No, if they provide significant movement advantages, people will build
them. It will just be later in development. ANd roads are a BIG job. I
was suggesting this amount of material as a way to justify no
maintenance. But half might be reasonable.
I can see that road networks would be few this way, but I can also see
that there are reasons that a group of people would undertake to build a
main road. Which is what we're talking about--roads on a Roman road
level, not a backwoods dirt track with the odd stone bridge.
100 stone is trivial, really. 1000 may be too high.
On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, David desJardins wrote:
> Obviously no one is going to build any roads if they cost 1000 stone. So
> there's no point in programming them in, in that case.
> David desJardins