Use of Roads in Hostile Territory

[Polobo]

Another interesting exploit; if you can't pillage/disband roads/improvements (or if the AI doesn't understand how to do so), then you could build a ton of them around the borders of another Civ, which will get socked with the maintenance penalty as their border expands onto the tiles.

Lots of problems like this once you start adding improvement maintenance costs.

Exploit is correct; and as the game is setup what you describe is possible. In SP I really couldn't care less and in MP I would quit the game immediately if my opponent tried doing this.

I wouldn't call it a problem unless the AI started doing it; in which case I'd complain that the AI is bad and not the game mechanic itself.

Its a game and I'd rather the developers focus on primary and normal gameplay elements and not worry about people figuring out obsecure exploits and attempting to prevent them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Exploit is correct

It's confirmed what workers could destroy roads. So if any idiotic opponent will send a worker to build roads near your border, you could just send your own workers. With much less effort they'll remove unnecessary roads and leave useful ones.

 

[Mr_Wonka]

the names of the cities fade like that when your mouse goes over them. its so you can see the tiles behind them.

 

[gruther4]

Hmm... interesting issue! I don't personally see an elegant solution...

Either:

1) Neutral roads are free, which produces very strange incentives for the player. You would want to build roads as much as possible outside your borders, and you would want your borders to expand away from your roads. This would break immersion in the game, because as a player you would be thinking about how to get as many free roads as possible instead of building roads and expanding culture in a "natural" way. It could also result in strange-looking roads that take a long way around to connect two cities without entering borders. I could imagine expert players leaving room for highways of unclaimed tiles running down the middle of their empire.

or...

2) Neutral roads are not free. It has been suggested that they are paid for by the builder as long as they are not in another player's border. This makes sense, but such a system would be horribly opaque if they did not provide a clear way to see who owns which roads. They would also need to have some method of abandoning unwanted roads (where they would presumably disappear from the map). This should be done in such a way that it doesn't require a unit on a tile (it could be in a dangerous location, and NOT maintaining a road shouldn't require a presence). On the other hand, though, it shouldn't be implemented in such a way that you could instantly strip the roads in advance of an enemy army. All of this would add a lot to the user interface, I would think.

I am interested to see if they thought of an elegant way to solve this problem. Unfortunately, I somewhat suspect that they haven't. The only simple solution I can think of is to simply not allow roads outside of borders, which doesn't seem to be the case. For the record, though, I do like the idea of roads costing maintenance.

 

[Calouste]

3) Neutral roads are free, but disappear after a certain time (say 20 turns), due to lack of maintenance. This allows you to connect distant cities via neutral terrain that you can later claim (or build roads to foreign cities that you plan to claim ), but makes most of the abuses less atractive. Just need some conversion of worker turns to to see how this would work.

 

[gruther4]

3) Neutral roads are free, but disappear after a certain time (say 20 turns), due to lack of maintenance. This allows you to connect distant cities via neutral terrain that you can later claim (or build roads to foreign cities that you plan to claim ), but makes most of the abuses less atractive. Just need some conversion of worker turns to to see how this would work.

The problem is, what if you legitimately had two cities that were a little too far apart to connect with culture? Would you have to manually rebuild that road every 20 turns? Should such a road/situation be impractical to maintain for gameplay reasons? Also, you would need to have some way to show how much longer till each neutral road expired, and some way to maintain it before it expired.

In the end, I think that we come right back to the same issues... either they are cheaper than "in culture" roads and they are exploitable, or they are just as expensive and you need to figure out how to maintain them, with all the user interface work and complexity that would go along with that.

 

[Calouste]

The problem is, what if you legitimately had two cities that were a little too far apart to connect with culture? Would you have to manually rebuild that road every 20 turns? Should such a road/situation be impractical to maintain for gameplay reasons? Also, you would need to have some way to show how much longer till each neutral road expired, and some way to maintain it before it expired.

