[Database] (6-49) Movement: Mounted/Armor

[DoveCDog]

Problem: Currently mounted and armor units can move faster through forest and jungle tiles than infantry. This makes them too strong and is not historically accurate.

Current: Mounted and armor units can move through forest and jungle tiles at the cost of 2 MP

Proposal: Mounted and armor units can move through forest and jungle tiles at the cost of 5 MP

Rationale: With this change, both infantry and mounted/armor units would be able to move through 1 forest/jungle tile per turn. Unique units such as panzers, hussars, comache riders, war chariots wouldn't be affected because they have 6 MP. Movement through desert tiles would remain the same.

 

[Tekamthi]

I kinda like this, but at some point, too many terrain disparities create imbalance between human/AI. I'm not sure if that would be the case here.

Based on what I know of existing functionality, I don't believe you can set a specific movement cost for just 1 type of unit like this; movement cost is just a single value. Then it can be modified via other tables and promotion attributes. For example, via tables/promos you can give a unit half-cost moves in a specific terrain or feature, or you can make a tile cost 1-extra move. I *think* you can also have the movement cost doubled, though last time I tried this it wasn't working consistently from what I can remember. Beyond these, there's a promo attribute to end all movement when the unit enters rough terrain. I think that's it for existing functionality for movement.

So its possible you could double the movement cost for these tiles AND add an extra-move, thus achieving 5MP, but I'm not sure if both of these table fields are currently functional (extramove works for sure, its the double cost I'm not sure about), if they can be stacked, and how they would stack if they do (its possibly it would do the wrong order ie add the extra move and then double the cost, giving 6 mp cost). Anyway, if you've tested all this then ignore what I'm saying, I just think it might be more difficult to accomplish than it sounds.

.dll re-work might be required, but it'll probably be a lot of effort if it is

edit: this works, tested in-game... see below

 

[DoveCDog]

I kinda like this, but at some point, too many terrain disparities create imbalance between human/AI. I'm not sure if that would be the case here.

Based on what I know of existing functionality, I don't believe you can set a specific movement cost for just 1 type of unit like this; movement cost is just a single value. Then it can be modified via other tables and promotion attributes. For example, via tables/promos you can give a unit half-cost moves in a specific terrain or feature, or you can make a tile cost 1-extra move. I *think* you can also have the movement cost doubled, though last time I tried this it wasn't working consistently from what I can remember. Beyond these, there's a promo attribute to end all movement when the unit enters rough terrain. I think that's it for existing functionality for movement.

So its possible you could double the movement cost for these tiles AND add an extra-move, thus achieving 5MP, but I'm not sure if both of these table fields are currently functional (extramove works for sure, its the double cost I'm not sure about), if they can be stacked, and how they would stack if they do (its possibly it would do the wrong order ie add the extra move and then double the cost, giving 6 mp cost). Anyway, if you've tested all this then ignore what I'm saying, I just think it might be more difficult to accomplish than it sounds.

.dll re-work might be required, but it'll probably be a lot of effort if it is

No I have definitely not tested this I am not experienced with modding the game.
If it's not possible, I'd be willing to modify it to the double movement point cost or however necessary.

 

[Tekamthi]

okay well then the question that must be answered for an "easy" implementation is whether the 'HalfMove' and 'ExtraMove' fields in UnitPromotions_Features table can stack

edit: this works, tested in-game... see below

 

[ma_kuh]

I prefer modeling the "infantry have better movement in trees" with woodsman, which mounted can't get, rather than a nerf to mounted. They move the same speed, but you're paying much less for the infantry, so your advantage is numbers, and this on the Shock line as well.

 

[Amask]

Rough terrain is already a nightmare to fight in, and this makes it even worse.
There can be situations where it's literally impossible to make any military progress. Any unit you move forward gets immediately destroyed without accomplishing anything at all.
This just makes such situations more common.

 

[pineappledan]

We already have chariot units requiring 3 movement to enter rough terrain. We removed the vanilla ends turn in rough terrain, because players thought it was too harsh. This would effectively reinstate the vanilla ends turn in rough terrain, but for ALL mounted units.

 

[DoveCDog]

We already have chariot units requiring 3 movement to enter rough terrain. We removed the vanilla ends turn in rough terrain, because players thought it was too harsh. This would effectively reinstate the vanilla ends turn in rough terrain, but for ALL mounted units.

It wouldn't be for all, a few unique units and upgraded skirmishers would have 6MP. But yeah, it does look like most players are against this. My concern is not only that the movement doesn't make sense from a realism perspective but also that mounted units are too strong in forest/jungle. You don't really need to switch up you unit composition too much to wage war in the rough, as these units are still quite strong. Especially skirmishers with their flanking bonus. Maybe we could add a promotion to bring the cost back down to 2 or 3 MP.

