[RedRover]

Norfleet:
Thank you for the kind words. I agree with your assessment. But, having no experience with coding, I was hoping for a comment from the design staff on the simple feasibility of coding the approach (ignoring cost considerations), or that possibly some map modder would like to tackle this part of the idea.

Arryn:
I'm a little disappointed that I left it possible to focus on a single word in a post that long and still have a reader so completely miss the point. (FYI: While I have played all three real Civs, plus Alpha Centauri and its expansions, I have no desire to turn Dom2 into a Civ clone. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

Seriously, this idea comes from my reading military history, not from any computer game I've played.

Sithrandel:
Dom2 is a great sandbox, IMO.

I agree that the _general_ addition of roadbuilding to the engine would change its essential character far too much. Which is why this is configured as a mod. It should not be imposed on anyone who doesn't want to play with it, and certainly has no place in the basic game.

My interest is to see if, as a mod theme for one faction, it creates a sufficiently interesting tactical variation to be a viable choice in a game that also has gates and Dom2's long range ritual spell effects. (I expect Arouse Hunger, for example, would be very useful in hindering or shutting down an annoying road net.)

Your post reminded me of a story about the map of _Terrible Swift Sword_, a huge four-mapsheet (22x34 each, gridded into 1/2-inch hexes), 2000+ counter board wargame design of Battle of Gettysburg from the American Civil War (published by Simulations Publications Inc. in the early '70s).

On that entire map, there would have been one single hex with an orchard symbol in it (as opposed to forest). The designer wanted to put it in, for historical accuracy; it was important in the actual fighting. The graphic designer wanted to leave it out to avoid making a whole new map symbol for one single hex (the game effect was the same as forest, anyway). The company decision was that the payoff was not enough for the cost, so the hex showed up as a forest hex.

Is is worthwhile to make a radical configuration change to the mapping protocols to support one mod variant? Not for Illwinter, as a company, almost certainly. But it might be an interesting design challenge for a modder familiar with making Dom2 maps.

Sithandrel, I hope you start a thread on areas that you think should be higher priority. I'm sure I would find them interesting reading.

Endoperez:
I believe you are right about the survival icons; I think they do allow normal movement through their terrain type.

I don't think a general ability to move through rough terrain is desirable for Pythian heavy infantry, nor does it model the tactical or strategic effects of a road net. Seems too much of a generic power-up to me.

While roads provide tactical flexibility (the ability to set up interior lines, for example), they also channel movement, and introduce another layer of decisions for the player, whether considering how to set them up, or how to deal with them if an opponent has them.

So a general terrain bonus fails on two counts: 1) It fails to model the strategic channeling effects of a road net, and 2) It fails to model the cost of setting up this type of infrastructure. What you spend on roads can't be spent on troops, and the strategic decision whether to build road sections or units would have to be finely tuned in the final Version.

Kristoffer 0:
The 2 stategic move for the legionnaires did hit my radar screen, but only after I had finished the road section, and was looking through the Pythian units for mod possibilities.

I seriously considered not completing the post at that point. Roads make a lot more sense going from strategic move 1 to 2 than from 2 to 3 (which is light cavalry/flier speed). I thought it would be too much change in the existing game to suggest a general rollback for the Pythian legionnaires to a 1 strategic move. Pythians work very well as written, and it's a waste of everyone's time to change something that already works (as opposed to adding a new set of options and decisions that are refusable).

It also seemed inconsistent to reduce a modded Pythian legionnaire's strat-move 2 to a 1, just to make a road mod more useful. I think Pythian tactical doctrine wouldn't change on such fundamental characteristics as marching pace or travel discipline, even in a variant group. Instead, doing this in a mod would look like a lame attempt to force the design. That offends my aesthetic sense--I hate forced designs.

My solution was to keep the road bonus as I originally wrote it. Of course, no heavily armored infantry could realistically be expected to move this fast in the real world. On the other hand, it is a fantasy game, so introducing a slight exaggeration of road effects to get the strategic flavor--and model the strategic effect--was the best design compromise I could think of.

Also, that was the point at which I thought of the temporary fort (camp). Since I now had a second idea, I thought I would bundle them and see how they fit.

Camps
Speaking of which, does anyone have any feedback on the temporary fort idea? It's small enough to have gotten lost, but it might have the more interesting tactical possibilities of the two ideas. At least, I'm beginning to think so...