Use of Roads in Hostile Territory
- Thread starter ottocrat
- Start date
Unfortunately, we don't even know for sure that roads increase friendly movement.
moysturfurmer
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,445
What I want to know is, who has to pay maintenance for a legion-built road in neutral (ex-hostile) territory?
Olleus
Deity
maybe roads in neutral territory just "cease to work" and don't connect to the trade network or providing movement bonuses (if they ever do)
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
You know, this brings up an interesting point - from a "realism" perspective (whatever that's worth) you actually shouldn't be able to build roads in territory that you don't control. Sure I can send a team of works to build in unclaimed territory, but if there is really effectively no government there, then the road is not going to last very long (at most a few turns in late game civ, a turn or less at earlier dates). And this makes things simple in gameplay terms - you can only build roads in your territory and you are responsible for the maintenance for all the roads in your territory. Easy pleasey. But who knows if that's how it will be implemented.
If roads in neutral territory require maintenance (and it does appear that roads can be built in neutral territory -- I see quite a few examples), I would assume that whoever built them will need to pay for it.
1)I'd hope we DO get to use roads in enemy territory (and enemies get to use roads in our own territory)
2)road maintenance should be based on tile ownership - roads in neutral territory shouldn't cause anyone to pay; If roads give a movement bonus I figure it should either be half of normal, or none at all, but still connect two cities/up-kept road networks for trade purposes.
2)road maintenance should be based on tile ownership - roads in neutral territory shouldn't cause anyone to pay; If roads give a movement bonus I figure it should either be half of normal, or none at all, but still connect two cities/up-kept road networks for trade purposes.
First of all, Neutral Roads definitely need/should cost money... if you want a shiny Roman road going through neutral lands, you'd have to maintain it, i.e. have people on the pay roll to keep it in good shape. Obviously, whoever builds it will pay for it. And if it's too expensive, then you can destroy it.
Secondly, the main military benefits of road use, I think, is through rough terrain (hills, forests, etc.). I think it's pretty clear that if you build a road through a forest that your troops will move faster through it, i.e. as if it were open terrain... I think I saw that confirmed somewhere. What's not clear is whether a road on open terrain will increase normal movement. So, should you also be able to use enemy roads? I'd think so. If they don't pillage them, then the road should be there.
Thirdly, I'd assume that even if you can't use the road for movement, that if you place a unit on an enemy road connecting a trade route then you'll cut that trade route for that turn, even if you don't pillage the road.
Secondly, the main military benefits of road use, I think, is through rough terrain (hills, forests, etc.). I think it's pretty clear that if you build a road through a forest that your troops will move faster through it, i.e. as if it were open terrain... I think I saw that confirmed somewhere. What's not clear is whether a road on open terrain will increase normal movement. So, should you also be able to use enemy roads? I'd think so. If they don't pillage them, then the road should be there.
Thirdly, I'd assume that even if you can't use the road for movement, that if you place a unit on an enemy road connecting a trade route then you'll cut that trade route for that turn, even if you don't pillage the road.
Caeserportugal
Prince
There's a fairly long road going north from Paris through neutral territory in the screenshot below. Also note that there is no road between Paris and Orleans, which might suggest that rivers provide trade routes as well:
Why is Lyons name not appearing on the image?
Some kind of bug?
Olleus
Deity
Isn't there a city south of Orleans? Shouldn't that have a name too?
Caeserportugal
Prince
Also there is one to the northwest?
CheatCC was obviously having some severe graphical glitches. Case in point.
Namaspamus
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 206
Maybe only the names close to the center of the screen appear not to fill it with too many of them. Or if you move the cursor on it, I'd like it.
Ahriman
Tyrant
My guess would be that no-one has to pay maintenance for roads in neutral territory.
Its much easier to just track the presence of improvements and the cultural control of tiles than to try to also track the initial builder of an improvement.
Its much easier to just track the presence of improvements and the cultural control of tiles than to try to also track the initial builder of an improvement.
That would be my guess as well.
The way I'd do it:
Have a count of "responsible for" roads; these are roads you built in neutral territory or that lie within your cultural borders.
1) When a new road is built the builder/owner's "responsible for" count increases by 1.
2) When a road is captured the owner (a simple tag that was set upon road construction) has their count decreased by 1 and the capturer has their count increased by 1 and they become the new owner.
3) If the road goes back into neutral territory then no-one pays and we clear the owner flag so recapture does not cause a decrease.
Minimal calculation required to determine the maintenance cost each turn and accomodates neutral roads just fine.
Roads in neutral territory should provide a movement bonus (assuming those inside borders do as well) and should not cost anyone maintenance.
The roads are maintained by the various/mythical/unseen/small people/peoples who live along the road, as they benefit from the trade moving back and forth.
The roads are maintained by the various/mythical/unseen/small people/peoples who live along the road, as they benefit from the trade moving back and forth.
