Movement cost mechanics contradicts itself

[Valmighty]

The introduction of movement cost (MC) is brilliant. But the implementation is poor.

Let's say, to move to a tile you need 2 MC. You have a knight, so you still have 2 MC left. But if there is an enemy there...

in Civ5, no matter what your movement cost is, attacking always end the unit turn. It makes less sense, but it's not contradictory with Civ5 movement mechanics where you can use your last movement point to do anything you want (crossing river, climbing hill, or attacking).

in Civ6, no matter what your movement cost is, attacking also end the unit turn. So what is the problem? The problem is it contradicts with the basic movement cost mechanics. If your knight still have 2 MC, why would they end their turn? Wouldn't this betray the new mechanics?

Attacking can cost you 1 MC, or 7 MC (on naval). It doesn't go well with the mechanics where you go to a hill cost you flat 2 MC no matter what.

Also, crossing river and going to hill with a forest cost you 3 MC. But unit with 2 MC can do just fine. Pillaging cost 3 MC as well but unit with 2 MC can do just fine. This definitely betrays the new mechanics.

I don't think they really think well on this decision. They only want something different than Civ5 and they implemented this without thinking the consequences.

 

[skyclad]

I agree these things annoy me too. To add to your list, promotions can take 1 or 7 mps too... This system just feels like change for change sake! I dont mind too much but I dont really see why they did it.

 

[Olleus]

I don't see the problem. The movement rules are:
1) You need at least x movement points to move to a tile that costs x movement points
2) If the maximum number of movement points is less than x, a unit need to use it's full movement points instead
3) Some actions end the unit's turn (attacking, promotion, building, ect...)

Where's the contradiction?

 

[Aheadatime]

I don't see the problem. The movement rules are:
1) You need at least x movement points to move to a tile that costs x movement points
2) If the maximum number of movement points is less than x, a unit need to use it's full movement points instead
3) Some actions end the unit's turn (attacking, promotion, building, ect...)

Where's the contradiction?

#3 is the 'contradiction', although I don't think that word is quite fitting. It's nonsensical to have an action take away an arbitrary number of movement points just for the sake of ending your turn. If attacking, promoting, building, etc., simply cost 1 movement point across the board, it would be more logical and feel better.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Great Generals/Admirals with passive movement buff create some interesting interactions when you move in/out of their AoE.

 

[Onii-chan]

#3 is the 'contradiction', although I don't think that word is quite fitting. It's nonsensical to have an action take away an arbitrary number of movement points just for the sake of ending your turn. If attacking, promoting, building, etc., simply cost 1 movement point across the board, it would be more logical and feel better.

I don't think it would be balanced if they didn't end your turn. Promoting is supposed to be a tactical decision where you have to choose between either promoting + healing or continue to dish out damage. Ending your turn after attacking just seems like a given to me, otherwise mobile units would be far too strong. You could keep attacking and then retreating, allowing you to cycle units and thus effectively getting around the one unit per tile restriction, I.E: basically how horses worked in Civ V which wasn't the best game design. In fact cavalry are already considered kind of overpowered as they are atm, they'd be even more so if they could retreat after attacking too

 

[Aheadatime]

I don't think it would be balanced if they didn't end your turn. Promoting is supposed to be a tactical decision where you have to choose between either promoting + healing or continue to dish out damage. Ending your turn after attacking just seems like a given to me, otherwise mobile units would be far too strong. You could keep attacking and then retreating, allowing you to cycle units and thus effectively getting around the one unit per tile restriction, I.E: basically how horses worked in Civ V which wasn't the best game design. In fact cavalry are already considered kind of overpowered as they are atm, they'd be even more so if they could retreat after attacking too

Well I guess this is what modding is for. I think I'll put together a mod that makes the aforementioned actions just cost 1 movement point. I'm fine with Cavs being agile and able to be cycled, it just means I'll have to reduce their combat strength to make them fit a particular niche.

Ranged - good at seiging cities/defending cities.
Melee - good at tanking/advancing front lines/holding chokes
Cav - mobile, good at pillaging, taking low HP city, flanking ranged back-line units

 

[Ryika]

in Civ6, no matter what your movement cost is, attacking also end the unit turn. So what is the problem? The problem is it contradicts with the basic movement cost mechanics. If your knight still have 2 MC, why would they end their turn? Wouldn't this betray the new mechanics?

The new mechanic is: "You cannot enter a tile that requires more movement points than you have if you've already moved his turn."

Why would: "And certain actions always end a units' turn." ...contradict that?

The fact that there's a new requirement does not suddenly mean that another restriction is void.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Who even cares about things being 'logical' or not... What I care about is Scouts being totally useless, and hitting 'skip turn' a trillion billion times per game for no good reason at all.

EDIT: Roads, too. Useless until the modern age... And no railroads, for heck's sake! If anything, with 1upt, units and roads should have *more* mobility... But instead, they chose to strip away what little there was in Civ V. One of the worst decisions they could make, imo.

