Movement points...

[Cuneiform]

I'm enjoying the game so far, but one of the things thats irritating me at the moment are the movement points given to all the units.

I suppose it was done to simplify things, but I really think there needs to be a distinction made between Heavy Units and Light Units. I can't see a Great Swordsman unit moving as quick as a Warrior for example, and for that matter a Knight compared with a Horseman. This also plays into the Tactical Map gamplay as I think its a bit too easy for Heavy Infantry/Cavalry units to outflank the enemy position.

I think Heavy Infantry units need to be reduced from 4 down to 3, and also Heavy Cavalry from 6 down to 5. This should enhance the tactical aspect of battles and reward a more varied mix of units in Armies, especially in certain terrain environments.

 

[Victoria]

I feel the issue is with the AI MP gain on higher levels combined with being cavalry, especially for ranged.
But if we take this back to the OP argument, on higher levels you get HI moving faster than LI even if they were downgraded to say 2 MP.

 

[Taefin]

I haven’t noticed the AI having increased movement in recent games on HK. I’ve been chasing/being chased by the AI a bit in some really scrappy wars. There is a MP cost reduction in roads as far as I can tell, and couple of ways to increase MP by one level at a time (I’d rather the AI take this event choice than ferocious!). I’m guessing the choice in 4/6 movement was simplicity so that you can have faster and slower stacks, since the game treats heavy infantry as just better infantry. It’d be interesting to see a mod for this, even if just in battle.

 

[Cuneiform]

The problem for me is that at the moment because of the relatively high movement points for all the units, its almost like there's no hiding place on the tactical battle maps.

Expecially for range units, which you can try to protect behind your lines. But its still far too easy with 4 movement points for Heavy Melee units to completely outflank your position and make mince meat of your Archers/Crossbowmen.

 

[Victoria]

there's no hiding place on the tactical battle maps.

Yes, the higher in difficulty the more the AI has to compensate and it is the range units that suffer

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The problem for me is that at the moment because of the relatively high movement points for all the units, its almost like there's no hiding place on the tactical battle maps.

Expecially for range units, which you can try to protect behind your lines. But its still far too easy with 4 movement points for Heavy Melee units to completely outflank your position and make mince meat of your Archers/Crossbowmen.

The hiding place is surrounded by friendlies+clifs+coast.... thats really the only blockers (and why you need large armies before range is worthwhile.)

 

[CoconutTank]

This might be due to opposing civs taking on the Assyrian culture (which provides +1 land unit movement), the Aztec culture (which provides +2 land unit movement), or even both. +3 movement on units that normally have only 4 or less is kind of crazy!

I'm not sure what your specific circumstances are like, but as someone that often likes picking the Assyrians and the Aztecs (and Honor Kin), dealing with narrow spaces and rivers can be frustrating; rivers stop movement, and sometimes cliffs are only accessible by a single chokepoint. Maybe having your units push in from a certain direction for terrain/positioning might help?

KrikkitTwo also makes a good point about needing a large army to keep ranged units safe. Another reason why Organized Warfare (for reinforcements) is so important.

 

[Taefin]

I’ve now played 4-6 games with normal cliffs in which my strategy was to go 50% range and fight in places where 3-6 melee units can provide compete protection for higher-ground shooting points. And now a game with few cliffs in which I skipped archers due to wanting more Mycenaean EU. Without places to hide, the AIs Mayan archers were a liability, but I think I’ll bring along a few archers in the future. When melee has to deal 5-25 chip damage, I’d much rather have an archer deal the same without retaliation. But light cavalry sure knows how to find that route to kill them. I often have no choice but to leave ranged units in the middle front of my army, vulnerably from one tile with poor terrain, but only by bounding past ZOC and placing their army where I can get rear damage. Then archers can take turns taking their share of the damage and often are already dealing chip damage at full health, so the strength reduction isn’t a concern.

 

[Victoria]

I find archers are invaluable in a siege especially ially as bait on either side.