Movement limits in early eras

[Vokarya]

How about +1*(map size scale), minimum 1 for Duel size maps? So you get double your starting radius at Alphabet, triple at Charters, and unlimited at Navigation. Could even do +2*scaling at Charters, giving you quadruple your radius, although that might be too much. But the Medieval Era should be able to support crusades.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Let me see if I understand; for the moment I've set a Base Radius via XML, temporarily it's 3. This is currently scaled by mapsize by simply adding +1 for each mapsize; so Radius become from Duel to Gigantic: Duel 3, Tiny 4, Small, 5, Standard 6, Large 7, Huge 8, Giant 9, Gigantic 10. Your proposal is to double that radius at Alphabet, triple at Charters and remove the radius at Navigation. Is that correct?

 

[Vokarya]

That's correct.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Ok, it works now, radius can be extended/removed via tech that can be selected via XML tag. Now I only need to solve the problem raised by ZN about units stranded too far when a city is razed. Maybe I can do something by pushing units back inside the limit. Then I'll release the new option so that anyone can test.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Ok, I've run some test and it looks like it's working: units can reach radius+1 but if they are left there, the next turn they are being pushed back at the nearest valid plot. This trick is also working if one of your cities is razed or conquered (or, as in my experiment, volountarily gifted to another civ) and your units suddenly find themselves too far from the radius of the next nearest city: these units get bumped back to the nearest valid plot again. But there's a catch: until now, I've made possible for units to explore beyond their allowed radius if they travel on paths/roads/etc; but if a unit is traveling on a road when the nearest city is lost, it does not get bumped back because a road IS a valid plot. So it might become stuck there. It might be annoying but it also makes interesting scenarios: in my case I gifted my city to another civ and then I signed open borders with them. So my unit that was stuck on that road had a chance to travel inside other civ's borders, but not to leave them except for those tiles where a road was present.
So here's how it's working right now:
there's a base radius you can set via XML(currently 3), it's centered on your city closest to the unit; this radius increases with mapsize so it's Duel 3, Tiny 4, Small, 5, Standard 6, Large 7, Huge 8, Giant 9, Gigantic 10. Your units can reach radius+1 but when they do so they get bumped back on next turn to the nearest valid plot. When you discover Alphabet, radius is doubled and when you discover Charters radius is tripled. When you reach Navigation, there's no radius anymore (techs can be set via XML). You can move on any tile inside the radius, on any tile inside your empire (regardless of radius), on any tile with paths/roads/etc (regardless of radius), on any tile belonging to a civ you have open borders with (regardless of radius), on any tile belonging to a civ you are at war with (regardless of radius).

While working on this code, I started considering what would happen if I changed the mechanic of the "hard wall" bumping you back to one where you simply take damage if you are outside of the radius. I see some problems with this but maybe they can be solved. First, units that don't take damage like settlers and workers should not be allowed to explore freely, they should still have this kind of hard wall, or they should be killed instantly when crossing the border. I prefer the former solution because you might inadvertently cross the border and lose a settler, which might be quite annoying. Second thing is the interaction with Terrain Damage. If you play with Terrain Damage off, you should still take damage from crossing the movement limit which looks kind of strange, but might be acceptable. Third, there might be issues with AI sending units to death but since AI knows how to deal with Terrain Damage, I'm not too worried. At least I'm not if using both Movement Limits AND Terrain Damage. I don't know what might happen if I use Movement Limits but Terrain Damage is switched off, or if it can be solved with a workaround in the code to make AI aware of the danger of exploring too far even if Terrain Damage is switched off.
So, what do you think? Opinions? Movement Limits as described above is anyway currently working and ready for release, unless I discover some bug in my next test.

Edit: one more thing, should I allow water units to move further? Like doubling their radius for each step? Should caravans or spies or explorers also have their radius doubled? It would be easy to code. On the other hand, I would avoid messing with promotions.

 

[Arakhor]

Use bumping rather than partial damage, though I suppose you could pop up a dialogue box to say that the unit will be instantly killed next turn if you'd rather.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Ok, I've run some more test. I can provide 2 different types of code now, and they're both ready and tested.
Option 1: hard wall. You can't get past the radius. If you reach the radius, the next turn you are bumped back to the nearest valid plot. Works good but looks a bit artificial. You can see where the limit is because tiles outside the limit are shown as impassable, same way as a mountain is before you discover mountaineering.
Option 2: you can move, there's no hard wall. But if you move outside the radius (same rules as above apply), you get 25% damage each turn. You can see where the limit is because hovering over a tile outside the radius shows damage the same way Terrain Damage does. I've not tested yet if I can make option 2 work when Terrain Damage is off. I probably can but haven't tested yet. So, what option do you prefer?
I'll release this revision after Vokarya's next revision.

Edit: with option 2, settlers, workers, spies and Great People can be used to explore because they can't take damage. I don't think it's a big issue, since spies are ok to move around I think, and other units hardly can be used for exploration because they're valuable and weak.
Edit2: looks like AI doesn't have troubles with either methods.

 

[<Nexus>]

on any tile with paths/roads/etc (regardless of radius)

Makes sense, but what if the road is broken and the missing part is out of range?

For example you have this Silk Road path with a range of 4 and the road was pillaged in range 6. Your workers won't be able to fix it.
cITy _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _

BTW: What about rivers? How about doubling exploration range on river tiles?

on any tile belonging to a civ you are at war with (regardless of radius).

Won't it be too exploitable?

I don't know what might happen if I use Movement Limits but Terrain Damage is switched off, or if it can be solved with a workaround in the code to make AI aware of the danger of exploring too far even if Terrain Damage is switched off.