 

[Roller123]

Across all games there were always units that were ending their turn on attack, and there were units that weren't. How is it related to civ6's rounding Move Points down instead of up, like in civ5?

 

[Valmighty]

The new mechanic is: "You cannot enter a tile that requires more movement points than you have if you've already moved his turn."

That's you/us trying to make sense of it. Believe me i do that too. But that doesn't nullify that the mechanics itself is bad.

Why would: "And certain actions always end a units' turn." ...contradict that?

The fact that there's a new requirement does not suddenly mean that another restriction is void.

Because it's inconsistent. Even the worst mechanics can be made sense, you only have to introduce a lot of new requirement. Like you just did.

Across all games there were always units that were ending their turn on attack, and there were units that weren't. How is it related to civ6's rounding Move Points down instead of up, like in civ5?

Because it's inconsistent. In civ5 attack always end and eat all movement cost, it's consistent. That's why they have special unit that can move after attacking.

Civ6 introduce a new mechanics that tile can not be entered by a unit that doesn't have movement point required. Attacking applies the same logic too: You can't attack a unit on hill with 1 MP left. Okay so you need 2 MP to attack unit on hill. So why would attacking eat up all your MP if it only needs 2 MP?

Rounding MP down? Crossing a river cost 3MP, but on unit with 2 max MP, you can. That's how much inconsistency in Civ6 movement mechanics.

 

[Roller123]

Civ6 introduce a new mechanics that tile can not be entered by a unit that doesn't have movement point required. Attacking applies the same logic too: You can't attack a unit on hill with 1 MP left. Okay so you need 2 MP to attack unit on hill. So why would attacking eat up all your MP if it only needs 2 MP?

Rounding MP down? Crossing a river cost 3MP, but on unit with 2 max MP, you can. That's how much inconsistency in Civ6 movement mechanics.

I feel like we are not on the same page regarding definitions, and, mind you, i'm not an expert. Attacking and rivercrossing are actions that consume all points. Why? Skills required for swimming and fighting differ from the skills required for moving, it doesn't matter if your driving a sportscar, your still gonna get out and pick up that hammer/sword and go hack something, so fighting for life and bridge making takes all day. There was an inconsistency alright and that was when a unit with 0.0001 mp could travel to places requiring 1+ mp.


Bottom line - "All" is a number too.


Me, personally i don't like this concept of turn ending actions either, but some games have it and i have learn to live with it, and it does make some sense after all. And like said there are two different things here and it's confusing when they are mixed up. All civ6 does is rounding down, nothing else changed.

 

[mnf]

I feel that it's a problem with the way you are thinking about it.

Certain actions ending a unit's turn. It simply ends the turn. You define "ending the turn" as "spending the rest of my movement point" so you feel it's arbitrary, but it's just ending the turn. Having 0 movement points left is just the implementation that makes sure you end the turn.

• the action ends the turn, so I shouldn't be able to use the remaining movement points, hence they're zeroed; versus
• the action costs an arbitrary number of movement points and that makes me unable to do what I would have been able to do!

Ending a turn comes first, that is the cause. Zeroing your movement points is the effect of ending the turn.

 

[RealHuhn]

The new mechanic is: "You cannot enter a tile that requires more movement points than you have if you've already moved his turn."

Why would: "And certain actions always end a units' turn." ...contradict that?

The fact that there's a new requirement does not suddenly mean that another restriction is void.

I don't get it either. Even if you think about it logically, it makes a lot of sense. Riding across open field with your horseman buddies obviously takes a lot less time than engaging in combat and losing half of your squad. Fights are usually followed by a reaction of your enemy. It should absolutely end your turn.

And why do people always want to mod stuff like that out of the game? Just because you don't like it at first doesn't mean it's bad game design. It might even grow on you after a few more games.
Modding should be a well-conceived decision, not a spontaneous reaction because something annoys you. At least that's how I think about it.

 

[rjg85]

Let's all agree that certain movement rules need patching:

e.g. keeping all of my Redcoats embarked (rather than garrisoned on land) so they can march 7 tiles inland in 1 turn whenever needed is obviously silly.

 

[Takfloyd]

I don't really have a problem with what OP is complaining about. What I *do* take issue with is that the actual UI constantly lies about what you can or cannot do during your turn. The blue area that shows you where you're able to go is completely untrustworthy, and often fails to show tiles you can actually go to or vice versa. And the path indicator is equally broken - if you hover over an enemy within range, it will often show that reaching it will take two turns when you can actually attack on the same turn.

 

[skyclad]

Crossing a river does not end the turn it just takes 3 points.

 

[kaltorak]

New movement rules make total sense in theory, and are more realistic. Still, they are very annoying and make moving units which already was a chore late game even more cumbersome. I would love the old system

 

[shaglio]

Crossing a river does not end the turn it just takes 3 points.

If that were true, then, under the Civ 6 rules, units with 2 MP would never be able to cross a river (unless they were entering a city).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If that were true, then, under the Civ 6 rules, units with 2 MP would never be able to cross a river (unless they were entering a city).

Except the "you can do anything if you are at full movement" rule