This, I think, is a statement we can all agree on!
Give me fun, interesting things to do, and do as best as possible to not make me repeat the exact same action 100 times in a game with the same unit (I'm looking at you, counter-spies!)
Opinions about the new movement system
- Thread starter DocRock
- Start date
This, I think, is a statement we can all agree on!
Give me fun, interesting things to do, and do as best as possible to not make me repeat the exact same action 100 times in a game with the same unit (I'm looking at you, counter-spies!)
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I'm pretty sure there's plenty present who do not agree.
c4c6
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 462
This shows the genius of Sid - he avoided that problem with really simple rules ... which I found rather weird in the beginning, but great to play ...
I got used to this movement pattern. Start on hills/woods, across flat land and end on hills/woods. Should cost 3 movement points, but can ALWAYS be accomplished by a unit possessing only 2 movement points. And ALWAYS ending on a tile with defensive bonus. So what?
I suspect, with the old ruleset I have a bigger advantage over the AI players, because I am really good in MAXIMIZING the movement point UNDERFLOW and attacking on flatland while being attacked on rough terrain. (I'm well aware, that in the current state of the AI it is impossible to say whether the AI plays stronger with the new ruleset, but consider this an important point.)
And it feels right. When in real life I know the terrain and want just traverse it quickly, I don't climb every hill, I just walk between the hills along the valleys. I'm quick, but gain no defensive bonus and far sight FOR FREE. I can have those, but climbing the hill slows me down. Gameplay in short: I'm quick & vulnerable OR slow & strong, but not both.
Back to the main issue [leftover movement points, requiring an explicit action from the player to skip that unit's turn (remove from queue of units needing orders) or to wait that unit (select another unit, but do NOT remove the current from queue of units needing orders)].
I like that promotions need a movement point, i.e. can be done with "useless" leftover movement points.
Injured units could gain a partly heal from leftover movement points (H key for "heal rest of turn" instead of Skip - or is H "heal until 100%"?).
Maybe units could gain 1 tile extra sight (walking around on their last tile instead of just traversing).
Maybe units could carryover leftover points ("forced march next turn").
Maybe such small options would make the new rules / leftover movement points a bit less annoying.
Last edited:
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
Dislike it immensely. It's painfully slow, frustrating when you have points left over, with 1upt its even worse than before and it makes ranged even more op compared to melee. The issues with 1upt traffic jams and melee weakness also hurt the already poor ai that can't handle 1upt.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I suspect you mean Jon Shafer rather than Sid, if you're talking the movement from V. Then again it was Soren Johnson who first opened up movement like that (for the first time to non cavalry units) with builders and scouts in IV.
Agreed. 100%
I already use heal and bombard and promote when a unit can't do anything else. I appreciate it's a bit annoying getting dragged back to a unit if it cannot do anything; but meh - I still prefer the new system even with that drawback. Now having a 'wait' option (i.e. I'll come back to unit x once I've moved everyone else), that I need!
c4c6
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 462
No, I meant the first version (no hitpoints, just likelihood of Attack to Defense value // zero movement costs on railroad, 1/3 on road).
Especially I thought about the chariot [4-1-2], a lot stronger than the (so called) cavalry [2-1-2] and far more flexible than the legion [3-1-1] because of the behavior (exploit) of the movement rules. The chariot gained a lot from the acquired "underflow" terrain defense bonus because of its weak standard defense value. (I love those simple number triplets -- militia [1-1-1], phalanx [1-2-1], knight [4-2-2] ... [A-D-M])
But I messed up with the "cost 3 movement points", because originally 'hills' and 'woods' were not features of 'plains', 'grasslands' etc., but standalone terrain types: 'hills' and 'forest' like 'river', 'desert' or 'tundra' with fix costs. The calculated values are of course from a later version. Quite misleading.
The simpleness of the original movement system was great. Base units 1 move, mounted units 2, and you can always use your move points.
