Possible disadvantage to roads on every tile

[rickb]

OK, so we now know that roads will not provide an increase in commerce. This by itself doesn't necessarily mean you still wouldn't want to build a road on every tile if you had idle workers. However, in conjunction with units now being able to acquire the ability to use enemy roads, I think this would be a definite reason why you would *not* want to do that. Having fewer roads would mean it would be easier for you to block them and restrict the movement of enemy units with this ability, otherwise they'd constantly be flanking around your units by using your own roads to their advantage.

BTW, do we know if units will exert a zone of control as in Civ 2 (prevents movement) or like Civ 3 (you get a free shot at passing units)? or something else entirely? or absent altogether?

 

[Thunderfall]

OK, so we now know that roads will not provide an increase in commerce. This by itself doesn't necessarily mean you still wouldn't want to build a road on every tile if you had idle workers. However, in conjunction with units now being able to acquire the ability to use enemy roads, I think this would be a definite reason why you would *not* want to do that. Having fewer roads would mean it would be easier for you to block them and restrict the movement of enemy units with this ability, otherwise they'd constantly be flanking around your units by using your own roads to their advantage.

BTW, do we know if units will exert a zone of control as in Civ 2 (prevents movement) or like Civ 3 (you get a free shot at passing units)? or something else entirely? or absent altogether?

It depends on how easy it is for units to obtain the Use Enemy Road ability. If it's not easy to get, then I would still build roads everywhere.

Even if it's easy to get the ability, I probably would still build roads everywhere. If you only have one road between cities and/or resources, it's easy for your enemy to pillage it and disconnect your resources / trade network.

BTW, do we know if units will exert a zone of control as in Civ 2 (prevents movement) or like Civ 3 (you get a free shot at passing units)? or something else entirely? or absent altogether?

haven't heard anything about this yet...

 

[Urederra]

We also don't know how much the roads will cost to build. Maybe if is a lot of worker's turns, we have to build the necessary roads, but not more. Or if there is something you have to do to maintain the road network.

If the roads are built in just a few turns, I would build roads everywhere.

 

[minger]

I like the maintenance cost idea. Heck, maybe all tile improvements should have maintenance costs. *duck*

 

[#1 Person]

*Throws pot were minger's head was before he ducked*

I would assume that things like roads would get money for matenience by tolls and such, so no extra money would be needed.

 

[peanut35]

this is a silly idea, but what if roads can't be pillaged, ie the only advantage of roads is troop movement, and all civs can use them, providing they have the appropriate promotions.

 

[Legionary37]

Roads will probably take longer to build. Let's remember historically that a large road system over a large empire was difficult to build.

 

[loseth]

I have to say that I really never liked enemies not being able to use roads. I mean, really, you have a Prussian army that arrives at the French border and marches in after Napoleon. They can't use the roads because...they march on the wrong side? ...they don't understand how French roads work?...they have to know the secret handshake? ...they have some wierd notion of warfare and think it's 'unfair' to walk on roads within enemy territory?

It seems to me that the army would need to be led by severely mentally challenged leaders not to take advantage of the enemy's road system. IMO, if you don't want the enemy to use your roads, you should have to block/barricade them or destroy them, as IRL. No promotion should be necessary for the enemy (unless it's a brain upgrade for the aforementioned commanders ).

 

[The Fjonis]

@ loseth -- I guess they'd be slowed down because they can't read the road signs.

 

[Avayaman]

they got lost at the roundabouts (is that what they call em?)

 

[rickb]

Yeah maintenance cost for roads and requiring large amounts of worker time are really the best ways to limit road building. Although if you've played the Rise and Rule mod that makes it much longer to build tile improvements, especially railroads, you still eventually have all your tiles covered anyway though a combination of more workers and time. I'm not even sure how much maintenance costs will limit determined players. We'll have to see how hard it is to make lots on money is Civ 4. In Civ 3, even having enormous numbers of workers needed in the Rise and Rule mod to build railroads really didn't effect me too much as you have plenty of gold once your civ gets going, of course, most of that gold is from roads, so we'll see...

I really hope "use enemy roads" doesn't mean rail lines as well. In Civ 2, I absolutely hated that. It's ridiculous to think you could just freely move anywhere in enemy territory along rail lines. I personally welcomed the Civ 3 approach, but yeah it probably went too far in the other direction, you should able to take advantage of the enemy road system to some degree.

