27-07-2002 08:52									#1
	Railroads are just **** Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Insert the ugliest negative title you can think of. Railroads are teleporters that instantly move your units across the world in an instant. I don't like it.

Suddenly, when they are built, the need for strategic positioning of your troops is gone. You don't need a navy as badly because ships do not zip across the map. You make a lot of cavalry and tanks and never think about it. I hate this.

To Firaxis, and the PtW team: Please change this! They should be limited in how many people they can transport. They already give food and production bonuses. A nation without coal shouldn't be doomed, and that is the way it is currently. Please reduce the effectiveness of this brain dead style of late game playing. It would highly improve the late game part of Civ 3 that many feel lacks any sense of real strategy, besides making a lot of 3 movement units and seeing who has a bigger stack.

Anyone with me, we must band together and combine powers, or we will never defeat railroads! Go go Apolyton!

	27-07-2002 08:58									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You're right. Any suggestions of how to create a better model for railroads?

Concerning sea transport, I would really like a "sealift" which would automatically transport one unit from one port to another.

	27-07-2002 09:04									#3
	Support Apolyton

RRs give free food and production, they are already very powerful! I think they should give 5 moves to a unit with 1 movement, but function as roads for mobile units. How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical. They are designed for foot soldiers. I think this would make infantry, paratroopers, and marines better. Mech infantry shouldn't replace infantry because infantry is not obsolete even today.

	27-07-2002 09:10									#4
	Put an end to popups!

I'll agree with this. Railroads should be reduced to 1/5 or 1/10 movement. I think, however, that this should apply to all units and should not restrict cav, tanks, etc.

	27-07-2002 09:13									#5
	Suffering from ads?

Tanks and cav have too much of an advantage. They should pay for their bulk because they have so much power.

	27-07-2002 09:22									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical.

Totally disagree. This is where railroads SHINE! The efficiency of using rails over hundreds of miles FAR outstrip the use of roads with heavy equipment. Fuel efficiency (and associated mechanical breakdowns), especially. Just ask the US Army.

I also would prefer a non-infinite movement on rails, perhaps just a static 20 tiles (regardless of Movement Points), in addition to non-rail movement.

OTOH, I see how any rail movement bonus is totally arbitrary, and 'infinite' simplifies the AI planning immensely. It also goes hand-in-hand with the defender's advantage of the attacker losing road/rail benefits.

	27-07-2002 09:26									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Rasslin, I think that mobility is the major advantage of a tank. Why would you want to purposefully weaken it? You might end up with a strange situation where troops actually move faster in the industrial age than the modern age simply because you want to power down tanks. The disadvantage of tanks is their high cost and many resources needed... whether they are balanced or not is a different argument, but it seems arbitrary to go about balancing them with railroad speeds.

	27-07-2002 09:27									#8
	Suffering from ads?

I gotta chime in here... infinite movement is absurd, and negatively impacts game-balance.

What was the Civ2 movement ratio for RRs?

	27-07-2002 09:28									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Civ2 also had infinite movement on rails.

	27-07-2002 09:39									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If you're talking realism (as the guy with the "Cavalary can't move by railroad" line apparently was) RRs make perfect sense, as it would take a lot less than a year for a unit to move across a country. This is why the rather restricted movement range of naval units makes little sense- modern warships taking upwards of five years to make their way around a land mass? But if you're talking gameplay, then I've definitely got to agree. Not only does it remove any need to defend smartly on your own part, but the way the AI uses RRs is incredibly annoying (ever tried a late Industrial /infantry amphibious assault, only to have your units decimated by cavalry that comes in, hits, then retreats to a city halfway across the continent? Not fun at all.)

	27-07-2002 09:53									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Unrestricted railway transportation portrays one of the game's most accurate representations of how industrialization revolutionized the logistics of modern warfare and trade. This is especially true when viewing each "turn" as representing one-to-five years. I would find no rules of physics violated by allowing machines and personel to be relocated within such a generous timeframe within one's own national borders. Seems a no-brainer, really... .

What "bothers" me is the molasses-slow movement of infantry units. It seems a bit whacky to begin a coastal D-Day infantry invasion in the industrial age, only to have the enemy research mechanized infantry by the time you reach their capital. Talk about a long walk!

