A Reflection on Movement Costs

[Cerilis]

Few questions:
Do you think that will involve attack too? I mean if unit A has in front a plain and a hill with unit B, can we assume the unit A can only move to plain then need to wait next turn to attack ? Or the other way around?
Also what would be the final goal of this? I mean hills were definitely strong in melee but if the above is the case they woudl be super op for no reason, cause getting up to a hill would be super difficult but once there you would be nearly untouchable...And if the above is false it would be the other way around, cause getting up to a hill would be super long but once there the newcomers would have a easier way since they could just attack you 1 turn sooner and they could exploit the new movement (which is way i dont thinkg this is the case).

Well, hills are a good defensive position. And in game play terms, if you got problems with a unit on a hill, just get ranged units to shoot it down?
I think this will make combat much more interesting (though I do see the AI having problems with that. D: )

 

[AriochIV]

Do you think that will involve attack too? I mean if unit A has in front a plain and a hill with unit B, can we assume the unit A can only move to plain then need to wait next turn to attack ?

It would have to, otherwise the rule will be meaningless. So yes, a unit with 2 movement has to move into the plain and then wait until the next turn to attack, exposing itself to an additional turn of fire.

Aside from making terrain more relevant (which seems to be a major theme in the expansion), it specifically makes 1-range missiles units more viable. I think this adds a slight element of realism to combat; attacking an entrenched position should be tough. The only downside is, as was mentioned, that it may be a challenge for the AI.

 

[ddd123]

If this is the case it doesnt seem good tbh, this seems too much strong in defense, just think a city with a nearby hill and a unit fortified, basically the only way to put her down would be charging with archers/horses making a war kinda the opposite of what it should be.
And both of them are both not that good to attack hills, very much vulnerable to counterattack.

I dont know it seems there must be some really deep combat passives/mechanics we miss otherwise this movement is worse than the old.

 

[whyidie]

Ugh. I was hoping they would open up movement for this release.

So many movement restrictions. Hills, woods, jungles, rivers, mountain, marsh. Most units start with 2 movement points and this equates to anything above a standard map being a slog to get around. Couple it with no map trading and I rarely see the whole map until Satellites. Waging war with infantry ? Hah! Everything is China or Russia. Want to execute a flanking maneuver ? You pay double in tedium!

Not to say none of these things can be done. They can, I was just hoping they would open movement up a bit similar to what they're doing with expansion. Release the restrictions to exploring and movement!

 

[ddd123]

Maybe they dont start with 2, maybe base is 3 or something? or there are military policies, civics etc increasing the starting value.

Still would be tedious at start, and kinda impossible to rush war (which would be good).

 

[AriochIV]

All the infantry units thus far are move 2, the scout is 3, and the horseman 4.

This really shouldn't greatly impair movement across the map... you just can't blow through hills and forests like they aren't there any more. Terrain restrictions make for more interesting tactics.

In a turn-based game there's a limit to how much you can allow units to move per turn, or units will tend to just blow past each other.

 

[ddd123]

Yeah but this isnt a axeman simulator.
What matters more is gameplay and both a too slow units and defenses too strong arent really good features, but yeah ofc we ahve to wait to have the whole picture.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The movement restrictions make me fear that the maps will be small...
Imo, movement should scale with map size like tech costs etc. Ofc it's a bit clumsy to do this as the numbers are so small, and so the increase of a single point in the early game means a 50 % increase (from 2 to 3)... But at least for Huge maps this should be the case. Although to some extent choosing a slower game speed alleviates the problem, there's relatively more tedium because you have to make more moves per game than on a Standard sized map.

 

[Nick31]

So, as for AI, if you can code an AI to put infantry on Hills when they're being invaded (and not move off and do something stupid like BNW that tries to embark all the time) then it should be fine. I'm not sure what to think about this movement system until seeing it in action... seems odd to limit the last move, but I'm assuming 6 years of 1upt has influenced this design.

 

[Biz_]

so defense will be even more overpowered?

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Could it be that this particular change to movement point required for entering a tiles has partially to do with ranged units? The slinger is the 1st ranged unit and has a range of 1. For a slinger it is understandable as it has not a good weapon to attack very distant units. On the other hand they could have extended this to all early ranged units, such as archer, crossbowmen and composite bowman (if they are still in). This could be a method to reduce the overpowered ranged attacks.

 

[AriochIV]

Yeah but this isnt a axeman simulator.
What matters more is gameplay and both a too slow units and defenses too strong arent really good features, but yeah ofc we ahve to wait to have the whole picture.

