Movement cost is already annoying

[Aheadatime]

For those that don't know, you cannot enter a hill/rough terrain with one movement point left anymore, as you could in civ5. Not being able to attack into or capture units that are in rough terrain with one movement point left is frustrating already, and I haven't even played the game yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-2A7D_u0k

There's nothing that warrior could have done differently to prevent the scout from getting back to the camp. There were moves that could have stalled it, absolutely. But the fact that there was a forest tile between the camp and the cap prevented the warrior from doing much about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGxk3aPNgXw

For the first two or three minutes, Filthy explains some of the annoyances of this system as well. It decreases the value of melee units, as if they want to attack a unit on a hill/forest, they have to spend one turn getting adjacent to the hill/forest, then wait for the next turn to actually attack into it, whereas ranged units can simply move one tile then shoot into rough terrain.

It also makes capturing workers/settlers near impossible without a more mobile unit (more movement points). The civilian can simply enter rough terrain. So unless you have a unit adjacent to that rough terrain before the civilian entered it, you are now in a losing chase situation, and the civilian will most likely get away.

So far this new movement system seems to have a ton of potential to frustrate players. I know for damn sure that I would be tilted if I had to invest in military so early due to that barb scout being immune to my zoning/attacks.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I personally like the change even though clearly I have not played it. Movement and combat will have to be more strategized, similar to war board games. It also places emphasis on support units, which Civ6 allows now. So in my uneducated opinion, I think this is just a case of us trying to play Civ6 using Civ5 (or older) ideas.

 

[Montov]

Hooray for mounted units again!

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It is only frustrating because it is new and different from what we are used from civ5. But the fact that it makes capturing workers/settlers harder is a good thing. And the fact that it makes melee units less powerful is also good because it makes things more balanced between melee and cavalry units. Your melee units really need to be slow moving so that there is an advantage to having cavalry units. Now, it seems that having horseman will be better since they will be able to hit units on a hill or capture lone civilian units.

 

[Magil]

I don't really like it because moving units was already one of the more tedious parts of V--rough terrain + one unit per tile = traffic jams galore. I know the addition of support units and corps and things might ease the burden, but I didn't like this feature when it was announced and I think I still don't like it. It's already annoying enough to move with your stupid 1UPT rules, why make it harder?

 

[mitsho]

It seems to make more sense thoug h and it does open up new possibilities. Maybe they have to adjust damage from ranged units in return, we'll see. It's too early to talk about balance. What annoys me more is that deserts are still regarded as open terrain whereas they should be as hostile as jungle.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't really like it because moving units was already one of the more tedious parts of V--rough terrain + one unit per tile = traffic jams galore. I know the addition of support units and corps and things might ease the burden, but I didn't like this feature when it was announced and I think I still don't like it. It's already annoying enough to move with your stupid 1UPT rules, why make it harder?

well but civ6 clearly has lines on the map to show you where your units can move to. So that should help reduce the frustrations that many players had with 1upt.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is only frustrating because it is new and different from what we are used from civ5. But the fact that it makes capturing workers/settlers harder is a good thing. And the fact that it makes melee units less powerful is also good because it makes things more balanced between melee and cavalry units. Your melee units really need to be slow moving so that there is an advantage to having cavalry units. Now, it seems that having horseman will be better since they will be able to hit units on a hill or capture lone civilian units.

The big issue is that it increases the power of ranged units (which were op in civV)

Range+Cavalry both get a boost...cavalry was up in civV, but range was op.

Now if they did other things to weaken range (say insta die to equivalent melee/cav attack) and some things to strengthen "infantry" (more base strength, cheaper ie no horses/oil needed) then it could work fine.

 

[Acken]

Its a trade between tactical and ease of play. A risky one I think.
Well see how ot turns out. If its too annoying and time consuming I hope it can be modded out.

Im also concerned on the impact it can have over AI movements.

 

[Magil]

well but civ6 clearly has lines on the map to show you where your units can move to. So that should help reduce the frustrations that many players had with 1upt.

