Roads give movement bonus and NOTHING else?

[Zoid]

And since there´s already voices that complains about the franchise dumbing down with Civ IV it´s good to see that they (Firaxis) do something to actually increase the complexity of gameplay...

[Joseph]

Once some of you loose a city or two because of 10 tiles, you will change your mind.
I like it the old way.

[Ecthy]

Yeah, let's win wars against great powers with damn undermilitarized states!

In Civ2 I'd fight off any invasion with like 2 or 3 riflemen per city

[Odin]

to this, Unlimited RR movement took the fun out of defending my territory from invasion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Joseph
Once some of you loose a city or two because of 10 tiles, you will change your mind.
I like it the old way.

If you can't defend your territory with ten point movement on railroads then you're a loser anyway.



joking

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MrFun


If you can't defend your territory with ten point movement on railroads then you're a loser anyway.



joking

I only defend with 2 or 3 units until late in the game. My thing is to build city improvements first, plus any wonder. Maybe that is why I'm not a great player.

[Ecthy]

Maybe you should change that now, I'm similar.

[joncnunn]

Unlimited rail movement was one of the key reasons why navies just aren't important in civ 1 - 3 on contential and pangena maps.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Joseph
I only defend with 2 or 3 units until late in the game. My thing is to build city improvements first, plus any wonder. Maybe that is why I'm not a great player.

good to know... can we schedule a MP game?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Unlimited rail movement was one of the key reasons why navies just aren't important in civ 1 - 3 on contential and pangena maps.

Exactly -- navy units should become more important now.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Willem


Why not? All it's going to mean is that you'll have to plan better. There'll have to be a sizable force near your border before an attack occurs, since you won't be able to call up reserves from the opposite side of your empire anymore. If you know units can move 10 squares in a turn, space stacks 20 squares apart beforehand to guard your borders. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

I'm not saying it will make defense impossible, just more difficult and costly. Given the completely unrealistic ability to massively land amphibious forces anywhere on a continent, large caches of quick response forces will have to be spread throughout a large empire. That will cost much much more. The other option to counter sudden enemy strikes is ICS. Isnt that strategy something that we were hoping would be phased out in civ4?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair, Spencer, if you want to prevent an amphibious assault on your coastal cities-then the best defense is a good navy, patrolling the coasts and nearby oceans-destroying their land forces whilst still aboard ship. This again suggests that navy could actually end up being a much more important part of the game in Civ4-which IS a good thing.
Also, Infinite city slease will be of no assistance to defense, as that will simply mean even more cities to defend (not to mention the other reasons for not pursuing ICS anymore!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The argument against is, that it makes strategical troop placement unnecessary, thus making the game a bit dumber. Just lump your troops together at some tile in the middle and be sure, that all your forces can be thrown against an attacking foe, no matter from which direction he attacks.

...and to take it one step further, when you take a city from an enemy, simply rush in how many defenders you feel you need on your newly owned rail system, so your forces can continue blitzing...

No planning needed!

[TomVeil]

I'm sure there are some nice gameplay aspects, but these new rules are totally unrealistic.
How fast can troops move on wild terrain? 1-2 km/h, tops, and they experience fatigue. How fast can troops move on rails/highways? 70-120 km/h, and they're chilling the entire time.
Likewise, consider what percentage of crops were unmarketable before the development of roads or railroads, and how the railroad made coal burning economical -- allowing the industrial revolution. I'm from Pittsburgh, so don't contradict me here.
Finally, every major American/European/Japanese city has ring after ring of suburban roads, so it's not like the tangle of roads on the Civ map isn't reflected in the real world.
Making the map look "pretty" or making things more balanced for the invading force could be done in other ways. Civ should never sacrifice reality. I will be among the first lining up to mod this feature back to its classic, correct state.

EDIT: to avoid the inevitable retort, yes, I know the game is measured in turns, not years. I still think that a tank should be more than 2-3 times as fast as a phalanx and that anything on a rail/highway network should be almost instantaneous compared to either.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


good to know... can we schedule a MP game?

Sorry I do not play MP.