Roads

[manofthehour]

I think that roads should only have a penlety if you are at war with the country.

[Akron]

Realistically, it should just give a fraction of the bonus, but making roads have no bonus for an opposing civilization adds to the strategy involved. It will put a premium on mobility, add to the value of paratroopers and aircraft, decrease the power of the howitzer, and make naval tactics more important. Thats definitely good for gameplay. In civ 2, if you were on the same continent as the enemy and had railroads connecting your cities to his, then it was howitzers all the way, with stealth fighters to clear the way. I rarely used paratroopers (unless island hopping).

[Gangerolf]

But you can't use another civ's roads if you are at peace with them, can you? You probably can if you are in an alliance though.
Since there won't be any diplomats or caravans in the game, the only units you can move into another civ's territory are military units, I think.

I think the consept that invaders can't use roads will turn out to be OK.

[Pembleton]

You can use roads if you have a right of passage pact. A thread called "right of passage pact" is just several threads below this one (at time of writing this of course).

[Sarxis]

Kewl! As of this post, I am the only one who voted Diplomat and Controlling Civ to get bonus!

I am unique! [for now]

[Skanky Burns]

I think that not getting any bonus from roads compared to unimproved terrain is a bit harsh. A 1/2 movement bonus would be better, IMO. But theres no option close to this, so im not voting.

There are no diplomats or caravans in Civ 3. (Nor spies or freights for that matter )

[Roman]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I think that not getting any bonus from roads compared to unimproved terrain is a bit harsh. A 1/2 movement bonus would be better, IMO. But theres no option close to this, so im not voting.
)

Ehm, how about the last option?

[Grumbold]

Roads are roads. They don't require any special equipment to use, unlike railroads, and do not provide overwhelming movement potential. Even a highly mobile unit is only going to be able to travel nine squares, or six if it wants to fight. That pretty much limits it to advancing to the nearest city or defensive installation, which is fine by me.

[jdd2007]

No, Roads should give bonus only to the civilizatoin than controlls that territory. i voted this way because i think it will be a cool feature that will not mess up gameplay

[Wexu]

You just can't use enemy occupied roads like they were your owns. You must be very careful because of enemy ambushes and other stuff -> very slow movement.

No movement bonuses when using enemy's roads!

[JellyDonut]

I voted "no" just because I tend to get invaded more than I invade. I'd like to run my units up to my cities near the enemy and leave them to defend until I can negotiate a peace treaty.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Wexu
You just can't use enemy occupied roads like they were your owns. You must be very careful because of enemy ambushes and other stuff -> very slow movement.

No movement bonuses when using enemy's roads!

You have to defend a road to achieve this. Stick a unit on it and suddenly movement stops. Undefended roads have been used time and time again to make sudden advances far into enemy territory. Recon units are especially designed to advance fast until they contact the enemy, then call up support. Making roads stop working just because they are the wrong side of some artificial line is ridiculous.

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Grumbold


You have to defend a road to achieve this. Stick a unit on it and suddenly movement stops. Undefended roads have been used time and time again to make sudden advances far into enemy territory. Recon units are especially designed to advance fast until they contact the enemy, then call up support. Making roads stop working just because they are the wrong side of some artificial line is ridiculous.

But I imagine that there are enough troops to defend those roads when they are under your control, even if they aren't visible. I imagine "units" so much larger. It's all which way you look at it.

There are MANY "ridiculous" things in Civs if you think of it. How 'bout one unit move one square in 20 years earlier and later 1 year for example.

Anyway I voted "no" and it doesn't need more explanation than that it feels right.

[dainbramaged13]

many people are crying 'gameplay over realism,' to rationalize this, and i agree usualy with this argument, except I believe that this will NOT improve gameplay. I think you should get decreased bonuses for roads and railroads, not NONE AT ALL. ALso, not even none for railoads...without the special equipment, theryre just like roads, because they provide a path for soldiers to go through, so maybe roads could be 1/2 movement, and railroads 1/3 or even 1/2 also.

anyway, this should be modifiable easily

[Triped]

Wait- I thought only railroads couldn't be used by the enemy...

Roads should be accesible, but speed should be reduced somewhat.

If the enemy is slowed to the point where they can't even use roads, the defender would have too much time to defend...