06-07-2002 18:29									#1
	Eliminating roads and railrods (mostly) Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Another question for you guys - maybe this should be in the Creation forum, but the general forum has always gotten me the best responses, so here goes.

Most people had hoped that with Civ3, we would be spared from turning the map into a tapestry of roads and railroads. Alas, this is not the case - in fact, the Civ3 graphics REALLY make railroads sorta look like a mess!!

Why are there railroads and roads all over the map?

1) To connect cities.

2) Production and commerce bonuses.

What I would like to do is replace #2 (am open to just affecting railroads on this). You obviously still need roads to connect between cities, and railroads if you want to exploit the infinite movement (bug) of rail. But to have to cover the map just to maximize production makes the map, frankly, look like $h!+.

So, I'd like to create the following city improvements:

1) Highways - can be built after construction. When built, will give any worked tile a +1 commerce bonus (just as if it was covered with a road).

2) Carriage House (or Rail Station) - can be built after Steam Power. When built, will increase production in a tile by say 50% (or +1 if you can make it work like the railroad bonus works now).

Can anyone tell me if the above is even possible? I can't find a way to add production to a tile from a city improvement at least in a way close to how railroad works now (the only way I see is to add it like a factory), same goes for highway, no way to see +1 commercer per tile. If anyone knows a sneaky way to do this, and the best way to then to tell the AI to STOP BUILDING ALL THOSE DAMN RAILROADS, let me know. I just want a map that looks kinda the way planet earth does - roads and railroads that actually lead somewhere, not just all over the map for a +1 bonus...

This will be the second type of change I've made to the game to improve the map - I also readded the railroad bonus to forest, so the map wouldn't look like a deforested wasteland (I get a production bonus from mining grassland, but not a forest? Frigging please...). It has worked to VERY good effect so far, though maybe the AI just hasn't gotten around to deforestation yet!

Thanks so much in advance, a few more changes (culture flip slider please!!!) and I'm gonna have to pronounce Civ3 as my favorite Civ game (still pissed about the expansion pack though).

Venger

	06-07-2002 18:48									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

"Culture flip slider" - Best idea i've heard all day

	07-07-2002 23:48									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Come on guys, ideas please!!

Venger

	08-07-2002 00:24									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Venger Come on guys, ideas please!! Venger

hi ,

maybe with the new editor , ......

have a nice day

	08-07-2002 03:03									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Here’s a couple of suggestions, they aren’t a fix but they may help out visually.

Play on a warm, wet world. All that jungle does a nice job of hiding the gray spaghetti. Of course you should probably build a few hospitals.

Get Rickk’s “The Burbs – Urban Sprawl” from the files section. I’ve found that it at least gives the mess a reason for being there. There are also some other threads with graphics that cut down on the tangle.

Or, you could sit down with a healthy supply of your favorite adult beverage, stare at the screen and contemplate untying the Gordian Knot…

	08-07-2002 04:44									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think it's possible for now.
Best to wait the new editor.

	08-07-2002 07:22									#7
	Yes Railroads/road sprawl ruin Civ3 Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As soon as I get railroads the AI is history even when they are way ahead. Prefer CTP way of road/railway/maglevs.

	08-07-2002 08:39									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by panag maybe with the new editor , ......

When are we getting the new editor anyway?

	08-07-2002 08:42									#9
	Roads in Master of Magic Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Master of Magic was a great game that played like CIV with a fantasy atmosphere. That game also had cities and roads, and units that needed to travel on the roads.

In MoM, it was never necessary to cover the map with roads to gain bonuses. To gain a gold bonus from roads, all that had to happen was for a city to be connected to neighbouring cities by a road. I think this would work well if adapted for CIV3.

	08-07-2002 09:17									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I very much like Venger's idea to replace the production bonus given by roads and rails. It is very much like my idea to get rid of all terrain improvements, and leave only roads and rails for transport bonus. Things like this would make a much better game where your time was spent less on irrigate/mine decisions and more on fun strategy.

