Possible Modmod - No double moves and no ranged strikes from cities

[ilteroi]

Tactical AI being good enough now, there are two things which have been bothering me:

* Double movement promotions. No penalty in certain terrain, fine. But moving faster in difficult terrain than in good terrain, come on ...
* Ranged strikes from cities. Dreadful UI and also unnecessary. You want to counterattack? Get a unit!

For me these are obvious improvements but I realize that not everybody sees it that way. So it's probably best to make a modmod first.

There are actually defines already to enable the desired rules: SANE_UNIT_MOVEMENT_COST and CORE_NO_RANGED_ATTACK_FROM_CITIES. However they currently cause inconsistencies because some elements of the game just don't have an effect anymore, text is wrong etc. So it's fine to play like this but I've been thinking about whether it's worth the effort to to make it an "official" way to play. So this hypothetical modmod would potentially include changes to some traits, promotions, defensive buildings. Ideally database changes only, no code.

The question is: am I alone with my ideas or are there other people out there who like this rule change and would like to get involved.

Disclaimer: Not saying anything will happen instantly, just testing the water ... I don't even have an overview yet of how much work this would be.

PS: If you don't like the idea, no need to post a reply.

 

[Stalker0]

Tactical AI being good enough now, there are two things which have been bothering me:

* Double movement promotions. No penalty in certain terrain, fine. But moving faster in difficult terrain than in good terrain, come on ...
* Ranged strikes from cities. Dreadful UI and also unnecessary. You want to counterattack? Get a unit!

For me these are obvious improvements but I realize that not everybody sees it that way. So it's probably best to make a modmod first.

There are actually defines already to enable the desired rules: SANE_UNIT_MOVEMENT_COST and CORE_NO_RANGED_ATTACK_FROM_CITIES. However they currently cause inconsistencies because some elements of the game just don't have an effect anymore, text is wrong etc. So it's fine to play like this but I've been thinking about whether it's worth the effort to to make it an "official" way to play. So this hypothetical modmod would potentially include changes to some traits, promotions, defensive buildings. Ideally database changes only, no code.

The question is: am I alone with my ideas or are there other people out there who like this rule change and would like to get involved.

Disclaimer: Not saying anything will happen instantly, just testing the water ... I don't even have an overview yet of how much work this would be.

PS: If you don't like the idea, no need to post a reply.

Ultimately if you want to make a mod mod for people to try out, go nuts. But integration I think would need to be a VP congress proposal.

I can say we have tried a few flavors of removing the double move promotions, and none of them have passed yet.

 

[hokath]

Double move promos are ultimately quite fun...

If I think back in the dim and distant past, I remember being surprised that Civ V had cities with attacks. Civ II you could just walk into them

 

[Recursive]

Tactical AI being good enough now, there are two things which have been bothering me:

* Double movement promotions. No penalty in certain terrain, fine. But moving faster in difficult terrain than in good terrain, come on ...
* Ranged strikes from cities. Dreadful UI and also unnecessary. You want to counterattack? Get a unit!

For me these are obvious improvements but I realize that not everybody sees it that way. So it's probably best to make a modmod first.

There are actually defines already to enable the desired rules: SANE_UNIT_MOVEMENT_COST and CORE_NO_RANGED_ATTACK_FROM_CITIES. However they currently cause inconsistencies because some elements of the game just don't have an effect anymore, text is wrong etc. So it's fine to play like this but I've been thinking about whether it's worth the effort to to make it an "official" way to play. So this hypothetical modmod would potentially include changes to some traits, promotions, defensive buildings. Ideally database changes only, no code.

The question is: am I alone with my ideas or are there other people out there who like this rule change and would like to get involved.

Disclaimer: Not saying anything will happen instantly, just testing the water ... I don't even have an overview yet of how much work this would be.

PS: If you don't like the idea, no need to post a reply.

I'd say there's community interest for the terrain movement idea.

[Vote] - (1-19) Proposed Replacements for Trailblazer Double Movement Promotions

Voting Instructions Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of options. All votes are public. If you wish, you can...

forums.civfanatics.com

If you recall, you sponsored proposal 1-19a last year (which passed) but then realized it was more work than you thought to implement. There hasn't been any meaningful change to the balance in this area so I'd say you could go ahead and implement it now if you wanted - it had 82 votes in favor.

Note: The "Frogman" promotion part of 1-19a can be ignored as it was separately proposed, sponsored and passed in Session #5.

Removing city attacks is another nerf to cities - which were nerfed recently already with the building defense/HP rework - and I think it should be proposed to the community next session to see if there's wider agreement.

