How to get around ugly roads on mountains

Ralf · August 8, 2001, 14:08

Most of us think that current roads on mountains just doesnt look that good. Click this screenshot and you get the picture.

Couldnt they camouflage the problem by (besides colonies & fortresses) only allowing roads/RR:s to be built IF there is a mountain-fortress or -colony already there?

This way mountains becomes much more of challenging obstacle in Civ-3. More challenge = more fun.

Sabre2th · August 8, 2001, 14:19

They shouldn't try to cover it up, they should just fix it. It's not realistic AT ALL to block mountain roads like that.

Ralf · August 8, 2001, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th
They shouldn't try to cover it up, they should just fix it. It's not realistic AT ALL to block mountain roads like that.

I should have guessed it.

The game must adjust to 100% realism-demands - not the other way around: realism-demands adjusting to whats best for gameplay. And of course - as always:

Not a word about how/if the idea could enhance game-challenge and gameplay of Civ-3.

Ecthy · August 8, 2001, 16:00

we should be able to build roads wherever we want. and they're not supposed to look plain ugly on hills mountains or forests.... they really should fix it... of course, 1005 realism sucks coz it's annoying in many ways, but civ is a strategy simulation, not a text adventure

N35t0r · August 8, 2001, 16:15

Not only roads above mountains, but roads above resources (and some stuff which looks like a mine also)

I think that resources should be on top of all...

Ralf · August 8, 2001, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
we should be able to build roads wherever we want.

OK then - they probably let you do that anyway.

But in order to avoid those dense & ugly end-game spiderwebs of roads, they should really let roads on each and every city-area tile, be somewhat of a mixed blessing.

The Civ-2 team thought that Civ-1 style railroads on each and every city-area tile simply looked ugly, so they adjusted the RR-benefits and introduced improved farmland. The Civ-3 team should push these adjustments further somewhat with roads also.

Ralf · August 8, 2001, 16:17

double-post

Ecthy · August 8, 2001, 16:51

like in CTP then?

the trade bonus roads give is too strong, that's true, that's why CTP has less roads in a game: no trade bonus

Ralf · August 8, 2001, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
the trade bonus roads give is too strong, that's true, that's why CTP has less roads in a game: no trade bonus

I dont think that no trade-bonus at all is possible, considering the cost for unit-support, city-improvement support and what else.

Roads must give trade-bonus (at least on some terrain-types), but perhaps irrigated tiles without roads give you maximized food-bonus, while irrigated tiles with roads give you halfed food-bonus (but max trade-bonus). Something like that. This is what I mean with "roads should be a mixed blessing" in termes of food/trade-bonuses.

Ecthy · August 8, 2001, 17:47

nice one!!

but it might lead to strategies like getting food from somewhere sle and only building roads around the cities.... get the point? they should abolish the trade bonus and give trade for road connections to other cities and for trade resources... the city square might produce a basic amount of trade as well... but I doubt we can impact it anymore

eNo · August 8, 2001, 20:06

Though the roads do look ugly as they are, finding an alternative without changing the rules or ease of play is difficult. If they re-work the road graphic into the mountain graphic so that the road goes through the mountain, it'll probably be harder to see if the mountain tile has a road already and to which of the neighbouring tiles the road attaches too. How many ways can you tell the player "This tile has a road"? A little road icon in the corner of the tile would be silly....

CivIII roads may look ugly but real roads are ugly too. They're ugly grey lines criss-crossing the countryside. But they're there because they do much more good than harm. Plus a road going through the amount of land that a tile represents shouldn't really have an impact on the tile's productivity.

yin26 · August 8, 2001, 21:28

Notice how the cities sit on top of the roads? Mountains will be the same way by release time...

Shadowstrike · August 8, 2001, 22:42

Why don't they just make up another half dozen terrain tiles to show a road going "around" a mountain? Other then the possible code messes that would cause, there isn't taht much of a problem.

Urban Ranger · August 9, 2001, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf
Roads must give trade-bonus (at least on some terrain-types), but perhaps irrigated tiles without roads give you maximized food-bonus, while irrigated tiles with roads give you halfed food-bonus (but max trade-bonus).

Why is that? Considering a square is hundreds of miles on each side, what kind of a negative impact a road has on it's food production capabilities? None whatsoever.

Ralf · August 9, 2001, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why is that? Considering a square is hundreds of miles on each side, what kind of a negative impact a road has on it's food production capabilities? None whatsoever.

OK - but have you any alternative, perhaps more intuitive ideas how "infinite" dense road-spiderwebs can be deterred, or at least not ONLY beneficial?

Some civers have suggested roads/RR:s having a slight gold maintainance-cost. In the domestic advisor-screen the expenses are divided between: science-funding, corruption, maintenance (of city-improvements, but perhaps also roads/RR:s), unit costs and payments to other Civs. Maybe road/RR support-costs is a better solution.

Ralf · August 9, 2001, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why is that? Considering a square is hundreds of miles on each side, what kind of a negative impact a road has on it's food production capabilities? None whatsoever.

I just thought of something.

If a square symbolize "hundreds of miles on each side" (isnt that a slight exaggeration - to put it mildly? 400 miles, for Gods sake; thats Copenhagen to Stockholm give or take) - and that square is irrigated: does that mean we should interpret that as agricultural farms laying shoulder by shoulder, covering 95% or more?

Of course not. An irrigated square only means "mostly food from that square" - no more, no less. It doesnt say anything about farms laying densly packed near each other.
So irrigated squares with roads could very well symbolize halved food-bonus, but full trade-bonus. I really hope that they introduce something like this, so the player must do some fun prioritize-considerations.

