Roads in Enemy territory

[Corkmaster]

The Jeep and the truck would add an extra dimension ( and probably some product placement revenue for Firaxis as 'Jeep' is a brand name as well as a 'generic' term of course.)

The train idea sounds like a lot of extra mouse clicking.
By the way if a turn is a year or years it is logical that your troops can at least get from one end of your territory to the other in one turn. Actually they could march it in the real world although Russia would be a long haul. Its the speed of advance in friendly as against hostile territory that should be different.
I think this is very well factored in by the current game, any more restrictions on internal movement ie trains would detract from this balance and be somewhat tedious.

 

[The Hun]

A train and truck unit? I hope Einstein was being sarcastic. These units' functions are incorporated into the tile improvement. If we were to start adding units to support units, we'd be stuck in a pit of unit orders. Sounds like someone needs to attend their MA meeting... Micro-managers Anonymous.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The preeminent blitzkrieg was France 1940. Here are some battle maps. One example is called "Racing to the English Channel." It took the Germans more than a week to "race" unopposed a couple of hundred kilometers from May 14 to May 24 (an average of ~2kph).

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/blitz/

The Americans have fielded the most advanced, mechanized and computerized army in the history of the world. They are pitted against a demoralized, poorly led, poorly supplied, beaten down third-world army. The desert terrain strongly favors the Americans.

The Americans are now racing to Baghdad at about -- 2 miles per hour.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I'd just wanted to add my support for the right side against the wrong side (sealman: just follow my lead)

Anyway, an attacker is simply slowed down a lot compared to a defender for a lot of reasons that have been mentioned in this thread, but that is not directly portraied in this game. I consider this no-road in enemy territory to be a very playable and abstract way of implementing support lines, small resistance pockets, blown-up bridges etc.

 

[anarres]

I've often wondered if it would make sense to allow road movement in enemy land by fortifying unit(s) on them, for at least a turn.

This could be the equivalent of securing your supply line, making sure no bridges are blown up, etc.

Not sure how useful this comment is to the debate though...

 

[joycem10]

annares i really like that idea. it can be seen as a representation of securing your lines of communication and supply.

that said, i cant think of any way to implement it.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by joycem10
annares i really like that idea. it can be seen as a representation of securing your lines of communication and supply.

that said, i cant think of any way to implement it.

It's sort of implemented now. When you capture a city (the crossroads and railhead), you then control the surrounding transportation network.

(Of course, it is very abstracted.)

Addendum: Notice how the Coalition bypassed Basra, but the Iraqis used that as a base to threaten the Coalition's lines of support. Must control the crossroads.

 

[Zachriel]

(Sidenote. Actually, you can use roads in enemy territory, you just don't get the road bonus. So if the road cuts across a mountain, you can use that road -- at one movement point per tile.)

 

[anarres]

After another day of supply routes being attacked, I think I agree now that getting the movement bonus would be unrealistic, even with a few troops trying to secure it.

 

[barron of ideas]

With reguard to putting troops, etc on trains and moving through enemy territory, in the Russian Civil War armored trains were all the rage, and this sort of thing was done frequently. Don't know why the enemy didn't remove the tracks, but from what I remember reading, one of the principal ways of maintainiing control around cities in the wide open spaces was armored trains.