Roads built by workers? Poll

[AriochIV]

But they are ALREADY automatic in Civ6. What makes them here or there are the trade routes. Nothing wrong to replace trade routes with finding new trade partners, districts placements, internal trade, external trade, etc. The only problem I can see with all these sources of roads making, is that it could look like the old games spaghetties, which are disliked by a lot of people. (not me though)

They're not completely automatic -- the player chooses the route -- but the shortcoming is that you still don't have direct control over which tiles get roads (until the late Medieval era), and that becomes important once roads give movement bonuses. There's no good reason why Builders shouldn't be able to do the same thing that Military Engineers can do in terms of laying roads, either from a gameplay perspective or from a plausibility perspective.

Removing control from the player is something that should rarely if ever be done, and only for very good reason. As I've said before, if you're automating something because it's tedious and not important, then it probably shouldn't be in the game at all.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They're not completely automatic -- the player chooses the route --

What I tried to remark here is that it would be the same thing with other means : you could choose to build a district there instead of here because roads for example. Decide to work this instead of that because roads. I also think that the choice is less radical than choosing between gold or road. (since linking all your cities with roads would take eons, I always wanted Rome ability but for every city, not just the capital)

 

[agonistes]

I lean towards a hybrid system. Automated roads, but the ability to manually do them (probably with added costs, such as upkeep).

Agree.

I like civ 6 road creation. But I also want to be able to build and destroy roads.

Just don't return to 1 billion workers spamming roads and making the map look horrible. Workers with charges or some other limit/lifespan was a good idea. Maybe have a limit on roads too, so ai doesn't spam them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I got a mod that automatically puts a road whenever you improve a tile, and another one that lets you build a road with a builder charge

It seems to hit the sweet spot between Civ6’s frustrating You Get Roads Where The Trader AI Puts Them And Like It and earlier civs where essentially the entire map was spider webbed with roads

 

[Leyrann]

I got a mod that automatically puts a road whenever you improve a tile, and another one that lets you build a road with a builder charge

It seems to hit the sweet spot between Civ6’s frustrating You Get Roads Where The Trader AI Puts Them And Like It and earlier civs where essentially the entire map was spider webbed with roads

Joke's on you I improve every single tile in my empire.

 

[AffineConstant]

Transportation routes should be built between cities in your empire to allows resources to go from 1 city to another each turn (if they're connected).

You have "food city" near a bunch of farm tiles, "mining city" that's got a large amount of non food tiles. Build a road/boat/rail with a unit (merchant? worker?) and they build the transport route, which can also be used by units to travel faster. Cities can specialize now, roads/etc. have important use, and there's an answer to messy automation/questions about where/how to build roads and why.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't mind traders making the roads, but it just feels wrong to have close by cities that don't have some sort of route between.

 

[Xur]

Building roads was one of the fun things for me to do. Maybe I’m weird, but it was a pretty big thing they removed and replaced with an inferior system.

But it depends. If they keep builders with charges then I’d rather just not play at all.

 

[Opera at Sea]

I think both mechanics could exist simultaneously. I like the idea of roads appearing organically because of trade routes, military campaigns, etc. But we should be able to also make them ourselves and/or improve the existing roads. Possibly with a more elaborate detail on the quality, through the ages and how well they're suitable for different modes of transport.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think both mechanics could exist simultaneously. I like the idea of roads appearing organically because of trade routes, military campaigns, etc. But we should be able to also make them ourselves and/or improve the existing roads. Possibly with a more elaborate detail on the quality, through the ages and how well they're suitable for different modes of transport.

Builders can build roads using a build charge, traders make them as they go but you have less direct control over where they go

 

[Opera at Sea]

Builders can build roads using a build charge, traders make them as they go but you have less direct control over where they go

Yeah but I don't think that's bad thing. It think reflects history in a way that some roads would just appear over time because of trade routes etc. and some would be build in a more coordinated manner - like the Romans did. And in the modern era it's entirely a planned thing - while being of better quality too. I think it could add an interesting level of choice/priority during a game; "Am I okay right now with the sandy roads that are there from the trade routes or should set aside some resources to build better infrastructure?"

