The importance of individual opinions. And roads.

[Lazy sweeper]

There is nothing wrong with debating whatever, given no one is obliged to believe any argument as truth, nor has to accept it.
There is nothing wrong if you believe your ancient civilization is better off without roads, paved or country roads, baths, and toilets.
There is nothing wrong if you want to live in a city without public transportation, and suffer the consequences of pollution, if this
balances out more income for the hospitals, or the police department.
All of these are meaningful choices.
How someone would like to shift the management focus in its cities, or in the entirety of its civilization.
Its not important. As long it is a right to decide for themselves what is right and what is not right.

Taking away my paved roads, baths, and toilets, maybe makes you a better civilization in other terms.
But since the romans had built the basis for western civilization ON THESE BASIS, I feel taking away such basic
western pillars of wealth, is a crime.

Now, vote in your heart, if you believe having no roads, baths, sewers, is ok for you.
I remind you that sewers were already in place in Rome by 250Bc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This forum is a well known for badly formulated poll questions, but this looks like a winner here. "Roads are important" for who? For what? If you're talking about manually constructing roads, that was already removed in Civ6 (except for railroads). If you're speaking about roads in general - they are in Civ7 like in any previous Civ games. If you're talking about road importance in history, yes, they are important, nobody argues, but how it's related to the game?

I'd recommend to change this poll to something more concrete, like "which method of building roads you prefer" with options like "manual", "caravan" and "automatic". However, even this won't work completely, because Civ6 uses caravans for regular roads and manual building for railroads, while Civ7 uses automatic building for internal roads and caravans for roads between civilizations.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

This forum is a well known for badly formulated poll questions, but this looks like a winner here. "Roads are important" for who? For what? If you're talking about manually constructing roads, that was already removed in Civ6 (except for railroads). If you're speaking about roads in general - they are in Civ7 like in any previous Civ games. If you're talking about road importance in history, yes, they are important, nobody argues, but how it's related to the game?

I'd recommend to change this poll to something more concrete, like "which method of building roads you prefer" with options like "manual", "caravan" and "automatic". However, even this won't work completely, because Civ6 uses caravans for regular roads and manual building for railroads, while Civ7 uses automatic building for internal roads and caravans for roads between civilizations.

I guess you are right. I changed it to Manually, individually built roads are important.
I assumed that people would read the content of the post and link it to the pool.
Because that would make roads are important a meaningful topic for discussion as the main point of the pool then.
Automatic roads, caravan can build roads, but you cant decide the route...
You want to build a military road that goes through a mountain pass? Forget it, you cant go over mountains to begin with...
The whole context has been completely dismissed with this new automatic function. This is main point here.
We can't even debate how roads should work anymore...
like, you need roads for catapults... a lot of context has been taken away....

Yes, it is hard to decide on a pool title that would encompass all details, it would take a lot more space to make it work.
I tried to condense it on a phylosophical level. We should be talking about roads, not dismiss it.
We like the new Civ VII roads system. We prefer the old Civ VI roads system.
There are a lot of points to be taken individually, and I tried to go to the core of it, to be as synthetic as possible.
Not an easy job.

 

[UWHabs]

In civ 6, I hardly build railroads because they are tedious to complete. I probably would if we had a "build railroad to..." function, though. I'm not a massive fan of the trader-built roads overall, I do think it would be nice to have a little more control over that. But I don't want the micro. So whatever best balances that, I'm happy with.

 

[Jeppetto]

I see, based on poll results, majority of this forum doesnt have OCD.

 

[gdr_willter]

I was a guy who want to build only clean and good-looking roads in Civ 5. I hated the triangular junctions in that game, I always tried to replace it with roundabouts and forks. In Civ6, I faced the situation that I can't control the road building and it always rendered as connections between tiles and districts. And surprisingly... I felt satisfaction. The roads are out of my hand now, so I become to don't care them anymore.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yeh, not bothered, one less micro thing to worry about.

I am hoping railroads are more than just a "modern road" though, hoping for a lot more here.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeh, not bothered, one less micro thing to worry about.

I am hoping railroads are more than just a "modern road" though, hoping for a lot more here.

Modern age playthrough will come soon. But with railway stations we've seen I'd expect railroads to be built automatically between cities with stations as long as they are within some distance.

 

[Evolena]

In Civ 6, cannot Military Engineer build roads (consuming 1 charge for each tile, unlike for railroads)?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I prefer the ability to create roads manually, but in some circumstances I like that roads will be created organically along trade routes. Having both seems best to me.

One thing I find odd about the organically created trade route roads is that sometimes in real life, without a road, you just won't get the trade route happening. In other words, trade follows infrastructure just as often, if not more, than infrastructure follows trade. Which is part of the reason why most trade has always been by sea or rivers - those trade routes can spring up without the upfront cost of clearing paths. The other reason, of course, is that its exponentially more efficient to move goods by water than it is to try and move them by land, prior to the railroad.

 

[I was NC]

The ideal (IMO) approach to roads/rail is pretty simple:
*pick the hexs to contain them
(could have automated options)
*push a button and they're built
(turns could be based on length)
*pay an amount up front per hex
(could be more for certain terrain)
*pay less each turn based on length
*pay to upgrade with new tech

Each player decides exactly where they go, with minimal micromanaging, limited by the ability pay for it. Sound familiar? That's basically how the real world works (will leave out commentary on how the U.S. subsidizes auto dependency).

Admittedly I have no idea if the above is possible for the AI to handle.

edit: Having a road also could produce revenue based on various characteristics, like population and resources. There would be a tipping point where it made sense financially, although of course can still make sense strategically even if causing a loss.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

For ancient I think there could have been trails or paths that naturally develop between cities and intentionally build roads.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Or maybe there could be Narrative events that gives us choices like, the peasants are tired of dirty roads and request paved roads.
Will your Majesty the King, give them paved roads or shall they endure the suffering and broken chariot wheels?

Possible outcomes: Charioteers revolt . Minus 1 mantainance on all roads / Plus one movement for all units / etc.