Movement cost is already annoying

[Louis XXIV]

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.

Can't speak for Civ6 (where the numbers aren't final anyway), but I believe it boosts the defender's combat strength by 50%, which is pretty significant.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually it is +5 (civ6 bonuses are flat numbers not %)

 

[Jaybe]

Actually it is +5 (civ6 bonuses are flat numbers not %)

Just because the cross-river penalty is EXPRESSED in the game as '+5' does not mean it isn't actually CALCULATED as a percentage.

Could be either way at this point and I appreciate their showing the numbers; but if it IS a percentage, I'd appreciate their also showing it (perhaps in parentheses).

 

[footslogger]

I like the movement change, forcing us to pay more attention to terrain. I like the way it slows down exploration, which could be accomplished on land far too quickly before.

 

[skyclad]

Anton screwed up so bad in that IGN video maybe the girl was distracting him

I think with some experience this will be fine and also it will make mounted units more important!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Just because the cross-river penalty is EXPRESSED in the game as '+5' does not mean it isn't actually CALCULATED as a percentage.

Could be either way at this point and I appreciate their showing the numbers; but if it IS a percentage, I'd appreciate their also showing it (perhaps in parentheses).

Its almost certainly a flat bonus because government/UA bonuses are flat bonuses.
(Possibly civ6 combat works on subtractive difference instead of ratios)

 

[Krajzen]

Can somebody explain me the advantages of the new system? That's not sarcasm, I am honestly wondering why devs decided to introduce this change.

So far it sounds for me like it was only to make logistics and sieging cities even more frustrating

 

[stealth_nsk]

Can somebody explain me the advantages of the new system? That's not sarcasm, I am honestly wondering why devs decided to introduce this change.

So far it sounds for me like it was only to make logistics and sieging cities even more frustrating

As I see it:

1. Fast units are more important.

2. 2-move unit can't move and attack unit standing on rough terrain. This provides additional tactical element and, again, more importance of fast units.

3. More importance of roads. With AI which seemed to learn how to use it it's even more fun.

4. Easier for AI to handle as all calculations are plain.

But it would be great to hear what developers' reasons are. I could be missing something big.

EDIT:

5. Just to make gameplay fresh.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

Can somebody explain me the advantages of the new system? That's not sarcasm, I am honestly wondering why devs decided to introduce this change.

So far it sounds for me like it was only to make logistics and sieging cities even more frustrating

For me the biggest advantage is that terrain can be more utilized to defend your units/cities and slow down invasions. With unstacked cities, and no city attack until walls, there is more to defend. With limited builder charges, the need for many military units to defend would only slow down building up the city. Now I feel few units placed in strategically important locations can do a lot of damage.

At the same time, for the invader, it pushes the need for a mixture of units to support your battles, and mobility will be a valuable asset. It'll be rare to move and fight on the same turn with melee units so you need to plan your attacks and not just spam one specific type of unit.

I'm personally more of a defensive, tall player so maybe that's why I like the change

 

[Aheadatime]

I am honestly wondering why devs decided to introduce this change.

Someone else mentioned something that made sense here in the forums. It seems the devs are shooting for more of a board-game approach this time around. Having movement points be very strict with their costs seems to be in line with that thinking, as does the government 'cards', adjacency bonuses from districts, supports units, etc.

As far as advantages, I don't know. Realism comes to mind.

 

[King Jason]

So far it sounds for me like it was only to make logistics and sieging cities even more frustrating

I usually look at these things as crutches for the A.I. honestly. Take civ5 introducing the city health and bombard mechanic. Obviously this is great for the player, but I really feel it was introduced to make early rushes against the A.I. at least slightly harder.

Similar case with civ6 promotions. In civ5, for whatever reason, the A.I. seemed bias toward the heal option. Now a simpler solution would be to code the A.I. to be biased toward promoting it's units, but you also have the issue of A.I. units tending to find itself in tricky spots, so in civ5 that would probably just amount to more dead units. Further, both healing and promotions are more powerful in a players hands (as is everything).

So I really look at the change to promotions as a change that is beneficial to the A.I, It allows them to heal, as well as upgrade themselves. Further, the consumption of the units movement points halts player advances and requires some thought, as I've noticed quite a few units die due to promoting in the wrong spot. With the A.I. demonstrating the ability to retreat when wounded as well, I feel like the longevity of A.I. units has been increased dramatically with such a simple change.

What does all of this have to do with the movement mechanic? Well, as evidenced of the fact that in almost every video there is a case where a player attempts to finish off a nearly dead unit but is unable to catch it - The system, in my mind, benefits the A.I. Since it's been claimed (and slightly demonstrated, but not perfectly) that they will retreat when wounded, and not wander around a battlefield or city waiting to get killed off - making it harder to catch them is a good thing.

