Exactly what type of invasion-related road-bonus is best?

Ralf · September 28, 2001, 12:06

Yes, Im fully aware of the already existing road-poll, but since one of the alternatives was based on wrong assumptions (diplomat & spy-units are gone), and since some new alternatives have surfaced during the intense debates, I think its only fair to give Apolyton-voters a second change.

Also, for newcommers: Remember that its only a speed-thing. And a very temporary one also, because as soon you have conquered the enemy-city that controls the surrounding area, you get your full road/RR-bonus back, for that area. Also; we dont know anything about modern land-unit ADM-stats yet. If a chinese rider have a move-rate of 3, then perhaps modern mechanized combat-units have a move-rate of 4. (hopefully not howitzers though).

Ralf · September 28, 2001, 16:23

OK, Im bumbing this Poll so nobody misses it. Vote please, so we can leave the subject and move on.

Skanky Burns · September 28, 2001, 19:38

Thanks for the poll Ralf

dainbramaged13 · September 28, 2001, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf
OK, Im bumbing this Poll so nobody misses it. Vote please, so we can leave the subject and move on.

*spam*

PGM · September 28, 2001, 20:24

Half road bonus. But I'd get used to any type suggested, except the one with full bonus (especially ridiculous for RR).

Ozymandous · September 28, 2001, 22:33

Like the option of treating all "enemy controlled" roads/rails as grassland, i.e. easy move. Seems this would be the best solution to simulate the existing road's easy of passage with the intangible defenses that an opposing Civ would likely use.

Good poll.

Stuie · September 28, 2001, 22:55

I just saw something in another thread that got me thinking: we don't know how many movement points any land unit more modern than Industrial Age is going to have. Given that this number may be higher than previous Civ games, the lack of road bonuses in enemy territory may not be such a bad thing; in fact in many be necessary to maintain some balance in the game.

Maybe we need to trust in the play testing Firaxis is doing, and then wait until the game is released to really judge how this is going to impact game play.

Sarxis · September 28, 2001, 23:22

I rather do like the new concept of 'invader road denial'. I know the realism may be hurt some by it, but then again, this is a game and not a 1:1 world history simulation.

Ralf · September 29, 2001, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I rather do like the new concept of 'invader road denial'. I know the realism may be hurt some by it, but then again, this is a game and not a 1:1 world history simulation.

I agree. Personaly, I prefer the second and third alternative (voted second). This is because I think the player at least should have some incentive, to use enemy-roads. After all; even unsecure enemy-roads is better & faster then formless mud-roads or dense forests.

Inverse Icarus · September 29, 2001, 17:01

Keep full road-bonus at all time, but treat yet uncontrolled invasion-RR's as roads only

roads are always going to be roads, anyone can use them.

if you say "theyre defended" put a goddamned unit on them.

Rails are a bit different though, you cant really USE enemy rail lines unless you have a base nearby. giving them ROAD LIKE movement make is so that the tanks/etc are walking next to them, as if they were walking through a clearing.