movement on enemy roads

[baseballfan45]

one thing i really miss from civ2 was how your units could always use roads even if they were your enemy's roads. I understand how units can not use enemy railroads, but what keeps any type of foot unit from being able to walk on someone elses roads i do not understand.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Not gaining the FULL benefit of an enemies roads I can understand, as I see it as an abstraction of the need for units to travel a little more cautiously in enemy territory!
However, I don't see why roads (and rails) couldn't grant SOME benefit-be it as small as discounting the movement penalty of any underlying terrain, or having friendly roads count as 1/4 MP, but enemy roads (and rails) count as 1/2 MP.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

I see no reason why a road shouldn't give it's full movement benefit regardless of who 'owns' it. If you want to give enemy roads a movement penalty because enemy troops might be nearby and your men have to move cautiously, you should also be giving teh same penalty to your own roads that happen to be near the front lines. Having an actual enemy unit around exerting a civ2 (or even a civ3) style zone of control would provide all the movement penalty you need, and reflect an actual threat to be cautious about.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

I wouldn't want full movement points. If they keep the movement bonus to 3 than enemies should get 2 bonus movements. Also railroads should be infinate movement for the friendly nation but a only 4 movement bonuses for enemies.

 

[Trev]

There should be no use of rail available to enemy units, this is needed to slow down aggressive forces, however some movement advantage for roads would be realistic, but maybe not for bridges, as bridges are usually either destroyed or well guarded in warfare and therefore not available for enemy use

 

[Figaro]

Not being able to use railways (sorry, I'm british and as far as I'm concerned there is NO SUCH THING AS A RAIL ROAD.) is a good thing because in Civ2 the game was too easy (you could just skim all your howitzers next to the enemy capital, capture it and watch civil war errupt) but I agree roads should be usable (this prevents situations like Artillery slogging over plains while their Modern Armour escort races ahead to attack).

 

[sengfossil]

What about this: You should always be able to use roads or highways, but you are not able to use railroads (otherwise known as railways ) because you don't got the locomotives from your enemies or because they have a other rail-system ...

 

[ybbor]

don't forget the citizens working/living in the tile, your units have to fight your way through/past/around them

 

[Figaro]

because they have a other rail-system ...

Or your troops don't understand all these signs reffering to 'railroads'...

 

[Theoden]

Well as far as we know there will be units that can aquire the ability to use enemy roads.

I would also like units to be able to use enemy roads but at a penalty like, you get only two movement points and only if there are no adjectent enemis. Railroads (or railways ) should not be able to be used at all as the defenders don't give the trains to the aggressor.

In civ 3 you can actually benefit from enemy roads to a very small degree. Catapults and cannons which are wheeled can pass over mountains and jungle if following a road even if that road is in enemy territory.

 

[rhialto]

don't forget the citizens working/living in the tile, your units have to fight your way through/past/around them

Civilians are civilians. They are non-combatants. If you have to fight past them, they aren't civilians, it means the enemy has managed to raise some guerilla-type units, not that the civilians are making your life difficult.

 

[Turtleneck]

one thing i really miss from civ2 was how your units could always use roads even if they were your enemy's roads. I understand how units can not use enemy railroads, but what keeps any type of foot unit from being able to walk on someone elses roads i do not understand.

I'm guessing this is because as with most things, the roads in Civ 3 don't just represent the physical roads themselves but the infastructure associated with the roads. If you go into enemy territory, that infastructure won't be helping your troops cross faster because it won't be under your control, until your borders secure the roads. And this is just what the game does.

 

[Trev]

The idea of preventing use of roads in civ3 is to slow down offensive armies and therefore hindering the quick conquering of the enemy, giving the enemy a chance to counterattack and defend. In civ2, this task of slowing the enemy was given to the partisans which appeared after the capture of cities. whatever is decided about road/rail movement there must be placed in the game some method of slowing enemy assaults