Can't use roads during invasion?

[Harlan]

I have to agree with Trachmir that half speed on enemy roads is not just a compromise, but is in fact the best way to do it.

[Wexu]

Here's my thoughts: (I haven't read the whole thread..)

If I have understood right, you can't use enemy's roads if they are at enemy's control (Under city radius). I think that makes perfect sense and is quite realistic too. You can imagine there's many road guards (damn, my English sucks, sorry 'bout that) and that sort of things. It would be quite stupid if you had to put real units to guard roads etc?

So when you capture/raze city and the roads are no longer in any enemy's city radius, you can use them.

I hope you get the point.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think what everyone needs to remember about this rule concerning the use of enemy roads/rail is that it is an ABSTRACTION!! Basically, Firaxis aren't saying that the roads don't exist for enemy forces (which would be stupid), they are trying to say that movement along enemy roads/rail is slower for a variety of reasons. The most notable being a lack of local knowledge (especially of the presence of booby-traps/ambushes) but, most importantly, the need to re-supply units in the field-often over large distances!!
The most important question should not be whether or not enemy units will get the movement bonuses of roads/rail. The question should be "will enemy roads/rail still negate the effect of terrain on unit movement?", ie: will movement along an enemy road/rail cost 1mp/tile, regardless of the terrain the road passes over? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then I'll be satisfied.
This is not to say that I feel they have come up with the best solution. At the risk of sounding immodest, I believe that I came up with a very workable solution many months ago!
My idea was to give ALL units a higher movement rate, especially giving units at the start of the game 2-3x the movement rate of their Civ2 counterparts, but bringing that down by 1 mp/era until the modern era (to reflect the length of turns).
To counterbalance this, I felt that units should have a maximum "Range", the number of tiles that they could operate outside of a friendly city or border. A units range would be dependent on unit type and tech level. Basically, settlers and SpecOp units would have the greatest range, followed by workers/foot soldiers, then horsemen, then vehicles etc. and, lastly, high tech units would have higher ranges than low tech units.
If a unit goes outside its range, then it would begin to suffer damage (to reflect hunger/disease or lack of spare parts/fuel etc.). The unit would begin to suffer damage on the same turn it exceeded its range (and each turn thereafter), the damage received based on 3 main factors: number of tiles outside range; the maintenance factor of the unit (e.g.. a tank requires more maintenance than a rifleman); and the tech-level of the unit (e.g.. a sword is less likely to break down than a rifle!).
In this model, only 2 ways would exist to extend a units range: 1) Capture an enemy city (minimum pop. 2, with at least a granary and a barracks!) or 2) Build a supply depot (A fortress in Civ-speak!). In order for a fort to act as a supply depot, it would need to be connected via a road to a friendly/occupied city!
Obviously, option 2 may seem like the simplest, but of course those forts are going to be tempting targets for the enemy, who could literally break the back of your invasion with one lucky hit to a key fort or piece of road (just ask Napoleon). The more forts you build, the more vulnerable you are. As an example, lets say a Range 6 unit is operating 18 hexes from the nearest friendly city (by virtue of 3 supply depots). The enemy, on its turn strikes the depot closest to the border-destroying it. Suddenly, your unit is 12 hexes out of its normal range and will begin suffering damage accordingly!!
The beauty of my model, in my opinion, was that it would have allowed rapid movement of units within your borders (both ground and naval), without allowing those same units to explore/conquer the globe before 0 AD! Additionally, it would force a player to attack and occupy peripheral cities (which may be otherwise tactically useless), in order to shorten supply lines prior to an attack on the more lucrative inner cities (like the capital!) Anyway, sorry for the extreme length of my post, I just felt that these things had to be said!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Alexander's Horse]

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral. The capacity of friend or enemy to use them is not determined by whether the road is within the borders of one side or another. It is determined by the movement capacity of the unit concerned and environmental factors such as the weather and the condition of the road.

Only where units exert a zone of control should movement be restricted. Engineers/workers should still be able build roads in hostile territory, including within enemy zones of control. This has been done since ancient times. Remember the Romans?

I don't know why Firaxis does these quirky things which go against all experience, like unit bribery. That is why I think it is a bug. Maybe it has something to do with the rights of passage rules they are bringing in?

Why change the rules on this when there was no problem with civ I and II? As to rapid enemy advance, there was precious little of that in the earlier games. Invaders should be rewarded for moving through enemy territory quickly using facilities like roads. Defenders should punished for leaving roads open to invaders.

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why change the rules on this when there was no problem with civ I and II

Infinite howitzer attacks weren't a problem?!?