Even when two units are right next to each other on flatland, if the retreating unit moves into a hill or forest - the pursuing unit would at that point lose the ability to catch up. I think this is awesome. Also, if it contributes to tougher sieging, I think that helps the A.I. too

Obviously every rule and mechanic will ultimately end up stronger in the hands of the players - but I think mechanics that bridge that gap by essentially making things slightly more difficult for the player are a good thing. Especially when it comes to war. The bonuses the A.I. receives for high lvls of difficulty helps them in all aspects of the game except war (apart from unit capacity). So in addition to just making the A.I. better, if there are mechanics that can be designed that favor the A.I defensively, then I think they should be put in place.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's the same system from Civ1 and Civ2. I don't think it's a crutch. If anything, Civ3 was a crutch for players so they don't have to figure these things out. It was part of the game simplification (it went with a change in the combat system and promotion system and removal of the combat movement penalties when you had 2/3 or 1/3 strength due to roads.

 

[King Jason]

Basically all I was saying is that anything that makes things even slightly difficult for the player is better for the A.I. and I generally view those changes as good things.

So the benefit I see in civ's return to a more complex move system is that the player needs to be more strategic in their movement choices. We've already been able to witness examples of the A.I. benefitting from the system as units that choose to retreat are nearly impossible to catch.

This could have resulted in brainstorming how to help the A.I. out in terms of movement across the map - or it simply could have resulted in someone on the team preferring the old style and deciding it should come back. Either way I'm glad to see it.

 

[historix69]

I think the new system has pros and cons :

Pro :
- a unit now pays the full movement costs and does not get end-of-turn-discount for hills/forest/river

Con :
- movement now can be more expensive and exceed the real movement costs due to the turn-based system.

Example :
Imagine a terrain where flat land and hills alternate. A unit (2 MP) on a hill uses 1 MP to get on a flat tile but it cannot spend its 2nd MP to get on the hill on the other side so the 2nd MP is wasted. In the next turn the unit can climb the hill for 2 MP so it used a total of 4 MP instead of 3 MP.

Older turn-based games like Jagged Alliance allowed to carry over a small amount of unused movement points from one turn to the next. In above example, the unit would use 1 MP to go from hill to flat land, save 1 MP by doing nothing, and in the next turn would climb the hill using the 2nd MP from previous turn and 1st MP from current turn. The unit would be on the hill with 1 MP to use, so the unit would have used only 3 MP (the true distance) to go hill - flat - hill.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I think the new movement system fits the scale of the map much better. Considering the size of a single tile (in terms of abstracted space), I am fine with terrain being an actual PITA.

It also adds quite a lot of strategic decision making to city and unit placement. Just like settling on a hill in CIV4 was a huge advantage in terms of early game defence, having an extra layer of hills or forests around your city in CIV6 seems like a big deal.

I'd guess it would also lead to a better balance between ranged vs. melee units. With this system you can give ranged units pretty low melee power, making them reliant on cover from either melee units or terrain, which in turn increases the importance of fast cavalry units as flankers, promoting the use of combined arms over the usual "ranged unit carpet".

It will also be very interesting to see how the impact of terrain scales over the game, considering there is apparently a specific military support unit available to deal with road building and the like. It could be quite possible that the effect of terrain diminishes quite a bit once these become available (and even boosted by later techs?).

I guess I would be okay to give Scouts the old movement rules, considering that they are specific exploration units. But then again, consistency is a nice thing.

In terms of AI I am not sure if it is actually harder or easier for it to use the new system. It certainly reduces the number of potential moves it has to calculatre. The question is probably how much move-and-attack or attack-and-move will be a thing. If the ruleset promotes a behaviour of "only move" and "only attack" options, I'd think that it should be easier to teach the AI some decent basic behaviour. But we'll see.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I think the new system has pros and cons :

Pro :
- a unit now pays the full movement costs and does not get end-of-turn-discount for hills/forest/river

Con :
- movement now can be more expensive and exceed the real movement costs due to the turn-based system.

Example :
Imagine a terrain where flat land and hills alternate. A unit (2 MP) on a hill uses 1 MP to get on a flat tile but it cannot spend its 2nd MP to get on the hill on the other side so the 2nd MP is wasted. In the next turn the unit can climb the hill for 2 MP so it used a total of 4 MP instead of 3 MP.

Older turn-based games like Jagged Alliance allowed to carry over a small amount of unused movement points from one turn to the next. In above example, the unit would use 1 MP to go from hill to flat land, save 1 MP by doing nothing, and in the next turn would climb the hill using the 2nd MP from previous turn and 1st MP from current turn. The unit would be on the hill with 1 MP to use, so the unit would have used only 3 MP (the true distance) to go hill - flat - hill.

I think we can say the old system always made movement cheaper than actual cost (you could move into that hill with one movement). But we can't really say this system is more expensive because that 1 movement is not wasted, you can move to any other flat tile if you wish. With hexes there plenty of ways to go around.

 

[Jimdigriz]

For me the biggest advantage is that terrain can be more utilized to defend your units/cities and slow down invasions. With unstacked cities, and no city attack until walls, there is more to defend. With limited builder charges, the need for many military units to defend would only slow down building up the city. Now I feel few units placed in strategically important locations can do a lot of damage.

At the same time, for the invader, it pushes the need for a mixture of units to support your battles, and mobility will be a valuable asset. It'll be rare to move and fight on the same turn with melee units so you need to plan your attacks and not just spam one specific type of unit.

I'm personally more of a defensive, tall player so maybe that's why I like the change

I just hope ranged units are cut down this time - they were too overpowered in Civ V and melee units were hardly needed. Not ideal.