Roads

[manofthehour]

I think that roads should only have a penlety if you are at war with the country.

[Akron]

Realistically, it should just give a fraction of the bonus, but making roads have no bonus for an opposing civilization adds to the strategy involved. It will put a premium on mobility, add to the value of paratroopers and aircraft, decrease the power of the howitzer, and make naval tactics more important. Thats definitely good for gameplay. In civ 2, if you were on the same continent as the enemy and had railroads connecting your cities to his, then it was howitzers all the way, with stealth fighters to clear the way. I rarely used paratroopers (unless island hopping).

[Gangerolf]

But you can't use another civ's roads if you are at peace with them, can you? You probably can if you are in an alliance though.
Since there won't be any diplomats or caravans in the game, the only units you can move into another civ's territory are military units, I think.

I think the consept that invaders can't use roads will turn out to be OK.

[Pembleton]

You can use roads if you have a right of passage pact. A thread called "right of passage pact" is just several threads below this one (at time of writing this of course).

[Sarxis]

Kewl! As of this post, I am the only one who voted Diplomat and Controlling Civ to get bonus!

I am unique! [for now]

[Skanky Burns]

I think that not getting any bonus from roads compared to unimproved terrain is a bit harsh. A 1/2 movement bonus would be better, IMO. But theres no option close to this, so im not voting.

There are no diplomats or caravans in Civ 3. (Nor spies or freights for that matter )

[Roman]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I think that not getting any bonus from roads compared to unimproved terrain is a bit harsh. A 1/2 movement bonus would be better, IMO. But theres no option close to this, so im not voting.
)

Ehm, how about the last option?

[Grumbold]

Roads are roads. They don't require any special equipment to use, unlike railroads, and do not provide overwhelming movement potential. Even a highly mobile unit is only going to be able to travel nine squares, or six if it wants to fight. That pretty much limits it to advancing to the nearest city or defensive installation, which is fine by me.

[jdd2007]

No, Roads should give bonus only to the civilizatoin than controlls that territory. i voted this way because i think it will be a cool feature that will not mess up gameplay

[Wexu]

You just can't use enemy occupied roads like they were your owns. You must be very careful because of enemy ambushes and other stuff -> very slow movement.

No movement bonuses when using enemy's roads!

[JellyDonut]

I voted "no" just because I tend to get invaded more than I invade. I'd like to run my units up to my cities near the enemy and leave them to defend until I can negotiate a peace treaty.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Wexu
You just can't use enemy occupied roads like they were your owns. You must be very careful because of enemy ambushes and other stuff -> very slow movement.

No movement bonuses when using enemy's roads!

You have to defend a road to achieve this. Stick a unit on it and suddenly movement stops. Undefended roads have been used time and time again to make sudden advances far into enemy territory. Recon units are especially designed to advance fast until they contact the enemy, then call up support. Making roads stop working just because they are the wrong side of some artificial line is ridiculous.

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Grumbold


You have to defend a road to achieve this. Stick a unit on it and suddenly movement stops. Undefended roads have been used time and time again to make sudden advances far into enemy territory. Recon units are especially designed to advance fast until they contact the enemy, then call up support. Making roads stop working just because they are the wrong side of some artificial line is ridiculous.

But I imagine that there are enough troops to defend those roads when they are under your control, even if they aren't visible. I imagine "units" so much larger. It's all which way you look at it.

There are MANY "ridiculous" things in Civs if you think of it. How 'bout one unit move one square in 20 years earlier and later 1 year for example.

Anyway I voted "no" and it doesn't need more explanation than that it feels right.

[dainbramaged13]

many people are crying 'gameplay over realism,' to rationalize this, and i agree usualy with this argument, except I believe that this will NOT improve gameplay. I think you should get decreased bonuses for roads and railroads, not NONE AT ALL. ALso, not even none for railoads...without the special equipment, theryre just like roads, because they provide a path for soldiers to go through, so maybe roads could be 1/2 movement, and railroads 1/3 or even 1/2 also.

anyway, this should be modifiable easily

[Triped]

Wait- I thought only railroads couldn't be used by the enemy...

