29-11-2002 04:56									#121
	Suffering from ads?

On the face of it, Sandman, I like your rolling stock Idea. The only problem I see is that, as you've described it, it might be open to some abuse.
What I think might work is to only count the number of railroad tiles that physically connect 2 or more cities in the rolling stock equation. Of course a better solution would be to make Civs pay maintainance for every tile that contains rail improvements. This will, hopefully reduce the abuse of RR's, regardless of what system is ultimately used (and eliminate RR sprawl-which is UGLY!!)
Another way of doing this, without Rolling Stock, is to give a RR square a "Capacity Rating". Simply put, this limits the number of units which can travel THROUGH (not onto) a square containing a RR (say 6-8/turn). In addition, a foot-unit might have a capacity of 1, for instance, wheras a tank or MA would have a capacity of 2 or even 3!! This, I feel, would elminate the problem you identified of disconnected RR contributing to empire wide Rolling stock, as it is calculated on a tile by tile basis. The only real problem I see is, as you said, will the AI know how to use it??

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	29-11-2002 05:42									#122
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither PS. I really like how the general idea of how they have limited air transport (dependent on the number of cities with airports).

Yeah, that's the paradox. Air is limited, Rails are free.
In my opinion both should be limited, but given some bonuses to growth perhaps...

	29-11-2002 11:29									#123
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Of-topic, but how do you think a population decrease when creating units (they gotta come from somewhere...) would affect the speed and flow of the game?

	29-11-2002 12:22									#124
	Solving the railroad problem with the Editor Inflate your Upload Space

I figured out and tested a solution with the editor. First, make railroads very difficult to build (e.g 50 turns). Next, create (or modify an existing unit) to make a train. A train requires coal and iron. It can move 6 tiles, which makes it 18 tiles through roads. It can transport 5 or more (it is up to you).

The end result: a game where workers can't build railroads fast enough, a train that can move foot units for 18 tiles on roads !

In my testing, I gave the train an attack of 0 and defense of 4 (immagine WWW I Turkish trains). The train could load and unload foot units. To do that, you have to check the unload in the Editor. You also have to check the "load only food units".

If you want to test it fast, go and modify the mobile armor unit and make it a train. Do not forget to uncheck the load button and check the unload button (just like a ship but a land-based transporter).

My test did not involve a full game. I will try it next but I wanted to report the idea. No more unlimited railroad moves for all units!

	29-11-2002 15:06									#125
	Re: Solving the railroad problem with the Editor Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Explorer579 I figured out and tested a solution with the editor. First, make railroads very difficult to build (e.g 50 turns). Next, create (or modify an existing unit) to make a train. A train requires coal and iron. It can move 6 tiles, which makes it 18 tiles through roads. It can transport 5 or more (it is up to you). The end result: a game where workers can't build railroads fast enough, a train that can move foot units for 18 tiles on roads ! In my testing, I gave the train an attack of 0 and defense of 4 (immagine WWW I Turkish trains). The train could load and unload foot units. To do that, you have to check the unload in the Editor. You also have to check the "load only food units". If you want to test it fast, go and modify the mobile armor unit and make it a train. Do not forget to uncheck the load button and check the unload button (just like a ship but a land-based transporter). My test did not involve a full game. I will try it next but I wanted to report the idea. No more unlimited railroad moves for all units!

Let me get this straight. With your mod a foot soldier could move 18 tiles, but a mech Infantry, or tank would only move 2 (they could not move on the train with the Flag "only transports foot soldiers"). Hate to be blunt but this is perhaps the worst idea I have seen for RR's. Increased micromanagement, eliminate mobility for armor, and slow down the game even more than it already is. Your mod might be interesting to Saddam, who needs protection for MAs but you can count me out of this idea.

	29-11-2002 15:17									#126
	Inflate your Upload Space

Make movement on RR cost money and you've solved the problem. People will use rails only when they really have to.

	29-11-2002 16:51									#127
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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

Ermmm... Do you have any idea how difficult it is to move a tank over long distances without rail?

The Germans tried in Russia, and that didn't go to well.

A tracked vehicle will tear up normal roads, and break down a lot. Not to mention consume huge amounts of fuel compared to rail...

That said: I don't like teleporting rail either...

-Alech

	29-11-2002 19:16									#128
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I imagine they could send panzers/cavalry by rail...they send enough things...I dunno...

I like railroads the way they are. They're plenty realistic enough (as it does not take more than 1 year to cross the country, as someone else said.)

	29-11-2002 19:35									#129
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Tattila the Hun Of-topic, but how do you think a population decrease when creating units (they gotta come from somewhere...) would affect the speed and flow of the game?

Tattila,

I've tested mods with a population cost for the units and it slows things down a little so that wonders that would have been finished by 500BC were getting done by 500AD or later.