 

[Lazy sweeper]

It looks like Workers are a thing of the past now....

The new workers and roads mechanics are yet blurry but it seems a completely new direction has been implemented...

 

[AriochIV]

There are still Trade Routes, so that may be the only way to get roads.

I have noticed that there is a "worker" graphical effect on tiles in some cases. This may be when a tile improvement is still "under construction" (which may be a purely cosmetic effect).

Granary under construction and completed:



"Workers" on a tile in between Hul'chas:

 

[Jkchart]

It's probably my nascent engineering brain, but I really prefer to be the one who controls where roads go. The choices that the caravans often make drive me bonkers. Roadways should be optimized for both speed and minimal bridging, as bridges represent a high cost in reality. Don't cross a river twice when you can do it once. Roads should also make an effort to avoid hazards that could block travel or injure travellers, like floodplains and volcanic fields. So, when I see a caravan cross three rivers upstream from a place where a single crosing exists, or skirting a volcano, or crossing a marsh or a flood plain unecessarily, it makes me a bit bonkers. Also, roads crossing deserts should beeline for oases where ever possible.

It's sort of nice that caravans perform that role and free me up to deal with other tasks, but I'm not really optimizing for play speed. I play on marathon anyway, so if the game takes a few extra days to complete, I don't notice.

Sorry, Eagle, you can’t have a road through that city, we have to go around this forest to that gem mine over there

 

[Krikkit1]

I would prefer something like the system in ?CivRev? I think it was…roads a built in a city…with a selection of other cities the road goes to.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I would prefer something like the system in ?CivRev? I think it was…roads a built in a city…with a selection of other cities the road goes to.

A selection of other cities to go to. Can you see the problem here?

Military rds are not built to connect cities, but rather to allow few troops (like Alpine roads for example) to be able to scout and defend huge portions of the map a civ want to defend from invasions. And usually, these roads run parallel to the borders of your civ.
Think of of it like the Great Wall of China. TO the core, it's just a hugely fortified elevated road... It makes no sense whatsoever, to have roads built solely by cities, to connect cities, in a militaristic civ. None. Zero. Civ Rev was a console game with basically zero UI controls, and zero workers already for that matter. It is exactly what all of us was fearing about. I liked it when I played it on the go on my DS, but I'd never chose to play it at home when I can play civ 3 and 4.

 

[Krikkit1]

A selection of other cities to go to. Can you see the problem here?

Military rds are not built to connect cities, but rather to allow few troops (like Alpine roads for example) to be able to scout and defend huge portions of the map a civ want to defend from invasions. And usually, these roads run parallel to the borders of your civ.
Think of of it like the Great Wall of China. TO the core, it's just a hugely fortified elevated road... It makes no sense whatsoever, to have roads built solely by cities, to connect cities, in a militaristic civ. None. Zero. Civ Rev was a console game with basically zero UI controls, and zero workers already for that matter. It is exactly what all of us was fearing about. I liked it when I played it on the go on my DS, but I'd never chose to play it at home when I can play civ 3 and 4.

For military roads you add Forts onto that list

 

[Lazy sweeper]

For military roads you add Forts onto that list

Forts needs someone to be there in the first place to be able to build it.

Roman army, built roads as it was advancing. It built bridges on the go. Only after, the roads had been built, then wheeled transportation could bring in the stones necessary to build the forts, otherwiser Roman troops could build temporary earth moats, and reinforce them with pointed sticks.
Marshy terrains also had always been a nightmare for roads building.
The Netherlands for the romans engineers particularly has been pretty harsh to mantain forts, because roads were not an option, everything had to be hauled in by sea.

I mean, it could work, for gameplay, to some extent, I hope so.