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.