We could make roads slowly become less useful over time and need to be repaired by workers. It should be easily repaired, but if you build too many you will need to have an army of workers. Example: Road lets warrior travel 4 tiles instead of 2, over time it becomes 3 tiles and later back to the original 2. Workers will probably be given the ability to patrol a path of roads and keep fixing them.
A choice in the workers menu, to order them to bild streets everywhere
- Thread starter Mitsarakos
- Start date
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well it looks like roads
will
1-cost maintenance
2-give a movement bonus
3-connect cities to give them some trade income
will
1-cost maintenance
2-give a movement bonus
3-connect cities to give them some trade income
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
The J posted the information that everyone says is saying that says that the production and food and wealth will be decreased by roads but what it actuall says is
-roads are primarily used for an economic bonus for linking cities; you won't need/want more than a minimum
-roads are primarily used for an economic bonus for linking cities; you won't need/want more than a minimum
But if you need roads to increase movement points, and to connect cities and resources, well roads will be everywhere anyway. It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would roads reduce tile yields of a tile, surely a road on a mine will increase tile yields?
I mean if they wanted less road spam (which wasn't really a problem in past games for me anyway) why not increase the time it takes to make a road, or alternatively make a road cost you a set amount to build at the start.
It doesn't make sense to me. You build a road to increase gold through trade, but that road costs you money every turn. It just sounds complicated. It could be simplified by you gaining less money by trade, rather than a road costing what the trade is minus the road maintenance cost. Why overcomplicate something that doesn't need to be complicated?
The only thing I can think of is that a road may decrease food yield per tile - that way you wouldn't want to build too many roads around your cities. But to me this doesn't make sense, surely a road would increase food yield.
I mean if they wanted less road spam (which wasn't really a problem in past games for me anyway) why not increase the time it takes to make a road, or alternatively make a road cost you a set amount to build at the start.
It doesn't make sense to me. You build a road to increase gold through trade, but that road costs you money every turn. It just sounds complicated. It could be simplified by you gaining less money by trade, rather than a road costing what the trade is minus the road maintenance cost. Why overcomplicate something that doesn't need to be complicated?
The only thing I can think of is that a road may decrease food yield per tile - that way you wouldn't want to build too many roads around your cities. But to me this doesn't make sense, surely a road would increase food yield.
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
I believe this + production is how they'll be implementing it
Suho1004
Warlord
[I made the following post after reading only the first page, mistakenly thinking that I was at the end. That's why it's so out of place. I really need to pay closer attention to this stuff...]
I agree with The J: namely, that I'm sure the developers have thought of the ramifications of their actions. I realize that we're all starving for info right now, but we probably shouldn't jump to conclusions about how the final game is going to play. At the moment we don't really have the proper context to understand how these changes will affect the bigger picture.
I agree with The J: namely, that I'm sure the developers have thought of the ramifications of their actions. I realize that we're all starving for info right now, but we probably shouldn't jump to conclusions about how the final game is going to play. At the moment we don't really have the proper context to understand how these changes will affect the bigger picture.
If this is going to raw brainstorming how about just having roads cost significant maintainence if you have too many of them relative to you're population. In civ IV scale 1 road per pop would make sense, and any road over and above that would cost 2gpt per turn. A couple size 4 cities could probably link up for free, but you couldn't roadspam till you got upwards of 15-20 pop cities everywhere, and you wouldn't want roads on every single tile until the modern age.
Road maintainable only really becomes a problem when a government has massive amounts of roads relative to its population.
Road maintainable only really becomes a problem when a government has massive amounts of roads relative to its population.
epicivfreak
Prince
It kind of makes sense to a certain point, but the thing is to totally get rid of road spam,for aesthetic reasons, but also strategic reasons. Not to mention "avoid pointless" reasons, meaning that if road gives you bonus alone, why not build it on every tile, it's pointless not to.
Ahriman
Tyrant
As much as I'm weirded in a realism sense by roads having a net maintenance cost, the mechanic seems reasonable in a gameplay sense.
Global maintenance costs from roads is much better than reducing tile yields. Its hard to game, it affects the AI and player basically equally, and it should actually provide good incentives for using roads to connect cities rather than using everywhere.
