Bill Viggers (
Tue, 11 Oct 94 11:28:48 NZD

>I think road construction is a GREAT idea, but I think that Bill Vigger's
>idea makes things a little too easy. I have no objection to roads being very
>expensive to build - they were (from what history I know).

I don't think you realise quite how hard roads would be to build
even under my scheme. Take building a road between plains. Even
discounting the labour cost there is 70 stone to worry about.
Thats a turn and a halfs production from a mountain. More than
that, there is the cost of transporting those 70 stone. It would
take 70 workers or 7 oxen (oxen carry 1000 don't they?) to carry
the stone. Add in a noble. Building roads any distance from
a source of stone will be excessivly expensive anyway.

>As far as Thomas Hudson's objections, to build a road I think it should be
>required that the action be performed in each square. I agree that you
>shouldn't be able to build into unoccupied land.

Actually this isn't as bad an idea as it sounds. Traditionally
only empire have built roads anyway, so insisting that both
provinces be garrisoned is probably not unreasonable. What is
unreasonable would be insisting that they were garrisioned by
the building player. I can't say I like this restriction as I
don't see what advantages it gives, but I could live with it.
I really don't see why work must be done in each of the
ajoining provinces however. Surely it would be just as easy to check
that there are no hostile forces in the destination province. If the
road is over 50% built then when ever more work is done on it just
check to see if the destination has any hostile forces. If there
are then the build order fails until they are delt with. Why do it
this way? Well weren't most roads built from one place to another,
rather than starting from each end and meeting in the middle? I
don't know, thats just a conjecture. Again I guess I could live
with needing to work from both ends but I don't think it adds
anything except unnecessary complications to the game. Insisting
on the absence of hostile forces makes more sence, in fact I
actively like it. However given that a province is pretty large I
could live without that resitrction.
One other change I was thinking of over my origional
proposal is that of civilisation. My origional (lower civ +1)
proposal is a very one way street. A different idea could be to
have a finished road adding half a civilisation point to each
end. (this is easier on Rich, and no less realistic than having
an inn add half a civilistaion point). Maybe a maximum to +1 civ
for 2 roads in a province could be implemented? This reflects
the idea of the interactions between the cultures give something that
is more than just the sum of the inderviduals. The whole greater
than the sum of the parts. Hybrid vigour and all dem buzz words.

To summerise my feelings:
Difficulty under-rated.
Garrisons at either end. acceptable but not preferable
Working from either end. Silly.
No hostile forces at far end. preferable but not essential.
Civilisation change in benefit?

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links