In the end, I think that we come right back to the same issues... either they are cheaper than "in culture" roads and they are exploitable, or they are just as expensive and you need to figure out how to maintain them, with all the user interface work and complexity that would go along with that.

That would be a pretty big gap, at least 7 hexes, and you would probably have space to build a city slightly of the direct line to cover the gap. Or you could just forgo a road and depend on a harbor for trade and troop transports.

 

[AriochIV]

3) Neutral roads are free, but disappear after a certain time (say 20 turns), due to lack of maintenance.

That would be really frustrating.

 

[ottocrat]

I think people are worrying way too much about neutral roads. Just make them free. If territory is worth building a road through, how long will it stay neutral?

The "build roads near an enemy's border" plan seems like a much bigger pain for you than for them. Think about all the work you put into something they can just pillage. If your workers are that bored, you built too many workers.

The real question is... do roads increase movement? Does this apply regardless of friendly/neutral/hostile territory? Hopefully the answers are yes and yes.

 

[Fezzik]

Isn't there a city south of Orleans? Shouldn't that have a name too?

Also there is one to the northwest?

Regarding the picture, I thought Civ5 has "natural borders" and the funny shaped blue with white outline marked the edge of the city, making the south of Orleans and into the water part of Orleans and the Northwest blob is part of a city with the city label off-screen. Paris is oddly shaped and extends way up into the water to the North of Orleans.

 

[Schuesseled]

i think that roads should provide a movement bonus for all units, and if built in neutral territory, there not paid for by upkeep but the trade route value is decreased.

 

[Polobo]

i think that roads should provide a movement bonus for all units, and if built in neutral territory, there not paid for by upkeep but the trade route value is decreased.

Except for the fact that trade routes are on/off based upon the presence of a harbor or road connection between two cities. The value of the route is based upon city demographics only - not the manner of connection....

 

[Schuesseled]

as far as we know, besides thats how it should be done IMO, its not necessarily the way it has been.

 

[The_J]

I think one of the previews said, that tiles with roads cost maintenance, not roads itself...so this should answer the questions here.

 

[Polobo]

I think one of the previews said, that tiles with roads cost maintenance, not roads itself...so this should answer the questions here.

If it was a developer/programmer saying that I would be more inclined to take the literal/direct interpretation but for a previewer to say that could still mean either the road itself or the tile is the determinant for maintenance.

At best it is a technicial (implementation) concern that doesn't resolve the inherent question of whether to try and require the builder of a road to pay for its maintenance whether that road was built in controlled or neutral territory. You can still be required to pay maintenance on neutral tiles (though I agree it would be less likely).

 

[Nicolas10]

Let me add a thought, here:

There needs to be something to discourag a vast neutral lands road network. The main reason is militarily. If you can road through every piece of rough terrain, i.e. hills, forests, etc. then you can station an army in neutral territory and be ready to fly around the map. The incentive to Road spam will be great.

I think this has to be discouraged if the game developers want roads to be truly rare/expensive. Unless they put in a Colonization-like system of initial cost for building a road, then Road spam in the neutral lands will be a very viable tactic. If you want to stretch out/expand into a neutral territory, then you'd just send units in to pillage the road hexes you dont' need.

 

[Stalker0]

I know civ colonization has a set cost for building a road, I wonder if that is in Civ V. It would partially cover the neutral road spam concern.

 

[Schuesseled]

roads cost 1 per turn per hex, railroads cost 2, they do provide movement bonuses (edit-enemies can't use them) and can be built in neutral territory, you still pay.

CONFIRMED

 

[stealth_nsk]

I know civ colonization has a set cost for building a road, I wonder if that is in Civ V. It would partially cover the neutral road spam concern.

Spending your workers' turns is cost for itself.

 

[jpboia]

roads cost 1 per turn per hex, railroads cost 2, they do provide movement bonuses (edit-enemies can't use them) and can be built in neutral territory, you still pay.

CONFIRMED

Link?