N35t0r · August 9, 2001, 16:26

actually, i agree with echtelion...

make trade come from resources and connections with other cities...

And early lux/sci/gold should come from specialists.
Well, maybe not Gold; that should come from pop. in a pop/unrest
inversly proportional scale (i remember seing that somewhere)

And actually, science has come from specialists since the beginning of time... The development of food production enabled certain people to stay in the village and think while others harvested more food than they had haunted before...

Of course, this would need a slightly increased food output, and more irrigation bonuses (+2 food for grass, hills and plains at least)

I wanted to do a civ scen like this, but you can't remove the trade

And i think that rivers should provide a bonus like caravan trade does in Civ 2 (ie, "River, +3 Trade") the larger the city the more the trade. and maybe a small food bonus in the tile; or a river tile gives half the irrigation bonus with no work, and irrigation costs half (and gives the extra food). And also, irrigation should only be allowed on hills, grass and plains... and MAYBE tundra, but only +1, and no river food bonus...

Ecthy · August 9, 2001, 17:10

thanks for the appreciation, hsfb, the others seem to care less for opinions of those who don't post here regularly

kolpo · August 9, 2001, 17:14

there is an easy way to fix the ugly mountain roads and that is also realistic: tunnels. You only have to drawn the entrance the rest is invisible.

kolpo · August 9, 2001, 17:16

oh and have you noticed a city is building a new solar system

Provost Harrison · August 9, 2001, 17:18

I was hoping that trade will come from connections to other cities. However this gives a massive incentive to ICS though, so I suppose after investigation, maintaining the road per square gives trade must have been the best option.

However visually, the roads need to weave through valleys, not levitate above the summit

I still state that the screenshots seen have been in a perculiar order, as some of the more recent ones have overlapping borders whereas older ones don't. The screenshots are quite haphazard, so just wait and see!

Ralf · August 9, 2001, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
thanks for the appreciation, hsfb, the others seem to care less for opinions of those who don't post here regularly

Im not careless - if that suggestion was given 18+ months ago I might have commented more. Its just that we already know for a fact that roaded tiles produce green dollar-signs.

Check out this screenshot and see for your self.

Provost Harrison · August 9, 2001, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by kolpo
there is an easy way to fix the ugly mountain roads and that is also realistic: tunnels. You only have to drawn the entrance the rest is invisible.

Yes, not only did the Romans build roads but the roadtunnel under Mt Blanc as well

The roads should meander through the valleys in hills and mountains, around the bases of the peaks.

Ecthy · August 9, 2001, 17:30

Ralf - it's OK, I can live with the shame

PH - exactly, that is how it should work, but is it as simple as it sounds? well, I hope they put some effort into it...

Grumbold · August 9, 2001, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I was hoping that trade will come from connections to other cities. However this gives a massive incentive to ICS though, so I suppose after investigation, maintaining the road per square gives trade must have been the best option.

Not if the trade income was balanced to be more dependant on city size/improvements. Another potentially nice idea we won't see in Civ 3.

CtP/II did make you only build those roads that were necessary to the smooth interconnection of your empire and was visually superior for that reason (among others). Any tile that is being worked for its resources is bound to have many roads spring up simply to transport the resources, yet we never see those. Still, with them taking a traditional approach I'm prepared to have to spaghetti roads all over my territory.

Ecthy · August 9, 2001, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Not if the trade income was balanced to be more dependant on city size/improvements. Another potentially nice idea we won't see in Civ 3.

CtP/II did make you only build those roads that were necessary to the smooth interconnection of your empire and was visually superior for that reason (among others). Any tile that is being worked for its resources is bound to have many roads spring up simply to transport the resources, yet we never see those. Still, with them taking a traditional approach I'm prepared to have to spaghetti roads all over my territory.

first of all, I have to admit I didn't think of the ICS aspect

but then, if the trade bonus depends on the city size and improvements, the ICS problem is not that significant anymore. it's actually quite a good idea... well, we can hope there wil be a CIV 4

as for your second point, that's actually what I liked about CTP, apart from PW.... the fact you only build roads for transportation means, not for gaining as much trade as possible... like in a Civ2 ICS, where you build many cities next to each other, add some roads to the terrain and viola, 3 techs per turn

Provost Harrison · August 9, 2001, 18:28

Actually that is a very good point Grumbold, to make trade dependent on the nature of the cities connected, although it could make trading in the early phases of the game difficult...

shade · August 9, 2001, 18:43

Wow that was pretty bad.
CivII graphics do much better on that part.You really see in these graphs how they past 2 or 3 layers of images on top of eachother=> very bad.
The only good solution I see is creating a set of roads for each terraintype an then add 2 or 3 lines code(it really isn't more than that) to draw them perfectly.

God those things are ugly,bad,bad,bad.

Shade

Ralf · August 9, 2001, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by shade
CivII graphics do much better on that part.You really see in these graphs how they past 2 or 3 layers of images on top of eachother=> very bad.

Actually, the Civ-2 team used the exact same technique. Its just that the roads where thinner and the mountains was significantly less protruding, so the problem was camouflaged.

shade · August 9, 2001, 19:11

I know,but there it was ok with the terraingraphs,here it's a nightmare.(in cases like this i would even dare to suggest to leave terraingraphs like civ 2 and only change the rest,but i think that then the units will look bad on the terrain.)
=>draw new roads seems the only sollution(and add those 2 lines of code)

Shade