Roads

[Trifna]

Roads should be used as normally are sued for by anyone. But other useful advanced transport ways such as train shouldn't be used by attacker. So attacker shouldn't be in the same situation.

[Earthling7]

I say let roads be useable by owning Civ and one with right-to-pass treaty.

[ixnay]

Roads should give a fraction of movement to an attacker, and full movement to whoever holds the territory and who has a right of passage pact.

[Ralf]

The third alternative; ("Only nonmillitary units (diplomats) and the country who built the road should get a bonus") is based on wrong assumptions. Both diplomats & spy's have gone the same way as caravan & freights - they dont exist as indevidual units anymore. This has been confirmed by Dan Magaha in this thread.

Anyway, its nice to see that an overwhelming majority so far, is all positive to some kind of invasion-related road-bonus limitations. Good news.

[Father Beast]

I've created a monster!!!

I just wanted some clarification on a new feature and it turned into the biggest debate on this forum since the MP debacle.

weird....

[Triped]

That's because it's history vs. realism. The real debate here is, should a game about Earth reflect it as closely as possible, or as a game, should it have as good gameplay as possible?

The second one is true, of course.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree with this, but I also think, after consideration of this quote:

Originally posted by 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 . . .

that sacrificing a little realism here adds a lot to strategy and gameplay. As realized above, this will make many units valueable, not just the traditional horse and tank type units.

Realistically, I thoroughly agree that enemy units should be able to use your roads. However, I think this new option provides for some interesting gameplay twists.

As posted by someone else in another thread, you have to take into consideration that your military invasion on one turn may span 5 or mores years. In all likelihood, border guards and regular citizens would report the invasion long before it got as far into your territory as moving on a road in one turn would suggest. The defenders would have long since responded to the attack. Perhaps no movement bonus on enemy roads is an attempt to help simulate that. This at least gives the defender the opportunity to respond to your attack (especially for the inept AI).

If giving the defender a little more opportunity to respond to your attack rocks your boat, perhaps you should have prepared your invasion a little better. Personally, if I'm going to invade someone, I go in with guns blazing and swat away any resistance I may come across.

[Sava]

Railroads use should be restricted because it requires trains and stations. Roads don't require anything, hence they are just there! Anyone can use them. But for gameplay sake I would have to agree with the restricted use.

[manofthehour]

I was surpirised people didn't think diplomats should be able to use roads.

[ixnay]

That's because there are no diplomats. Or spies. It's all been abstracted into an espionage window.

[Nemo]

my option is not in there.

I think that you should have normal road movement on enemy roads EXCEPT if the road crosses a river (i.e. any square that requires bridgebuilding tech, before being able to place that road). That would be feesable and realistic, as in reality mostbridges are blown up in retreat. I mean come on, why would you not beable to use a dirt road or paved road? did the dirt get blown up or something? ...not likely.

But I think railroads should not be usable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Father Beast
I've created a monster!!!

I just wanted some clarification on a new feature and it turned into the biggest debate on this forum since the MP debacle.

weird....

It's Alive!! ALIVE!!!

Hehe.

Um, seriously...given what they've said about the editor and how robust it is (sorry to use that over-used term), I bet you can just use it to eliminate the road movement penalty if you don't like it.

How's that for an answer? Will the gripers now complain that it's too much trouble to use the editor?