15-05-2001 17:46									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Put me down in the camp that would like to use the "TRAIN" concept. And expand it to roads using "TRUCKS". A road would allow foot units double movement but a truck would allow considerably more movement. As previously stated, this would make attacking a continent more realistic. You're not going to ship any trains on a transport. You will have to make a beachhead, take/build a city then build trains and attach to a rail network. And definitely limit how much a train could hold. And have movement points required for loading and unloading trains. You shouldn't be able to unload a thousands of troops off a train and do a coordinated attack on the same turn. Train are very vulnerable when unloading.

And to all you that are complaining about moving one square in 20 years, GET OVER IT. Buy a traditional wargame where the game's real time is only a few years. We're talking about a span of 6000 years here, so there is no way to represent reality based movement without the game taking years to play.

RAH

	15-05-2001 18:13									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Thats what I was just about to start writing when I saw your post Rah.
You have to have a boat to navigate the ocean and you need a train of some sort to navigate RR tracks. I like the idea of having trains....of course you'd need to limit it's movement per turn, otherwise you'd only have to have one train....and that would be silly

While we're on the subject, lets have paratroopers that actually jump out of planes and planes that can actually carry cargo!

	15-05-2001 18:24									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I assume the motorised nature of modern infantry formations is the only reason the movement points increase. Our legs haven't got that much longer

	18-05-2001 02:26									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As JellyBean pointed out in the "Near Infinite Movement Model" thread, why is there even a multiplier for railroads?

I mean, do trains on railroads travel faster because there are tanks on them as opposed to slow units like infantry?

Perhaps a fixed speed for all units on RRs makes the most sense!

[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 17, 2001).]

	18-05-2001 03:45									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Let me give everyone my idea about the railroads issue. How many times have you seen a tank travel by train? Or even by airplane? I think that tanks and mechanized infantry should not be able to travel by rail, or even be airlifted. Perhaps artillery, howitzers, and cannon should not be able to use a railroad or be airlifted as well. I think that there should be an improvement for railroad, such as a highway, that provides cheaper movement for all ground units, including tanks, mechanized infantry, cannons, artillery, and howitzers. Perhaps moving on railroads should cost 1/10 of a movement point except for tanks, mechanized infantry, howitzers, cannons, and artillery. It would cost them 1/3 of a movement point (as if a road was alongside the railroad). It would cost all ground units 1/20 of a movement point to go on highways.

Just my ideas.

Jonny

	18-05-2001 06:25									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually, rail is how most heavy machinery and heavy vehicles are transported. Tanks, artillery, missiles, etc. are shipped by rail primarily because there isn't any better way of transporting them. You can't take tanks on the highways without damaging the roads for other cars. You also want to conserve fuel to actual combat and let the rail-line do the legwork. Aircraft can also transport tanks, just not a lot of them.

I agree with the FIXED movement of railroads and the use of TRAINS as well as LOAD/UNLOAD costs. Unlimited rail mvt is totally unbalancing.

As for using enemy rail lines, how about just having to transport the locomotive? I'm not sure how often it's done today, but back in the late 1800s steam locomotive engines were shipped by sea to countries/colonies without the ability to construct them. The box cars were usually locally built since these were simpler.

	19-05-2001 19:00									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-15-2001 04:20 PM In some end-games I have conquered almost half the AI-empire within that critical first HP-turn. Many of those AI-cities where fortified with rather attack-potent bombers and missiles for example, but to no avail. They simply didnt get any FAIR change to retaliate. Much (if not all) of this have to do with the faulty RR "unlimited moves" and "unaffected combat-strength" rules.

[*]requiring an invader to capture all hexes along a railroad.[*]adding a rule that says a unit cannot attack more than once after moving on a railroad on the same turn. The reverse also holds true: a unit that has attacked more than once cannot move on a railroad on the same turn.[*]railroad movement cannot be combined with non-railroad movement: a unit must start its turn in a railroad hex to use railroad movement.[/list]


[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2001).]

	20-05-2001 03:54									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Make railways much less effective, and only become really useful when Diesel Electric trains are invented.

I ALSO think terrain should affect movement EVEN with roads/RR etc , even a Railroad has to go over some slopes and twists around hills, slowing it down further than hills.
Infantry can walk faster across mountains than vehicles in some cases, 2 legs are efficient over highly rugged terrain, though roads do help vehicles the most I agree.

RIVERS there shuld be a penalty for crossing rivers, just takes 2 MP's to go on or off a river between nonriver tiles. Unless theres a bridge.. otherwise youd need barges or maybe ponttoon bridges to cross.

There should be more done to stop mass tank Blitzkreigs..
things like rivers or brocage tank traps/mines and slower roads could help make it more realistic.

Admiral Pete