I know, I know - this was implemented in the interest of game balance etc. etc. But you've got to admit, it would have made for some interesting variations on history. Hitler sets out for Poland in 1939, and arrives in 1954... .

	27-07-2002 10:01									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The production bonus should be removed, shouldn't it?

	27-07-2002 10:30									#13
	Remove this text

i would just make it so citiex connected by rails had the "airlift" ability. you would only get the 1/3 movement bonus on them, but you could teleport instantly to a city, wasting ALL your MP.

	27-07-2002 11:45									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 Civ2 also had infinite movement on rails.

Yes. However, they took the first positive step by not allowing you to rail around in an enemies territory. All that is left is to abolish the unlimited number of units using the unlimited movement on freindly rails.

	27-07-2002 11:47									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

PS. I really like how the general idea of how they have limited air transport (dependent on the number of cities with airports).

I would limit rail movement to a number of units equal to the number of cities connected to the rail net. If I had my way.

	27-07-2002 11:55									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

RRs giving infinite movement rate is ridiculous. It removes the need to place your unit strategically.
RRs should give either 3+X of movement rates or a flat movement rate for all units, let say, 10 for all units.

	27-07-2002 12:46									#17
	Got spare money?

I think the game should have little sappers that tunnel underground and blow stuff deep up in enemy territory. Then, the tunnels could be used to move troops in. We would need some way to get them there fresh though, crawling in tunnels is hard work.

Probably be best to make some new units. Barrel makers to make, well, barrels. Packers to well, pack in the troops. Then pumpers to pump the tunnels full of water, the pressure of which would shoot the barrels of troops through. We could do a neat animation of the barrels popping up out of the ground and smashing back to earth with the troop landing on its feet firing!

Of course such a tunnel could only work if it originates from a tile with a river until electricity. But, duh, you knew that.

	27-07-2002 12:58									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I would give RR's 1/16 movement and production/food bonuses for all cities connected to your capital. This would encourage people to build up a rail network, but not plant railroads on every square.

	27-07-2002 16:05									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: i would just make it so citiex connected by rails had the "airlift" ability. you would only get the 1/3 movement bonus on them, but you could teleport instantly to a city, wasting ALL your MP.

Good solution. It would make it much harder to repel invasions... altough cities could still be super-stacked.
The idea of them making infantry movement faster is also good. Prehaps infantry could get 1/9th movement cost on RR.

quote: I think the game should have little sappers that tunnel underground and blow stuff deep up in enemy territory. Then, the tunnels could be used to move troops in. We would need some way to get them there fresh though, crawling in tunnels is hard work. ...

	27-07-2002 16:12									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jaybe ...Just ask the US Army.

Or the Prussians (Germans). After all, they were the first to use railroads for mobile warefare during the Franco-Prussian war.

I agree with you all, in theory. In reality, I've been spoiled by civ2 and civ3 and as I found with my brief stint with CTP2 it would get very annoying...

I think it should have been capped BUT railroads with no limits have been part of civ strategy for too long.

quote: Originally posted by Thomas Paine What "bothers" me is the molasses-slow movement of infantry units. It seems a bit whacky to begin a coastal D-Day infantry invasion in the industrial age, only to have the enemy research mechanized infantry by the time you reach their capital. Talk about a long walk!

Yes-that is ridicolous. 'Infantry' should be able to procure transport on the way to battle with horses/jeeps/trucks - whatever!

They should have 2 movement, but that would be a tank... I have a feeling they lowered the tank (from civ2) to only 2 because of the Panzer (3). A 4 point panzer would have been too much.

	27-07-2002 19:24									#21
	Suffering from ads?

I think the answer is to limit the number of units you can move freely on your rail network per turn. After all, in the real world, rail transportation is limited by the number of railway cars available. Perhaps notyoueither's idea of limiting it to the number of cities linked is a wise one.

	27-07-2002 19:48									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"Rasslin, I think that mobility is the major advantage of a tank. Why would you want to purposefully weaken it? You might end up with a strange situation where troops actually move faster in the industrial age than the modern age simply because you want to power down tanks. The disadvantage of tanks is their high cost and many resources needed... whether they are balanced or not is a different argument, but it seems arbitrary to go about balancing them with railroad speeds."