Roads should be accesible, but speed should be reduced somewhat.

If the enemy is slowed to the point where they can't even use roads, the defender would have too much time to defend...

[Trifna]

Roads should be used as normally are sued for by anyone. But other useful advanced transport ways such as train shouldn't be used by attacker. So attacker shouldn't be in the same situation.

[Earthling7]

I say let roads be useable by owning Civ and one with right-to-pass treaty.

[ixnay]

Roads should give a fraction of movement to an attacker, and full movement to whoever holds the territory and who has a right of passage pact.

[Ralf]

The third alternative; ("Only nonmillitary units (diplomats) and the country who built the road should get a bonus") is based on wrong assumptions. Both diplomats & spy's have gone the same way as caravan & freights - they dont exist as indevidual units anymore. This has been confirmed by Dan Magaha in this thread.

Anyway, its nice to see that an overwhelming majority so far, is all positive to some kind of invasion-related road-bonus limitations. Good news.

[Father Beast]

I've created a monster!!!

I just wanted some clarification on a new feature and it turned into the biggest debate on this forum since the MP debacle.

weird....

[Triped]

That's because it's history vs. realism. The real debate here is, should a game about Earth reflect it as closely as possible, or as a game, should it have as good gameplay as possible?

The second one is true, of course.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Roads are roads. They don't require any special equipment to use, unlike railroads, and do not provide overwhelming movement potential. Even a highly mobile unit is only going to be able to travel nine squares, or six if it wants to fight. That pretty much limits it to advancing to the nearest city or defensive installation, which is fine by me.

I agree with this, but I also think, after consideration of this quote:

Originally posted by Akron
Realistically, it should just give a fraction of the bonus, but making roads have no bonus for an opposing civilization adds to the strategy involved. It will put a premium on mobility, add to the value of paratroopers and aircraft, decrease the power of the howitzer, and make naval tactics more important. Thats definitely good for gameplay . . .

that sacrificing a little realism here adds a lot to strategy and gameplay. As realized above, this will make many units valueable, not just the traditional horse and tank type units.

Realistically, I thoroughly agree that enemy units should be able to use your roads. However, I think this new option provides for some interesting gameplay twists.

As posted by someone else in another thread, you have to take into consideration that your military invasion on one turn may span 5 or mores years. In all likelihood, border guards and regular citizens would report the invasion long before it got as far into your territory as moving on a road in one turn would suggest. The defenders would have long since responded to the attack. Perhaps no movement bonus on enemy roads is an attempt to help simulate that. This at least gives the defender the opportunity to respond to your attack (especially for the inept AI).

If giving the defender a little more opportunity to respond to your attack rocks your boat, perhaps you should have prepared your invasion a little better. Personally, if I'm going to invade someone, I go in with guns blazing and swat away any resistance I may come across.

[Sava]

Railroads use should be restricted because it requires trains and stations. Roads don't require anything, hence they are just there! Anyone can use them. But for gameplay sake I would have to agree with the restricted use.

[manofthehour]

I was surpirised people didn't think diplomats should be able to use roads.

[ixnay]

That's because there are no diplomats. Or spies. It's all been abstracted into an espionage window.

[Nemo]

my option is not in there.

I think that you should have normal road movement on enemy roads EXCEPT if the road crosses a river (i.e. any square that requires bridgebuilding tech, before being able to place that road). That would be feesable and realistic, as in reality mostbridges are blown up in retreat. I mean come on, why would you not beable to use a dirt road or paved road? did the dirt get blown up or something? ...not likely.

But I think railroads should not be usable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Father Beast
I've created a monster!!!

I just wanted some clarification on a new feature and it turned into the biggest debate on this forum since the MP debacle.

weird....

It's Alive!! ALIVE!!!

Hehe.

Um, seriously...given what they've said about the editor and how robust it is (sorry to use that over-used term), I bet you can just use it to eliminate the road movement penalty if you don't like it.

How's that for an answer? Will the gripers now complain that it's too much trouble to use the editor?