's on it? |
As I understand Proteus' idea, a railroad system is essentially like a commuter system with trains running continuously at a set speed (range per turn) and units simply boarding the RR and riding as far as they can go in the remainder of their turn.
Example:
Imagine a (very quick) turn is from 8:00 until 9:00.
Trains move one (very small) tile every 5 minutes, giving 12 MP per turn.
A tank uses 1/4 of its MP to reach the RR, arriving 1/4 of the way though the turn at 8:15; the tank then boards the RR and rides from 8:15 until 9:00, which is 45 minutes or 9 tiles on the RR.
An infantry unit uses 1/2 of its MP to reach the RR, arrives at 8:30 and rides for 30 minutes or 6 tiles.
A cavalry troop uses 2/3 of its MP to reach the RR arrives at 8:40 and rides for 20 minutes or 4 tiles on the RR.
A cannon already at a RR boards at 8:00 and can ride for the full 60 minutes or 12 tiles.
This allows for the possibilty of embarking and disembarking on the same turn - The tank above boards the RR at 8:15 and rides only 6 tiles or 30 minutes, disembarking at 8:45 allowing the tank to use the remaining 1/4 of its MP in the rest of the turn.
If improvements to RR increase the range, "departure" times would be adjusted accordingly. So if steam trains have a range of 12, then the turn is divided into 12ths, if diesel trains have a range of 18, then the turn is divided into 18ths, etc.
How this works in the previous example. Let's use a range of 20 to keep things on even minutes.
So "trains" depart every 3 minutes (8:00,8:03,8:06,etc.) and travel 1 tile every 3 minutes.
The tank still arrives at 8:15, boards and can ride for 45 minutes or 15 tiles.
The infantry arrives at 8:30, boards and can ride for 30 minutes or 10 tiles.
The cavalry arrives at 8:40, missing the 8:39 departure and boarding at 8:42, and can ride for 18 minutes or 6 tiles. (Don't you just hate it when you miss one train and have to wait for the next one?)
The cannon is there at 8:00, boards and can ride for 60 minutes or 20 tiles.
One shortcoming is the immediate embarkation and disembarkation, but this could be handled by having these activities use up "time".
One question that would have to be answered is how to handle rounding. If any infantry unit has 1/3 MP, can it move 1 (non-roaded) tile, as is the current case?
I like this idea even better than my "train unit" idea, in that it takes into account the time element of movement. If a turn is 1 year and a tank takes 2 months to reach the RR, how can it ride the RR for a full year?
Original source citation - sorry I'm a nerd
My idea on handling the time issue is based on the movement system of an old board game, Star Fleet Battles. This is a turn-based, simultaneous-movement game with ships that had different movement rates. All the details may not transfer to Civ, because SFB usually has one ship per player; it is possible to control multiple ships, but this is a major management issue. The way it works is that there is a planning phase between turns where you allocate your available resources for the coming turn and set ship speeds. A turn is then divided into "impulses" based on the fastest speed chosen. Depending on a ship's designated speed, it might or might not move in an impulse. Other actions, such as firing weapons, can be done in any impulse, whether you move or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patcon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by inca911
In a theoretical sense, I agree that RRs should allow any unit to move up to a fixed number of tiles per turn.
However in gameplay , I don't want to micromanage transportation. One solution would be to have RRs multiply the movement base of the unit. A Cavalry that moves 3 on flat ground, and 9 on roads (3x), should be able to move ~18 on RR (6x). |
But the multiplier effect produces the situation where tanks travel faster on rails than infantry, when in fact the opposite should probably be the case.
The idea proposed by Proteus doesn't introduce MM issues while making RR work the same for all units.
Sorry if my last post was redundant, given other repsonses. I try to make my posts thoughtful and complete, and I'm an incredibly slow and poor typist.
Last edited by patcon on 21-07-2005 at 21:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patcon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
if the previous Civs are anything to go by, the maximal speed on roads was 9 moves per turn |
Actually, a Modern Armor Army had a base movement of 4, so could travel 12 road tiles per turn, but your point is well-made. By the time MA is around, you should have been able to upgrade your rail system from steam to diesel-electric, so if steam came a 1/12 multiplier to movement on rails and diesel-electric increased (decreased actually) the multiplier to 1/18, then it would still be better to send MA Armies by rail than by road.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
evilnerd15
|
|
Perhaps the railroad should offer 10 free movement points. But perhaps there could be some sort of high-tech futuristic transportation system which would be offered at the end of the modern age. It which would act the same as railroads in civ3. You would be able to go anywhere on the rail instantly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
This whole discussion suffers from a lack of consensus as to what exactly the problems are with railroads and how significant those problems are. I myself don't think that the players' ability to shuttle units around is the only thing that constitutes military strategy in civ. I think the status quo is better than any alternative mechanism I've seen, and there are much larger dragons to slay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AeonOfTime
|
 |
Overclocking DOSBox
Nov 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
@hexagonian: I think different players have different preferences |
Good point. I guess we are forgetting that Civ is also such a great game because it allows a huge palette of playstyles.