How about "Terrain and Movement Limit Damage"? The 2 would work only together. If you turn it off, you just get the hard wall effect.

one more thing, should I allow water units to move further? Like doubling their radius for each step?

I rather think, that coastal (and river) tiles should double exploration range if possible. In coastal I mean both water units and land unit next to the cost but unable to venture into the main land.

Should caravans or spies or explorers also have their radius doubled?

No. If recons can by pass the limit than the whole thing is rather meaningless. The goal is to prevent mapping out the whole world to early.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Makes sense, but what if the road is broken and the missing part is out of range?

For example you have this Silk Road path with a range of 4 and the road was pillaged in range 6. Your workers won't be able to fix it.
cITy _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _

If it happens, it means it's not you who has built the road so it's OK to me if it stays broken until you can send worker. Silk Road might be the only exception, and I think it's OK.

BTW: What about rivers? How about doubling exploration range on river tiles?

For the moment, no, but I will consider it.

Won't it be too exploitable?

I don't think so, they can do the same and I think it's necessary.

How about "Terrain and Movement Limit Damage"? The 2 would work only together. If you turn it off, you just get the hard wall effect.

Yeah, I have adopted this solution.

I rather think, that coastal (and river) tiles should double exploration range if possible. In coastal I mean both water units and land unit next to the cost but unable to venture into the main land.

For the moment I've kept it simple.

No. If recons can by pass the limit than the whole thing is rather meaningless. The goal is to prevent mapping out the whole world to early.

OK, no bonus for now, at least until I don't get any opinion on how it plays out.

 

[Pongui]

I love the basic idea just as initially proposed. Keep the mechanic simple by era: that's incentive to attain an era & reward for doing so.

Frankly I exploit the game by rushing scouts for goody huts. Frankly, that's unnatural and should be stopped. Yes, please.

Permitting movement along cart paths will be interesting, because the barbs build cart paths connecting their cities. So you may follow those where they lead, and deal with barb cities in your path or not.

EDIT:
Issues about losing units that are exploring, I don't mind at all. This is different than the game we're used to, but I think it's quite realistic and more fun because it prolongs the process of exploration. So for a unit that gets cut off by bad luck, I must count lost, I'd say that "works as intended".

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

What if the allowable zone for your units becomes not connected? A city gets capped and now there's two places where your borders exist?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

What if the allowable zone for your units becomes not connected? A city gets capped and now there's two places where your borders exist?

Your movement limit for each unit is always calculated from the closest city.

 

[Cor'e =)]

Thanks for the new feature, it threw me into confusion when i played a game with it by accident, but that's fine now that you'all have explained what it was i've experienced.

I want to say that i think Scouts should be able to go further with less damages than other units by definition, however, that being said, i pretty much always play my games without "goody huts", i at sometime just assumed everyone got sick of huts and turned them off.

So, how about if playing with no huts then have scouts/explorer take less damage, but if playing with huts then they damage like the rest? Thanks!

 

[<Nexus>]

So, how about if playing with no huts then have scouts/explorer take less damage, but if playing with huts then they damage like the rest? Thanks!

Don't complicate it. If you don't really like it than turn it off.

 

[Rambo919]

You might want to create a visible border with dot's instead of a solid line for it. The invisible border is annoyingly vague. Also (played this mod for the first time in years now) I had "barbarian world" turned on and used conquering the barb cities to expand my exploration range... dunno if someone would count this as an exploit?

 

[Slarki]

I love the basic idea just as initially proposed. Keep the mechanic simple by era: that's incentive to attain an era & reward for doing so.

Frankly I exploit the game by rushing scouts for goody huts. Frankly, that's unnatural and should be stopped. Yes, please.

Permitting movement along cart paths will be interesting, because the barbs build cart paths connecting their cities. So you may follow those where they lead, and deal with barb cities in your path or not.

EDIT:
Issues about losing units that are exploring, I don't mind at all. This is different than the game we're used to, but I think it's quite realistic and more fun because it prolongs the process of exploration. So for a unit that gets cut off by bad luck, I must count lost, I'd say that "works as intended".

it's not really an exploit, it's what you are intended to do. Goody huts are there to be taken, you can't build that many scouts anyway before all goody huts get taken.

 

[Cor'e =)]

@ZN, Actually i was simplifying it, it seemed someone was worried about goody huts, i seldom play with them (only for fun-fun, not strategy type fun), that said, i think Scouts should get less damage than other units to make this mod feature fun to play with, otherwise yes, i would turn it off, which is too bad because it looks like a lot of work is going into it to make it a fun feature of AND2.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

@ZN, Actually i was simplifying it, it seemed someone was worried about goody huts, i seldom play with them (only for fun-fun, not strategy type fun), that said, i think Scouts should get less damage than other units to make this mod feature fun to play with, otherwise yes, i would turn it off, which is too bad because it looks like a lot of work is going into it to make it a fun feature of AND2.

Actually it's not been a lot of work, just a couple of updates because I thought there was a bug in the code which in the end showed up somewhere else and not related to Movement Limits. I considered lowering damage for scouts, but I'm not convinced. Technically anyway you can already use workers and settlers and spies because those don't take damage.

 

[<Nexus>]

Technically anyway you can already use workers and settlers and spies because those don't take damage.

I think they should be just pushed back regardless of damage on or off.

 

[Cor'e =)]

... Technically anyway you can already use workers and settlers and spies because those don't take damage.

I like that part of the feature, but i usually cannot explore early game with those units, workers need to work, settlers need to settle, spies come mid-game for a different purpose, only Scouts are (a beginning unit) able to cross unexplored lands and fight animals at some advantage, warriors maybe, but they're not really "Scouts" by design...