Movement cost is already annoying

[SupremacyKing2]

Um, I'm now quite worried for AI combat... if a unit can't cross a river easily (i.e. with half of its movement points instead of all of them), then mass range behind a river will be basically impenetrable.

First of all, being able to cross a river with 1/2 movement left is not fair for the defender. What's the point of putting your defensive armt behind a river if the attacker can cross it like it is not even there?

Second, the river won't be impenetrable since mounted units will have enough movement points to cross it. The new movement system just requires a change in thinking from civ5, that's all. Instead of seeing a river and thinking "my melee units with 1/2 movement left can cross it" now we need to think "the ranged defender is safe behind that river. I need some mounted units to outflank them."

What the new movement system does is make terrain even more important in combat.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I believe that as time goes on, units gain more movement points. Not sure whos (I think it was Polygons) video, but their swordsmen was moved with 3/3 movement points at one point.

 

[cazaderonus]

I m very mixed about this change... But, it makes sense that you would need to have 2 movement points when a move costs 2. Will probably annoy the out of me at first but i think it s a case of taking the habit. Who knows. It might play a big part in MP and open new defensive strategies in solo as well

Edit: seriously, smileys for the s word ? Duely noted

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But, it makes sense that you would need to have 2 movement points when a move costs 2.

That is another argument in favor of the new system. If a unit with 1/2 movement can move to a tile that cost 1, the unit is cheating since they are moving further than they were technically allowed to.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It reminds me of the pointless but still useful worker micro, I don't like such things.

 

[King Rad]

It was confirmed before what civilian units could be attached to military one. Also we've seen support unit (Spearman with Ram) and it moves with the military unit and attacks together.

Sorry, my initial question wasn't phrased properly. I was aware of the stacking of civilian and military, etc. What I was asking was if we can "group" several units and move them all with one click (e.g. click on 2 warriors, 2 archers, 2 horseman and combine them into a group where only have to click once to move all of them toward a destination), not to move them into same tile? I thought this was hinted at in early discussions, but the reference could have been to the ability to stack support units with melee units.

Either way, I still like this change.

 

[Atlas627]

But you are missing the point. The problem is not that the AI doesnt understand where it can go. This is handled by the pathfinder and is as you said easy or even easier with the current system.

However it creates constraint on movement and this is where its complicated. Constraint on movement make army movement a lot harder with 1upt. This is the same issue as trying to pass theough a choke point or hard terrain in civ5 but with even more constraint.
This is what the AI worry is. Army movements and setup. Not the pathfinder for a single unit. While army movement is a combination of pathfinding results it is far from guaranteed the AI will move its army efficiently in civ6.

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I already knew it, but I was overlooking it.

Traffic jams -> chokepoints -> inefficient multi-unit movement

However, I think my point still stands. It doesn't matter how they move the units, the formation will hold the whole way. There is no way for any of the units to move more efficiently, so the formation doesn't break.

It will probably still make mistakes around true chokepoints, like mountains, and they've said there are more mountains...but we'll see.

Second, the river won't be impenetrable since mounted units will have enough movement points to cross it. The new movement system just requires a change in thinking from civ5, that's all. Instead of seeing a river and thinking "my melee units with 1/2 movement left can cross it" now we need to think "the ranged defender is safe behind that river. I need some mounted units to outflank them."

Seems like rivers use up all of your move. Mounted barbarians were unable to cross them unless they started their turn next to the river. Scouts had the same issue.

I believe that as time goes on, units gain more movement points. Not sure whos (I think it was Polygons) video, but their swordsmen was moved with 3/3 movement points at one point.

Yeah, I think I saw a tech/civic that gave all units +1 move.

 

[Seek]

Just watched the latest IGN video with Anton and he stated that *melee* units exert zone of control, implying that ranged and mounted do not. Unfortunately I don't have time to check this, but if true that creates a really interesting niche for melee.

Also note that ZoC rules have been changed. It took me a while to notice, but now if a unit enters a tile that has a ZoC exerted on it, the unit cannot do anything except attack the enemy unit or skip turn. Ie, no more zigging into a ZoC and zagging out to reposition on the other flank.

 

[rastak]

Just watched the latest IGN video with Anton and he stated that *melee* units exert zone of control, implying that ranged and mounted do not. Unfortunately I don't have time to check this, but if true that creates a really interesting niche for melee.

Also note that ZoC rules have been changed. It took me a while to notice, but now if a unit enters a tile that has a ZoC exerted on it, the unit cannot do anything except attack the enemy unit or skip turn. Ie, no more zigging into a ZoC and zagging out to reposition on the other flank.

Now that I like, and it makes sense.

 

[Matthew.]

So they are doubling down on their role as a blocker unit. Noice.

 

[Seek]

Just confirmed that ranged don't exert ZoC: https://youtu.be/qO58UkNeAzc?t=25m38s
Watch the warrior in the city able to move past the Egyptian UU along the western edge of the river.

