Can't use roads during invasion?

[Alexander's Horse]

Think a bit more laterally Ralf

My code problem suspicion came from the magazine article I read. It said enemy troops occuppying ground denied the resource to the civ that owned that ground. That might mean they had a code problem denying the resource but letting the occuppying unit use the roads. So they dressed it up as a "feature".

Sneaky Firaxis, sneaky.

You can't really see non use of roads as a "feature". Its proposterous! Invaders have always used roads. Full stop. End of story.

Would you like me to list some famous invasion roads/routes from the beginning of time to the present day?

[DonJoel]

Cant we get a firaxis response to this?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
My code problem suspicion came from the magazine article I read. It said enemy troops occuppying ground denied the resource to the civ that owned that ground. That might mean they had a code problem denying the resource but letting the occuppying unit use the roads

Erm, that doesnt even make sense.
If an enemy unit is sitting on another civs resource (like iron or horses) for instance, that civ wont be able to use that resource. Nothing weird about that.

Then the next bit about roads... If an enemy unit is sitting on another civs resource, that enemy unit is static, not moving, not using roads, not travelling at all.

How the above situation relates at all to the ignoring roads/railroads rule i have no idea at all. Further, if they did this "because they couldnt get the code to work", then how come any units can travel just fine through another civs transport network when youve got a "right of passage" pact with them?? The same code works in one situation but not another?? Give me a break!!

[Skanky Burns]

Adding to that, i think that completely denying a bonus from roads is a little harsh. You've got this nice, wide, flat path that, to an invading army, cant really be treated the same as grasslands or plains. A half-bonus for using roads would be more appropriate, and we will probably be able to adjust this value ourselves if needed.

[Father Beast]

Re: Think a bit more laterally Ralf

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
My code problem suspicion came from the magazine article I read. It said enemy troops occuppying ground denied the resource to the civ that owned that ground. That might mean they had a code problem denying the resource but letting the occuppying unit use the roads. So they dressed it up as a "feature".

haven't you got that backwards, horse? An occupying army takes over a piece of ground with a resource belonging to the enemy civ. the enemy now cannot access the resource. but they can access the road (if they kick the invaders off)??? seems the occupying army can't access the resource either when they're on it or not. occupying invaders block access to resource, but don't get the road themselves? explain the backwardianism of that, huh?

however, you and everyone else posting is correct, invaders have always used roads. rails are another matter.

[jdd2007]

you guys dont realize that when you take over a city u can use the roads and RRs there. go on to next city. this is what invaders have done ...

[DonJoel]

you guys dont realize that when you take over a city u can use the roads and RRs there. go on to next city. this is what invaders have done

So jdd2007, dont you think that invaders used the roads when they were going to the city that they were going to capture?

[aiin]

While it's unrealistic to stop enemy civ to use your roads it's probably a good gameplay decision to make it that way. Of course it would be better in game to create mines or what nots on your roads so it can't be used by other civs that declared war on you(your alley would of course be able to avoid the mines). It's will create the stragtegy of mining your roads connecting to other civs.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by DonJoel
So jdd2007, dont you think that invaders used the roads when they were going to the city that they were going to capture?

Well, often they did - but thats really not the issue, is it?

The issue is instead if they where free to move along just as fast and effective, as it where some kind of business-trip by a single indevidual. This what you implying if you want the road-bonus be the same regardless war or peace.

Also, read again what Jdd2007 actually said:
"you guys dont realize that when you take over a city u can use the roads and RRs there. go on to next city. this is what invaders have done ..."

In other words: If you conquer one enemy-city, you can use the roads surrounding that city at full-speed potential again. If you conquer a second city, you can use the road-nettwork surrounding both cities at their full-speed potential again. Why is this so hard to understand???

