Can't use roads during invasion?

[Harlan]

I have to agree with Trachmir that half speed on enemy roads is not just a compromise, but is in fact the best way to do it.

[Wexu]

Here's my thoughts: (I haven't read the whole thread..)

If I have understood right, you can't use enemy's roads if they are at enemy's control (Under city radius). I think that makes perfect sense and is quite realistic too. You can imagine there's many road guards (damn, my English sucks, sorry 'bout that) and that sort of things. It would be quite stupid if you had to put real units to guard roads etc?

So when you capture/raze city and the roads are no longer in any enemy's city radius, you can use them.

I hope you get the point.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think what everyone needs to remember about this rule concerning the use of enemy roads/rail is that it is an ABSTRACTION!! Basically, Firaxis aren't saying that the roads don't exist for enemy forces (which would be stupid), they are trying to say that movement along enemy roads/rail is slower for a variety of reasons. The most notable being a lack of local knowledge (especially of the presence of booby-traps/ambushes) but, most importantly, the need to re-supply units in the field-often over large distances!!
The most important question should not be whether or not enemy units will get the movement bonuses of roads/rail. The question should be "will enemy roads/rail still negate the effect of terrain on unit movement?", ie: will movement along an enemy road/rail cost 1mp/tile, regardless of the terrain the road passes over? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then I'll be satisfied.
This is not to say that I feel they have come up with the best solution. At the risk of sounding immodest, I believe that I came up with a very workable solution many months ago!
My idea was to give ALL units a higher movement rate, especially giving units at the start of the game 2-3x the movement rate of their Civ2 counterparts, but bringing that down by 1 mp/era until the modern era (to reflect the length of turns).
To counterbalance this, I felt that units should have a maximum "Range", the number of tiles that they could operate outside of a friendly city or border. A units range would be dependent on unit type and tech level. Basically, settlers and SpecOp units would have the greatest range, followed by workers/foot soldiers, then horsemen, then vehicles etc. and, lastly, high tech units would have higher ranges than low tech units.
If a unit goes outside its range, then it would begin to suffer damage (to reflect hunger/disease or lack of spare parts/fuel etc.). The unit would begin to suffer damage on the same turn it exceeded its range (and each turn thereafter), the damage received based on 3 main factors: number of tiles outside range; the maintenance factor of the unit (e.g.. a tank requires more maintenance than a rifleman); and the tech-level of the unit (e.g.. a sword is less likely to break down than a rifle!).
In this model, only 2 ways would exist to extend a units range: 1) Capture an enemy city (minimum pop. 2, with at least a granary and a barracks!) or 2) Build a supply depot (A fortress in Civ-speak!). In order for a fort to act as a supply depot, it would need to be connected via a road to a friendly/occupied city!
Obviously, option 2 may seem like the simplest, but of course those forts are going to be tempting targets for the enemy, who could literally break the back of your invasion with one lucky hit to a key fort or piece of road (just ask Napoleon). The more forts you build, the more vulnerable you are. As an example, lets say a Range 6 unit is operating 18 hexes from the nearest friendly city (by virtue of 3 supply depots). The enemy, on its turn strikes the depot closest to the border-destroying it. Suddenly, your unit is 12 hexes out of its normal range and will begin suffering damage accordingly!!
The beauty of my model, in my opinion, was that it would have allowed rapid movement of units within your borders (both ground and naval), without allowing those same units to explore/conquer the globe before 0 AD! Additionally, it would force a player to attack and occupy peripheral cities (which may be otherwise tactically useless), in order to shorten supply lines prior to an attack on the more lucrative inner cities (like the capital!) Anyway, sorry for the extreme length of my post, I just felt that these things had to be said!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Alexander's Horse]

It still goes against all wargaming experience

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.

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?

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?

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.

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

[Skanky Burns]

Re: It still goes against all wargaming experience

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why change the rules on this when there was no problem with civ I and II

Infinite howitzer attacks weren't a problem?!?

[Alexander's Horse]

Well no, not really

If you left yourself open to an infinite howie attack I don't see why you should be saved by the road rules. It just needlessly delays the inevitable

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

That is why my solution to unit movement and range would have worked so well. Because movement on roads would not be affected by who owns them, but your ability to travel in enemy territory would be limited by your lines of supply! It would eliminate the infinite howie bug as well!!! (Of course, the infinite howie bug is also partially solved by the fact that howies will now probably possess only a Bombardment attack strength!)
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Lung]

Re: It still goes against all wargaming experience

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

This road thing will really screw up military campaigns.

I never imagined the day i would be agreeing with AH

Along with alarmingly weak attack strengths of even special units and severe restrictions on armies and diplomatic penalties, it seems that waging war will be so difficult as to become obsolete!

The only counter-balance i can envisage here is that Howies (and perhaps others) will be able to bombard from more than one square away. Otherwise, having to give your opponents a free shot at you before you can fire is ridiculous in the extreme

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

Can't some of you realize that this is probably a design decision to prevent Civ3 from being what Civ2 was (basically a glorified military game)? Now, it is harder to win wars! Wonderful!

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

Can't some of you realize that this is probably a design decision to prevent Civ3 from being what Civ2 was (basically a glorified military game)? Now, it is harder to win wars! Wonderful!

I agree!

And it's quite realistic decision too, me thinks.

I hope Firaxis won't listen to these whiners.

[Alexander's Horse]

God you are dumb Imran

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Jeez, who ever said Civ was supposed to be realistic?

That comment speaks for itself.

[Tjoepie]

Not being allowed to use "hostile" roads in an invasion ???

Then what about building roads all arround your city?

[gremalkin]

As to whether the movement limit on enemies roads is realistic can be argued both ways. What is more important is gameplay.

infinite howie attacks are boring and unrealistic.. Enemy road limits stop this.. New tactics will have to be found to take your enemies down, this is good news - It makes the game more challenging.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its a BUG not a feature

Originally posted by Tjoepie
Not being allowed to use "hostile" roads in an invasion ???

Then what about building roads all arround your city?

Exactly - it will end up like the airport bug in civ II.

[Skanky Burns]

Re: Its a BUG not a feature

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Exactly - it will end up like the airport bug in civ II.

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