I like railroads and the unlimited movement because it simplifies keeping track of your army a lot. This is how I normally proceed:
I gather and stack all units in one place, with one stack for each unit type. That way I know how many cavaleries, infantry, tanks etc. I have at my disposal for that turn - a great help for deciding what I will be able to do... destroy those attackers at spot x, then add some defense to city x, if I have enough units left, maybe even attack city x.
The next turn, I regroup all units that are able to fight, add any newly built units to these stacks and move all units that need healing to a city near the gathering spot and I start all over.
That would be impossible to do without unlimited movement - I would have to take into account how far I can go with each unit, keep track of where units are built, and in case there are several battle fronts, manage each one separately.
So I like unlimited movement as it gives me more flexibility and because it is much simpler. Then again, I would not refrain from buying Civ4 if that feature is out - I would have to adapt to the new way of handling things, and if it is a fractional movement modifier, fine - I like changes and finding new ways to adapt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
I don't know - I think different players have different preferences.
|
Which is exactly my point. Different people think different things are different problems with differing degrees of significance. As a result, you won't get any consensus on what the right solution is.
People who think rail blight is ugly will buy into maintenance. People who think infinite movement are unrealistic will prefer making railroads more like ordinary roads. People who think unlimited infinite movement is too powerful will favor capacity limits. People who think it's the production bonuses that suck will favor just getting rid of those. And then there are the people who may agree with any and all of those problems but think all of the proposed cures are worse than the disease.
At this point, I'm in the last group. I'd rather have infinite movement, warts and all, than the micromanagement hell of capacity, the inconsistency (with other types of improvements) of maintenance, or the pointlessness of roads++. I realize I'm overlooking some of the other proposed solutions, but I'm just summarizing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
Go to the last part of my last post - instead of hardcoding the feature as 'infinite movement' Firaxis could give rails the ability to move a near-infinite number of tiles (plug in a number like 1,000,000,000 as the baseline and for all intents and purposes, you have infinite movement) and people could do what they want through the editor.
Something that Firaxis had refused to do for rails up through c3c...This little omission in the civ3 gamecode had locked the game into this format with no means to alter it, other than to move rails to the last tech in the game.
That's why I keep hammering on the point. Give players the means to change it so they can keep rails in some sort of format in the game. I'm not opposed to rails, but the inability to format it to better suit deeper strategic considerations is frustrating.
To put it in perspective...
I can easily create infinite rails in CTP2. I can also give them any kind of production/commerce/food bonus that I want. Heck, I can even make them cost gold/production/or food on a turn-by-turn basis.
I cannot do the same in civ3, and I hope that is not the case for civ4.
Last edited by hexagonian on 26-07-2005 at 01:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Go to the last part of my last post - instead of hardcoding the feature as 'infinite movement' Firaxis could give rails the ability to move a near-infinite number of tiles (plug in a number like 1,000,000,000 as the baseline and for all intents and purposes, you have infinite movement) and people could do what they want through the editor.
|
Ok, sure, whatever. I don't care about the mods. I want the official game as released to be good. I think most of the people who say that the solution is to mod the game will do so and then play about 10 turns before changing it back. It's a much more complicated issue than people seem to think, which is why there's no consensus. Everyone sees a different part of it.
Incidentally, your suggestion is quite likely unnecessary. It's a way of making infinite railroads work in the official game while allowing mods that change that, assuming that the only way to do it is by changing a number in some data file somewhere. That's not really a good assumption to make. For one thing, they've been emphasizing the customizability of the game. For another, that only would enable one of the proposed alternatives. It leads proponents of maintenance or capacity out in the cold. In theory, Firaxis could make those settable parameters as well, but there are other ones that wouldn't be so easy, and there's a limit to how much you can reasonably parameterize things. They might as well just expose the implementation code and let people have at it directly, which is what I expect they'll do. It's just far easier for them and for us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2005 14:03
. I don't see how it creates any more micromanagement than a mutiplier (to me, it makes no difference, MM-wise, if a unit has 6 or 18 moves), as long as the RR move is faster than any unit not using RR (if the previous Civs are anything to go by, the maximal speed on roads was 9 moves per turn - if RR gives everybody 10 mpt, then nobody will wonder whether it's more interesting to use RR or simple roads)
), RRs could immediately grant 12 moves. That's much less broken than raising the multiplier IMO, and it could give a nice but balanced tactical advantage to modern civs over lagging ones 
|