Roads in Enemy territory

[sealman]

Aesir Knight: Maybe I mistook what you wrote. Currently I am in favor of the current system regarding the use of enemy roads. Next week I'll move over to the other camp when they start some other line of reasoning. :crazyeyes

I am such a waffle at times.

 

[SCPete]

Not being able to use enemy roads and railroads in Civ3 is an accurate representation of real world logistics. As an attacker you could make a mad dash to an enemy city but what would happen if you did? The same thing that happend to German troops in in Russia during WWII. Surrounded in a enemy city and no lines of supplies.

Without having road and railroad movement bonuses, you go through the unseen process of securing supply lines and towns as your army moves across the country side towards an enemy city.

 

[Aesir Knight]

Originally posted by SCPete
Without having road and railroad movement bonuses, you go through the unseen process of securing supply lines and towns as your army moves across the country side towards an enemy city.

Interesting point...although, if you twist it a bit, you could come up with this: Since each turn in Civ (in the latter ages) is one year, shouldn't your supply lines be secure by then? Of course, this could possibly be what you meant in your statement. Considering that, though, using at least enemy roads would make sense, considering that in a year most units could move over at least one tile.

Of course, that's a different story entirely...

 

[sealman]

:suicide: stop! don't make me flip again. :suicide:

 

[Aesir Knight]

Aww, come on, sealman. You know you want to.... Join us!

But really, anyone else have an opinion on this?

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Allemand
Of course, you can still conquer a civ in one turn, using cavalry/workers. Cavalry takes a city, workers build railroads to the next border, more cavalry takes next city, more workers build railroads to the next border, more cavalry takes next city, more workers build railroads to next border, etc., etc., etc.

Until the railroad rules are changed, this will be a continuing problem.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how do you move all those workers and lay rails to the recently conquered city in one turn? That's probably the thing I miss the most from Civ 2, engineers moving to a square and building a road on it in the same turn.

 

[Fast Ed]

I for one agree with the way the use of roads and or railroads are used by opposing forces.....imagine getting set for an invasion by another civ and fortifying your border or sea cities for this coming event...then when they invade they can end up in any part of your empire if using RR....fast units could take any unprotected city that maybe you left unprotected or with only a limited defense in anticipation of the invasion......totally unrealistic and you'd be spending all your time moving units to where the opposing forces decided to go in hope you can salvage the battle. Your planning and preperation is of no avail in such a situation.....it would ruin any plans you made and make any planning in advance futile.

 

[SCPete]

Aesir Knight:Interesting point...although, if you twist it a bit, you could come up with this: Since each turn in Civ (in the latter ages) is one year, shouldn't your supply lines be secure by then? Of course, this could possibly be what you meant in your statement. Considering that, though, using at least enemy roads would make sense, considering that in a year most units could move over at least one tile.

I understand where you are coming from and agree a bit...however it takes some 8-12 years to circumnavigate a standard map with a battleship. In real life that can be done in a few months yet nobody complains about this.

Besides it makes it more interesting...How many times have you conquered an entire civilization in one turn in Civ2? I know I have done it many times. Yet this isn't hardly done in real life either. In Civ3 this provides the AI time to counter attack and for the person to utilize the full use of combat arms.

Maybe a middle ground would be nice. Like: no use of railroads but half the movement bonus on roads (rounding up).

 

[joycem10]

SC Pete wrote: "I understand where you are coming from and agree a bit...however it takes some 8-12 years to circumnavigate a standard map with a battleship. In real life that can be done in a few months yet nobody complains about this. "

You have to check out some of the threads on this issue. Apart from corruption and culture flipping, unrealistic naval movement/warfare is one of the most controversial aspects of CIV III. People are always complaining about the movement rates for ships.

 

[Corkmaster]

I find the denial of enemy railroads and roads to an attacker is one of the best changes from CII to CIII. Forces you to calculate your attack more ralistically. Also gets rid of those endless and boring howitzer mounted on trains attacks.
If Hitler could have used Russian railroads before he even captured the territory the result of WWII might have been very different.

 

[Bogatir]

Trying to apply any sort of ‘realism’ test to any of the game’s warfare subsystem will just end up leaving you all aggravated and confused. It’s not a military simulation by any stretch.

Elements of the warfare subsystem are loosely tied to real-world analogs, but they don’t ‘simulate’ anything. In the case of the change in use of enemy roads in Civ 3, it makes sense all around. It’s an excellent game-balancing tool that prevents those ‘tank rush’ one-turn conquests of vast empires. It is also a stronger analog to the real world than the Civ 2 treatment.

In the real world, large military formations don’t go dashing down enemy-held road networks in column of march because that’s a good way to get shot to bits. Lots of times they don’t go dashing down those same roads for even simpler reasons: They have crummy maps, bad navigation and even worse driving.

