Can't use roads during invasion?

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Re: Its a BUG not a feature

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Thats one i havent heard about... Whats the airport bug??

Planes can't attack airports - so ring your cities with airports and they are immune from air attack.

There are other weird things about airports in civ 2, they give max resources for the tile for example.

[Trifna]

I guess I don't find it very normal... A forest is a forest for anybody and a road a road for anybody. Should it be friend or foe, they will both advance as fast on a road.

The only thing is that you wont transport troops by train on the enemy's railroad, would you?...

[Trifna]

NB

Notice that conquistadores DID use Inca's roads alot!!!!!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Planes can't attack airports - so ring your cities with airports and they are immune from air attack.

Use your imagination, AH!

Compare with Civ-2 caravan-units: you bumped into a foreign city, and a dialog popped up asking you what to do (either move past; help city or establish trade-route).

Dialogs is the answer! Besides, dont you think time & shield-expensive airbases around your closest city-production tiles gonna severely affect your cities grow-rate capacity, as well? Talk about farfetched examples.

[Triped]

I like not being able to use the roads. It should favor turtles like myself

Gameplaywise, it should work pretty well...time will tell of course.

[Ozymandous]

Who said Civ3 was a "wargame"?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
In almost all wargames, roads are neutral. The capacity of friend or enemy to use them is not determined by whether the road is within the borders of one side or another. It is determined by the movement capacity of the unit concerned and environmental factors such as the weather and the condition of the road.

Civ is not a wargame, it is an empire simulator. If you want to play a wargame go play Steel Panthers, where you can lay minefields and exert tactical commands on a small scale. Roads not granting the movement bonus while in enemy territory represents an army's slow movement due to harrassment of guerilla forces, bad road conditions (weather, for example) and any and all delaying tactics an opposing Civilization may place there to slow down and harrass an invader.

Only where units exert a zone of control should movement be restricted. Engineers/workers should still be able build roads in hostile territory, including within enemy zones of control. This has been done since ancient times. Remember the Romans?

Do you know anything about the ROmans? Do you KNOW how LONG it took them to build a "proper" road? Think modern highway construction only with stones and compact dirt instead of asphalt. Romans built their roads in layers which took a lot of time and expertise, which is hard to do while armies are fighting around you.

I don't know why Firaxis does these quirky things which go against all experience, like unit bribery. That is why I think it is a bug. Maybe it has something to do with the rights of passage rules they are bringing in?

Unit birbery go against all experience? You might want to go back and read a little more history, there are always spies and traitors in all civilizations. Bribing units is no different.

Why change the rules on this when there was no problem with civ I and II? As to rapid enemy advance, there was precious little of that in the earlier games. Invaders should be rewarded for moving through enemy territory quickly using facilities like roads. Defenders should punished for leaving roads open to invaders.

No problem? I guess the same reason they tried to stop ICS, because it was something that wasn't working correctly in the game. WTF is up with "defenders should be punished"? Can you name one ancient army that could move the 100+ miles a day that each square represents in the game and still be in fighting shape when they arrive?

Removing the road bonus for moving an enemy army into someone's area is common sense since all the "real things" that would hamper their movement is abstracted.

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

No it will not, you'll just have to actually plan and execute strategies, not abuse broken or poorly planned aspects of the game for once.

[Madine]

I think the new road rules are best explained by the difficulties of supply lines. In Civ you don't have to worry about supply, and that's good because it's much too specific for a game of it's scale, but it was something that was an important part of all military campaigns.

Roads will still be strategically important as once you capture a city you will want to use them to bring in additional forces.

Also I don't think the rule will be a great hinderance to military campaigns (and I'm talking about real campaigns, not the howie trick ).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Tjoepie has got the wrong end of the stick concerning enemy roads. Having roads around your city won't make you invulnerable to attack, as enemy units can still move onto these tiles. It's just that, if the tile containing the road lies within the enemies border (not City Radius), then moving along the road tile will cost an invader 1mp (not 1/3mp). The same will apply for enemy rail.
The issue is that new cities will be vulnerable to enemy attack, as they will lack the culture neccessary for adequate borders. Making any roads leading to that city fully usable to the enemy. More established cities (eg the capital), however, will be much harder to approach without first capturing outlying cities and eliminating their effect on the nations borders!
Trifna should note that a defender would move much faster on own his roads/rail for 3 reasons: 1) Greater local knowledge, 2) Support of the population (reflected by high culture) and 3) His cities are his lines of supply, and are often close to his front line. An invader, on the other hand, has little local knowledge of the area he is moving through, making him move more warily, may be constantly harrassed by local partisan groups and, most importantly, will have to keep waiting for his supply lines to catch up to the front (of battle).
Of course, as I said before, all these factors have been boiled down into 1 simple abstraction. As I've already said, the key issue for me is whether moving through a Forest within an enemies border, containing an enemy road, will cost 1mp or 2mp. If its the former, then I'll be satisfied!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Alexander's Horse]

