HooperJ
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 25
Hello,
And I would like to first say I think that the feature of slower movement through desert and snow is a very innovative one and very realistic, so I welcome this approach very much.
I would like to make the proposition that movement over terrain to be like that in Civ 6; any terrain taking more than 1 movement point to traverse would require the unit to have at least that many movement points to traverse to, this I feel is more realistic i.e. if your unit hadn't enough energy left to climb a hill, they couldn't end the turn on that hill, the same goes for crossing rivers.
This would make hills, and rivers, much more strategic locations (as in real life) - if melee attackers were approaching your fort on a hill/across a river, but didn't have enough energy to climb/cross it that turn, they wouldn't be able to assault it.
To quote Civ 6 wiki: “Each of the costs now round down, instead of previous games where the movement would round up, meaning that if a unit has a single movement left and the Terrain costs more than 1, the unit will be unable to move there. Open terrain, like Plains and Grassland, only consume 1 movement point, whereas more difficult terrain, like Woods and Hills, will consume 2 or more movement points."
For balancing concerns:
Thank you,
Hooper
'Disclaimer' for anyone curious, I have not played civ 6, though I remember seeing this movement feature in a promotional video, and liked it.
And I would like to first say I think that the feature of slower movement through desert and snow is a very innovative one and very realistic, so I welcome this approach very much.
I would like to make the proposition that movement over terrain to be like that in Civ 6; any terrain taking more than 1 movement point to traverse would require the unit to have at least that many movement points to traverse to, this I feel is more realistic i.e. if your unit hadn't enough energy left to climb a hill, they couldn't end the turn on that hill, the same goes for crossing rivers.
This would make hills, and rivers, much more strategic locations (as in real life) - if melee attackers were approaching your fort on a hill/across a river, but didn't have enough energy to climb/cross it that turn, they wouldn't be able to assault it.
To quote Civ 6 wiki: “Each of the costs now round down, instead of previous games where the movement would round up, meaning that if a unit has a single movement left and the Terrain costs more than 1, the unit will be unable to move there. Open terrain, like Plains and Grassland, only consume 1 movement point, whereas more difficult terrain, like Woods and Hills, will consume 2 or more movement points."
For balancing concerns:
- This may raise whether certain terrain must also have a significant defensive bonus. For example, should a hill provide 25% protection if it is already harder to reach the top? Some would argue yes it should be an advantage, as the height provides strategic vantage point in battle. Though it could be argued that a forest would be much more justified to have a defensive bonus because of the cover in terrain. Perhaps some terrain's protective bonuses could be reduced with this movement change, and / or removing defensive bonus 'stacking'. Forest/jungle should definitely have increased protection from ranged attacks. Something to consider.
- Unit promotions could be added for combating the challenges faced with terrain:
- Something like 'Hill climbing' that allows to enter a hill tile as if it were flat - this could be attained as a more innovative and realistic promotion for recon units (scouts) - as I feel like the scout's current promotions of increased movement in forest / desert aren't particularly realistic - as why can't they also move faster on open land?? The promotion could also be attained by travelling to Mr kilimanjaro, or just a mountain?
- The 'Amphibious' promotion could be edited or adapted to allow units ease of crossing rivers when need arises. Civilisation's unique units / just units could be gifted these if they are a water-based Civ e.g. Denmark or Songhai.
- I don't necessarily see there being a realistic forest-traversing promotion, though there is of course the current 'woodsman' promotion. Could be argued that in history, some civ's were more adept at travelling through jungle / forest using machetes.
- Another cool idea I've thought of, is - if a city is built on a hill, units trained there gain 'hill-climbing', or on a river 'amphibious', or related names.
- This though of course raises the concerns that hill-river cities become superior, a situation of 'optimal-ness' Vox Populi aims to avoid. Though, it also creates very unique and exciting opportunities for strategic decisions when settling and building forts / citadels in certain map situations, or just when in 'stand-offs' between units e.g. if archers are on their own, a hill gives opportunity to stand their ground and attack back rather than continually fleeing, as enemies have to prepare to climb it or retreat.
- Perhaps knowledge from the implementation of Civ 6 could be used to advise balancing of this.
Thank you,
Hooper
'Disclaimer' for anyone curious, I have not played civ 6, though I remember seeing this movement feature in a promotional video, and liked it.
Last edited:
(wind pulled dune buggies of course, if you've read The Wind On Fire trilogy).