But obviously in 5, going to 1upt, you need a little more movement, hence base units getting up to 2 move points. But that has caused a real cascade effect, where the deeper you go, the more move points you have, and the maps really don't support that very well. Giving base units up to 3 moves, sure it makes things simple, but now people are moving way too fast. The thing is, movement should be slow for most units. It should be a slog to go through the jungle.
Yeah, there's points in the new system that are annoying - when a unit doesn't have enough move points left to do anything and it still forces you to click end turn. And the road movement has the annoying effect that regular units don't really get much benefit from them until the modern era. But I think overall, it actually does have a good mix of giving you the moves you need to arrange your units, while still making sure that fast units have an advantage.
Other than the UI, the main gameplay aspects that need fixing to me:
-The fact that ranged units can fire with 1/4 move point left makes them even stronger. As annoying as it would be, it feels like ranged units should probably need a full movement point to fire.
-As mentioned, roads are useless. At the very least they need to re-do the bonuses so that melee units can get an extra movement point earlier on.
-Naval units are way too fast, especially embarked units. At the end, embarked units are getting 6 or 7 movement points, which again limits the need for a navy, since it only takes like 1 turn to cross an ocean. Embarking units should be a slow process, and they should be vulnerable. I would love to see embarked units start with 1 movement point, and only getting to max 3 moves by the modern era. They should also have 0 visibility, meaning that you need a navy fleet to escort them otherwise they may literally run into something and sink. And finally, they should not be able to move into the fog of war - if I haven't explored it with a boat, there's no way my musketman should be able to sail blindly into it.
But obviously in 5, going to 1upt, you need a little more movement, hence base units getting up to 2 move points. But that has caused a real cascade effect, where the deeper you go, the more move points you have, and the maps really don't support that very well. Giving base units up to 3 moves, sure it makes things simple, but now people are moving way too fast. The thing is, movement should be slow for most units. It should be a slog to go through the jungle.
Yeah, there's points in the new system that are annoying - when a unit doesn't have enough move points left to do anything and it still forces you to click end turn. And the road movement has the annoying effect that regular units don't really get much benefit from them until the modern era. But I think overall, it actually does have a good mix of giving you the moves you need to arrange your units, while still making sure that fast units have an advantage.
Other than the UI, the main gameplay aspects that need fixing to me:
-The fact that ranged units can fire with 1/4 move point left makes them even stronger. As annoying as it would be, it feels like ranged units should probably need a full movement point to fire.
-As mentioned, roads are useless. At the very least they need to re-do the bonuses so that melee units can get an extra movement point earlier on.
-Naval units are way too fast, especially embarked units. At the end, embarked units are getting 6 or 7 movement points, which again limits the need for a navy, since it only takes like 1 turn to cross an ocean. Embarking units should be a slow process, and they should be vulnerable. I would love to see embarked units start with 1 movement point, and only getting to max 3 moves by the modern era. They should also have 0 visibility, meaning that you need a navy fleet to escort them otherwise they may literally run into something and sink. And finally, they should not be able to move into the fog of war - if I haven't explored it with a boat, there's no way my musketman should be able to sail blindly into it.
Tamir Lenk
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
Barbarian scouts are my bugbear. If we can't catch them, their ability to cut trade routes needs to either go completely or, at least, expire once they drop below 50% health. Otherwise, zombie scouts with 2 HP can wreak havoc unless you devote some mounted or ranged units to hunt them down.
Why would you slow down the action even more? My favorite were those Civ games, where you move new units via railroad from one continent to another in one turn. Waiting for something to happen (units arriving), organizing traffic and skipping turns is no fun. That's the only thing that matters. If I want realism or balance or anything else, I go for Paradox or Amplitude. I play Civ exclusively in single player and all I want is fun.
Civ 2, 4 and 5 nailed that, 6 introduced too many rules that do not focus on fun but additional micromanagement.
Civ 2, 4 and 5 nailed that, 6 introduced too many rules that do not focus on fun but additional micromanagement.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Ah gotcha.
Of course movement in VI is faster than in I
I agree that it should be a slog to get through jungle (& woods).