I guess I worry a little about traffic jams though as I try to move my whole army to the front along a single road network. But perhaps that's realistic, and increases the value of paratroopers who can cut off road networks, and gives you the strategic option of increasing your ability to move large armies around by building excess roads, at a cost of higher maintenance
Global maintenance costs from roads is much better than reducing tile yields. Its hard to game, it affects the AI and player basically equally, and it should actually provide good incentives for using roads to connect cities rather than using everywhere.
I guess I worry a little about traffic jams though as I try to move my whole army to the front along a single road network. But perhaps that's realistic, and increases the value of paratroopers who can cut off road networks, and gives you the strategic option of increasing your ability to move large armies around by building excess roads, at a cost of higher maintenance
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well you won't absolutely need it since unts can go through each other... but It does help make roads v. non roads a significant part of the tactical battlefield.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,304
That: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9128023&postcount=12
timtofly said:
Yes, it seems improbable that roads will increase movement AND be limited AND units being forbidden to pass through cities AND units can't go several on a single tile. That would not make sense.
Obviously, some info over here is false. 1UPT: i think it's TRUE. (have been said multiple times) The others are IMO subject to clunky interpretation of some demonstration or text.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Why not? I see no logical inconsistency here. Send your troops in a column to the front lines along roads, then spread out into a line for actual fighting.
Because that would be ridiculous. Maintenace cost is far less intrusive and realism-ridiculous, and achieves the same purpose.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
From all of the screen shots so far, it appears that roads are built by "workers" since they appear at random. They are just now telling us that roads are to connect cities for some kind of gold bonus, yet they will cost in maintenance "somehow". Why didn't they show us a screenshot from the beginning two cities with a road between them. In Civ Rev. you had the choice to purchase a road between two cities. In CiV you have to lay them down randomely (to avoid over maintenance fees) and eventually they connect two cities for gold "income".
It makes sense to give the AI the "goal" to connect two cities for the gold. That would have been enough to stop road spam. What if the AI decides that it is "rich" enough to afford roads all over? It seems like they will still spam roads. The human on the other hand may think twice. Why couldn't the developers just give a worker a "shelf" life? Each "city" is allowed 10 workers, and each worker is allowed to do 50 tile improvements, and then the unit is disbanded. Would that not be a smarter AI instead of having to find "something" to do for 100's of turns?
It makes sense to give the AI the "goal" to connect two cities for the gold. That would have been enough to stop road spam. What if the AI decides that it is "rich" enough to afford roads all over? It seems like they will still spam roads. The human on the other hand may think twice. Why couldn't the developers just give a worker a "shelf" life? Each "city" is allowed 10 workers, and each worker is allowed to do 50 tile improvements, and then the unit is disbanded. Would that not be a smarter AI instead of having to find "something" to do for 100's of turns?
Ahriman
Tyrant
?
Yes, roads will presumably be built by workers.
Because they don't have the road art working yet, and it would look really ugly. You can see that in the screenshots they've posted, the road segments on cities are placeholders.
In Civ5 you will have the option of building roads separately, and you'll have the option of choosing where they go. THis gives the player a lot more control, and allows for several strategic tradeoffs (eg building a road to the front even when I don't have cities there, building more roads to allow for faster movement of large armies without congestion).
Where is the randomness?
Do you mean "manually"?
No it wouldn't the human player would still spam roads.
That's not how AI works. The AI can easily be programmed to use roads only to link up cities. And the AI builds things based on the advantages vs costs, it will never do something that brings no net benefit, no matter how "rich" it is.
No. Then you'd just build extra workers later on.
Attacking the cost benefit analysis of excess road construction is really the only effective way to limit construction.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
The AI in Civ 4 had that as a priority... connect cities/reources
As did the auto-worker
it would then proceed to fill in the rest with its extra
So I would imagine that the Civ 5 AI (or auto-worker) will do the exact same thing... it will connect cities..
But the Civ 5 AI/auto-worker will probably stop after that... unless it does have a lot of extra gold.
And in that case it has something to do with that gold... give itself a superextensive trade network.
Similar threads