It doesn't slow down the AI's expansion any, but it does limit the number of units in play.

What it did hit home from a modding PoV, was that many improvements and wonders were too easy to build both in terms of resources and requirements. For example, to build the Great Library, I would make having a library already a prerequisite, and a harbour a prerequisite for the Great Lighthouse.

Getting back on topic for this thread, since it took about 20 years to fully link British Columbia to Nova Scotia in Canada, making it ridiculously hard to build railways won't work well.

I think that if the editor can be made to cooperate, all a railway should do is give a bonus to trade and/or production for a city, the same way the happiness bonus from luxury resources comes into effect when the city is connected to the capital. If the railway offers no other bonus, you can leave the movement as unlimited, and there won't be a point to covering the map with rails. Just a simple connection will do.

This would greatly affect game balance and make it necessary to adjust the effects of tile improvements and buildings to compensate since you wouldn't be making enough gold. Railway Tycoon uses building improvements to increase the revenue of each train that passes through, so if you add a train station, a hotel, railyards etc... it would increase the gold generated.

Another point to consider is that this would make trade much more important since trade was the main driving force behind industrialization and railways. Move more goods and people to increase profits. If you increase the gold generated by having a port and trainstations, and you have another driving force to build improvements to better your economy.

I'll have to see what I can do with the editor, but this is a major change to the way the game will play. You may not be able to afford keeping 300+ units in the field even on the largest maps.


D.

	29-11-2002 19:46									#130
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Akaoz Ermmm... Do you have any idea how difficult it is to move a tank over long distances without rail? The Germans tried in Russia, and that didn't go to well. A tracked vehicle will tear up normal roads, and break down a lot. Not to mention consume huge amounts of fuel compared to rail... That said: I don't like teleporting rail either... -Alech

Akaoz,

Just as a point of historical reference, my grampa was an officer in a Panzer division at the opening of Operation Barbarossa. The division started with 310 tanks and after covering 600 km in a week, they were down to 5 working tanks. Not a single combat casualty, all were mechanical breakdowns.

For that reason, the logistics tail in a tank unit is about 10 times the number of men in a tank crew. Only aircraft need more maintenance and repair to keep them working. From the mechanics to the armourers and drivers bringing fuel, ammo and food to the clerks recording it all, it's like a small city on the move.

Imagine if we had to contend with keeping supply lines open...


D.

	29-11-2002 23:43									#131
	Re: Re: Solving the railroad problem with the Editor Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber Let me get this straight. With your mod a foot soldier could move 18 tiles, but a mech Infantry, or tank would only move 2 (they could not move on the train with the Flag "only transports foot soldiers"). Hate to be blunt but this is perhaps the worst idea I have seen for RR's. Increased micromanagement, eliminate mobility for armor, and slow down the game even more than it already is. Your mod might be interesting to Saddam, who needs protection for MAs but you can count me out of this idea.

My train cannot move big tanks! I haven't seen a train that can carry big tanks in real life. So I limited mine to carryng soliders. However, you can build a more costly train that can move tanks and mech infantry. The idea is to have a game that simulates logical lines of supply.

	30-11-2002 00:41									#132
	Re: Re: Re: Solving the railroad problem with the Editor Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Explorer579 My train cannot move big tanks! I haven't seen a train that can carry big tanks in real life. So I limited mine to carryng soliders. However, you can build a more costly train that can move tanks and mech infantry. The idea is to have a game that simulates logical lines of supply.

The M1 Abrams (the graphic model for Modern Armor) is wide and it is heavy. The US Army can only rail it on well maintained rails and there are other restrictions -- they take CARE.

OTOH, the M1 is moved, and for sure you wouldn't see it taking long travels on roads in this country! For extended travels, railroads are still definitely the way to go.

--
I have taken away modern armor's ability to be airlifted.

	30-11-2002 01:53									#133
	Support Apolyton

The way to supply a modern army even in the twenty-first century is by rails. Trucks are great for moving small amounts of cargo but when you are moving heavy equipment such as a 70 ton main battle tank then you are forced to move these by rail. Rail is the cheapest and heaviest mover of equipment to this day for cross country travel.

For those of you advocating eliminating the production bonuses for railroads keep in mind that these represent the increased ability for people in cities to produce goods and for farmers to get goods to market. Civ 2 represented this with the supermarket/ farmland/ superhighways improvements that were eliminated in civ 3. Also giving increased values to tiles to compensate will change the ancient era too much to be of practical benefit.

Jaybee:

The M1A1 can be airlifted by C-5's but I do think that a unit should be created (and built) to be able to airlift these monsters.

	30-11-2002 02:28									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Solution!

I kind of skimmed the forums, but how about this:
EDIT: I mean, I kind of skimmed this thread, this thread.