I like quite a few points you make; but especially your suggestions re embarked units.
c4c6
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 462
With underflow! Moving a mounted unit 5 tiles on a road (left 1/3 movement point) and then jumping onto a 'hills' tile ("costing" 2 move points) towards the front line gave a deficit of 5/3 move points (and defense bonus of 50%) ... why jumping onto a 'plains' tile ("costing" 1 move point), giving a deficit of just 2/3 move points (and NONE defense bonus)??? ... always the same: if terrain allows, hopping from hills to hills, grande strategy!
For me the rule was not just ALWAYS spend more move points than available, "drink more than what is in the bottle", but ALWAYS MAXIMIZE this inexistent content. I understand, that Sid's trick to allow this variable underflow removes the tedious task of "no more action" orders, but for me it feels wrong now. In simple civ1 it was good, still civ6 is so manifold more complex, the same doesn't fit anymore.
BTW, PzGeneral (also the first version, under DOS) solved this principle problem by forcing the units to spend all their movement points at one time each (without other units in between). I.e. all the time all units were either in the "still needs orders" or in the "ready for this turn" queue.
I agree with most of the other points you make.
And in the end too many people complain, that the game is too easy ...
I think, one should protect his traders appropriate or live with losses ... barbarians have NOT ONLY the purpose to ramp up the experience points of everybody's units.
I don't know. If the speed of the action is so important, maybe we should have for all terrain types the same movement costs? No need for unnecessary realism. Could help to speed up the action.
I play CIV exclusively in single player and all I want is fun.
Last edited:
GhostSalsa
Emperor
If you can show me a screenshot of ever getting a Hoplite to battle with more than one other Hoplite near it without having to take your archers all the way out of range, I'll not call nonsense on this
GhostSalsa
Emperor
"Moving around should be slow"
I don't see any gameplay justification for this. Movement is a resource and it's use in exploration, commerce, and warfare should support making those mechanisms interesting and fun. "Constant slowness" either could or couldn't achieve this, outside of knowing anything else about the game. Nothing is a go-to answer.
Even "Having to manually move units all the time," which is the current maxim before airlifts, is not a go-to answer. I know a lot of people like the movement rules, and cite previous iterations of the game as good examples. Look, it was fine for a PC game in the 90s to act like a table-top game with bigger math problems. It's fine for a game to act like that now, too, but it doesn't mean that that is what this specific game, Civilization, should be doing anymore.
Civ should first ask itself what it is and then how all game mechanisms can make it the best, most fun, version of that
The V rules were never the best answer. Constantly ending turns on hills for free defense was gamey (though it didn't really turn your 2mp units into 3mp, unless their ideal path to a destination alternated hill and flat every turn; probably out of 10 turns they might have progressed 2 extra mp along the ideal path, with a lot of zig zagging for hills on the way). But more to the point:
-it took too long to get to the front - it was nice to learn what armies were capable of and plan your entire game build order on getting an invasion force to the enemy by turn x, and then steam rolling them, but it was this same rigidity that was complicit in unit imbalances and by extension tech tree imbalances that made the game rote. A good system would let you start a war, realize you are in trouble, and then make it possible but not guaranteed that you could send reinforcements in time.
-it took a pretty perfect amount of time to move units from one end of your empire to another for defense. You could lose a city in that time. You could see another army show up at a different border. It was exciting. The possible and not guaranteed. It didn't give you a free pass for not anticipating an invasion, but it still punished you. So: The road movement speed was good and should not have been changed.
-exploration could have been a little slower early game. Typically with two scouts you saw way more than your empire's footprint, so you were seeing more than you needed to. But by mid-game, the scaling of footprint to exploration flipped: you typically set a target of having the second continent mapped out by 200-250 and didn't worry about expanding your empire before then, because the rewards were too small. Deprioritzation of exploration contributed to the mid-game being a race to industrial, and hurt unit balance some more (e.g. who cared about trebs and lancers).
-Commerce was always an ugly step-child to growth, but the movement rules didn't fail to make it a little more interesting.
VI did not ask itself "how should movement work to make the game systems fun." It said "what would a table top game do," and left so many possibilities for growth as a game untouched.
