What's so difficult about using enemy roads?

[schwert]

I mean it! Damn, a road is a road, you just walk on it!
"Move it, you lousy bag of bones!" - "Sorry, sarge, looks like we just crossed the border. Me legs just won't carry me on this friggin enemy road..."
Railroads are another case, but railroads are missing from FFH.
If it's something about being wary in the enemy territory, it should be a CHOICE for the player to proceed cautiously. Anyway, what makes commando units so different? Are they the only ones with driving licenses valid for abroad? If they can proceed further unnoticed, this would be better accomplished via invisibility (temporary, maybe, or with an expiry chance). Hell, even siege units can use enemy roads! What's the justification for that?
So, I think all units should be given the ability to use enemy roads, and Raiders promotion should be changed accordingly.
Now, about destroying roads (obviously an issue if the above is implemented) - it should be possible, of course, but it shouldn't be easy. It's a hell of a job for worker with a spade to do any meaningful damage to a road (any road, btw; enemy roads might be even more difficult to raze), not to speak of a soldier with a sword. So, until researching blasting powder, to destroy a road you should use either an elementalist mage, or a worker troupe. Military units might be used in certain limited circumstances, eg on a forested tile. Anyway, non-magic and non-dynamite removal of a road should take several turns.

 

[Jamz]

I think it makes sense that its harder to move through enemy lands, than your own, unless you are specially trained for it.

And you dont have to dig up a road to destroy it, cutting down trees on top of it proberbly works fine too.

 

[Kael]

You may be applying flavor logic to the functional side of an ability. From a flavor perspective Commando gives the ability to move through enemy lands as easily as if they were under your control, which is a significant feat. Thats where you get your special training, advanced troops and all that.

From a functional side the game effect of that is that you can use enemy roads. Which is a fair representation of the flavor in the above and a nice in game perk.

But if you try to link the flavor directly to game effect you may be thinking too literally about the ability.

 

[hbar]

What's so difficult about using enemy roads?

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Kashmir, Sudan, N. Ireland, Mordor. etc.

Roads don't provide cover, are typically surrounded by cover, easily watched, and well mapped by the owning nation. A smart army would travel slowly. A careless army would forego Combat I-II and get Mobility I-II on every unit, and damn the catapults.

 

[xienwolf]

Normal unit on an enemy road ducks into the bushes on the side every time he sees a shadow move or THINKS he hears a horse, or someone walking, or someone talking. And he hobbles all of his armor so that it won't clank and give him away or cover the sound of someone approaching. All of this extra action makes it so that even when moving along the road he travels slowly. They also need twice as many scouts to check for ambushes.


Commando Units know exactly what an approaching enemy actually sounds like, they are experts at finding cover quickly and returning to the road afterward, their normal armor is already designed to be silent (oiled leathers), and they understand that rather than moving silently, they need to appear like locals so that they don't care if they are seen (and if they are good enough, Ambushes don't pay them any mind, plus they can spot likely locations for an ambush and be more prepared at that time, or dodge around them without leaving the road too long)


Thus do Commando Units move quicker along roads. It isn't a matter of knowing how to use it, it is just logistics of not wanting to fight absolutely every single passing soldier or farmboy.

 

[Nor'easter]

It's probably supposed to simulate things like the difficulty of supplying your units as they get farther away from your territory, encountering resistance from a hostile population, etc.

Also, what Kael, hbar, and xienwolf said.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I always kind of assumed that roads included not only the paths themselves, but also a postal system, inns, and outposts along the road where travelers can spend the night, change horses, get directions, etc. Most enemy soldiers would not me welcome to use these, but commandos would either be trained to hide their enemy status, or be really good at intimidating the locals into helping them anyway.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Roads!

Could a defensive penalty be applied against a unit that used enemy roads and was attacked that same turn, simulating an ambush? Although I don't have a problem with nonuse of enemy roads myself, for some of the reasons given above, I'd prefer allowing the player to decide if he wanted to risk it rather than telling him it's not a real-life wise choice.