	08-07-2002 12:30									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'd also like to be able to stop singing the "here a road, there a road, everywhere a railroad" song myself. I've seen Venger's proposal before and thought it was exactly the way to go as soon as I'd read it. The only current strategy, if it can be called as much, with roads/RRs now is which ones to build first. Eventually, of course, they'll be built all over the place. And they have to be built, unless you *want* to live with sub-optimal production levels. Abstracting the trade and production bonuses makes complete sense. It would also, BTW, reduce the need for so many workers needleessly clogging up your processor every AI turn....

Using roads/rails for unit movement, strategic/luxury access and international trade only would greatly boost the strategic importance of roads as well. Rare is the middle/late game that doesn't have a spider's web network of redundant roads linking everything to everyone. If roads were costly to build and maintain (you'd have to have some sort of upkeep payment to deter the same "build 'em all" problems you've got now), it'd be tough to run multiple roads willy-nilly. You'd have to link up just what you wanted, but this would make it easier for your enemies to deny you the same.

Sadly, I doubt this could be actually implemented with the current state of the AI. Even if it could work out the pathfinding and simply build roads from A-Z (without hitting every letter in between), the AI would invariably fail to grasp the strategic significance of its own roads and would therefore be even easier to beat.

But still, it's a damn good idea.

	08-07-2002 13:12									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I love the idea but even re-introducing the farmland/supermarket combo would already make me very happy. It was a very bad to get rid of them.

	09-07-2002 02:44									#13
	Support Apolyton

There were a couple of posts on the same topic at civfanatics. My favorite idea (probably bcs it was mine) was to make road/railroad an *exclusive* improvement - you can mine, irrigate, *or* road/railroad a tile. Mine is +1 shield, irrigate is +1 food, road is +1 commerce, and railroad is no bonus. Also, there should be an upkeep cost for RR (but not for roads), perhaps 1gp/turn/5 RR tiles, and there should be a small movement cost for RR, perhaps 1/12 mvmt pt per tile. Failure to pay the upkeep on RR causes it to degrade to road. I don't want to get into arguments about "realism" or "historical accuracy" - I think the appeal is in game play.

This way, roads and RRs are not cost-free additions. Everything in Civ should be a balance between benefits and drawbacks. With the exclusive improvements, players will be forced to balance increased production/food/commerce with the better movement. The result will be define transportation corridors, perhaps 1 or two RRs or roads from each city to another. A more robust and redundant transportation network costs you in lost bonuses, and actual gold for RRs. With the defined transportation corridors, there will be strategic significance to capturing RR junctions or high terrain along certain RRs or roads. Suddenly, paratroopers and helicopters will have real utility because there will be limited and defined transportation routes which can be blocked, particularly at bottlenecks.

By having RR have a nominal cost, you will now have diversionary tactics while still preserving the historical role of RRs as assisting in interior lines of defense. With the nominal movement cost, you can move all of your forces from one side of your empire to another in one (or at most two) turns along the RRs. But you cannot move from one side to another in the same turn. Thus staggered attacks at different points will force players to *commit* forces to one front or the other, taking chances that they have committed enough forces, but balancing the need to keep a reserve and to attack on the other front. Now you will see players engage in defensive operations at one area to conserve troops/arty to be used offensively on another front.

Also, you should get a modified mvmt bonus when using roads/RRs in enemy territory. Roads should cost 1/2 a movement point - not as good as your own roads, but still some bonus. Enemy RRs should function the same as enemy roads - 1/2 mvmt point per tile. In this way, there's a cost/benefit to roads/RRs near your borders. It greatly speeds your units to the front, but also somewhat speeds the enemy, thus you have to choose between the speed for you and for him. Road/RR building on the border will thus be an indicator that a Civ is taking an offensive posture.

I have seen ideas on other threads for having dedicated "rail units" to transport troops, etc. The game doesn't need more units to move (I'm gettiing carpal tunnel w/ all the clicking already) or more complexity. With simple changes to already existing rules, Firaxis can increase the strategic depth to the game without making it more complex to play.

	09-07-2002 22:31									#14
	Suffering from ads?

The simplest solution would be to implement an "advanced irrigation" (ala Civ II farmland) and an "advanced mine" to Civ III. That way, the roads would still be there, but RRs wouldn't need to be.