Corbeau wrote:"No military units" in Civ doesn't correspond to "no military units" in reality. Civ is an approximation. You don't operate every pipeline to every household and you don't organise units such as territorial defence or militia or first echelon of army reserve or national guard or a hastily patched up bunch of volunteers that got their weapons from a local police station or anything else that usually does happen in reality.
No, but a military unit in Civ does correspont do "a significant number of military units" in real life. A significant number of military units isn't something you just stop with something hastily patched up.
Yes, and we are apparently having different discussions. I keep repeating "not stop but slow down" while you are repeating "stop".
Hastily patched up vonlunteers that got weapons from a local police station can maybe be viewed as riflemen you emergency buy in a city without barracks?
Not at the present cost.
It really boilds down to playability, not realism. While I agree that full access to railroads is pretty dubious when it comes to realism, to have full restrictinfra feels like not only sacrificing realism, but also dumbing the game down on the defense side. Building roads and railroads is such an advantage that it's a nice balancing feauture that they also are dangerous. It forces you to think twice about how to make road/railroad network instead of making it a no-brainer to build road/railroad everywhere. It's possible to split restrict rails and restrict roads, and I think I'm positive to restricting rails, or even better maybe make them for example 1/9 movement points. It is weird that units can move infinite on railroad while planes have very limited movement in comparision.
This is your personal view. I don't know how many Longturn games you have played, but people who have played more than you and me combined say that "no restrictinfra" is a sudden death situation after which the victim doesn't want to play anymore. And no, it's not about "not being dumb to set up your road network". You absolutely need a road network, you can't set it up "strategically defensive" in order to "slow down a potential attacker". When an attacker is well prepared, no defence will be able to stop him. It's only a matter of numbers. Roads are an integral part of a civilization. If you are playing Civilization, you build roads. If you are playing Warcraft, then you submit everything to conquest.
You want easy conquest. To you, building a nation is the means to go to war. To me it's the other way round. Gamewise, both methods are legal as is the either restrictinfra variant. The only thing is: no restriction is less realistic and leads to sudden death which is also unrealistic for larger empires.
You want a quick conquest, where the defender should be prepared all the time because, if he isn't, he will perish within a few turns. But, again, if the attack is well prepared, no defence will be able to stop it. It's a game of numbers.
I want a more realistic situation where it takes time to conquer a territory (as long as the land is large), just as it happened throughout history. Both variants are playable in its way, but, like I said, one is called Civilization and the other is called turn-based Warcraft.