Possible disadvantage to roads on every tile

[Aussie_Lurker]

Nyvin. If you check my previous posts, you will see that I said my hopes are that the city will get a ONE-TIME economic benefit only. For instance, lets say-for arguments sake-that each city in a trade network grants a bonus of 2gp (with a population bonus for the connecting city, if that makes sense) to new cities entering it by connecting via roads. If a new city is linked up to a network of 10 cities, via a road, then said new city will recieve a gold bonus of 20 gold. Thats it, nothing more-no matter how many additional roads might be built to connect this city into the trade network.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[joethreeblah]

Nyvin. If you check my previous posts, you will see that I said my hopes are that the city will get a ONE-TIME economic benefit only. For instance, lets say-for arguments sake-that each city in a trade network grants a bonus of 2gp (with a population bonus for the connecting city, if that makes sense) to new cities entering it by connecting via roads. If a new city is linked up to a network of 10 cities, via a road, then said new city will recieve a gold bonus of 20 gold. Thats it, nothing more-no matter how many additional roads might be built to connect this city into the trade network.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Why?

It's going to either cost to build them or cost to maintain them, and the benefits will be logistic, trade, etc..

They have said that people will not be roading every tile, so I think you can come to that conclusion.

I don't know where the 10 or 20gp bonus for connecting cities came from, but that seems like a pretty wild leap out of nowhere.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Seriously, does anyone actually listen when I say things? I clearly stated that this is what I want, not what I believe will actually be in there!!! I also make it clear that the examples I provide are for arguments sake only. My point is that I would LIKE to see a system where this happens-as it would provide an economic benefit for building roads, but discourage people from building roads everywhere (given that the bonus is a once-only thing).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[alexchunha]

Well, at least I understand what you're getting at.

Nice posts, by the way.

 

[Nyvin]

Nyvin. If you check my previous posts, you will see that I said my hopes are that the city will get a ONE-TIME economic benefit only. For instance, lets say-for arguments sake-that each city in a trade network grants a bonus of 2gp (with a population bonus for the connecting city, if that makes sense) to new cities entering it by connecting via roads. If a new city is linked up to a network of 10 cities, via a road, then said new city will recieve a gold bonus of 20 gold. Thats it, nothing more-no matter how many additional roads might be built to connect this city into the trade network.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This isn't what you were saying earlier. And if this is the case it wouldn't be enough for the whole game. After all the cities are connected, which can be done by the end of the ancient age, your still paying the maintence cost throughout the game. Something like 200 or so gold isn't going to help in any major way, that's about enough to upgrade three whole units.

 

[Stilgar08]

Before quoting and reqouting : Aussie's WANTED (and IMO he stated that this is his WISH from the very beginning ) one time g benefit is NOT intended to pay the maintenance for all your roads until the end of the game. The one time benefit and maint are 2 completely different pair of shoes!

Originally Posted by Stilgar08
We have no idea yet, how trade and economics will be changed in cIV, ..... there is a chance you'll GET this money... Brain's right! It's all about balance.. I'm in favor for maintenance cost as well...
And don't forget that if this is implemented it's purposefully implemented to raise incentive NOT to build roads everywhere you like but to choose! Makes it harder, but that's good, cause that is what this game feature is about!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The amount they've given out so far indicates that the money system will resemble the older styles. I don't think there will be much of a difference. There hasn't been for the last four Civ games.

In some situations, road maintenance not only makes you not want to build roads everywhere, maybe you won't want to build them at all! especially if you just make a lot of fast moving guys or use the sea for transportation. Anyone who doesn't use roads would have an advantage over someone who does, with maintenence. The only time the advantage of the other would be seen is during wartime.

What you say is just flat out wrong! Firaxis didn't say much about the trade system and how economics work, but the few infos we have already implicites (sp.?) big changes so that you won't need the road-goldbonus. Trade-possibilities are greatly expanded just by the chance to trade EVERY resource there is (including food), great people can do great deals or raise gpt in a city, not to speak of multiple GA's. And these are just special occasions concerning economics we know about. We almost know nothing about regularities.
It's a little bit snobbish to think, economy hasn't been completely overhault, especially when complaints concerning cIII often was referring to the poor economy-system and when one of the civic categories is economics!!!