It's a gameplay issue more than a realism issue. If you've played a game like Age of Wonders III, in which army stacks can have movements of 8-10 map tiles per turn, it can be really hard to pin the enemy down and force him to fight. Now imagine that kind of movement with a 1UPT system. It would be a total mess, and completely destroy the tactical nature of the system.

But to reiterate: movement rates are not being reduced, you just have to be smart and travel on open terrain and roads. Some units such as Scouts will be even faster than before, if you use the terrain to your advantage.

 

[whyidie]

The movement restrictions make me fear that the maps will be small...
Imo, movement should scale with map size like tech costs etc.

With 64bit confirmed I was hopeful maps would be larger, which made me even more optimistic for movement improvements. Now that you mention it Standard maps are alright in terms of movement. If they could figure out a way to scale it for large and above that would be fantastic.

so defense will be even more overpowered?

Maybe not a terrible thing considering districts/buildings will be out in the open and easy to pillage. But you're right, I never at any point in thought "really could use a boost when I'm defending".

Maybe they dont start with 2, maybe base is 3 or something? or there are military policies, civics etc increasing the starting value.

Still would be tedious at start, and kinda impossible to rush war (which would be good).

Civics or military policies would be outstanding. The amount of warring you had to do to get the appropriate promotions was a bit much.

It's a gameplay issue more than a realism issue. If you've played a game like Age of Wonders III, in which army stacks can have movements of 8-10 map tiles per turn, it can be really hard to pin the enemy down and force him to fight. Now imagine that kind of movement with a 1UPT system. It would be a total mess, and completely destroy the tactical nature of the system.

But to reiterate: movement rates are not being reduced, you just have to be smart and travel on open terrain and roads. Some units such as Scouts will be even faster than before, if you use the terrain to your advantage.

No one wants to go that far. I'd accept a base of 3. Or map scripts which didn't create worlds full of movement penalties.

Scouts starting with 3 is nice. Looking forward to the first "scouts are overpowered" posts.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

With 64bit confirmed I was hopeful maps would be larger, which made me even more optimistic for movement improvements. Now that you mention it Standard maps are alright in terms of movement. If they could figure out a way to scale it for large and above that would be fantastic.



Maybe not a terrible thing considering districts/buildings will be out in the open and easy to pillage. But you're right, I never at any point in thought "really could use a boost when I'm defending".




Civics or military policies would be outstanding. The amount of warring you had to do to get the appropriate promotions was a bit much.




No one wants to go that far. I'd accept a base of 3. Or map scripts which didn't create worlds full of movement penalties.

Scouts starting with 3 is nice. Looking forward to the first "scouts are overpowered" posts.

From the gameplay footage it can be deduced that scouts don't have the promotion for ignoring terrain cost. Therefore the 3mp for scouts means that they are nerfed in rough terrain and buffed in open terrain. I do not consider that as overpowered.

 

[ehecatzin]

This is a step in the right direction, This would make Cavalry and scout/squirmish units that much more valuable in the right terrain.

 

[ddd123]

But to reiterate: movement rates are not being reduced, you just have to be smart and travel on open terrain and roads. Some units such as Scouts will be even faster than before, if you use the terrain to your advantage.

But it is... you cant go on open terrain you have to keep being in protected tiles, moving smart is irrelevant if you finish the turn in a plain and dont even attack, scouts dont matter in the real game same as roads that are not that relevant in wars (at least in civ5, maybe in 6 with instant road they might be).

 

[Big J Money]

I hope this isn't true about the movement system.

There are a host of interesting decisions to make in Civ already; finely manipulating your unit movement is NOT something I am interested in!

 

[AriochIV]

But it is... you cant go on open terrain you have to keep being in protected tiles, moving smart is irrelevant if you finish the turn in a plain and dont even attack, scouts dont matter in the real game same as roads that are not that relevant in wars (at least in civ5, maybe in 6 with instant road they might be).

But this is not how real troop movement works; armies on the move are vulnerable. The freebie of always being able to end your movement in defensible terrain is a quirk of the Civilization movement system and is fairly unrealistic.

With the new terrain rules you'll still be able to get where you're going in the same amount of time, but you won't be able to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[daft]

so defense will be even more overpowered?

Hope not. It's difficult enough to create an empire through warfare already, don't OP the defenders!
Could this new movement system work better for flanking purposes?

 

[rastak]

Hope not. It's difficult enough to create an empire through warfare already, don't OP the defenders!
Could this new movement system work better for flanking purposes?

Rolling over Civs is pretty easy more or less. It's one of the reasons I find that style of play kinda dull. Defenders should be hard to overcome.