Civ IV

[Darth_Schmarth]

It'd be nice to see the AI improve its war strategy too. How about making sea-borne assaults that actually consisted of more than two swordsmen, who just become sitting ducks on the coastline? Unfortunately, I heard they intend to keep infinite rail movement. That single-handedly eliminates any reason to think strategically when deploying your troops, and causes any AI land-attack in the post-industrial era to go awry. It seriously needs to go and that's been the case since Civ1, but they just don't seem to get it.

[alanschu]

I don't mind the railroads. It lets have wars that actually consist of frontlines.

[metadigital]

There should be more ways to depose a foreign government ... inciting or performing a putsch or ever assassinating the whole cabinet (on a plane flight or some such, so that there is a chance the event will be regarded as an accident).

 

After all, that would allow for less national army fontal assaults. (Okay, it's going to invalidate all the techniques currently employed as balancing: combat of units that are production objects from the past years' of each civilization ... so what?! It'll be just like a Community Chest card in Monopoly.)

[Darque]

Agreed. Even the "Americans" led by Abraham Lincoln (back in Civ2) used to get expansionist on my border ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Uh, hello, ghandi when nuclear on me once

[alanschu]

Well, surely you've seen what Ghandi became, when you watch the movie Ghandi II

 

 

(it's a movie in the movie UHF).

[Darth_Schmarth]

I don't mind the railroads.  It lets have wars that actually consist of frontlines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This argument is beyond me. There are no frontlines in Civ anyway, just stacks assaulting cities head on, instead of surrounding them and cutting them off. Only a supply system that doesn't even need to be all that complicated could create frontlines. The only trick would be getting the AI to manage and protect its supply lines properly, but don't come telling me that infinite rail-movement is the key to having realistic frontlines. It's the exact opposite, if anything.

[alanschu]

You can get fronts, by using railroads to bring reinforcements from across the country.

 

Just like WW1

[alanschu]

You can get fronts, by using railroads to bring reinforcements from across the country.

 

Just like WW1

[Calax]

methinks that he thinks that once you rail your stuff up to a certain point and meet the opposition it makes a front line. I would think that you wouldn't be able to cross rivers every where. It makes the idea of ww2 being just using russain tactics to get at people all the more attractive, and your troops/knights can swim!

"dum de dum de dum, I'll just swim this with a 200 pound set of armor, and i'll get across!)"

 

Also the AI should at least make an attempt to do what it has to in order to please you and your desires (NOT THAT WAY JODO) I had a pack of Celts declare war on me because i asked them to leave my territory. I also had Russia try to extort me from a continent away. Like I'm going to be scared of a pack of obsolete units coming at me from 20 turns away...

[Darth_Schmarth]

You can get fronts, by using railroads to bring reinforcements from across the country.

 

Just like WW1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fail to see the realism in bringing your entire army from one end of a huge empire to another in an instant like some freakin' giant strategic reserve. In WW1 the Germans moved troops by train, sure, but I don't understand how you can compare that to Civ? Of course railroad is used for troop movement in war, but that doesn't mean that it should take on absurd proportions that effectively ruin any element of strategic thought. The fact that land movement becomes faster than both sea and air movement is downright ridiculous.

[alanschu]

I don't think it's that ridiculous for it to become faster than Sea movement, considering fast boats move at like 40 knots, which is like 45 mph (and those are the destroyers.....bigger boats move slower).

 

 

But it's not faster than air movement in Civ 3. For air movement all you do is click "Rebase" and bam they're there.

[Darth_Schmarth]

I don't think it's that ridiculous for it to become faster than Sea movement, considering fast boats move at like 40 knots, which is like 45 mph (and those are the destroyers.....bigger boats move slower).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trains didn't exactly move at lightspeed in WW1, which you referred to earlier. In Civ they move at the speed of light, while boats have to make do with a few squares per turn. The imbalance between land and sea movement becomes painfully extreme.

 

But it's not faster than air movement in Civ 3.  For air movement all you do is click "Rebase" and bam they're there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I won't dispute that you can rebase planes around the world, that feature on the other hand has proper limitations. Rebasing consumes the turn, while troops moving by train can be moved infinitely and attack in the same turn. I don't know whether you've played the boardgame EuroFront (a WW2 game), but there you have an elegant system where railing is limited and won't allow combat in the same turn.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't think it's that ridiculous for it to become faster than Sea movement, considering fast boats move at like 40 knots, which is like 45 mph (and those are the destroyers.....bigger boats move slower).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trains didn't exactly move at lightspeed in WW1, which you referred to earlier. In Civ they move at the speed of light, while boats have to make do with a few squares per turn. The imbalance between land and sea movement becomes painfully extreme.