Civ 3 slows the use of enemy roads to force military campaigns into a more ‘historical’ model and to balance the game. I thought the ability to fly around the map in Civ 2 like a cannon-armed ping-pong ball was one of the game’s dopier aspects.

Dralix:

You can still chain-gang a railway through newly-conquered territory in one turn. You just need a pile of workers (or ‘slave’ workers, more typically) to do it. Depending on your government type, you need like three or four ‘slave’ workers to pop a railroad down in the same turn. Then you move four more workers through those to the next road tile and repeat the process.

In fact, the territory can belong to a technologically backwards ‘Ally’ as well. In the last game I played (as the Aztecs), the Germans started a war with me after they had plopped down a city in an ‘empty’ spot (emptied by a previous war that caused me to raze a city that had been there) that cut off the northern five cities of my empire. There was also a route to those cities through Zulu territory. The Zulus weren’t laying rails yet, so I struck an MPP with the Zulu and chain-ganged a railway through their territory in one turn to rush reinforcements north. It helped, of course, that I had about sixty ‘slave’ workers hanging around from previous wars.

The Germans were not happy about this. But none of them were left to complain a few turns later.

Cheers.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Bogatir
Dralix:

You can still chain-gang a railway through newly-conquered territory in one turn. You just need a pile of workers (or ‘slave’ workers, more typically) to do it. Depending on your government type, you need like three or four ‘slave’ workers to pop a railroad down in the same turn. Then you move four more workers through those to the next road tile and repeat the process.

I guess the part I was missing is that there is already a road connecting the cities. I have a tendency to bomb too many roads

 

[Steve]

Obviously there are going to be imperfections, but I like the road rules as they stand in this game. As many pointed out, historically, it takes time to secure enemy territory and when you do so in the game, rush those libraries and temples to expand your culture and the roads are yours.

I definitely think it's more realistic to have the restrictions, those rush road/rail artillery assaults in CivII made the game too predictable from the attacker's point of view. At least with the restrictions, you have to plan, think, and fight to get there and on the whole, this makes the game more interesting in my opinion.

The points about naval movement are very well received by me, though. Maybe they could be increased over time/territory controlled?

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Aesir Knight
Aww, come on, sealman. You know you want to.... Join us!

But really, anyone else have an opinion on this?

That depends... which side on you for again... I've forgotten. For that matter, I can't recall my position either.

I like it.
I don't like it.
I like it.

Man I need a drink.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Fast Ed
I for one agree with the way the use of roads and or railroads are used by opposing forces.....imagine getting set for an invasion by another civ and fortifying your border or sea cities for this coming event...then when they invade they can end up in any part of your empire if using RR....fast units could take any unprotected city that maybe you left unprotected or with only a limited defense in anticipation of the invasion......totally unrealistic and you'd be spending all your time moving units to where the opposing forces decided to go in hope you can salvage the battle. Your planning and preperation is of no avail in such a situation.....it would ruin any plans you made and make any planning in advance futile.

I think we are all in agreement regarding the use of enemy railroads.

I think the majority of the discussion is revolving on the use of enemy roads.

Then again, I could be going senile.

 

[SCPete]

joycem10:

now that you mention it I do remember a thread talking about that. Awhile ago though...

Having said that I like the way the game is now. It gets the human player to think and come up with a new set of tactics for each battle. A concept called Strategy which this game falls under.

Also IF and WHEN multi-player is introduced it will bring about a whole new ERA of CIV Generals.

 

[Albert Einstain]

I have an idea about RR: Firaxis, do you hear me?
The idea as following:
1. RR won't get any moving bonus to any unit nor in enemy territory, nor in mine. So it will be like roads.
2. New "train" unit will be introduced as ground transport unit. It can move ONLY on railroads and only in my territory. Moving range is unlimited, what is limited, is unloading units. Let's say train can transport 3 units, so it should have not more than 3 unloads per turn. No attack, no defence, may be captured, moved by see trasport overseas.

I believe this will improve game balance and will make game more "realistic":
1. Limits unit moving - you wan't move whole your army to your borders in one turn, only as match as you have trains.
2. No reason to bomb all railroads going to city before attack. Bomb it in one or two places and train won't pass it.
3. To use railroads overseas bring your trains or capture them.

What do you think about idea?

 

[Anglophile]

The idea of train units is pretty good; it does put a limit on the former unlimited number of units infinite distances issue. It would be more realistic. No idea how hard it would be to put into the game but an excellent suggestion.

 

[Albert Einstain]

BTW, another idea is to have road transport unit, let say "truck", with 3 movement point. I will be very good for transporting infantry - give them range of 9 on roads!!! Another unit may be Jeep - can move any terrain 3 movement points (9 with roads) and transport another unit.
What do you think?

 

[sealman]

Like the train Idea. someone did come up with a truck (Dark Sheer, I believe) check in the units forum.