 

[stii]

I like removing any double move promotions. Scout ones might be fine but combat units aren't.

City attacks seem fine though. Removing the defenders advantage seems a bit dubious, might even swing it ot the point where there is an attackers advantage.

 

[azum4roll]

Recon units - no issue there, moving faster in difficult terrain is their niche.
Other military units - there are only few combinations of promotions that let them move faster in difficult terrain, and all of them involve Altitude Training (double movement on hills). Why not just remove the double move on hills from Altitude Training?

 

[KlHannibal2]

I would keep the city attack. The AI makes good use of it, targeting mostly siege units. Often with a ranged garrison on top. Take that away and siege units become much harder to take out without a superior army.

 

[Recursive]

Recon units - no issue there, moving faster in difficult terrain is their niche.
Other military units - there are only few combinations of promotions that let them move faster in difficult terrain, and all of them involve Altitude Training (double movement on hills). Why not just remove the double move on hills from Altitude Training?

Amphibious grants double movement in Marsh.

 

[azum4roll]

Amphibious grants double movement in Marsh.

It still takes 1.5 moves each, unless you also have ignore terrain cost, which no melee/gun unit has.

I guess there's the rare combination of Songhai/Iroquois getting a Berber Cavalry/Minuteman from a CS.

 

[Stalker0]

I do think city attacks are a key part of the defense balance right now, removing them would make offensive MUCH stronger, and so would likely require a number of tweaks elsewhere.

 

[gwennog]

Removing attacks from cities for most cities can be interesting but for coastal cities and even more so on islands, defense will become almost impossible.

 

[ilteroi]

ok seems the feedback is quite mixed - also fine, no further actions needed

 

[Anarcomu]

An other question would be : ignoring costs for specific element could mean two things :

• Always cost 1 to move to tiles with specific element,
• Costs does not consider the tile to have said specific element.

In the case of a forested hill with free movement on forest, the former means 1, the latter 2. I'm personally for the latter.

EDIT : Description of abilities can be made to reflect those bonuses :

• Ignore movement costs when moving into specific element tiles,
• Ignore movement costs penalties from specific element.

 

[CppMaster]

* Double movement promotions. No penalty in certain terrain, fine. But moving faster in difficult terrain than in good terrain, come on ...

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, I agree.

* Ranged strikes from cities. Dreadful UI and also unnecessary. You want to counterattack? Get a unit!

I'm not sure about that one. I'm fine with both cases, assuming balancing it. Why do you think the UI is dreadful? I never had any problems using it.

 

[Tekamthi]

Double movement promotions. No penalty in certain terrain, fine. But moving faster in difficult terrain than in good terrain, come on

I've made the suggestion previously that, considering the time that elapses per turn (ie years tick off the clock), the fast movement in forest and jungle for units on foot is thematically appropriate, as these terrains are much easier to survive and forage in then open plains and grasslands. Consider the history of the american midwest: if settlers got caught in open plains without horses (ie they died or were stolen), that was it for them, deadzo europeans. Indigenous groups could cross them on foot but it was nonetheless seen as an unideal location to live or exist because of the sparse availability of resources. The "plains indians" only arose after the genocides were well underway in their woodland homelands, and the availability of horses became prominent. You just can't carry enough to move long distances in open terrain on your back, and must either cross them very quickly on horse to survive, or spend a lot of effort on stopping to forage and re-supply, backtracking large distances just to find enough material to build temp shelters, light cooking fires; in forest and jungle, materials for shelter are everywhere, as are fuel for cooking, water & food relatively abundant. However, in this context, the ++speed on snow and desert makes zero sense.

Anyway seems the majority interpret this movement as their top sprint speeds, 20 years turn times notwithstanding. In any case, I generally agree with OP that the ignore terrain cost and double move combo is problematic on recon: they're too fast, too often.

My best modmod attempt to address this so far is the "counter-reconnaissance" mod i've posted in forums: ignore terrain cost is there most of the time, but temporarily disabled for 2 turns after recon unit engages in combat. Recon can fly around the map as we're used to while exploring, but plays by the movement rules everyone else does while fighting. Still needs some balance tweaking but it feels alright, having it toggle on and off this way. I don't think the double moves themselves are as much of an issue as the always-on ignore terrain cost

 

[ma_kuh]

I can't really buy the notion that trekking through forest and jungle is somehow easier than grasslands though. Like, I get the thought, but that same argument should apply to civilians, to soldier corps... Soldiers at least can pick up Woodsman, and I think that's why that one makes sense: it normalizes the speed, not flips the logic. We're not talking about "moving through it without penalty", we're saying scouts are literally faster running through jungles. Faster in rough terrain than horses in open plains, but slower in open plains.

