04-06-2002 02:33									#1
	PTW request: Allow movement on enemy roads Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I apologize if this has been brought up before, but...

I would hope Firaxis would consider adjusting the rules regarding roads to allow units to travel on them inside enemy territory and only use 1/3 of a movement point. I can understand not allowing infinite movement on rails, but allowing movement on roads would make the game much more realistic.

Throughout history, many major battles have been fought in order to take or hold a road junction. (Bastogne anyone?) Not allowing units to travel on enemy roads almost implies that they're either mined or impassable, something I doubt the designers intended.

I'd hope that this would be included in PTW, if not a patch. Additionally, if anyone has made a mod that fixed this, please let me know.

Jack

	04-06-2002 02:41									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

i concur. roads are still there, even if the enemy is using them.

rails are a bit different, and should not allow infinate movement while in enemy territory.

also, if roads gave you the 1/3 move, another strategy would evolve, pilligang you're own structures as to slow down o overwhelming force.

	04-06-2002 05:23									#3
	Got spare money?

Why not 1/2 move on enemy roads?

This would be more realistic.

	04-06-2002 06:26									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

For my part, I'd like to see the rule stay as it is-BUT, with an option in the editor to change it to whatever you like! In fact, all the rules for movement-from terrain effects to roads and rail (friendly and enemy) should be open to the editor!
If I were to change the movement rules, I would probably say that both enemy roads and rail simply allow the player to ignore terrain effects on movement, so that all movement costs 1mp, regardless of underlying terrain!
To go further, I'd probably change things so that friendly roads=1/4mp, friendly rail=1/8mp and enemy roads and rail would be 1/2 and 1/4 respectively!
Anyway, just my $0.02c worth, but I do have my fingers crossed!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

	04-06-2002 07:10									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Each square of railroad outside of the city radius should cost some upkeep every turn. This would eliminate the Railroad everywhere syndrome, and would increase the value of roads. Firaxis should then make a Small Wonder which lets you treat each road in enemy territory as 1/3 movment. It would act a bit like Battlefield Medicine.

Army Engineers: req: 5 universities, 5 barracks
effects: treat all roads in enemy territory as 1/2 movment point

	04-06-2002 10:02									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Roads in enemy territory should bestow 1/2 of their regular movement bonus (you wouldn't be moving full pace when there's the possible threat of an ambush. Even if there is no ambush)

As for enemy railroads, they shouldn't bestow any bonuses apart from the road bonus.

	04-06-2002 17:35									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I've got to agree with Azrael on this one, you won't be moving at full speed through enemy terrritory. In fact, if they thought you were taking the roads, they could make life miserable for you (ambushes, traps, mines, blown bridges, logs across the road, etc. ) I assume this to be happening at a tactical scale that isn't explicitly modelled and that is what the lack of movement bonus represents. I remember the way it worked in Civ2 and I didn't like that they could use my road and rails. I thought it was unrealistic.

The best solution is to have 2 values in the editor, one for friendly (including Right of Passage) movement and one for non-Right of Passage Civs (including enemies). This would solution would make everyone happy (except for those "purists" who refuse to use the editor to customize the game to their liking and would rather whine about how Firaxis should adopt their way).

	04-06-2002 17:59									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker For my part, I'd like to see the rule stay as it is-BUT, with an option in the editor to change it to whatever you like! In fact, all the rules for movement-from terrain effects to roads and rail (friendly and enemy) should be open to the editor!

Absolutely agree. I like it as is (makes for more strategizing in combat, in my opinion), but if others feel the need to define different movement restrictions, let them. The more that's in the editor the more we'll be able to do with scenarios.

	04-06-2002 18:36									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by WarpStorm I've got to agree with Azrael on this one, you won't be moving at full speed through enemy terrritory. In fact, if they thought you were taking the roads, they could make life miserable for you (ambushes, traps, mines, blown bridges, logs across the road, etc. ) I assume this to be happening at a tactical scale that isn't explicitly modelled and that is what the lack of movement bonus represents. I remember the way it worked in Civ2 and I didn't like that they could use my road and rails. I thought it was unrealistic. The best solution is to have 2 values in the editor, one for friendly (including Right of Passage) movement and one for non-Right of Passage Civs (including enemies). This would solution would make everyone happy (except for those "purists" who refuse to use the editor to customize the game to their liking and would rather whine about how Firaxis should adopt their way).

1/3, 1/2 or 1 MPs per square -- any of those would be fine with me. At least then the capture of roads and road junctions in enemy territory would have some value. Adding the option to change those settings in the editor would also be fine with me, as I've found the game much more enjoyable after making several changes to the settings.

	05-06-2002 04:47									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Actually, the way I visualise it, the key issue is not one of possible ambushes as traps, it's about LOGISTICS!!
The real reason that I agree with slower movement in enemy territory is because it models, however crudely, the existence of supply lines. Your army is, in essence, going slow enough to allow your supply lines to catch up with you and to protect them from enemy attack! Although I had hoped for a more detailed modelling of supply lines, I feel that this is a perfectly reasonable simplification!
I also agree, however, that ambushes etc are a factor in slower movement in enemy territory!
Lastly, though, I do feel that Roads and RR's should negate terrain penalties to movement, to simply reflect that your forces are travelling on a man-made, level surface! At the end of the day, however, these choices should ALWAYS remain open to editing by individual players!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	05-06-2002 14:28									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

An idea I had a while ago on this issue would be to let you use roads in enemy territory as long as you had a unit in the square you're moving into.

	05-06-2002 15:15									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like it, as it is now...Only make optional changes...