Commander movement and actions

[aelf]

I think the commander system is a great addition and add flexibility to the 1UPT paradigm, relieving the sliding puzzle aspect of unit movement to a significant extent. It does add some micromanagement to combat and movement, but it is mostly interesting and may be thought of as maneuvering. But it can still be tedious at times, and I think this can be mitigated by some simple changes to how the commander works.

For one, why not allow the commander to issue commands or deploy units when they have no movement left? I don't see any gameplay reason for this rule. It just makes it more tedious to micromanage because you have to make sure to do everything before spending the commander's last movement.

A related issue that could be a bug is commanders seem to run out of movement after entering an enemy unit's zone of control, whereas units would not run out of movement but only be unable to move away on the same turn. If this isn't a bug, I think it should be changed so the commander works like normal units in this regard.

 

[protocol7]

Totally agree, this would be a really nice QoL improvement. Alternatively they need to make it more clear if you are going to run out of movement going into a tile - cities in particular are bad for this as all you can see is the city itself but the underlying tile type is what matters.

 

[aelf]

The issue with commanders running out of movement when entering an enemy unit's zone of control is particularly bad, IMO. This is compounded by the fact that commanders only seem to earn XP from action in tiles adjacent to them, even after their command radius has been expanded. This seems unintentional as well and is another thing that should be changed.

 

[aelf]

Totally agree, this would be a really nice QoL improvement. Alternatively they need to make it more clear if you are going to run out of movement going into a tile - cities in particular are bad for this as all you can see is the city itself but the underlying tile type is what matters.

By the way, a tangential issue, but it makes no sense for urban tiles not to be roaded anyway. Like, why?

 

[Krikkit1]

By the way, a tangential issue, but it makes no sense for urban tiles not to be roaded anyway. Like, why?

Urban tiles (at least land Urban tiles) should Definitely automatically have a road, or at least a road like effect

 

[Tanel]

By the way, a tangential issue, but it makes no sense for urban tiles not to be roaded anyway. Like, why?

Actually makes sense that Urban tiles in rough terrain would still be quite hard to traverse. Vegetated is weird because Urban should actually remove most of the vegetation. But overall I don't have much of a problem with it because outside of the main roads the urban areas should be dense and not easy to move in.

I agree that commanders should still be able to act when moving into enemy ZoC.

 

[aelf]

But overall I don't have much of a problem with it because outside of the main roads the urban areas should be dense and not easy to move in.

I get that. Then there should be an easier way to see where the thoroughfares are in the city.

 

[Tanel]

I get that. Then there should be an easier way to see where the thoroughfares are in the city.

Yeah. Visual clarity is definitely not the strong point of this game though.

 

[Krikkit1]

Actually makes sense that Urban tiles in rough terrain would still be quite hard to traverse. Vegetated is weird because Urban should actually remove most of the vegetation. But overall I don't have much of a problem with it because outside of the main roads the urban areas should be dense and not easy to move in.

I agree that commanders should still be able to act when moving into enemy ZoC.

Well then it should be ALL urban areas stop movement regardless of terrain (realism argument) and then make sure roads are visible

The other option is to assume any urban district will have a main road going through it and so land based urban districts remove the terrain movement penalty (unless at war, then they could automatically add it)

Basically Urban districts should remove any effect of terrain on movement (since the terrain is hard to see and they remove most other effects as well)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well then it should be ALL urban areas stop movement regardless of terrain (realism argument) and then make sure roads are visible

The other option is to assume any urban district will have a main road going through it and so land based urban districts remove the terrain movement penalty (unless at war, then they could automatically add it)

Basically Urban districts should remove any effect of terrain on movement (since the terrain is hard to see and they remove most other effects as well)

Driving on a nice, paved urban road is easy - unless 100,000 other people are also trying to drive on that same road: does the word 'traffic jam' spring to mind?

Now imagine you are part of a military unit/army of 100,000 people in 10,000 or more vehicles stretching over 50 km of road space: capitalize Traffic Jam.

Moving a military unit, whether on fooit or in vehicles, always requires careful planning and preparation. Moving it through an area like an urban one requires planning, preparation, and stringent Traffic Control or no one is going anywhere.

And in WWII, all armies discovered that Cities Devour Armies - they went in, and it took them forever to get out again, and then they frequently had to reorganize after all the traffic jams and snarls they had to maneuver through in the city.

Limiting the movement of Armies through urban tiles is precisely correct and not limited to Modern Armies only: it took major planning and preparation for the Romans to just stage a Triumph, a relatively small number of troiops marching through the city in a carefully prescribed route, let alone an army of 10s or 1000s trying to make it through complete with supply carts and cavalry and infantry units mixed together.

 

[Acken]

Agreed, the movement of commanders is very unintuitive. To the point where I will use the pathing to a further hex to understand if the commander will get stuck in an intermediary place.

 

[Krikkit1]

Driving on a nice, paved urban road is easy - unless 100,000 other people are also trying to drive on that same road: does the word 'traffic jam' spring to mind?

Now imagine you are part of a military unit/army of 100,000 people in 10,000 or more vehicles stretching over 50 km of road space: capitalize Traffic Jam.

Moving a military unit, whether on fooit or in vehicles, always requires careful planning and preparation. Moving it through an area like an urban one requires planning, preparation, and stringent Traffic Control or no one is going anywhere.

And in WWII, all armies discovered that Cities Devour Armies - they went in, and it took them forever to get out again, and then they frequently had to reorganize after all the traffic jams and snarls they had to maneuver through in the city.

Limiting the movement of Armies through urban tiles is precisely correct and not limited to Modern Armies only: it took major planning and preparation for the Romans to just stage a Triumph, a relatively small number of troiops marching through the city in a carefully prescribed route, let alone an army of 10s or 1000s trying to make it through complete with supply carts and cavalry and infantry units mixed together.

So urban areas should stop all movement regardless of underlying terrain (that is the realism argument)

I say instead for the sake of gameplay (even if not realistic) Land Urban Districts should
Never stop movement of Friendly units
Always stop movement of Units at War
With no regard to the underlying terrain. (unless it is water, then Embark/Disembark or Bridge rules apply)

 

[Taefin]

All city certainly needs to be the same, simply because 1) you cannot see the features that are affecting movement 2) that feature should have been removed, if vegetation at least.

Regardless of the realism of modeling armies moving through cities, it seems that if roads are going to give regular movement, and the road through a hillside or through a forest is probably narrower than the road through a city, then players will always be confused why a road through a city should give regular movement. Moreover, moving from city to city will never thought route along roads if passing through the city is the most difficult-terrain-filled path, which would feel off. So, then I’d say that all districts should just be regular movement.

That the game already consumes all movement when entering an enemy occupied district, I think, is enough to model the difficulty moving through an enemy city until control is taken.