And finally concerning building no roads at all: Ridiculous! You NEED roads
-to connect to trade network
-to stay flexible military-wise

And because you NEED them you should PAY for them! period

 

[MattII]

I hope you can mod in different road types as well. e.g. dirt track (movement bonus only), cobblestone road (further movement bonus, small economic advantage), railroad (further movement bonus, larger economic advantage, decent upkeep cost), etc.

 

[warpstorm]

I think back on the many places in the USA and Europe I've been. All but the most remote areas have roads and rail in them.

 

[th0mas]

I think back on the many places in the USA and Europe I've been. All but the most remote areas have roads and rail in them.

That is a very good point.
I actually like the Road/Rail sprawl that people are complaining about in CIV1, 2 & 3.
For me it feels a more representative abstraction of the urbanisation of the wilderness. I like the fact that the map is blighted by the ugly rail/road network sprawl - it kind of plays to my own "Progress vs Ecology" Views
..... and also paradoxically to my Builder nature and the feeling that your actions actually change things!

....and regarding the 2nd question from the orgininal post ... Bring back ZOC a la CIV 1 & 2 and SMAC - I loved it!

 

[eaglefox]

i personally don't like to see roads everywhere just because its not natural nor viable. not all roads have tolls, so a big chuck of the budget needs to be allocated for infrastructure maintenance. this is what i wanna see in civ4. also the workers need to be paid (more than what they get right now) - and there should also be a limit on how many people in your country wanna build roads for the rest of their lives. by the way, i hate to see that a warrior requires the same amount of money for maintenance as an aircraft carrier. evey unit should have different costs for maintenance and upgrades.

 

[th0mas]

i personally don't like to see roads everywhere just because its not natural nor viable. not all roads have tolls, so a big chuck of the budget needs to be allocated for infrastructure maintenance. this is what i wanna see in civ4. also the workers need to be paid (more than what they get right now) - and there should also be a limit on how many people in your country wanna build roads for the rest of their lives. by the way, i hate to see that a warrior requires the same amount of money for maintenance as an aircraft carrier. evey unit should have different costs for maintenance and upgrades.

There is a whole bunch of stuff here about how a player's view of game realism is driven by their own perception of the scale of CIV and therefore what is being represented by the game mechanics of CIV. This can be a very personal thing.

I look at this as a strategic game, where I can forgive things like maintenance costs being identical between different types of units because at a large distance the abstraction fits the model. Those differences are offset some what by the cost of building the unit and the infrastructure implied by making improvements to the city, building factories, refineries, mining the land etc.

In terms of seeing roads and railroads everywhere I would disagree with your views, just have a look at the road and rail network of the United Kingdom, France or Germany. Not only is it viable but it really exists!

In terms of scale and road maintenance, I look at the Road network as an abstraction of the actual roadways plus, villages, towns, farms etc that make up the land but are too insignificant in terms of scale to be included within the game mechanics. This also applies Rail networks, I view this as not just rail but all forms of modern transport infrasturcture, Motorways etc.

Items such as workers are an abstraction of your workforce, so questions of 'life-time' don't really apply, and you are paying maintenance for them in terms of lost revenue and production capacity by not using them in a city (a unit of population is lost when you create a worker in Civ 3).

Anyway this is how I see the game when playing it, which in a round about way, is why I like to see sprawling road and rail networks.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The problem here is that I can see both sides of the argument here. Though I am implacable in my support for maintainance costs for roads, I kind of err on both sides in regards to whether or not roads should generate commerce.
My feeling is that the tile through which a road passes should meet certain criteria in order to produce commerce. Namely, it should produce at least 2 resources (hammers, food, commerce)-in any combination-in order for a road to generate bonus commerce. So, for instance, if a road passes through a tile that produces 2 hammers, or 2 food, or 1 food/1hammer, then that road might generate commerce. Well, thats one idea at any rate.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[th0mas]

The problem here is that I can see both sides of the argument here. Though I am implacable in my support for maintainance costs for roads, I kind of err on both sides in regards to whether or not roads should generate commerce.
My feeling is that the tile through which a road passes should meet certain criteria in order to produce commerce. Namely, it should produce at least 2 resources (hammers, food, commerce)-in any combination-in order for a road to generate bonus commerce. So, for instance, if a road passes through a tile that produces 2 hammers, or 2 food, or 1 food/1hammer, then that road might generate commerce. Well, thats one idea at any rate.

