I can't pillage my own roads?

[karadoc]

There is no option to pillage my own roads. I can get rid of other improvements, but not roads. Is this a bug? Or can someone think of a good reason.

 

[warpstorm]

My question is why you want to?

 

[onedreamer]

there are several good reasons to, however even the most insignificant reason like "because I just feel like doing it" should deserve an answer to the question, rather than a question to the question.

 

[Mazruk]

I cannot think of a single good reason for allowing it as it doesnt block any other improvement.

I can think of a very good reason for NOT allowing it, in that given the point above the only reason you would do it is an accident and in that case prevention is better than cure.

 

[Tacit_Exit]

Gift city to AI u dont like, nooke it, take it back; voila!

 

[phalzyr]

He said he could think of several good reasons not just the one he mentioned... I for one would like to keep my area unconnected from the enemy or have a "Path" they can walk down faster (that I of course protect better.) Giving the enmy roads through out your territory just makes it easier for them to get around, but if you have roads that only go where you need to go...

 

[Ranos]

Now that roads give no bonus to commerce, it isn't necessary to build them on every tile. I try to build them in checker board fashion so my units still have good access. The AI, however, still builds them on every single tile. When I take a city, I would like to be able to pillage the road so I can have my roads set up the way I want to. Maybe I have an Open Borders deal with an AI and it builds a road through my territory to link one of its distant cities to its trade network. Maybe I goof up and build the road in the wrong spot.

The point is, there is just as much reason to pillage roads as there is to pillage your other improvements. I can choose to build a new improvement over an existing one, so there is no point in pillaging any of the other improvements, so why can I do that, but not pillage a road?

 

[Control Group]

He said he could think of several good reasons not just the one he mentioned... I for one would like to keep my area unconnected from the enemy or have a "Path" they can walk down faster (that I of course protect better.) Giving the enmy roads through out your territory just makes it easier for them to get around, but if you have roads that only go where you need to go...

I agree that you should be able to unless someone can cite a good reason you aren't, but this particular argument doesn't hold water. Enemy units don't get road movement bonuses in your territory; removing the roads won't change how easy it is for them to get around.

 

[phalzyr]

I agree that you should be able to unless someone can cite a good reason you aren't, but this particular argument doesn't hold water. Enemy units don't get road movement bonuses in your territory; removing the roads won't change how easy it is for them to get around.

Strange I always get road movement bonuses when moving through enemy territory so assumed the same would be vice versa. I had an enemy that had 1 movement point move two spots so... Is it not suppossed to be this way?

 

[Control Group]

Strange I always get road movement bonuses when moving through enemy territory so assumed the same would be vice versa. I had an enemy that had 1 movement point move two spots so... Is it not suppossed to be this way?

It occurs to me we might not be using the same definition of "enemy." By "enemy," I mean a civ with which you're currently at war. If you mean "enemy" as simply another civ, then you're right.

When you're at war with a civ, your units do not get the road movement bonus in their territory and vice versa. During peace time w/open borders, they do.

 

[phalzyr]

I actaully never have open borders I hate letting future enemies see where I'm weak, where my best resources are etc... So anytime I'm in enemy territory I mean at war. maybe I was just dreaming after a long session... You are not suppossed to get movement bonuses then?

Even so isn't the point still there but just for reinforcements then? After you take a city it is no longer your enemy roads... I'll have to pay attention next time I go to war and see if my guys are getting bonuses in enemy territory or it was just wishfull thinking. Maybe a mod I use goofed something up...

 

[Ranos]

The "Commando" promotion allows units to use enemy roads. That may be what you saw happen.

 

[karadoc]

If you need a reason, here are a few:
- AI is sending a settler through my land to build a new city. I don't want him to build in that spot, so I destroy my roads to slow him down while I train a settler.
- City is doomed to be captured by the enemy. I want to destroy the roads so that when it is captured, it will be harder for him to send units through it.
- I want to test a theory about roads stopping forests from growing.
- I want to break a trade route to an AI civ
- I'm worried about Commando enemies

There's a bunch of possible reasons for you. So I guess we are calling it a bug.

 

[warpstorm]

I actaully never have open borders I hate letting future enemies see where I'm weak, where my best resources are etc...

So you get very little religion spread, everybody hates you and isn't willing to trade, and you have less money. It's your game, but you are missing out on some stuff by doing this. FWIW, I usually have Open Borders with everyone except those I'm currently at war with.

 

[warpstorm]

So I guess we are calling it a bug.

No, a bug is it not working the way Firaxis wants it to work. At best this is a design feature, since I'm nearly 100% positive that this is intended.

 

[King Flevance]

I have thought this same thing. Most of my points have been covered already as to the arguements that actually support not being able to do so for whatever reason. Which brings up another good reason.

-Because your the Emperor and you say so.

I think that is reason enough. I personally dont like the new graphics of roads. Alot of times they dont even connect where they should and I try to avoid this. Still, that is leading off topic. The main thing here is the same thing as abandoning a city. I think we all agree that being left out was 'let-down' as even doing that had strategic value.
The great thing about Civ is in previous games everything was at your disposal and under your control. Except for the negative 'player-in-check' things. But how is pillaging your own road keeping you in check?
Maybe your people in your empire don't like that road either and they would love for you to pillage it. Unfortunatly, the role of a King has no say so in destroying roads in real life. Hehe. If we are gonna whine about the innaccuracy of confusionism being in the game at least fix this where yes, you may accidentally pillage a road (that you can rebuild) but as is you may accidentally build a road (you can't unbuild) in the same manner.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd have to agree that it is of limited enough usefulness that they decided to eliminate it, as a prevention against accidental removal

For limiting an AI with Open borders/Commando, Commando is rare so just cut Open Borders.

To break a Trade route, just Close borders

For a doomed city... well it would be nice if you could sell improvements and slaughter the populace too, but they decided to limit scorched earth to non-road tile improvements I guess.

For Testing, just use the World Builder

 

[Endureth]

I use world builder to destroy unwanted roads.

Reason?

Because I'm the boss and I'm a minimalist.

-E

 

[Dismal]

I agree that you should be able to unless someone can cite a good reason you aren't, but this particular argument doesn't hold water. Enemy units don't get road movement bonuses in your territory; removing the roads won't change how easy it is for them to get around.

Sure they can use roads. When they take a city the culture drops to nothing and as a result all the roads/improvements become neutral in effect. By destroying the roads before hand you deny the AI the ability to move up quickly to your next city thus giving you time to prepare defences. It's called a scortched earth tactic and it does wonders. At present we can pillage all the other improvements but roads are the most basic infrastructure and the most useful to a military already on the march.

 

[CrackityJones]

I actually realized this last night as well, and was a little irritated. Here's my "one good reason" to do it:

I had culturally engulfed another civ's city -- had a ring all the way around it -- but for some reason it wouldn't flip. It revolted for a while, but didn't flip. Since I had open borders with that civ, and didn't want to strain relations too much, I wanted to destroy the all of the roads leading to that city, just to isolate it that much more. Couldn't do it.

Of course, without "corruption" akin to Civ III, I don't know whether completely disconnecting this city would have made it any more likely to flip, but I couldn't even test the theory. (Eventually, after about 50 more turns and a second revolt, the city flipped. I'm just impatient.)