In my previous post I acknowledged that on gameplay terms some people like the new system and some people don't, and gave it a really failing grade for realism.
Now I want to point out that the movement system in VI fails at unifying the map and the units that move about it, and that is why warfare and mid-game exploration are too tedious.
How are units unified with the map? Well, they move on it. They get to different spots of it to do different things. But what "moving" means depends on what they are doing.
When you start a battle with many units, they are no longer travelers marching between cities. An English bowman from V is not shooting an arrow across the length of London three times. The map has expanded. Or, "The representative reality of the map has zoomed in." Hills and rivers are mounds and streams. Horses flank around from the back of the ranks, not one city over.
When units travel between cities, the representative reality of the map has zoomed out again. The map has contracted.
The problem of V and VI as "a video game" is that they give too few ways to speed up that (really very boring) part. That part does not serve the game at all (the unit is not exploring, or warring, or engaging in commerce: we should not be wasting clicks on it).
Time expands next to a unit and contracts away from it as well. What is happening to a unit 3-5 tiles around it is "now." But the parts of the map more than five tiles around it is "the distant future." Techs and civics will have evolved by the time it reaches those tiles. It will be obsolete.
This is how the map separates the unit from the rest of the game. The map divorces the unit from your empire's growth, and this contributes to non-ancient and non-modern eras in V and VI never feel like they are really happening. Slow movement does not enrich the game. Movement rules need to let the unit transcend the map when getting to areas more than 5 tiles away.
Yes, exploration should be slow. Even a bit slower than V. The pace at the very start of VI is not so bad. (By turn 50 I have a hard time continuing to grow my revealed map, and that has a bit to do with movement rules needing to loosen up faster for scouts and a bit to do with the confusing FOW depiction.)
No one ever accused Final Fantasy of being a fast game. But for the most part once you have explored an area enough to be bored with it, you get to teleport through it. Exploration and growth were slow in FF, but that didn't mean "movement should be slow" within the game. It wanted you to re-engage with all the locales on the map that you had spent previous time uncovering. It wanted the map to be yours.
Civ could do the same. Civ could implement unit teleportation for reinforcements and in so doing, make the map richer, make the tech tree richer, make unit balance better. The goal of unit teleportation would be: units could get to spots of the map more than 5 tiles away before the time metaphor breaks for the unit; and: The AI and human do not have to waste thinking on moving through explored areas.
It's really intuitive and obvious as a concept at that point, the only thing left to hash over is the implementation, the rules. Again with the guideline of making warefare etc fun and interesting.
Rules like:
-teleportation consists of dispatching and recalling units from your borders.
-A unit within borders can be dispatched to anywhere in viewed (not FOW) map, and it takes 5 turns to get there (faster after unlocking better techs)
-It might appear up to 2 tiles away from the target tile.
-It might be intercepted by barbs (think RPG teleportation again).
-if you don't keep vision with the tile, the unit reappears in the dispatch city.
-units anywhere outside of borders can be recalled to a city in the same number of turns.
Aside from some other obvious benefits, especially to making the AI a better opponent, I see the value of teleportation as being: Now units are only using "movement" within the zone of the map that is their relative "now." That means all units are existing in the same time as each other and as your empire economy. They do not fall down into a hole of tiles on the map.
Back to units and the map they are on:
-If 2mp units can teleport, then the VI rules are ok because they are purely for the other things the unit does on the map, warring or making improvements etc. Though we still need to let units end on cost 2 tiles with only 1mp, and start the next turn at -1, because the UI issue of ending turns is unsolvable otherwise.
-Scouts still are your explorers. Since teleportation doesn't help reveal new territory, you would never use it on a scout. Exploration pace is not affected by teleportation, except if you open a new landmass and bring a second scout to it.
-Horses might still run about to patrol. In battle and patrolling, their higher mp has the same positive value compared to 2mp units, which is elegant. But 2mp units aren't good at purely moving on the map and shouldn't ever be used for it.