I am also not against road maintenance as a concept if it adds to game play, assumption being that the existing model does not currently prevent me from suspending my disbelief.

In terms of commerse, If citizens of your city are working City tiles it should be implicit that they gain something from the tile. If the model is that commerce is generated by a worked tile that has a road on it (representing the production of local infrastructure, population centers, market towns etc) then that is fine. If the model for wealth or commerse creation is modelled in a different way then that also is fine. For me it is about how you represent (and ultimately affect) the 'industry' of your civilization on the map that is important.

It would be nice to represent worked tiles on the map graphically....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Not sure about unimproved tiles, but we do know that worked tiles with improvements on them will be represented graphically. So operating mines will show little carts coming in and out-just as an example.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

There's no point to having both maintenance and commerce; they'd cancel each other out. Even if they're not equal; suppose maintenance was 2 gpt and commerce 1; you might as well ditch the commerce and make the maintenance 1 gpt. Not that I like maintenance; just making a point.

 

[th0mas]

There's no point to having both maintenance and commerce; they'd cancel each other out. Even if they're not equal; suppose maintenance was 2 gpt and commerce 1; you might as well ditch the commerce and make the maintenance 1 gpt. Not that I like maintenance; just making a point.

If we accept that the roads and railroads are not just representations of the transport network but include local commerse features such as towns etc.. then the maintenance value of each roaded/railroaded tile would be insignificant compared to the commerse generated by working the tile in question.

Remember that you would be paying maintenance on all roaded and railroaded tiles not just those worked by citizens or inside the city radius. I would imagine a line item tax figure based on the number railroaded tiles across the whole of your civilization.

I am not sure I like maintenance on the railroad or road network for Civ, as it may lead to increase MM rather than improved game play. That being said, it might mean that you have a more interesting topography from the point of pillaging and air/naval bombardment - which could improve the late game.

To Aussie_Lurker I really hope that is true, it will be interesting to see some late game screen shots.

 

[apatheist]

The same effect can be achieved by restricting maintenance to road tiles that are not worked. That way, the redundant commerce bonus can be avoided while still accomplishing the goal.

 

[Craterus22]

I think back on the many places in the USA and Europe I've been. All but the most remote areas have roads and rail in them.

Think of all the places you HAVEN'T been... a good portion of those places might not have roads on every tile.


I like the idea of road/rail maint. Also, hope that the AI thinks strategically about road placement if the "Use enemy roads" skill is prevalent.

 

[Nyvin]

I think back on the many places in the USA and Europe I've been. All but the most remote areas have roads and rail in them.

That's probably because all the places you havn't been to didn't have roads going through them....

 

[Skatanic]

I haven't seen anybody propose this yet (admittedly I haven't actively searched for it) and it seems like a logical model.

It is undisputable that roads are present in almost all parts of a "civilized" country. What is slightly less obvious is that roads are not all created equal, especially considering the time frame in which most of the game is played. The Romans were engineers far ahead of their time and devised strong roads built evenly of stone. This allowed much greater military traffic. These were exclusively main roads. Other roads, connecting small villages, farms etc. were more like dirt paths or just flattened earth.

For "work" to be done in a square, there must be a way for the workers to transport supplies and produce to and from that square into the city. This is essential in hilly terrain and even more so in forests. A farmer cannot carry his tools and produce in his hands; he must use a cart. A cart must have flat ground to travel over. Thus, it is a logical extension to assume that some form of road is necessary for any amount of work. A square must be prepared before work can be carried out.

The road, or path, mentioned in the previous example would not do for a busy exchange of merchants. For trade, a wider, more robust road is necessary. For the efficient transport of military, an even wider and better quality road is required. Roads of this size and structural integrity take years and many men to build. They also take much more to maintain, as heavy and consistent traffic takes a considerable toll.

I do not believe that an accurate model can be created while all roads are considered equal. I've described three types of roads and that appears to be the practical limit, but I am no expert on roads, I have limited experience in History, and I am certainly not a game designer. Of course, the lighter roads would not take long to build (perhaps one turn, or are created with the presence of people), the trading roads would take an intermediate amount of time to build and a small maintenance fee, and the large roads would take much time and money to build and maintain. Again, small roads would not carry trade or be of any benefit to the efficiency of military transport, etc. I think you get the picture.

It's not perfect, but it's a better system that what is currently used (in Civ3, at least) and it is not overly complicated.