21-09-2001 15:09									#1
	Can't use roads during invasion? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I heard this somewhere, that you won't be able to use an enemy road or rail while invading them. Thing is, I can't imagine how this would work!

Would you be able to bring your own workers for prolonged sieges and build your own roads over their roads?

If you did, would they then not be able to use the roads you built?

this whole thing confuses me

	21-09-2001 15:24									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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

	21-09-2001 15:28									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This probably would also apply to railroads. You might get *some* bonus movement from rails, or you may not. Will havta wait and see what Firaxis say For some interesting reading, look up Germany's trouble during WW2 trying to use Russia's rail network. To cut a long story short, they had a lot of trouble

	21-09-2001 16:15									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns This probably would also apply to railroads. You might get *some* bonus movement from rails, or you may not. Will havta wait and see what Firaxis say For some interesting reading, look up Germany's trouble during WW2 trying to use Russia's rail network. To cut a long story short, they had a lot of trouble

I would think that you should be more likely to get bonuses from roads than from railroads during an invasion.

As you mention, there are a a number of problems with trying to use the local rail system in an invasion.

But I wouldn't think there shouldn't be quite as many issues with trying to use a regular road. True, it should be slower than normal road usage, but it should be at least slightly faster than cross country movement. Especially in forested areas, mountains, or in the industrial era.

	21-09-2001 16:28									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This is an excellent idea..

Makes the tactics way more interesting..

	21-09-2001 16:32									#6
	Got spare money?

I don't remember where I read it, but I think I've read this too, and I like it. It is dangerous to travel on roads, what if they are mined?

	21-09-2001 17:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast I heard this somewhere, that you won't be able to use an enemy road or rail while invading them.

Here is the source: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=25768. My comment was:

"Sounds reasonable to me. Some civers may question why the invader cant use neither road-tripled or RR move-rates in enemy-territory. But remember that you only really control the local border-area expanding from the target-city, once you actually have succeeded in taking the city itself. Before that the invader is busy dealing with mines, blown-up bridges, removed roadsigns and so on (besides regular fighting) - all in order to slow down the advancement. Not to mention the usual food/fuel-logistical problems.

I agree though that completely nullified road/RR-bonus seems a little harsh. Treating both roads & railroads as roads with only doubled (not tripled) move-bonus, would be more enough to simulate above. As it stands, there is no incentive whatsoever to make use of enemy-roads - which is unrealistic since (after all) moving your tanks on enemy-roads or through enemy-mud DOES make a big difference."

Anyway, I like the overal idea, even without above change. Why? Well, heres what I replied to Recurve (sorry, Im to lazy to rewrite the same arguments with other words):

quote: Originally posted by Recurve Keep the unlimited MPs! How else will I be able to wipe out half the world in a single turn?

My comment to that was:
"Above wont happen, since both roads and railroads are treated as non-existing in the invasion-phase. You can only take advantage of foreign road/RR infrastructure after you taken the foreign-land controlling city - and even then you can only use the road/RR-infrastructure within the culture-borders controlled by that newly conquered city.

Anyway, your argument is exactly the reason why I dont want Civ-2 style infinite RR-moves. The player take advantage of this, and the AI cannot possibly play on equal terms. How fun is that?
I say; give railroads a fixed (but editable) move-radius, without combat attrition-cost and regardless land-unit, within your own homeland & within conquered secured enemy-land".

	21-09-2001 19:36									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns (...) the new road rules get a big

Agreed.

	21-09-2001 20:22									#9
	Got spare money?

oohhh, this is one feature i asked for and it looks like i got it

i cant see Allied tanks being transported on German rails, unless of course the Allies are occupying cities nearby.

next question, roads on neutral land? for example on route to colonies? who gets bonuses?

	21-09-2001 20:25									#10
	Support Apolyton

Kruxy, they might have portable trains building up on the filed.

	21-09-2001 20:29									#12
	Tired of ads?

How long would it take to put a train together? more or less time then hijacking a train?

	21-09-2001 20:33									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

more.

laying the track? a while.

and portable?

the tracks have to be nailed into thew ground or the train would tip.