[Alexander's Horse]

If you left yourself open to an infinite howie attack I don't see why you should be saved by the road rules. It just needlessly delays the inevitable

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

That is why my solution to unit movement and range would have worked so well. Because movement on roads would not be affected by who owns them, but your ability to travel in enemy territory would be limited by your lines of supply! It would eliminate the infinite howie bug as well!!! (Of course, the infinite howie bug is also partially solved by the fact that howies will now probably possess only a Bombardment attack strength!)
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

I never imagined the day i would be agreeing with AH

Along with alarmingly weak attack strengths of even special units and severe restrictions on armies and diplomatic penalties, it seems that waging war will be so difficult as to become obsolete!

The only counter-balance i can envisage here is that Howies (and perhaps others) will be able to bombard from more than one square away. Otherwise, having to give your opponents a free shot at you before you can fire is ridiculous in the extreme

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

Can't some of you realize that this is probably a design decision to prevent Civ3 from being what Civ2 was (basically a glorified military game)? Now, it is harder to win wars! Wonderful!

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

Can't some of you realize that this is probably a design decision to prevent Civ3 from being what Civ2 was (basically a glorified military game)? Now, it is harder to win wars! Wonderful!

I agree!

And it's quite realistic decision too, me thinks.

I hope Firaxis won't listen to these whiners.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

That comment speaks for itself.

[Tjoepie]

Not being allowed to use "hostile" roads in an invasion ???

Then what about building roads all arround your city?

[gremalkin]

As to whether the movement limit on enemies roads is realistic can be argued both ways. What is more important is gameplay.

infinite howie attacks are boring and unrealistic.. Enemy road limits stop this.. New tactics will have to be found to take your enemies down, this is good news - It makes the game more challenging.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Tjoepie
Not being allowed to use "hostile" roads in an invasion ???

Then what about building roads all arround your city?

Exactly - it will end up like the airport bug in civ II.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Exactly - it will end up like the airport bug in civ II.

Thats one i havent heard about... Whats the airport bug??

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Thats one i havent heard about... Whats the airport bug??

Planes can't attack airports - so ring your cities with airports and they are immune from air attack.

There are other weird things about airports in civ 2, they give max resources for the tile for example.

[Trifna]

I guess I don't find it very normal... A forest is a forest for anybody and a road a road for anybody. Should it be friend or foe, they will both advance as fast on a road.

The only thing is that you wont transport troops by train on the enemy's railroad, would you?...

[Trifna]

Notice that conquistadores DID use Inca's roads alot!!!!!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Planes can't attack airports - so ring your cities with airports and they are immune from air attack.

Use your imagination, AH!

Compare with Civ-2 caravan-units: you bumped into a foreign city, and a dialog popped up asking you what to do (either move past; help city or establish trade-route).

Dialogs is the answer! Besides, dont you think time & shield-expensive airbases around your closest city-production tiles gonna severely affect your cities grow-rate capacity, as well? Talk about farfetched examples.

[Triped]

I like not being able to use the roads. It should favor turtles like myself

Gameplaywise, it should work pretty well...time will tell of course.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
In almost all wargames, roads are neutral. The capacity of friend or enemy to use them is not determined by whether the road is within the borders of one side or another. It is determined by the movement capacity of the unit concerned and environmental factors such as the weather and the condition of the road.

Civ is not a wargame, it is an empire simulator. If you want to play a wargame go play Steel Panthers, where you can lay minefields and exert tactical commands on a small scale. Roads not granting the movement bonus while in enemy territory represents an army's slow movement due to harrassment of guerilla forces, bad road conditions (weather, for example) and any and all delaying tactics an opposing Civilization may place there to slow down and harrass an invader.

Only where units exert a zone of control should movement be restricted. Engineers/workers should still be able build roads in hostile territory, including within enemy zones of control. This has been done since ancient times. Remember the Romans?

Do you know anything about the ROmans? Do you KNOW how LONG it took them to build a "proper" road? Think modern highway construction only with stones and compact dirt instead of asphalt. Romans built their roads in layers which took a lot of time and expertise, which is hard to do while armies are fighting around you.

I don't know why Firaxis does these quirky things which go against all experience, like unit bribery. That is why I think it is a bug. Maybe it has something to do with the rights of passage rules they are bringing in?

Unit birbery go against all experience? You might want to go back and read a little more history, there are always spies and traitors in all civilizations. Bribing units is no different.

Why change the rules on this when there was no problem with civ I and II? As to rapid enemy advance, there was precious little of that in the earlier games. Invaders should be rewarded for moving through enemy territory quickly using facilities like roads. Defenders should punished for leaving roads open to invaders.

No problem? I guess the same reason they tried to stop ICS, because it was something that wasn't working correctly in the game. WTF is up with "defenders should be punished"? Can you name one ancient army that could move the 100+ miles a day that each square represents in the game and still be in fighting shape when they arrive?

Removing the road bonus for moving an enemy army into someone's area is common sense since all the "real things" that would hamper their movement is abstracted.

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

No it will not, you'll just have to actually plan and execute strategies, not abuse broken or poorly planned aspects of the game for once.

