Movement cost is already annoying

[Seek]

The swordman's three movement looks a lot more impressive in light of the new movement rules. Iron might actually be an important resource this go round!

 

[Heinage]

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.

I think it's a good thing that they have a mechanic which mimics the reality of strategic warfare influenced by terrain.
A band of warriors shouldn't be able to catch a scout running through rough terrain and there should be advantages to having fast moving units such as cavalry

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[The Highwayman]

I like the movement change from what I hear of it. Units with bonus movement will have additional value. It will just require some adjustments and forward thinking, which I like.

 

[Aheadatime]

To everyone saying this change will create more thought, more strategy, thinking ahead, etc., is that really the case? Isn't it probably the case that after we play a handful of games and completely adjust to the new movement rules, it's going to require about the same level of thought as civ5? I mean, you're only thinking about moving pieces through a hex grid at the end of the day. The thought required isn't that deep.

Just as we now move units without much thought since we're so used to the current system, I feel we'll end up in the same situation with the new system. Yes, at first you might make some blunders and slap your forehead, but after you repeat these errors a few times and get used to it, the reality is I don't see it requiring any more foresight than civ5. It's just that instead of seeing a hill as and 'ending hex', our brains will see it as a 'starting hex', etc.

 

[qadams]

To everyone saying this change will create more thought, more strategy, thinking ahead, etc., is that really the case? Isn't it probably the case that after we play a handful of games and completely adjust to the new movement rules, it's going to require about the same level of thought as civ5? I mean, you're only thinking about moving pieces through a hex grid at the end of the day. The thought required isn't that deep.

Just as we now move units without much thought since we're so used to the current system, I feel we'll end up in the same situation with the new system. Yes, at first you might make some blunders and slap your forehead, but after you repeat these errors a few times and get used to it, the reality is I don't see it requiring any more foresight than civ5. It's just that instead of seeing a hill as and 'ending hex', our brains will see it as a 'starting hex', etc.

You may be right -- but if so, doesn't that pretty much negate your OP issue that this new system is annoying?

 

[Magil]

You may be right -- but if so, doesn't that pretty much negate your OP issue that this new system is annoying?

Well, if we found moving military annoying throughout the entirety of the lifespan of Civ V, then can we say that VI's movement will probably be annoying too?

On the other hand, there are some factors that are going to help at least in some way which weren't really known before. Now that roads can be spammed due to a lack of maintenance costs and units can use enemy roads, conquest should at least be a little easier when invading a developed empire. Especially since districts seem to come with roads prebuilt in them.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Now that roads can be spammed due to a lack of maintenance costs .

Roads cannot be spammed in the early game. They are auto built by trade units, not builders. It is only when you get the military engineer unit, that the player can build roads wherever they want and we don't know if those roads have maintenance costs.

 

[Magil]

Roads cannot be spammed in the early game. They are auto built by trade units, not builders. It is only when you get the military engineer unit, that the player can build roads wherever they want and we don't know if those roads have maintenance costs.

No, they can't be spammed in the early game. But there's no indication that they cost maintenance (which would be dumb). Devs seem to be speaking as though they don't, and there's been no hints that the roads built by engineers are any different. It'd be a very large leap of logic (with no basis) to assume they are.

 

[stealth_nsk]

While you can't spam roads, connecting cities with them is quite easy.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

No, they can't be spammed in the early game. But there's no indication that they cost maintenance (which would be dumb).

Well, ancient roads don't cost maintenance for a reason. It could make some trade routes worthless. You would not want a trade route that costs more gold than it brings in. So it is better from a gameplay point of view to make every trade route profitable and assume the maintenance cost of the road is hidden in the yields.

But I am assuming that latter roads built by the military engineers will cost maintenance. It would be silly to allow the player to spam free roads everywhere.

 

[Magil]

But I am assuming that latter roads built by the military engineers will cost maintenance. It would be silly to allow the player to spam free roads everywhere.

I don't see the logic. Players were allowed to spam free roads everywhere in every main-series Civ game prior to V.

 

[qwerty25]

I don't see the logic. Players were allowed to spam free roads everywhere in every main-series Civ game prior to V.

Ehh. I think military engineers would be like builders and also have charges. Except perhaps for some stuff like forts which might take time and a charge.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't see the logic. Players were allowed to spam free roads everywhere in every main-series Civ game prior to V.

Except road spam is super ugly. It totally destroys the landscape. I don't want it to ever come back.

 

[AriochIV]

The swordman's three movement looks a lot more impressive in light of the new movement rules. Iron might actually be an important resource this go round!

Do you mean Scout? Swordsman has a movement of 2.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Maybe you can only build roads between cities and military engineers can build a temporary roads between two cities including one of your enemies.

 

[Magil]

Ehh. I think military engineers would be like builders and also have charges. Except perhaps for some stuff like forts which might take time and a charge.

Maybe they are, there's certainly precedent. That doesn't mean carpeting the area in roads isn't viable, though. Though you think they'd mention something about that if it was the case. Still possible.

Except road spam is super ugly. It totally destroys the landscape. I don't want it to ever come back.

That's your opinion, but it's nothing to base any assumptions on. I have seen absolutely no evidence that roads will cost maintenance in VI. Until there is evidence, it would be erroneous to assume that there is.

As for opinion differences--some people don't like VI's aesthetic. That's fine. But road spamming doesn't bother me at all, and I'm certainly willing to overlook something as insignificant as unsightly roads if it means units can actually move around easier. Remember that traffic jams are one of the largest problems with 1UPT, and despite what some people might think, yes, it really is a big deal that needs to be addressed. This is one way to help.

 

[Aheadatime]

You may be right -- but if so, doesn't that pretty much negate your OP issue that this new system is annoying?

No, because although the movement system will require the same low-level effort of my brain, knowing that I can't capture civilian units without scouts or mounts will still be frustrating, as will knowing that I'll have to accept two turns of ranged barrage before my melees can actually join the fight.

My annoyances aren't absolute, however, as I'm not foolish enough to claim that the game is objectively going to play out like such-and-such without ever having played it. I'm going to buy the game regardless and see how I feel after ~10 games. Perhaps military engineers will solve this issue. But it is quite obvious that this new movement system has the potential to create various issues;

- AI stupidity
- Ranged superiority
- Defensive early/mid-game (pushing into terrain is harder, not worth)
- Chased always wins chases
- Over-emphasis on horses as strategic resource (which was already present in Civ5 MP)

 

[rastak]

Except road spam is super ugly. It totally destroys the landscape. I don't want it to ever come back.

I really hated that.

The damn things should be meaningful, not something you build on every square of the map.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

That's your opinion, but it's nothing to base any assumptions on. I have seen absolutely no evidence that roads will cost maintenance in VI. Until there is evidence, it would be erroneous to assume that there is.

Let me rephrase then. I hope modern roads have maintenance costs in civ6.

 

[Seek]

Do you mean Scout? Swordsman has a movement of 2.

Looks like it's three. There was only one player who actually got iron and used swordsmen that I saw, and that was Arumba. Attached a SS with Swordman at 3 movement.

Spoiler :