I can't pillage my own roads?

[Zhahz]

I would agree that you should be able to destroy your own roads. There are numerous strategic reasons to do so alone.

I'm iffy about destroying cities. I'd rather not have the option to abandon cities because I think it's less realistic (they're full blown cities, not little towns or villages - full blown cities aren't spontaneously abandoned that often) and less strategic (you wouldn't need to put as much thought into how you capture/raze).

The city thing doesn't matter to me since I almost never feel the desire to abandon a city (did it a few times in Civ3 but no desire to do so in Civ IV yet due to better planning).

I used to sever roads in Civ3 reasonably often, sometimes to clean up my empire and sometimes strategically to mess with enemies. I haven't had the desire to destroy my own roads in Civ IV yet but I could see it happening.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to destroy my own roads to slow down an AI I had open borders with - that's somewhat crazy, and again - don't open your borders if you aren't ready for visitors! It's all about planning and thinking ahead.

 

[microbe]

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.

Or a design bug.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Haven't run into a situation in which I'd like to destroy one of my own roads in CivIV yet, but not having the option sure seems very odd.

 

[Charles 22]

Here's related question, sort of. Has anybody taken over an enemy city without pillaging it's cottages, noticed what happens to them? When you're in possession of the city, do they operate at the level they were before (if you work them), or do they disappear? If they disappear, then certainly doing some pillaging before taking the city would be in order. I'm curious because I know the mines or roads don't disappear.

 

[oldStatesman]

Here's related question, sort of. Has anybody taken over an enemy city without pillaging it's cottages, noticed what happens to them? When you're in possession of the city, do they operate at the level they were before (if you work them), or do they disappear? If they disappear, then certainly doing some pillaging before taking the city would be in order. I'm curious because I know the mines or roads don't disappear.

Nope, they do not disappear. As soon as your border expands again to include them, you they function as normal.

 

[baptiste]

Nope, they do not disappear. As soon as your border expands again to include them, you they function as normal.

And they keep the level they had. So pillaging cottage is often not appropriate ;p (farm/mines are quick to build back, but villages/cities from cottages are not).

 

[Charles 22]

Nope, they do not disappear. As soon as your border expands again to include them, you they function as normal.

Yes, that does seem more consistent with the other improvements. Certainly adds a lot more to gain in trying to retake your towns. In some situations it would be more profitable to let the city fall to preserve the enemy pillaging your villages, which given a little time could be re-captured intact later.

 

[onedreamer]

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.

Exactly these are all the good reasons that I mentioned before, and that made so that this feature, present in Civ3, was a good feature. It is also a realistic feature, how comes I can destroy MY quarry but not MY road ? Why is it a mistake to destroy my road but not my quarry ? Sorry but this makes no sense.
The most important reason for me to destroy a road is to disconnect an AI city that was built behind your borders. The least important reason is that I like to keep the landscape clean and minimize roads, since now they are not as fundamental as in Civ3. Why should I be allowed to single-clickedly destroy a unit but not a road ? It doesn't make sense at all. It's true that we cannot consider this a bug, but we certainly can consider it a flaw to be fixed.

 

[ahsingjai]

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.

If he is in your territory, then cancel the open borders.

 

[onedreamer]

If he is in your territory, then cancel the open borders.

that produces effects WAY different than slowing down the colonization. So no, it is NOT a viable alternative.

 

[Gaal Dornik]

Sorry to dig it up but this is just the same as starting a new thread.

Any progress on the issue, perhaps a mod already done?

Roads annoy me, especially those, which are supposed to run in a strait line, but as a result, visually they are not even connected.

 

[microbe]

My question is why you want to?

Let me give you a real example.

I allied with Inca vs another AI, let's say Spain.

There was a Spanish city close to the border with about two defenders. I have only one attacker in range, but I'll have 3 more attackers next turn which could definitely capture the city.

Unfortunately, Inca had a bunch of cavalries in range this turn UNLESS I PILLAGE ONE OF MY ROADS. And apparently I couldn't do it (after pillaging the farms first), and I lost the city.

Never assume there is no need for something to happen.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I've never thought of destroying my own roads , but as people have pointed out valid reasons, the option should be there if you want to, after all youre the boss.

 

[ZippyRiver]

<DefineName>FEATURE_GROWTH_MODIFIER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>25</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
- <Define>
<DefineName>ROUTE_FEATURE_GROWTH_MODIFIER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-50</iDefineIntVal>

From these lines in the globaldefines xml, it appears roads (routes) do not eliminate forest growth, but do reduce the chance of it happening. I have had forests grow over existing roads, but the farther into the game you go the less you see forest growth (due to all the roads being placed).

I may road areas early for expansion and defence, but once my border is beyond that given area far enough that it is no longer necessary to have roads there, I may want to use some forestry management. Not possible with old roads there.

This may be in a nutshell both a good reason to be able to pilliage your own roads, and not allowing you to pilliage you own roads (due to the power of chopping)

Personally, I would like to be able to remove roads. I don't think forest growth happens often enough to warrant disallowing all road removals.

I do not know if it was intentional, or a single line error somewhere in the program. If intentional, I can understand the reasoning behind it although I may not agree with it. If the latter, then yes this would be a bug, obviously.

edit: or, those lines have nothing to do with either.

 

[Roibeárd]

I once had a real game situation in which pillaging one of my own roads would have been very useful.

I shared a "C" shaped content with Liz. The opening to the "C" was a narrow strait of water. On one side of the strait was London, on the other was a copper resource. London's cultural borders crossed the strait and encompassed the copper. My territory stood between English territory and the copper.

As soon as we agreed to open borders, Liz actually sent workers into my territory and built a road connecting her to the copper.

I didn't want to close borders or start a war, but I would have liked to have had the ability to sever that road to (peacefully ) deny her access to the copper. I was disappointed to discover this wasn't possible.