Finally: Thanks to this feature, its now much harder to penetrate unrealistically deep within enemy territory and then pick-and-choose "the raisins in the cake" (= only Great Wonder cities, for example). That was way to easy in Civ-2. Only implementing invasion-limitations on the RR-bonus (which i hope is not "infinite" anymore) alone, aint gonna make it. Invasion road move-limitations is also needed. The question is only how much is reasonable?

[Father Beast]

let me get this straight.

I stage an invasion to some backward city that doesn't have much road built around it, and bring my workers to build roads.

and I can't use the roads built by MY OWN WORKERS??

[Lordfluffers]

Ok for those having difficulty...

Imagine your town invades the next town along. How would you get there, by road or through the fields and woods, especially if you have vehicles, or cavalry, artillery or whatever??? Ad if you took the road and reached the enemy town's road why would you go any slower down that one. railways are a little different due to logistics and the ease with how you can sabotage a railway, but still its not that different. Maybe small hit bonus for RR's but definately no for roads!!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Father Beast
I stage an invasion to some backward city that doesn't have much road built around it, and bring my workers to build roads.

and I can't use the roads built by MY OWN WORKERS??

Correct (I believe).

After declaring war the road-bonus is automatically nullified within uncontrolled enemy-territory (regardless if you have built those roads or not), and you can only get full road-bonus back again stepwise, by conquering cities - one after the other. And its a damn good thing that it is designed like that, I might add. I agree with Harlan though that reduced road-bonus would be quite enough.

Originally posted by Lordfluffers
Imagine your town invades the next town along. How would you get there, by road or through the fields and woods, especially if you have vehicles, or cavalry, artillery or whatever???

The point isnt if you can use roads or not - obviously you use the fastest & safest way, and that would probably be roads - even considering mines and hostile backstabbings.
The point is (again) that you cannot expect move around big army-battalions in still uncontrolled hostile environments just as fast & effective, as if you were a smaller group of goal-focused peacetime backpackers surrounded by a friendly and helpful foreigners.

You cannot just barge in without looking back - you must "secure the area" and safeguard army maintenance-routes back to the homelands. Why is this so hard to accept?
This is simulated by temporarily reduce/neutralize the enemey road-bonus (the attacked civ still enjoys this bonus, though). So the overal idea really makes perfect sence. Only those who want invasions as easy-going, unchallenging & onesided process as it was in Civ-2, can have anything against this idea.

[ancient]

Thats perfect!

No more Infinite howitzers, there slowness would actually be a weakness..

[Trachmir]

I also agree with Harlan that a "reduced-benefit" from hostile roads would be the best choice (not simply a compromise). This reduced benefit should wither be a 1/2 movement point cost to move along roads and/or a 1 movement point cost to move on hostile roads REGARDLESS of the terrain (or a combination... 1/2 for open terrain, 1 for other terrain).

This represents a number of concepts as mentioned by others, including SUPPLY LINES... although absent from civ3, this can be considered a partial abstraction of them.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
ANY roads inside the cultural border of an enemy civ won't give you movement bonuses. If you bring in your own workers and build roads towards the enemy cities, they'll thank you by moving their armies towards you faster and attacking!! Or not. But you still wouldnt be able to use the roads. Once you take the city, then the enemy civs cultural border will shrink, and areas that were once inside their border will now be fully usable by your armies.

I guess this stops the "infinite howies" attack, where you move a howitzer by railroad directly to an enemy city, attack once, and retreat to a well-defended city of your own. Repeat with another howie, etc, until the enemy city (or empire) is out of soldiers. Then move a defensive unit into the cities to complete your invasion. This type of attack would leave you with no chance to retaliate in Civ 2, so the new road rules get a big

I guess the point here is to make sure your Culture is better than your opponents, so that way you can use the roads right up to their cities.

Not like I ever used them though, roads primary reason for building them in civ 2? Anyone, anyone. Defend your own land with a much smaller army than you would have to otherwise.

Of course increased trade would be a secondary feature. Then there is the to get outside your borders faster than you could before of course.