The strength of the tank is its power. It already have 2 movement, and is very powerful. Modern armor is too easy to use and very unfair because the winner is whoever has a bigger sod. I am glad there is average scoring because the modern era is messed up as it is.

I would go with Uberkrux here.

	28-07-2002 00:58									#23
	Support Apolyton

As much as I love Civ 3, I must agree that the infinite RR movement does take out a large strategy factor.

I think they should be 1/6 the movement (i.e twice as effective as roads . . . nothing fancy). Even this number, however, may be too much. That's 18 tiles in one turn for your modern units! This would cover most of the continents I've seen. Perhaps it should only be 1/4?

The idea of "airlifting" a unit from one city to another connected by RR seems like a good idea. Two questions though: will each city have the ability to only handle one unit? (too restrictive, in my opinion) . . . and . . . can this be easily done with "stacked" units?

	28-07-2002 01:27									#24
	Some thoughts Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree with the suggestions that rail movement should be limited. Anywhere from 10 to 20 tiles would be fine. I do not agree with the suggestion that rail movement should not apply to mobile units, such as tanks and cavalry. This would be unrealistic, as military history clearly supports such movements.

One thing I would do in order to force strategic defensive deployment would be to allow troops that are unloaded from transports to retain their normal movements when they are unloaded. Requiring them to wait a turn renders them dead meat. In my current game, Germany has landed 3 boat-loads of tanks and MI positioned against a city and poised for attack. Of course, I've been able to easily wipe them out before they could take any action. If they had been allowed to move when they first landed, I would have had to have been well defended or I would have been in trouble.

	28-07-2002 01:35									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with everyone else here. Along with the lack of better use of naval combat/sea routes, the problem with 'teleporting' railroads is my biggest problem with Civ 3. I beg of Firaxis to make that editable in PtW... it just takes so much strategy out of the late game, and will make MP defense nearly impossible to break, since humans know how to use defense much better than an AI can.

What I think should be done: Limit the distance and number of units that can move in a railroad per turn (no doubling/trippling movement), and make it cost 1 gold or so to move it (railroads don't run for free you know).

Unfortunately, I highly doubt these changes will be implimented in PtW.

	28-07-2002 01:42									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

You are all correct, I think.
Everyone has a point in a way or another.

We really should be able to EDIT the properties of railroads (and other terrain improvements as well)
in the editor so that every one could modify railroads to their liking.

Personally, I HATE railroads as they are now.
It gives the human player too much of an advantage.
In addition it is extreamly ugly whit the railroad-spider covering every possible space on the map.

If there would be anything to do about it, I would instantly remove food/production bonus the railroad provides and reduce its movement bonus from unlimited to 1/6 moves.

I would re-introduce farmlands and introduce the concept of advanced mines...oh, but sadly this is just a dream...=(

-S

	28-07-2002 04:02									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Railroads should offer a flat bonus to all units. not a times of the movement rate.

Why whould a tank move 3 times as far as infantry for example? Trains all move the same speed

Perhaps speed.movement could be determined by current tech level.

	28-07-2002 04:35									#28
	Support Apolyton

To be honest, I don't see any simple sollution to this.
Allthough I've seen a couple off good suggetions, it's
gonna be pretty difficult to change it. You would almost need to redo the whole game IMHO.
Still I hate it and consider it a gamebreaker.
This is where I usually end my games and start a new one.

	28-07-2002 06:21									#29
	Put an end to popups!

I also agree that infinite movement for railroads is overpowered. The movement rate for railroads should be editable, like it is for roads, with 0 = infinite movement.

One thing I liked about the CTP/CTP2 series was how railroads (and their futuristic replacement, maglevs) did not confer infinite movement. In CTP/2, I think roads were 1/3, railroads 1/5, maglevs 1/10. A movement-3 unit could go 30 squares in a turn, but the movement was not infinite, and you were forced to position your troops carefully throughout the game.

	28-07-2002 09:40									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree RR's are way too powerful as now implemented. Limiting them, or giving us the ability to limit them, would be nice. You could just stick it the same place as the road move setting in the editor.