Roads add movement bonus and NOTHING else ?

[apatheist]

30 turns for a superhighway on one square?

30 turns unmodified. Replaceable Parts halves that, and then Democracy can reduce it another 33%. And if you're Industrious, that's another 50% off, for 5 turns.

 

[lost_civantares]

30 turns unmodified. Replaceable Parts halves that, and then Democracy can reduce it another 33%. And if you're Industrious, that's another 50% off, for 5 turns.

It's still 15 turns if you are not in a democratic gov (and they are not using specific governments any way. ) and you're playing someone who is not industrious, but may be it could halve with Replaceable Parts (which is not there anymore if you look), then halve again (for a better 8 turns) at a later technology like composites or maybe something earlier.

My problem with the "road degredation theory" is that if you look historicly roads often lasted for many years (just think of the Romans, parts of their roads still exist after over a thousend years), for this to realisticly work according to history would mean that it would only decline every 50 yrs, making the idea change nothing really.

 

[lordex]

Roads WITH gold bonus do make a lot of sense to me-more than otherwise. If we consider each tile an area, say the size of a county in the US, it's hard to imagine there isn't one single road in it. So maybe road-on-every-tile IS the way it's supposed to be.

As for gold bonus, an area with road obviously should enjoy a lot of trade related benefits, hence the extra gold. What's wrong with that?

I'm actually bothered by the fact(?) that they still give raioroads infinite movement...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Its very simple, Lordex. Roads only generate trade for that city if they are connected into the broader trade network-and I believe it is a one time benefit.
Additionally, though, Cottages can grow into villages and towns which generate economic benefits for the city-if 'occupied'. So it really is just about representing things in a much better fashion than road sprawl, IMO.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Shigga]

I agree with Pembroke. If roads only give a movement bonus and no negative (besides the worker time to build them), I will likely road every tile in my empire eventually.

+1! Roads/rr on every tile assure that you can immediately adress any intruding force on any square within your empire. That's why cIV will still be covered with roads. Sad but true.

 

[Pembroke]

If we consider each tile an area, say the size of a county in the US, it's hard to imagine there isn't one single road in it. So maybe road-on-every-tile IS the way it's supposed to be.

Sure, I'm not arguing against the realism side of it. If you divide the real world into civ squares then most land tiles have got plenty of roads. However there are a couple game reasons why I want fewer roads.

1) Everything railroaded is plain ugly. What? It is!

2) If every unit of yours can reach any square of yours inside one turn then strategic troop placement is pointless. It doesn't matter where you put your units or where your enemy attacks. You can always be there to counter him. Now, it might be quite realistic that you can fly your troops wherever you want on the globe in one year, but IMO when game play conflicts with realism it's realism that ought to give way. Troop placement and points of attack *ought* to matter because Civ is a strategy game.

I mean, a real horse can certainly just walk a bit instead of hopping around everytime it moves, but I still want to restrict the knight to those L-shaped moves in chess because chess *works* better that way.

 

[DarthCycle]

Good posts.

Road providing reduce movement cost and/or increased trade are debatable. In the end, it all comes down to a gameplay design. You don't like it, at least you can mod it.

On the other end, I am curious about:

1) Can we have more than one type of road, like apatheist suggested? Or at least, can we mod it (create new types)?

2) Is there (or can we mod) a maintenance/building cost to roads? This, in my opinion, is a big flaw in the Civ3 road mechanic. For example, if it costs 5 golds to build one hex of road, and 1 gold to maintain it, you wouldn't spawn roads everywhere, regardless of whatever advantage they provide.

 

[LostKing]

I think enemy commandos will keep all squares from being roaded very quickly. It's much easier to maintain control of sparse roads then a grid.

 

[lordex]

Its very simple, Lordex. Roads only generate trade for that city if they are connected into the broader trade network-and I believe it is a one time benefit.
Additionally, though, Cottages can grow into villages and towns which generate economic benefits for the city-if 'occupied'. So it really is just about representing things in a much better fashion than road sprawl, IMO.

I hadn't been following the upcoming Civ4 features until recently, so I guess that's something I missed? Your point well taken if that's the case.

 

[Pembroke]

2) If every unit of yours can reach any square of yours inside one turn then strategic troop placement is pointless.

Just noticed the thread saying railroads will be 10x and not infinite. That is indeed good news.

It still won't keep me railroading everything because 10 is better than 1 but at least now I have to plan how to place my units.

Good job Civ Team!

 

[salty]

I think roads should have a mandatory cost, but also give trade bonuses in certain situations (e.g. connected to luxurys). So you'll pay for roads and get a movement bonus, but you'll also have increased trade when placed appropriately. Don't know if the AI is smart enough for that though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

actually its not 10x but 10 tiles /turn fixed