Movement cost is already annoying

[Magil]

Keep in mind that roads were spammed in previous Civs for two reasons--they either provided commerce (with no detriment to the tile), or only your units could use them.

If enemy units can use roads (and they provide no bonus to the tile yield), then while you may certainly build roads more than you did in V (which honestly was really bad with how it handled roads), it may behoove you to consider where you place them carefully so you can deny invaders easy avenues to strike deep at your back-line, or your important, heavily-developed districts (if district pillaging turns out to be meaningful).

 

[rastak]

Keep in mind that roads were spammed in previous Civs for two reasons--they either provided commerce (with no detriment to the tile), or only your units could use them.

If enemy units can use roads (and they provide no bonus to the tile yield), then while you may certainly build roads more than you did in V (which honestly was really bad with how it handled roads), it may behoove you to consider where you place them carefully so you can deny invaders easy avenues to strike deep at your back-line, or your important, heavily-developed districts (if district pillaging turns out to be meaningful).

Very true.

 

[Haig]

I havent read all the pages of this thread, but on this video is some new info about zone of control:
unit can't retreat when next to a enemy, even backwards, only direction is to attack the enemy.

That's how I understood it anyway:
https://youtu.be/g_8LoR4zLVE?t=176

 

[Magil]

I havent read all the pages of this thread, but on this video is some new info about zone of control:
unit can't retreat when next to a enemy, even backwards, only direction is to attack the enemy.

That's how I understood it anyway:
https://youtu.be/g_8LoR4zLVE?t=176

They can retreat backwards, at least if they start in the ZoC. I saw BAStart move their archer away from an enemy warrior and shoot it in the video I just watched.

 

[Seek]

I havent read all the pages of this thread, but on this video is some new info about zone of control:
unit can't retreat when next to a enemy, even backwards, only direction is to attack the enemy.

That's how I understood it anyway:
https://youtu.be/g_8LoR4zLVE?t=176

Yes, that is the case, with two exceptions that I've been able to tell:
1. If the unit starts the turn in another unit's ZoC it can move away.
2. If the unit is on the other side of a river it ignores ZoC entirely.

Btw, my supposition a few pages back that only melee units exert ZoC was unfounded* (unfortunately) - it turns out that all units do exert ZoC but a river negates it (as mentioned above).

*Ed, if you're reading, consider it!

 

[King Rad]

I havent read all the pages of this thread, but on this video is some new info about zone of control:
unit can't retreat when next to a enemy, even backwards, only direction is to attack the enemy.

That's how I understood it anyway:
https://youtu.be/g_8LoR4zLVE?t=176

I believe the intent is that you can't move into and then out of a ZOC on the same turn (the old zig-zag movement in CiV when we would move next to an enemy unit and then back away from it, possibly to get to another position or tile - once moving adjacent to an enemy unit, your options now are to attack or stop in that tile. I actually like this change as I think it again adds realism and requires more strategic (or logistic) thought when positioning units. And yes, this only applies to melee ZOC [edit: or maybe not, see Seek's post above].

 

[Haig]

Ok I misunderstood the thing, thx

 

[King Rad]

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 :

In another thread it was mentioned that there is a civic [or might have been promotion] that enhances movement. I think basic movement for swordsman is 2, which can be increased to 3 with this option.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Frankly, if there is a (presumably Military) Civic that gives your Military units increased Movement, with the movement changes, that seems like almost a no-brainer to choose.

 

[Seek]

In another thread it was mentioned that there is a civic [or might have been promotion] that enhances movement. I think basic movement for swordsman is 2, which can be increased to 3 with this option.

Just checked, and he has no such policy (I imagine it's a late-game policy anyway). You can see his last change of policy/government at 33:25.

Edit: Okay, now I'm really confused, he does have a 2 movement swordsman at 37:07. Maybe it's an unlisted bonus for the Great General? That's the only thing I can see that is different between these turns..

 

[ftl]

Frankly, if there is a (presumably Military) Civic that gives your Military units increased Movement, with the movement changes, that seems like almost a no-brainer to choose.