Don't get me started on the strange sacredness of friendly roads - which can never be closed for repairs and only enemy units can do any remodeling.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

It's just because having your own roads be a liability during war was is annoying. Even with zone of control you could run over their rails and get to any city. If America was invaded, would Nebraska be the first state to fall? I wouldn't care how unrealistic it was, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore.
It's the same thing as being able to sign a treaty and immediately go back on it. There's no magical force that says you have to keep your word for X amount of time, it's just makes them meaningless if they aren't enforced. Also, remember when you had to ask civs to remove units from your territory? Just about every time you asked they'd declare war so you had to let them get away with it. Or they'd remove them and be back the next turn. However they would never let you move through their territory. If you refused to leave it was war. It's just less frustrating when a few small rules are enforced even if it makes no realistic sense.

 

[Tasunke]

Honestly, road usage is just about the only time when you notice the "populous" giving the enemy resistance instead of just the units trained by the military. They may not be able to stop a massive army, but partisan units and the like can at least slow them down, for many of the reasons stated above.

Perhaps due to the fortified nature of Bannor settlements, a Bannor improvement (other than a mine) should add +1 movement cost to the tile.

 

[NeoBasilisk]

It's just because having your own roads be a liability during war was is annoying. Even with zone of control you could run over their rails and get to any city. If America was invaded, would Nebraska be the first state to fall? I wouldn't care how unrealistic it was, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore.

LOL I miss the days of Civ 2 where my super stack of howitzers could conquer an entire empire in a single turn.

 

[Malkaviel]

Honestly, road usage is just about the only time when you notice the "populous" giving the enemy resistance instead of just the units trained by the military. They may not be able to stop a massive army, but partisan units and the like can at least slow them down, for many of the reasons stated above.

Perhaps due to the fortified nature of Bannor settlements, a Bannor improvement (other than a mine) should add +1 movement to the tile.

this is kind of how i see it. while moving in enemy lands some percentage of that enemy's populace are trying to slow you down, of course not causing damage to your trained soldiers because they have an insignificant combat value and thus arent represented by icons.

so it would make sense an elite covert unit could gain more ground.

 

[Tholal]

Now, about destroying roads (obviously an issue if the above is implemented) - it should be possible, of course, but it shouldn't be easy. It's a hell of a job for worker with a spade to do any meaningful damage to a road (any road, btw; enemy roads might be even more difficult to raze), not to speak of a soldier with a sword. So, until researching blasting powder, to destroy a road you should use either an elementalist mage, or a worker troupe. Military units might be used in certain limited circumstances, eg on a forested tile. Anyway, non-magic and non-dynamite removal of a road should take several turns.

It's actually very easy to make roads unusable. Chop down some trees so they fall across the path, start an avalanche in a rocky areas, knock out support beams on small bridges, just to name a few examples. Sure it's easy for individuals to go around or over, but an army consists not only of the troops themselves, but also baggage trains of supplies and camp followers.

 

[DarkxL0rd]

All these answers are wrong! the OP was right. Your troops just go ******** and don't know how to walk on foreign beaten paths. Hell, everytime i go to another country I'm like, "uuhhhh! I've forgotten how to walk properly!"

 

[Tasunke]

maybe the OP will give Raiders to every civ, and add Financial to those civs that already had Raiders. I wanna see how he thinks about the system after he plays like that a time or two XD

 

[DarkxL0rd]

Hell, why stop there. Every nation also gets the horselord trait AND ice mana.

 

[Tasunke]

Im .... Ice mana? Just cause of snow fall, dont mean its OP

 

[Honor]

Body Mana would be more useful, for hasting your high-mobility horselord, commando units.

 

[DarkxL0rd]

true... or you could just have a nation on horseback. priests of leaves on horseback summoning tigers on horses FTW!!!

 

[zup]

Tigers need haste...and blitz...and 100% heal after combat too. Warmounts alone don't make much of a difference.