 

But it's not faster than air movement in Civ 3.  For air movement all you do is click "Rebase" and bam they're there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I won't dispute that you can rebase planes around the world, that feature on the other hand has proper limitations. Rebasing consumes the turn, while troops moving by train can be moved infinitely and attack in the same turn. I don't know whether you've played the boardgame EuroFront (a WW2 game), but there you have an elegant system where railing is limited and won't allow combat in the same turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It probably has something to do with how long a turn actually is in Civ.

[Darth_Schmarth]

The length of Civ turns is very loosely based in reality. It's only there for reference, and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. If the number of years per turn were the primary base for all movement, a modern-day war wouldn't take 30-40 years.

[alanschu]

Hmmm.

 

I can see a concession about travelling too far on a railroad limiting whether or not you can attack.

 

 

And I always edited my game so that boats (particularly the more modern ones) could move waaaay faster. I always did think that was dumb ^_^

[metadigital]

I don't think it's that ridiculous for it to become faster than Sea movement, considering fast boats move at like 40 knots, which is like 45 mph (and those are the destroyers.....bigger boats move slower).

 

But it's not faster than air movement in Civ 3.  For air movement all you do is click "Rebase" and bam they're there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And have you tried to travel by air, recently? It takes longer to get to-and-from the aerodrome than to actually fly to the destination.

[metadigital]

Hmmm.

 

I can see a concession about travelling too far on a railroad limiting whether or not you can attack.

 

And I always edited my game so that boats (particularly the more modern ones) could move waaaay faster.  I always did think that was dumb ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, neat idea! I think I'll do that next time I play, too. :D

 

For the record, I think it's pretty silly that rail travel is infinite. Then again, I think it is a game balancing issue, not a realism hook.

 

With rail being so

[alanschu]

They are eliminating the trade bonus of roads for Civ 4, in an attempt to get rid of the pointless networks of roads :D

[metadigital]

They are eliminating the trade bonus of roads for Civ 4, in an attempt to get rid of the pointless networks of roads :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Roads weren't in the same league of ugliness as rail, though.

 

Unless this means the raillinks will look more like the roads of Civ3 than the raillinks of Civ2 ... then that's a Good Thing.

 

[alanschu]

I suspect the rail networks will be less extreme too.

 

 

But besides, nothing will look bad with the new 3D engine :D

[SteveThaiBinh]

Rail makes the map look modern as you head into the modern era. I don't think it will be good if Civ4 has lots of virgin territory in the twenty-first century. Perhaps it would be better if they showed cities expanding, with houses gradually filling the catchment area. You could even have 'urban' as a terrain type.

[Darth_Schmarth]

Increasing sea movement is a must. I agree that it is all more about game balance than realism (realism never having been an influential factor in Civ), but on the point about removing trade income from roads I think it'll take more than that. There should actually be a certain upkeep penalty, since it's never a bad thing to have roads all over the place (if a roaded square is occupied by enemy forces it is still handy to have more road around it). You'd have to weigh the need for building road with the cost of keeping it travel-worthy.

[alanschu]

Well, you also weigh the need of building the road over building other improvements.

 

 

Rail makes the map look modern as you head into the modern era. I don't think it will be good if Civ4 has lots of virgin territory in the twenty-first century. Perhaps it would be better if they showed cities expanding, with houses gradually filling the catchment area. You could even have 'urban' as a terrain type.

 

Given the 3D map, I suspect this will happen.

 

You can already tell what tiles are being worked from the 3D map....I don't think it'd be too hard to make them look like they're being worked in a more modern way :D

[metadigital]

Rail makes the map look modern as you head into the modern era.  I don't think it will be good if Civ4 has lots of virgin territory in the twenty-first century.  Perhaps it would be better if they showed cities expanding, with houses gradually filling the catchment area.  You could even have 'urban' as a terrain type.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a good idea, Steve. Let's hope they've implemented it laready, because it's too late to suggest it!

[EnderAndrew]

I think the tile/layer they use for railroads shouldn't be so big or overbearing. It made your empire look a mess.