I don't see any gameplay justification for this. Movement is a resource and it's use in exploration, commerce, and warfare should support making those mechanisms interesting and fun. "Constant slowness" either could or couldn't achieve this, outside of knowing anything else about the game. Nothing is a go-to answer.
Even "Having to manually move units all the time," which is the current maxim before airlifts, is not a go-to answer. I know a lot of people like the movement rules, and cite previous iterations of the game as good examples. Look, it was fine for a PC game in the 90s to act like a table-top game with bigger math problems. It's fine for a game to act like that now, too, but it doesn't mean that that is what this specific game, Civilization, should be doing anymore.
Civ should first ask itself what it is and then how all game mechanisms can make it the best, most fun, version of that
The V rules were never the best answer. Constantly ending turns on hills for free defense was gamey (though it didn't really turn your 2mp units into 3mp, unless their ideal path to a destination alternated hill and flat every turn; probably out of 10 turns they might have progressed 2 extra mp along the ideal path, with a lot of zig zagging for hills on the way). But more to the point:
-it took too long to get to the front - it was nice to learn what armies were capable of and plan your entire game build order on getting an invasion force to the enemy by turn x, and then steam rolling them, but it was this same rigidity that was complicit in unit imbalances and by extension tech tree imbalances that made the game rote. A good system would let you start a war, realize you are in trouble, and then make it possible but not guaranteed that you could send reinforcements in time.
-it took a pretty perfect amount of time to move units from one end of your empire to another for defense. You could lose a city in that time. You could see another army show up at a different border. It was exciting. The possible and not guaranteed. It didn't give you a free pass for not anticipating an invasion, but it still punished you. So: The road movement speed was good and should not have been changed.
-exploration could have been a little slower early game. Typically with two scouts you saw way more than your empire's footprint, so you were seeing more than you needed to. But by mid-game, the scaling of footprint to exploration flipped: you typically set a target of having the second continent mapped out by 200-250 and didn't worry about expanding your empire before then, because the rewards were too small. Deprioritzation of exploration contributed to the mid-game being a race to industrial, and hurt unit balance some more (e.g. who cared about trebs and lancers).
-Commerce was always an ugly step-child to growth, but the movement rules didn't fail to make it a little more interesting.
VI did not ask itself "how should movement work to make the game systems fun." It said "what would a table top game do," and left so many possibilities for growth as a game untouched.
In my previous post I acknowledged that on gameplay terms some people like the new system and some people don't, and gave it a really failing grade for realism.
Now I want to point out that the movement system in VI fails at unifying the map and the units that move about it, and that is why warfare and mid-game exploration are too tedious.
How are units unified with the map? Well, they move on it. They get to different spots of it to do different things. But what "moving" means depends on what they are doing.
When you start a battle with many units, they are no longer travelers marching between cities. An English bowman from V is not shooting an arrow across the length of London three times. The map has expanded. Or, "The representative reality of the map has zoomed in." Hills and rivers are mounds and streams. Horses flank around from the back of the ranks, not one city over.
When units travel between cities, the representative reality of the map has zoomed out again. The map has contracted.
The problem of V and VI as "a video game" is that they give too few ways to speed up that (really very boring) part. That part does not serve the game at all (the unit is not exploring, or warring, or engaging in commerce: we should not be wasting clicks on it).
Time expands next to a unit and contracts away from it as well. What is happening to a unit 3-5 tiles around it is "now." But the parts of the map more than five tiles around it is "the distant future." Techs and civics will have evolved by the time it reaches those tiles. It will be obsolete.
This is how the map separates the unit from the rest of the game. The map divorces the unit from your empire's growth, and this contributes to non-ancient and non-modern eras in V and VI never feel like they are really happening. Slow movement does not enrich the game. Movement rules need to let the unit transcend the map when getting to areas more than 5 tiles away.
Yes, exploration should be slow. Even a bit slower than V. The pace at the very start of VI is not so bad. (By turn 50 I have a hard time continuing to grow my revealed map, and that has a bit to do with movement rules needing to loosen up faster for scouts and a bit to do with the confusing FOW depiction.)