You don't know much about civ 2 do you Ralf!

Originally posted by Ralf

dont you think time & shield-expensive airbases around your closest city-production tiles gonna severely affect your cities grow-rate capacity, as well? Talk about farfetched examples.

Have you EVER played civ 2? Building an airport on a tile maxs out food, shield and trade production for that tile! It has the same effect as irrigating and putting railroads on the tile!

Duh!

[Jaybe]

Re: You don't know much about civ 2 do you Ralf!

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Have you EVER played civ 2? Building an airport on a tile maxs out food, shield and trade production for that tile! It has the same effect as irrigating and putting railroads on the tile!

Duh!

I also have played Civ 2 for several years, and I just recently read about the airport maxing out the tile.
--
Now, back to the Roads
Concerning road movement in 'slow' terrain, I also hope that it reduces the cost to one. OTH, in a dense forest or a mountain where there are 'few' roads, there are numerous examples of it substantially slowing down troop movements (e.g., the Ardennes in WWII (Battle of the Bulge) -- massive German traffic jams). One battalion of road-bound armor or mech troops may take 1-2 miles of a single road (I'm sure I DON'T remember correctly so I am using low figures). Now, multiply by 12+ COMBAT battalions in a division, add support, HQ, and supply....

In addition, in 'slow' terrain, there is the issue of running into an ambush. All that extra reconnaissance takes a heavy toll on speed of movement. Now, if only the game could keep track, and:
"If one of your units has already traversed said road tiles during this turn, then subsequent units may use the road at full speed."
(That is, you have already cleared the road this turn). Unfortunately, this would be cumbersome for the game to track and could be very confusing to explain in a manual.

Nullifying road advantage in another's cultural area also enhances the value of one-movement-point units, because they can always move one. Of course, they might also expire quickly in combat.

My first post!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually Jaybe, if enemy roads do count as 1mp/tile, regardless of terrain, then the other benefit is that units like alpine troops and partisans, which treat certain terrain as normal roads, suddenly become much more valuable for use in invasions.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AH is smoking dope

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

Game. Set. Match.

[Alexander's Horse]

Imran shows his incapcity for subtle thought YET AGAIN

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

Game. Set. Match.

Imran, if you weren't such a moron you'd realise it is not a zero sum argument. Even if you accept the proposition that "its not a wargame" that does not justify ridiculous game settings like this one. That's like saying pigs can fly in the game because "its not a wargame".

Do you know what zero sum is? Maybe you should get someone to explain it to you with a crayon. Your capacity for flawed thought processes continues to amaze me and others. I for one am a big fan of your stupidity. Keep up the good work.

[Jaybe]

Re: AH is smoking dope

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In almost all wargames, roads are neutral.

As stated before: Civ is not a wargame.

But you miss the illusion: It's so much fun to think it IS!

("Illusion", "Fantasy", or whatever)

[Grumbold]

If Civ 3 maintins that roads are of no importance or relevance to offensive military operations it would be unique in that assertion. Military campaigns have always focussed upon advancing down key routes to secure and defend important crossroads, bridges and supply routes.

In Civ II we could rely on units in fortifications exerting ZoC's to prevent massive unopposed troop movements. Unfortunately Civ III has managed to lose most ZoC's for some strange reason so now AI nations will find it even harder to make sure their transport networks have adequately guarded choke points. Reducing even modern units to absurdly low movement rates seems like an admission that inadequate AI cannot cope with movement rates of more than a few squares rather than a serious attempt to make a playable game. It certainly sounds like the player will have no trouble with unexpected hostile attacks. No matter how incompetent they are internal garrisons will be able to be stripped to reinforce threatened locations and production orders changed well in advance of the enemy assault.