[Madine]

I think the new road rules are best explained by the difficulties of supply lines. In Civ you don't have to worry about supply, and that's good because it's much too specific for a game of it's scale, but it was something that was an important part of all military campaigns.

Roads will still be strategically important as once you capture a city you will want to use them to bring in additional forces.

Also I don't think the rule will be a great hinderance to military campaigns (and I'm talking about real campaigns, not the howie trick ).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Tjoepie has got the wrong end of the stick concerning enemy roads. Having roads around your city won't make you invulnerable to attack, as enemy units can still move onto these tiles. It's just that, if the tile containing the road lies within the enemies border (not City Radius), then moving along the road tile will cost an invader 1mp (not 1/3mp). The same will apply for enemy rail.
The issue is that new cities will be vulnerable to enemy attack, as they will lack the culture neccessary for adequate borders. Making any roads leading to that city fully usable to the enemy. More established cities (eg the capital), however, will be much harder to approach without first capturing outlying cities and eliminating their effect on the nations borders!
Trifna should note that a defender would move much faster on own his roads/rail for 3 reasons: 1) Greater local knowledge, 2) Support of the population (reflected by high culture) and 3) His cities are his lines of supply, and are often close to his front line. An invader, on the other hand, has little local knowledge of the area he is moving through, making him move more warily, may be constantly harrassed by local partisan groups and, most importantly, will have to keep waiting for his supply lines to catch up to the front (of battle).
Of course, as I said before, all these factors have been boiled down into 1 simple abstraction. As I've already said, the key issue for me is whether moving through a Forest within an enemies border, containing an enemy road, will cost 1mp or 2mp. If its the former, then I'll be satisfied!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ralf

dont you think time & shield-expensive airbases around your closest city-production tiles gonna severely affect your cities grow-rate capacity, as well? Talk about farfetched examples.

Have you EVER played civ 2? Building an airport on a tile maxs out food, shield and trade production for that tile! It has the same effect as irrigating and putting railroads on the tile!

Duh!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Have you EVER played civ 2? Building an airport on a tile maxs out food, shield and trade production for that tile! It has the same effect as irrigating and putting railroads on the tile!

Duh!

I also have played Civ 2 for several years, and I just recently read about the airport maxing out the tile.
--
Now, back to the Roads
Concerning road movement in 'slow' terrain, I also hope that it reduces the cost to one. OTH, in a dense forest or a mountain where there are 'few' roads, there are numerous examples of it substantially slowing down troop movements (e.g., the Ardennes in WWII (Battle of the Bulge) -- massive German traffic jams). One battalion of road-bound armor or mech troops may take 1-2 miles of a single road (I'm sure I DON'T remember correctly so I am using low figures). Now, multiply by 12+ COMBAT battalions in a division, add support, HQ, and supply....

In addition, in 'slow' terrain, there is the issue of running into an ambush. All that extra reconnaissance takes a heavy toll on speed of movement. Now, if only the game could keep track, and:
"If one of your units has already traversed said road tiles during this turn, then subsequent units may use the road at full speed."
(That is, you have already cleared the road this turn). Unfortunately, this would be cumbersome for the game to track and could be very confusing to explain in a manual.

Nullifying road advantage in another's cultural area also enhances the value of one-movement-point units, because they can always move one. Of course, they might also expire quickly in combat.

My first post!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually Jaybe, if enemy roads do count as 1mp/tile, regardless of terrain, then the other benefit is that units like alpine troops and partisans, which treat certain terrain as normal roads, suddenly become much more valuable for use in invasions.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

Game. Set. Match.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

Game. Set. Match.

Imran, if you weren't such a moron you'd realise it is not a zero sum argument. Even if you accept the proposition that "its not a wargame" that does not justify ridiculous game settings like this one. That's like saying pigs can fly in the game because "its not a wargame".

Do you know what zero sum is? Maybe you should get someone to explain it to you with a crayon. Your capacity for flawed thought processes continues to amaze me and others. I for one am a big fan of your stupidity. Keep up the good work.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

But you miss the illusion: It's so much fun to think it IS!

("Illusion", "Fantasy", or whatever)

[Grumbold]

If Civ 3 maintins that roads are of no importance or relevance to offensive military operations it would be unique in that assertion. Military campaigns have always focussed upon advancing down key routes to secure and defend important crossroads, bridges and supply routes.

In Civ II we could rely on units in fortifications exerting ZoC's to prevent massive unopposed troop movements. Unfortunately Civ III has managed to lose most ZoC's for some strange reason so now AI nations will find it even harder to make sure their transport networks have adequately guarded choke points. Reducing even modern units to absurdly low movement rates seems like an admission that inadequate AI cannot cope with movement rates of more than a few squares rather than a serious attempt to make a playable game. It certainly sounds like the player will have no trouble with unexpected hostile attacks. No matter how incompetent they are internal garrisons will be able to be stripped to reinforce threatened locations and production orders changed well in advance of the enemy assault.