	21-09-2001 21:47									#14
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX more. laying the track? a while. and portable? the tracks have to be nailed into thew ground or the train would tip.

I was thinking of just bringing the train, and adjust it to the current track, but why not build the railway network while attacking as well. Our navvy squad has finished the railway to Moscow, now we only have to build the train and start our journey.

	21-09-2001 23:03									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

This is a remarkably good idea...it gets my FULL support

Roads in invasions are closed off, mined and guarded not a conduit for an enemy invasion...bye, bye empires falling easily in 1 turn.

	21-09-2001 23:26									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Now Dan has started to get a bad memory
IIRC he plays the game everyday, and he has hard to remember

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS Also, as was alluded to in another thread, a Right of Passage speeds up movement on roads through another Civ's territory. IIRC, without one, you can't get road or railroad movement bonuses in someone else's territory. Dan

	22-09-2001 00:08									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think the invading player should get no rail bonuses and half of the road bonus.

Taking a rail line(including an engine and boxcars) would be a very difficult task, especially if it were to apply to all of your troops, each one (if not moved in a stack) would have to supply each(an engine & boxcar) fro each and every unit you had; that is very implausable!


What is plausable; is that you could use the enemies roads, albeit at some risk due to you being on 'foreign' ground. Maybe some locals could be hindering your efforts to travle the road by tearing up parts of the road or by creating certain types of road blocks. So if you cut the bonus in half for roads(instead of eliminating it), it just makes more sense.

	22-09-2001 00:16									#18
	Tired of ads?

YAY!!!

this is a very good feature. i like that you can make the right of passage pact...

ps finally firaxis does something that we all give

	22-09-2001 00:35									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

That just gave me a nasty thought. What if you've got right of passage with your 'friendly neighbour' civ, and decide that moving right next to their nice, plump city via their rail was a good idea. And then attacking I guess that models the bonus from surprise attacks nicely hehe

	22-09-2001 00:45									#20
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns That just gave me a nasty thought. What if you've got right of passage with your 'friendly neighbour' civ, and decide that moving right next to their nice, plump city via their rail was a good idea. And then attacking I guess that models the bonus from surprise attacks nicely hehe

I guess that nobody will sign a Right of Passage pact with you for a long time then.

	22-09-2001 01:19									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gramphos I guess that nobody will sign a Right of Passage pact with you for a long time then.

Its ok, ive put that aggressive behaviour behind me now. My massive army is only for defence. Its been three long years since I added the English to my glorious civilization. All i need is a Right of Passage through your territory to, erm, better protect my borders. Thats it, just sign on the dotted line.

Say, thats a nice capital you've got there.

	22-09-2001 01:57									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by jdd2007 finally firaxis does something that we all give

I'm pretty sure that once we actually will be able to talk about the game knowing for a fact what we're talking about (ie, after release date), there'll be much more reasons to give Firaxis .

	22-09-2001 02:32									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Actually, as I think about it, I'm not sure why there should be any reduction of the road bonus in ancient times. My reasoning is thusly:

Mines did not exist. Explosives didn't exist. Delays would have to come in form of large scale destruction of the road bed itself, roadblocks, ambushes, or direct military assault.

In ancient civilizations, they tended to have fairly despotic governments. Under such a government, the sort of actions that the civilian population would have to take to damage the roadway itself, would have to come at orders of the government at some level. The general population knew better than to do such things on their own. And given the time it would take for the government to learn of the invasion, decide on such a course of action, and the amount of time and effort needed to do enough to be meaningful, it just wouldn't happen. Especially if the roadbed was of Roman construction. Those Romans knew how to build roads. IIRC, their techniques aren't that disimilar to modern ones, we've just improved on the materials. The government would be more likely to order their armies into the field than give any orders about the roadbeds.

I suppose roadblocks might happen without government orders, but to be significant delayers, they would have to be extensive, and backed by a certain amount of military force.

Ambushes would really be military action, and especially in ancient times that should be represented by battle between units, the same as with direct military assault.

Really, about the only thing I can see that would slow an army moving through enemy territory in ancient times would be pillaging, plundering, and raiding for supplies.