But you mentioned in the scouting thread how much overlap there is with the recon/mounted line. This could be a solution, you would want to have your screening scouts supporting your war in the forest rather than your skirmishers.

 

[Stalker0]

please god no.

 

[Tekamthi]

This one's been mis-labeled. Its database-only proposal.

Implemented OP as modmod and tested basic scenarios via firetuner (I haven't yet played a full-game to comment on how it plays "in the wild"); but as proof of concept, flat forest/jungle can cost mounted & armor 5 MP via database-only changes while leaving all other movement as-is (see attached). Hilled forest/jungle costs applicable units more than 5 (i'm not sure how much, i only tested with a 6-move mounted unit and hilled forest ended its turn).

I hope this at least gets sponsorship, I think its a bit of a sleeper as far as gameplay-value goes... consider the following:

we are elsewhere trying to define more distinct role for recon units -- currently there is a lot of mobility overlap. This proposal would make mounted/armor decidedly slow in forest, but still very fast in flat and hilled open terrain. Regular infantry remains the low-mobility, battle mainstay unit line, fast nowhere. With the OP change, unpromo'd recon that moves just 2 plots per turn in forest/jungle is suddenly a unique asset, ie recon is the only fast-in-forest unit line, all without having recon moving as fast as mounted in open (a common complaint). In this regard it pairs well my proposal for recon movement changes based on the elimination of 'ignore terrain cost'.

One odd effect here, though not necessarily a bad thing (in fact it reigns in some UA cheese very slightly): somehow even though flat forest costs regular mounted unit 5 MP with this change, it only costs Iroquois mounted unit ~0.85 MP. This is an increase to iroquois cost nonetheless, which previously could run its mounted units through forest for 0.5 MP or even less... just some odd math taking place

 

[azum4roll]

One odd effect here, though not necessarily a bad thing (in fact it reigns in some UA cheese very slightly): somehow even though flat forest costs regular mounted unit 5 MP with this change, it only costs Iroquois mounted unit ~0.85 MP.

Tree -> tree uses road cost, so it'll become 35/60 MP at Gunpowder.

 

[Tekamthi]

It'll also make mounted/armor units hot trash and not worth building 90% of the time.

I pulled this quote over from the other thread, as I presume this proposal was the one you were referencing.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration -- certainly some situations they would be, but theres generally a lot of open terrain on most maps, and over-time more and more is created -- my main concern in this regard is how well AI can manage the disparity

 

[ma_kuh]

I alluded to it before, but Woodsman on Infantry is a pretty good niche in my opinion. You move at regular speed when everyone else doesn't, and you can make use of the forest for hit and run attacks, making use of Shock for quick swarming attacks.

You still have the option of using horses in the forest, but Infantry get +25% CS (or 35% from a hill) and move at the same rate, at a lower production cost, potentially with no resource as well. So there's a few reasons already to play them.

Having a huge artificial movement barrier for mounted and armor just seems like trying to force the issue. Maybe if it was a more modest 3pt cost... but I still don't think its necessary.

 

[Tekamthi]

Having a huge artificial movement barrier for mounted and armor just seems like trying to force the issue.

this is probably where the crux of the disagreement lies -- I think OP is correct that thematically, these units are too fast in wooded terrain. Its just a gameplay concern that remains for me, how AI would handle it... feels rather thematically accurate and not an "artificial movement barrier" in my view... forests are typically not considered "artificial" (but i know what you mean)

 

[Recursive]

my main concern in this regard is how well AI can manage the disparity

There's a reason we removed most terrain based promotions.

 

[Tekamthi]

There's a reason we removed most terrain based promotions.

Yes iirc that was one of the first discussions I took part in here after converting from my years-long lurker status around CF site

In that case, the AI's (in)ability to select promotions appropriate for the terrain it foresaw fighting in was the crux of the concern, and to a lesser degree its ability to place it in the correct terrain once selected. This weakness was readily observable in-game. AI regularly and consistently maintained defensive armies with promo's unsuited for its home terrain, and somewhat commonly placed units in the wrong plots for the promos they had, diminishing the power they'd have if just swapped places with their neighbors etc.

As I've reflected on this proposal, I don't think its an identical concern: the AI function primarily at issue would be its ability to assess and optimize movement. AI is not as weak in this regard as with promo selection. There would be some impact on its ability to produce the correct unit mix, but again I'd argue its better at this than it is at terrain-specific promo selections.

Anyway, this proposal is actually really well suited to modmod -- the file I posted a few msgs back should easily be applied on-top of VP.