I will agree that the issue probably comes from the combination of x2 moves + Ignore Terrain Cost. If scouts were lacking Ignore Terrain, then doubling movement to compensate in forest/jungles/hills doesn't matter.

 

[Tekamthi]

I can't really buy the notion that trekking through forest and jungle is somehow easier than grasslands though. Like, I get the thought, but that same argument should apply to civilians, to soldier corps... Soldiers at least can pick up Woodsman, and I think that's why that one makes sense: it normalizes the speed, not flips the logic. We're not talking about "moving through it without penalty", we're saying scouts are literally faster running through jungles. Faster in rough terrain than horses in open plains, but slow in open plains.

I think the "running through jungles" bit is where I disconnect from most on this. These units are not running for 10-20 years at a time, they are moving, eating, sleeping etc.

I am not expert survivalist, but I like to think I've developed some basic skills in my lifetime. Give me a decent rifle, a knife, axe, piece of flint, some fishing line & hooks, and some basic camping gear, and I could confidently survive all summer in a forest, even hike around some distance. Probably would lose a few pounds and it would be far from a vacation but still. An open plain or tundra on the other hand, I'd be dead in a month tops, no matter how much faster I could sprint with no bushes in the way. Without a ton of supplies and some machine/animal to carry them around, I'd try to find a semi-sheltered spot out of the wind, near water, and move as little as possible to save calories til I'm rescued. In either case, i would never consider bringing an untrained, city-dwelling civilian with me.

Extrapolate further to the modern context -- with the great reach of modern weapons, a recon unit would likely only move in open terrain at night, whereas they could reasonably move day or night through forest and not be exposed: Forest quite literally provides double the movement time in this over-simplified example.

Recon are their own unit line, and though we haven't distinguished their functionality all that much, in our VP abstraction they focus their training on terrain-related skills first, combat 2nd. Civilians do not engage in terrain-related training as part of their expertise; like imagine plucking a lawyer out of a courtroom and tossing them into a remote wilderness. If they survive at all they certainly won't move around as quickly as military unit trained in these skills. The regular soldier corps are not equipped the same as a recon unit, carry heavier gear meant for confronting enemy head-on, and focus their training in combat 1st, terrain-knowledge and skills 2nd.

Anyway my analogy all breaks down when we get to the desert/snow movement, no amount of IRL training is going to allow for faster on-foot movement through a desert than a grassland.

Nonetheless i believe the always-on "ignore terrain cost" promo is the problem, as you mention the double-moves on units w/o ignore terrain cost just normalizes the movement.

 

[Stalker0]

so as recursive gave the go ahead for Iteroi to implement an original proposal, assumign that happens this is what it would look like:


All Recon Units have base 3 moves and lose "Ignore Terrain Cost" (affects Pathfinder, Scout, Paratrooper, Special Forces, XCOM. Explorer and Commando are Unaffected)

• Trailblazer 1:
  • +1 Sight.
  • Ignore movement penalties on forest, jungle, and hills.
• Trailblazer 2:
  • +1 moves.
  • Ignore movement penalties from desert, snow, marshes, and rivers.
  • no penalty for attacking over rivers.
• Trailblazer 3:
  • Ignores ZOC.
  • Can cross mountains and embark
  • +20% CS Outside friendly territory.

Other promotions:

• Scouting 1(Available at TB 2 and Survival 2): +1 Sight
• Scouting 2: +1 moves
• Scouting 3: removed

 

[Tekamthi]

i wasn't huge fan of the proposal at the time we voted on it, but we would certainly be in a better spot if implemented. I'd still give recon access to a woodsman-like promo, ie double moves in jungle and forest only (maybe oasis too, but no hills, desert, snow bonuses) for the reasons explained above, but all that can be handled via modmod.

@ilteroi if/when you are working on the above movement changes, can you please keep an eye out for w/e is causing the pre-astro ocean feature bug discussed in #9973? My initial attempts at modmod workarounds have failed, and i speculate the issue must lie adjacent to these terrain/feature-related movement rules affected by the proposal

 

[randomnub]

I like the rationale behind this and it would get (again) my vote, but I think double movement on hills should be moved to T2 else with T1 only moving over a desert hill is cheaper than moving through flat desert (same with snow tiles). Marshes discount could then be moved to T1.