	22-09-2001 12:41									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Argggghhhh!!! What a bad idea!!!!

Part of any attack in a war is capturing the main lines of communication. Germany invaded Russia and the West successfully by shooting down its roads with large numbers of tanks. It also used the railways effectively. What hindered German use of communication was heavy bombing in the West and massive partisan resistance in the East. If a road is there (or a railway for that matter) and it is not defended, either by border guards or a blocking force, then of course a civ should be able to stream down it regardless of whether they built it or it is in their cultural boundaries. All the activities mentioned previously can be done in the game through partisans, pillaging etc. Mines also rarely slow up roads for long periods and if you really want to mimic this then just pillage the rail/road in question and count that as mining it!!!! If you don't defend your lines of communication then that is your disadvantage, not that of an attacker!!!

quote: This is a remarkably good idea...it gets my FULL support Roads in invasions are closed off, mined and guarded not a conduit for an enemy invasion...bye, bye empires falling easily in 1 turn. __________________ kOc

?????????????????????????????

France fell quickly as did Poland, Russia nearly did too in World War 2. Roads are always a conduit in an enemy invasion. Thats why you should guard them!!!

	22-09-2001 12:43									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Bleyn Actually, as I think about it, I'm not sure why there should be any reduction of the road bonus in ancient times. My reasoning is thusly: Mines did not exist. Explosives didn't exist. Delays would have to come in form of large scale destruction of the road bed itself, roadblocks, ambushes, or direct military assault.

Who gives a ****. The idea is good for gameplay anyway, because its reduces the inflationary "conquer an empire within one turn" problem. Hopefully they follow it up with fixed RR move-ranges, as well. Besides, once you have conquered an enemy-city, you can use the road/RR infrastructure again that this city controls (probably within city-indevidual culture-borders).

quote: Really, about the only thing I can see that would slow an army moving through enemy territory in ancient times would be pillaging, plundering, and raiding for supplies.

Exactly. There you have your reasons for slowed down ancient invasions.

	22-09-2001 12:51									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ralf quote: Really, about the only thing I can see that would slow an army moving through enemy territory in ancient times would be pillaging, plundering, and raiding for supplies. Exactly. There you have your reasons for slowed down ancient invasions.

Er the Vandals and Goths marched straight into Rome and sacked it because of the efficient Roman road system. In ancient times there were very few roads. When there were, civilisations were very vulnerable if the roads werent adequately fortified as enemies charged down them unhindered, burning and looting as they went!!!

	22-09-2001 12:58									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lordfluffers When there were, civilisations were very vulnerable if the roads werent adequately fortified as enemies charged down them unhindered, burning and looting as they went!!!

You can still use foreign roads built by the enemy. Its just that you must conquer the enemy-city, controlling the surrounding roads FIRST.

	22-09-2001 13:32									#28
	Remove this text

Wow! we seem to have hit a nerve here!

OK, we all seem to agree that something should be done to get rid of the "infinite howies" strategy and the like. We also seem to agree that use of enemy rails during invasions runs into problems and should be restricted.

It also seems to most of us, that the same doesn't, and maybe shouldn't, apply to roads. enemies seem able to use regular roads without difficulty or hindrance, historically.

Perhaps it should be noted that there wasn't an ancient version of infinite howies using only roads, was there? And so the same imbalance doesn't extend to ancient warfare, does it?

	22-09-2001 13:42									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think it's incorrect.

If anything, durnig ancient times road should be used for invasion, mainly since they don't provide unlimited movement but realistically speed up attacks.

That's why big cities which were near roads were fortified.

However, I agree that this is a good idea for modern time, where an enemy can't use my rail roads to advance into my territory, therefore I think an enemy should treat foreign rail as simple road.

	22-09-2001 15:03									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Its acceptable, perhaps even useful for railroads (though totally unnecessary if you just make the movement cost 1/5 or something, and make attacks end a unit's turn).

But a stupid thing if it applies to roads. There isn't much you can do to roads (especially in ancient times) that will render them no advantage to attacking troops, but still useful to defending troops.

Mines, blockades are great, but how do your defending troops avoid them with no loss of movement?