Assuming unit promotions/upgrades will happen at about the same regularity as promotions in Civ 3, you'd be able to have plenty of units with this ability if you wanted. Basically it would represent seasoned units being able to move more effectively in enemy terriority. We'll have to see how often the AI takes advantage of this upgrade.

 

[Brain]

I have given my opinion on this matter several times before. One of the big strategic decisions players should have to make is whether, when, and where to build roads. It should be a calculated decision where a balance between the cost and benefit of redundant road networks should be considered carefully, instead of the current "road everything" approach. I'm 100% for road maintenance costs. Railroads should cost even more maintenance.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I am so glad they fixed this. Roads everywhere has been a problem every since Civ 1. Sad to say though...this has been the best addition to Civ 4.

 

[Puppeteer]

They can't use the roads because...they march on the wrong side? ...they don't understand how French roads work?...they have to know the secret handshake? ...they have some wierd notion of warfare and think it's 'unfair' to walk on roads within enemy territory?

Because they'll get wiped out in an ambush if they're speeding along enemy-controlled roads. They would have to move carefully with scouts ahead looking for enemy troops in the bushes and traps. The troops themselves would have to advance in a fight-ready manner which means not very fast.

 

[Brain]

Because they'll get wiped out in an ambush if they're speeding along enemy-controlled roads. They would have to move carefully with scouts ahead looking for enemy troops in the bushes and traps. The troops themselves would have to advance in a fight-ready manner which means not very fast.

Oh, come on! That would be a credible explanation if civ had even the vaguest concept of an "ambush", but right now it doesn't. It's quite easy to fix that too, without making the stupid can't use enemy roads rule. Just give a defensive penalty to troups attacked in enemy teritory with no movement points left. Then at least you can decide for yourself whether it's better to speed along the road or be more careful.

 

[thescaryworker]

there should probably also be a 'misplacement factor'. You can't exactly excpect a whole army to know exactly where they are in enemy territory without the vaguest idea of N,S,E,&,W.

 

[Legionary37]

Another idea might be to just decrease the movment bonus for roads. Perhaps half a movement point instead of 1 third?

 

[joethreeblah]

there should probably also be a 'misplacement factor'. You can't exactly excpect a whole army to know exactly where they are in enemy territory without the vaguest idea of N,S,E,&,W.

like maybe at the beginning instead of a mini map they give you a mini jigsaw puzzle until you figure out directions.

 

[Carver]

RRs should cost maintanece and thus, hopefully, won't proliferate everywhere disrupting the beauty of the contryside. But roads are a different story; IIRC a tile in C3 is 100 sq miles, don't you think there should be a road within 100 sq miles? And don't you think that the transport infrastructure would aid commerce?

Just in terms of moving units (including workers) I want would every tile roaded. If you need to make a terrain improvement or change I don't want my workers to waste a turn just getting on the tile in question. Futhermore, with the SOD playing less of a role and players being encouraged to spread their units out more, aren't you going to want to be able to move your units easily and spread them out to counter an enemy's dispersed units coming at you?

 

[rickb]

RRs should cost maintanece and thus, hopefully, won't proliferate everywhere disrupting the beauty of the contryside. But roads are a different story; IIRC a tile in C3 is 100 sq miles, don't you think there should be a road within 100 sq miles? And don't you think that the transport infrastructure would aid commerce?

As with everything in Civ, it's always the way in which you choose to think of the abstractions and what you think is fun (i.e. I myself don't like building roads everywhere and just don't like the way it looks on the map) and/or "feels right". Personally I imagine roads in Civ to be major highways appropriate to the time period, i.e. like the US Interstate system in modern times and therefore just for linking cities together, the minor roads being below the level of abstraction of the game. And I think of the infinite movement along railroads as more of a representation of it being the most efficient way to move things (other than by sea movement, a whole other can of worms for abstraction). Personally I've always wanted a "load/unload onto train" command that would use up all a unit's movement and would be the only way you could access the rail system's unlimited movement, and I wouldn't necessarily make it a prerequisite to build a road first before a rail.

I'm chomping at the bit to see how much stuff we'll actually be able to change with the C++ game SDK (I'm a professional game developer myself). Who knows? We might all be able have exactly the game we want!