Two kinds of RRs:
-Regular RRs: Take same no. of turns to build; just can only transport foot units. (Of course, they still give the food/production/commerce/whatever bonuses.)
-High-Maintanence RRs: Take 1.5, 2, or 3 times as many turns to build, but can carry anything regular CivIII RRs carry now. (Regular RRs are a prerequisite on that tile for High-Maintanence RRs.) Maybe the High-maintanence RRs can cost 1g/t too if necessary, to prevent people from just blanketing their nation with HMRRs after R-RRs. All these Rs are making me dizzy....

	30-11-2002 02:34									#135
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Hey! I just noticed! Just hit Prince! Woohoo!



Or, we could have

the Teleporter: discovered with Future Tech 5 or 10 (although most people will beat the game by then), these can teleport any unit any where in your territory even over sea, INSTANTLY.

Or teleport your unit into another unit to kind of suicide-attack them

	30-11-2002 02:35									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell Solution! I kind of skimmed the forums, but how about this: EDIT: I mean, I kind of skimmed this thread, this thread. Two kinds of RRs: -Regular RRs: Take same no. of turns to build; just can only transport foot units. (Of course, they still give the food/production/commerce/whatever bonuses.) -High-Maintanence RRs: Take 1.5, 2, or 3 times as many turns to build, but can carry anything regular CivIII RRs carry now. (Regular RRs are a prerequisite on that tile for High-Maintanence RRs.) Maybe the High-maintanence RRs can cost 1g/t too if necessary, to prevent people from just blanketing their nation with HMRRs after R-RRs. All these Rs are making me dizzy....

Now if you could just design the game engine to incorporate these changes, and change the AI algorithems to make use of the changes, then you might have something......

	30-11-2002 06:56									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Bomber,

I was just looking through the editor to see if my idea was even possible: no good.

Unfortunately, Firaxis has put all these settings into the executable instead of making them scripted. Needless to say, I don't think we could even build train units and get the AI to use them properly, since they didn't compile the game with them.

All we can hope is that they take some of the suggestions here and incorporate them into the next version.

D.

	30-11-2002 12:43									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Gen Dragolen:

Exactly, most of the RR functions are hardcoded into the game engine and cannot be changed by us mere mortals. The only possible quick change that the firaxians could implement is to allow movement rates by RR to be changed in the editor (which IMO would only be appropriate if the timescale was also changed) Anything else would require a change in the game engine and AI algorithems, which would take the firaxians some time to implement. And as we all know the Firaxians are busy at the moment trying to get MP to work properly.

	04-12-2002 11:43									#139
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber Gen Dragolen: .... The only possible quick change that the firaxians could implement is to allow movement rates by RR to be changed in the editor .....

You can change the rate of movement on roads but not that of railroads. Unless I miss something in the editor! Please advise.

	04-12-2002 12:29									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

explorer:

No, you did not miss a thing. I was stating that this is something that Firaxis could do, they have not allowed the RR movent rate to be changed in the editor so far.

	07-12-2002 03:46									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Maybe they should just add a new type of road. It shouldn't be that difficult to have a trail-road-railroad path!

In my opinion, 3 moves on a road is too much in the ancient era, really. It should be 2, not 3. In the middle ages, roads could give 3 movement, as usual. Railroads would then follow. If you can't change RR movements in the editor, you could use the trail as a way to have 2 different custom road movements.

	07-12-2002 04:15									#142
	Forest and Trees Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Trees: Infinite RR movement.

Forest: Combat speed = development speed

The real problem in civ, as far as accuracy and playability, has always been that the units move either too slow or too fast relative to the development speed. This, coupled with city-discrete construction sends realism out the window and makes playabilty real tough.

For example, it can take hundreds of years to create a warrior unit in the early game. That is generations! Heck, the game turn is longer than the prehistoric average life-span! And if it really took 200 years to move a military unit from one city to another, it would be impossible for a despot to control the civilization.

Another example: in the modern game, the spaceship is the only thing that cities can cooperate to build. This is totally contrary to reality, in which the simplest items are manufactured from parts supplied from all over the world.

The jump from 1/3 movement roads to infinite RR is just another symptom of this overall 'disease'.

On the other hand, I have played games that tried to make production more realistic, and they suck. What makes civ such a great game is that the overall mathematical scheme is built up from basic building blocks that are single digit (read: human comprehendible) numbers. This is really the genius behind the civ franchise.

	07-12-2002 05:00									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Here's a thought: Give Expansionist (probably not) and Commercial (hey, why not?) civs some discounted buildings!

You know, a train station could ALSO improve commerce in the city by a little bit (say 10-25%?). After all, rail trade is nifty. Or perhaps it could double Wealth, making it actually maybe useful? Then discount it to Exp and/or Com civs. Everyone else gets the waystation transport benefits, of course, some folks just do it better.