Not really what I'm getting at--I mean moving an army in 1UPT can be slow (a single hex rough terrain can mean slowing the entire formation to 1 hex at a time if you want to stay together), tedious (select each unit individually, move it where you want to go), and frustrating (oh look, there's a "neutral" unit in the way). In Civ IV, at least I could double-click to select every single unit in the stack at one time, then move it where I want it to go and not have to worry about the units breaking formation or getting separated, or another unit getting in the way (stacking with neutrals was allowed, and it's much easier to go around an obstacle in a non-1UPT system).

I'm not sure why it needs to be more tedious and frustrating.

 

[rastak]

It didn't annoy me in older civs, it doesn't annoy me here.

 

[Aheadatime]

I think this is just a case of us trying to play Civ6 using Civ5 (or older) ideas.

fixed that for you

It is only frustrating because it is new and different from what we are used from civ5.

I don't understand this line of thinking's relevancy. What if you went into work one day and your boss was like "Hey good morning! Turns out we need to cut your salary in half!" If you were displeased with that and vented to a friend, what sense would it make for friend of to say "Just seems like you're upset with this because you're attached to your old salary man. Time to move on."

It's quite fair to analyze changes in comparison to the original that the change stems from. I'm open to change and can't wait for many of the awesome changes Civ6 is bringing (new builders, graphics, city management, civs, culture system, etc.). That I have a preliminary issue with something isn't unfair or erroneous.

Now, it seems that having horseman will be better since they will be able to hit units on a hill or capture lone civilian units.

Hooray for mounted units again!

I agree. I'm just concerned that melee units will become near useless unless your battlefield happens to be a large flatland region. Ranged units were already fundamentally overpowered in Civ5, and I was hoping that the devs had acknowledged that and were/are working on some system fixes. That's still very possible, but this terrain change absolutely favors ranged units over melee.

 

[Magil]

It didn't annoy me in older civs, it doesn't annoy me here.

Not even remotely an accurate comparison. Older Civs didn't have 1UPT.

 

[Aheadatime]

Im also concerned on the impact it can have over AI movements.

A good point that I hadn't thought of.

 

[Valmighty]

I always thought that "units that have one move left are able to go to hill/forest" weird.

So hooray for the new system.

 

[Elhoim]

Love the new system.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The movement system was shown in the first build we've seen and it stays the same by now. It looks like developers see a lot of advantages in it.

I didn't watch videos with some real war yet, but I expect some cool tactical things here.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I don't understand this line of thinking's relevancy. What if you went into work one day and your boss was like "Hey good morning! Turns out we need to cut your salary in half!" If you were displeased with that and vented to a friend, what sense would it make for friend of to say "Just seems like you're upset with this because you're attached to your old salary man. Time to move on."

It's quite fair to analyze changes in comparison to the original that the change stems from. I'm open to change and can't wait for many of the awesome changes Civ6 is bringing (new builders, graphics, city management, civs, culture system, etc.). That I have a preliminary issue with something isn't unfair or erroneous..

I don't think that's the right analogy. It's closer to you finishing your job at one company, then moving to a new company that gives you slightly less pay but also gives you a robot to support your work

Analogies aside, the reason I like it is that taking two different actions (movement and combat. movement and climbing a hill..etc) in one turn is one of the holy grails of war board games. It places greater emphasis on mounted units (and having support units in general) that in older Civs I personally found a bit lacking. This is not a case of you being provided with fewer units to play the game with, but rather making the pros and cons of each one more prominent. I like it.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Looks good to me. I like that you get a chance for evasive maneuvers, after all you can't necessarily predict that you will find a hostile unit in your way. I find the remark about range being potentially too powerful vs melee because of this sensible, but if the balance on attack/defense of range vs melee is well set then I think it wouldn't be a problem. And horse units having a significant movement quality advantage over melee thanks to this sounds great.

 

[Magil]

Analogies aside, the reason I like it is that taking two different actions (movement and combat. movement and climbing a hill..etc) in one turn is one of the holy grails of war board games. It places greater emphasis on mounted units (and having support units in general) that in older Civs I personally found a bit lacking. This is not a case of you being provided with fewer units to play the game with, but rather making the pros and cons of each one more prominent. I like it.

Mounted units were extremely powerful in IV, especially in multiplayer (they were less useful in SP because of the AI's tendency to garrison their cities fairly equally with defensive units). They were also extremely powerful in vanilla V, they had to give them an arbitrary city attack penalty to tone them down.