 

[Ikael]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that ranged units should be hitted with the nerf bat with full violence. Perhaps it would be good if ranged units won't be able to damage melee units beyond 50% of their HP. That way they will still be useful in city sieges, against calvary and in order to "soften up" melee units, but you will need other unit types in order to finish the job.

The power of ranged units depends on other parts of the balance. I didn't see them as overpowered in the videos.

Slower movement means that ranged units are way harder to reach now, which count like a massive boost to them. They would need to tone down the firepower stats of ranged units by huge margins in order to compensate. Let's wait and see, but I have a bad feeling about this :S

Scouts become more prominent. I wasn't a fan of all the movement restrictions in CiV, made exploration too much of a chore after hundreds of hours of play. Giving scouts three MP is a nice tradeoff, do we know if they have an upgrade path ?

Since there will be more modern scout units such as Rangers and Conquistadores, one has to think that exploration and scouts will have a really different angle and that they will stay more relevant trought different ages and well into the late game. Perhaps only scouts will be able to reap the benefits of goodie huts, pass trought certain umpassable terrain or perform archeological excavations...

EDIT:

Just confirmed that ranged don't exert ZoC: https://youtu.be/qO58UkNeAzc?t=25m38s
Watch the warrior in the city able to move past the Egyptian UU along the western edge of the river.

Interesting, for it gives melee units a very defined and useful role as blockers. Still, it is kinda strange that you might only need one warrior to give cover to 3 archers, so to speak.

 

[Seek]

Ranged have extremely low defense values currently and I don't expect that to change. They haven't seemed op so far to me, certainly not like in BNW. We definitely have more of a rock-paper-scissors situation than civ 5.

 

[jlc22]

Quill's Part 4 video showed the AI egypt using her chariot archers very well against both his ranged and melee forces. He made quite a few mistakes in preparing for his attack (units and positions) and AI Cleo capitilized on it by going after most of his archers first. It didn't fully highlight the movement cost issue, but was encouraging to see the AI doing well.

I like the movement rules but am also concerned about ranged units being OP (mostly on defense). We'll see how it goes with large amounts of units though.

 

[Biz_]

the most important thing is whether this makes make the game more about whoever clicks fastest wins the battle in MP and whether the balance noobs at firaxis make ranged units OP again for the entire lifespan of the game

I wouldn't worry about the AI. This mathematical / logical aspect to tactics AIs can do very well, sometimes better than a human (think chess).

It's usually in the more high level thinking about tactics and strategy where it suffers. If anything this will help the AI be more challenging since it has the ability to always make optimal moves.

just because something is possible doesn't mean firaxis will actually do it

their AI always sucks, even at easy/obvious things

 

[Abraxis]

Rules are rules. If you choose to be frustrated by one set an not another that's entirely down to your arbitrary bias. The solution is simple, conform to the restrictions imposed. Were you frustrated that your horses could not swim around and beat battleships into the depths with their hooves? Of course not, because you never expected to. Manage these expectations and you will be more open to what the devs are trying to accomplish.

Being annoyed is as pointless as it is self-defeating, and entirely irrelevent.

The reason I point this out is many of the arguments condemning these changes do so assuming other values will remain unchanged, under the context of CivV, as though they are adding this to CivV. This is not CivV folks. I'm not sure how anyone here can have a solid enough grasp of the interplay between systems to make any responsible judgements on balance. Nevermind when considering this is not a final build we see. Assume the game is balance relativd to the new function until you see positive confirmation otherwise.

 

[Drakul]

To balance things they should just ad that a unit that moves and then attacks is "tired" and because of that deals less demage.Being a former solider i know that by marching 25km before engaging in battle is not the same as marching 2 km before engaging in battle. It makes a difference because you are tired. That would be good to balance gameplay...

 

[King Jason]

So long as double attack and +1 range promotions don't return, I think ranged units are fine.

 

[Nick31]

First of all, being able to cross a river with 1/2 movement left is not fair for the defender. What's the point of putting your defensive armt behind a river if the attacker can cross it like it is not even there?

Second, the river won't be impenetrable since mounted units will have enough movement points to cross it. The new movement system just requires a change in thinking from civ5, that's all. Instead of seeing a river and thinking "my melee units with 1/2 movement left can cross it" now we need to think "the ranged defender is safe behind that river. I need some mounted units to outflank them."

What the new movement system does is make terrain even more important in combat.

Ha, "we" will handle it just fine. The AI will not. That's the worry. Ranged behind a river, or in trees, or on hills, will basically get 2 shots at all incoming AI melee unless the final build dramatically improves AI movement and terrain recognition.

Range kill zones of death are what the hordes of Diety soldiers cannot understand in BNW, and at the moment, this early moment, it doesn't look like that's changing in VI.

 

[AvantInvader]

If terrain meaning something is annoying, give me all the annoying. I love this change.