[R&F] Garrisoned Range ignores LoS?

[Laurana Kanan]

Not sure there's a UI issue in this particular case, just an inconsistency between the patch notes and the game play. Regardless, the core questions here seem to be "Is the current mechanic better as is or would it be better if it worked as described in the patch notes? Or is the difference too insignificant to matter?"

I don't believe it's a UI issue at all. It could just be that it was coded incorrectly for the desired mechanic and the patch notes are correct. Or, conversely, it was coded correctly and the patch notes are incorrect. So either it's a bug in the first case or a miscommunication in the second.

The impact is likely minimal, however if it was working correctly per the patch notes it would add an incentive (however small) to build city defenses.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The impact is likely minimal, however if it was working correctly per the patch notes it would add an incentive (however small) to build city defenses.

If it only kicked in with Medieval Walls, it would incentivize something more in need of incentivizing (real word?).

 

[Victoria]

So this clarifies the elevation benefit from cities is only over non hill forests... bug or not
It also shows that there is a height advantage shooting over hills when the opposition cannot shoot back if people are unaware

Here I can shoot over another hill if higher but the target cannot shoot back

Naturally I cannot shoot if the hill is wooded

If the hill I am on has a city I still cannot shoot over a forest but I could if there was no hills

I personally like the elevation rule but am annoyed over the slight contraditction not being able to shoot over a wooded hill which does seem buggy but because we do not even know what the intent is as we have no description we cannot declare it as a bug.... stupid game.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

So this clarifies the elevation benefit from cities is only over non hill forests...

I believe that is because a forested hill adds two levels (for lack of a better term) of elevation. One for the hill and one for the forest, and the city only provides one level of elevation, which would put the unit's visibility even with only a non-forested hill.

the slight contraditction not being able to shoot over a wooded hill which does seem buggy but because we do not even know what the intent is as we have no description we cannot declare it as a bug.... stupid game.

The possible bug issue is whether the requirement of city defenses is a coding bug or release note error.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the game won't state its rules and it's inconsistent with patch notes it should be considered a bug. Obscuring rules like this isn't defensible in the first place, and stating the game will do one thing then having it do another via patch notes --> actual game state adds to the sour. We're far past any "near release date" jitters. They could have cared about this, but they didn't. That is not respectable design practice.

Okay, fair enough. I was reading "bug" as the game mechanic not working as intended, rather than as also including a UI display issue.

What the game's display shows to the player is part of the game. While the pathetic state of modern AAA TBS seems to have forgotten this, any doubt of the notion is quickly dispelled by considering what happens when you remove the UI.

A trash UI is every bit as bad a trash mechanic, and bugs with it can easily be worse than mechanical bugs (which is worse depends on how often and badly it impacts end user experience). The only consistently higher priority issues would be bugs that crash the game, because those remove both your access to the UI and the mechanics.

The discussion in this thread is symptomatic of overt failure by the Civ 6 UI. A competent game can define/give access to its rules in a way that constrains anticipation for what the game allows.

 

[Victoria]

and the city only provides one level of elevation,

The city trying to shoot over a wooded hill is on a hill so 2 elevations

 

[Laurana Kanan]

The city trying to shoot over a wooded hill is on a hill so 2 elevations

Hmm, then it might be working correctly then. If the city doesn't have walls the garrisoned unit won't be elevated so then only one level from the hill, which won't allow it to range attack over the wooded hill. So, idk maybe the OP has something to do with having a camp on that tile which allows visibility. Or, it could just be a glitch...

 

[Victoria]

Good point, I forgot to get walls... I suspect no difference though

 

[Karmah]

The rules for Cities on flat ground were designed, I think, to provide an incentive to chop some of your Forests and Jungles.

And incentives to chop is exactly what the doctor ordered