Roads in Enemy territory

[chaucer]

I have had Civ III since Christmas and have not had a chance to play it until this past weekend. I am playing as Rome and I am currently at war witht the Egyptions. I noticed that my Calvary does not get the road movement bonus in their territory. Is this a bug or a game disign feature?

 

[The_Newbie]

Design Feature. It is to stop people using enemy railroads to take them over ultra-quickly. Think Germans invading Russia.

 

[chaucer]

Thanks. That is going to change my strategy a little.

 

[Dralix]

You can only use a rival's roads or rails if you have a Right of Passage agreement with them. Even if you are not a war, you need this agreement to get the fast travel.

 

[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.

 

[sealman]

I understand the railroad reasoning but not being able to use the roads as you invade really sucks. I guess I can always look at it as if the invadee has mined the roads and I need to clear them.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by The_Newbie
Design Feature. It is to stop people using enemy railroads to take them over ultra-quickly. Think Germans invading Russia.

NOT using enemy RAILROADS makes sense - different gauge, destroyed stock, lots of problems.

But roads SHOULD be usable in enemy territory UNLESS PILLAGED by the defender. This is historical and makes for more interesting play: borders must be guarded, and foot soldiers don't take forever to invade.

 

[sealman]

"Here! Here!"
"Yippy"
"You said it brother"
"Right on"

-- insert your aggreement here --

 

[CivMonger]

it makes perfect sense. Lets look at it this way, if you a train engineer, would you help your enemy move through your territoy so they could wipe out your best cities and you would then be forced to live under their oppression? NO WAY! You would tell them to kiss your and they would have to kill you and move on. Just my 3 cents (not two cause my opinion is more valuable than that)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hmm...

train driver: No! You are the enemy of my country! I will not submit to your demands to re-open this railway!

enemy infantry: Really? (cocks rifle)

train driver: Well, that's a convincing point you make. I'll get the train ready then shall I?

Seriously, not being able to use railways in enemy territory is good, it stops the kind of rush attacks that were unrealistic in Civ2, but not being able to use roads? That's just silly. Perhaps doing it that way made it easier for Firaxis to program the trade routes.

 

[Modern Hoplite]

I think you should at least get a slight bonus on enemy roads, at least a second movement to somewhat balance things out. It might make movement 1 troops offensively useful. Imagine that!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
Hmm...

train driver: No! You are the enemy of my country! I will not submit to your demands to re-open this railway!

enemy infantry: Really? (cocks rifle)

train driver: Well, that's a convincing point you make. I'll get the train ready then shall I?

Seriously, not being able to use railways in enemy territory is good, it stops the kind of rush attacks that were unrealistic in Civ2, but not being able to use roads? That's just silly. Perhaps doing it that way made it easier for Firaxis to program the trade routes.

The fact that you have to negotiate slows down the transport. So does the sabotage of the rails. So does the fact that you don't know what is ahead on the tracks, or at the next train station.

As far as roads. Consider the German advance into France in the spring of 1940. It takes just a few of hours to drive from the border to Paris. It took the Germans five weeks against little opposition.

 

[Anglophile]

I too agree entirely with this feature, but then I usually get invaded and only invade others as counterattacks after they have started the war. I am very grateful that enemy cavalry/armour is not 20 tiles into my territory after two turns since my hinterland cities have at most one defender. I am more than willing to trade slow rates of advance for not having to defend in that degree of depth (I use fortified troops on borders and a mobile reserve in the front line cities for counterattacks).

I also agree with the people in this thread who argue that it is realistic. Civ3 is a strategic level game and units really represent significant numbers of troops. The reality of invasions is that roads represent the obvious lines of attack and even if large forces are not available to counter the invasion, small forces will always harrass/ambush/ delay along these routes. Bridges will be blown, towns defended, etc. Historic rates of advance into enemy territory have never equalled full movement rates (how many times in WWII did anyone advance 500 miles in a day - never, 50 miles was considered to be a breakthrough).

As for RRs, no sane general would ever put all his army on trains and head off through enemy territory so this rule is also eminently reasonable.

Capturing an enemy city represents pacifyong an area and it is reasonable that at this point, it becomes your transport network. In summary, no issues with this approach on a reality or game play basis.

 

[Aesir Knight]

I agree with Zouave in this matter, and I think he makes a good point. Roads are not unusable by an attacking army in real-world situations, why should they be in Civ? Also, Anglophile makes a good point. No one would want to invade an enemy from a train, now, would they?

In the game, considering that railroads are an "upgrade" from roads, how about this option: Since roads were placed before the railroad, and most probably wouldn't be destroyed in the construction of the rails, why not give invading troops the same bonus as moving over road tiles while on railroads? This would be a reasonable option, and a better compromise than making roads or rails unusable by opposing units.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
NOT using enemy RAILROADS makes sense - different gauge, destroyed stock, lots of problems.

But roads SHOULD be usable in enemy territory UNLESS PILLAGED by the defender. This is historical and makes for more interesting play: borders must be guarded, and foot soldiers don't take forever to invade.

Like most things, it can be made to work either way, and both ways would be "realistic." However, to make your idea work, Zouave, you would have to be able to pillage roads at will (without a worker or time). It may take a work crew to lay a rail, but to sabotage it, any single person can.

As an additional complexity, the attacker could reconnect the roads and rails -- but only behind his line, maybe automatically as he passed through. Pillaged road would not be the same as no road, though. The road just has to be made secure, then cleared. It still takes a worker to create the road. And finally, you now have well-defined supply lines in the game engine, with everything that could mean.

They chose the current model for its simplicity.

 

[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/

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Aesir Knight
... Roads are not unusable by an attacking army in real-world situations, why should they be in Civ? Also, Anglophile makes a good point. No one would want to invade an enemy from a train, now, would they?

...

What? A road is useable by an attacking army in real world situations. Just by the fact that it is there. Just because I am attacking, does the concrete and blacktop suddenly become become mud? No. The roads are there and unless someone destroys them, they are still usable.

I do agree regarding the trains though.

-- On the other hand, I suppose that by not allowing an attacking force to use the road network of attackee, could have something to do with supply lines. Civ 3 does not take this into count during wartime and it is a vital concept. Troops that move to far ahead of the main attacking force become isolated and lose their supply lines, thus become less effective.

So all in all, I guess I "flip". I now like the way it is set up.:suicide:

Can someone make me change my mind again?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sealman
What? A road is useable by an attacking army in real world situations. Just by the fact that it is there. Just because I am attacking, does the concrete and blacktop suddenly become become mud?

Yes.

But maybe only one section of mud every mile or so. Or boulders, or patriots, or rivers, or downed bridges, or trees, or snipers, or vehicles, or if things are going badly, the bodies of your comrades. Plus, military units are particularly vulnerable when traveling in a column. It may be necessary to form battlelines to clear the road, negating any benefit of the road.

Once the area is secure, then excepting guerilla activity, the roads are useable.

 

[Aesir Knight]

No, sealman, I said roads are not un usable, implying that roads are usable by an attacking army. I agree with you on the rest of your message. I guess I shoulda phrased that differently, huh? Also, Zachriel, you make a good point. A vulnerable column of units travelling through enemy territory surrounded by snipers wouldn't be in a great position

Interesting, huh?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Aesir Knight
Interesting, huh?

Though Civ3 is just an abstraction, it leads to interesting discussions about history on these forums. Some of the opinions expressed herein are well-thought, including many opinions to which I do not agree.