Well, depends what the other options are. So far on this board I've seen a bunch of civics referred to as no-brainers to choose. I'm pretty sure there are more no-brainers than there are card slots...

 

[Ulthwithian]

ftl: Possibly, but considering that many players (as in, people who have played the game) have noted that a 2 movement unit simply cannot catch a 3 movement unit if they don't want to be caught is quite telling to me.

There's also the saying about tactics and logistics to factor in here...

 

[Deggial]

I like the change. The new system might be annoying at times, but it is way more "realistic" and gets rid of an exploitative game mechanism ("cheating" with movement points).

True, early in the game, movement in rough terrain without proper infrastructure is a PITA... but it should be!

As for scouts: they have the related promotions early in their upgrade path and as they are stronger now and get XP when clearing goodie huts, they will get those more reliably than in Civ5. Additionally, the 'Survey' policy looks really tempting now for players being annoyed by slow scouting.
We don't know about all the promotions for non-scout units, but equivalent movement-related specializations might be available for them later in the promotion path.

With the new movement rules, some new unit types (not yet implemented and hence not represented in the leaked tech tree or as part of some future DLC) might even be interesting. What about specialized 'mountain infantry' without hill limitations rigth out of the barracks? (If I think about it... maybe even with the ability to enter mountains and loose all movement points, as long as they leave it the next turn? By the way... what happened to the 'Marines '?)

Anyway... Infrastructure and the proper use of it becomes way more important in Civ6 - and I think, this is a good change.

 

[Karmah]

I don't know how something can be 'already annoying' while you have never even tried it yet . Should I suggest some zen techniques

More constructively, you can tell yourself that movement is now a huge plus , so that pushes mounted units into a higher tier of units which is good. In civ 5 they are more of a commodity rather than a necessity. You can win all your wars with infantery+ range (+ later on artillery, planes etc ...) , so I'm biaised toward 'this is a good thing' but I wait until I actually get to play to form an opinion , I 'm very far away from being emotional about this game mechanic.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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?

Rivers didn't create a movement cost before Civ5, iirc. What the point would be is it still gives a defensive bonus.

That being said, I thought the movement penalty was a good one, so I'd prefer to keep it.

Keep in mind that roads were spammed in previous Civs for two reasons--they either provided commerce (with no detriment to the tile), or only your units could use them.

Well, you left out a third important reason - you have all these workers and nothing else to do with them.

 

[Jaybe]

With civ5 I always wanted roads to allow movement in enemy territory at 1 movement point per hex on rough terrain. In civ6 I would like this to be so, not to allow full use of enemy roads.

 

[Magil]

By the way, regarding the earlier speculation that military engineers might work like builders and have charges--quill18 researches the tech for them in his most recent video and mouses over their tooltip, no mention of charges. Require an armory to build, and construct roads, airstrips, and forts.

 

[tedhebert]

I'm happy with the change. Hated the way it worked in V, always felt like I was cheating when I did it...

Units have specific movement rates, and terrain tiles have specific movement cost. Those should never be allowed to be worked around without a valid reason (wonder, promotion etc...)

My 2 cents

 

[Jimdigriz]

Rivers didn't create a movement cost before Civ5, iirc. What the point would be is it still gives a defensive bonus.

That being said, I thought the movement penalty was a good one, so I'd prefer to keep it.



Well, you left out a third important reason - you have all these workers and nothing else to do with them.

Perhaps there should be more of a penalty for attacking across a river if anything? Especially a river without a bridge? Unless the unit has amphibious promotion etc obviously - would help to make this more important.

 

[Jimdigriz]

I'm happy with the change. Hated the way it worked in V, always felt like I was cheating when I did it...

Units have specific movement rates, and terrain tiles have specific movement cost. Those should never be allowed to be worked around without a valid reason (wonder, promotion etc...)

My 2 cents

My first thought reading this thread was "don't like the sound of this!" but having thought about it, it does make sense. And it makes scouts/recon units more important and more useful - which also makes complete sense. Yes it will stifle the usual explore everywhere tactics at the start of the game - but that makes sense too as early exploration should be difficult!