No one ever accused Final Fantasy of being a fast game. But for the most part once you have explored an area enough to be bored with it, you get to teleport through it. Exploration and growth were slow in FF, but that didn't mean "movement should be slow" within the game. It wanted you to re-engage with all the locales on the map that you had spent previous time uncovering. It wanted the map to be yours.
Civ could do the same. Civ could implement unit teleportation for reinforcements and in so doing, make the map richer, make the tech tree richer, make unit balance better. The goal of unit teleportation would be: units could get to spots of the map more than 5 tiles away before the time metaphor breaks for the unit; and: The AI and human do not have to waste thinking on moving through explored areas.
It's really intuitive and obvious as a concept at that point, the only thing left to hash over is the implementation, the rules. Again with the guideline of making warefare etc fun and interesting.
Rules like:
-teleportation consists of dispatching and recalling units from your borders.
-A unit within borders can be dispatched to anywhere in viewed (not FOW) map, and it takes 5 turns to get there (faster after unlocking better techs)
-It might appear up to 2 tiles away from the target tile.
-It might be intercepted by barbs (think RPG teleportation again).
-if you don't keep vision with the tile, the unit reappears in the dispatch city.
-units anywhere outside of borders can be recalled to a city in the same number of turns.
Aside from some other obvious benefits, especially to making the AI a better opponent, I see the value of teleportation as being: Now units are only using "movement" within the zone of the map that is their relative "now." That means all units are existing in the same time as each other and as your empire economy. They do not fall down into a hole of tiles on the map.
Back to units and the map they are on:
-If 2mp units can teleport, then the VI rules are ok because they are purely for the other things the unit does on the map, warring or making improvements etc. Though we still need to let units end on cost 2 tiles with only 1mp, and start the next turn at -1, because the UI issue of ending turns is unsolvable otherwise.
-Scouts still are your explorers. Since teleportation doesn't help reveal new territory, you would never use it on a scout. Exploration pace is not affected by teleportation, except if you open a new landmass and bring a second scout to it.
-Horses might still run about to patrol. In battle and patrolling, their higher mp has the same positive value compared to 2mp units, which is elegant. But 2mp units aren't good at purely moving on the map and shouldn't ever be used for it.
Last edited:
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Ya; too easy, but too hard apparently lol. Which is it?
Lets get rid of the wait times on research too...boring as all hell lol.
Rewards are always more satisfying when they've been earnt the hard way, rather than the easy way I think.
I don't think any of us who take the other side to you have actually argued explicitly this. The closest thing I would say along those lines, is that the speed of units needs to stay in touch with the scale of the map for immersion's sake. But I don't think either IV, V, or VI have failed at that (though VI's large and huge maps getting smaller irks with that in mind).
I didn't object when movement increased in V. I did object to the hassle of moving a carpet of units; but VI has improved this somewhat with more units being able to share the same tile, and with escorting being a thing again - that I don't have to manually control every step of a settler walking with a warrior etc; so that's great
I'm still not ecstatic about 1UPT, but there's little point me rehashing that argument so I accept that the carpets are here for the now...and maybe there could be a way where you can create an automated "chain" of units who follow each other to significantly lessen the micromanaging...at least for much of any longer journey involving a decent army.What I like about what VI has done, is that -in making terrain more relevant to moving- it has created all sorts of mini chases that invoke things like the Nazgul stalking the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. A one on one chase is often fruitless, so you need to try to herd your target towards something -or someone- useful. I even had one unit surrounded by an enemy, and he should've been gone for all money...but I dodged and dived, and he got out! It wasn't average AI (though yes - that is still a thing) it was the terrain giving me a tool which created a story inside the game (for those here who I keep seeing say that they like roleplaying) which would have never happened in V.
It brings the element of great generals choosing their battlefields to change the course of history, where that hasn't been as important in the series before. I'm aware as I place cities and units of the terrain around me and how some key spots are good choke points where a much larger swath of ground can be controlled, due to understanding and using the terrain. Large rivers truly serve as the physical boundaries that they were for most of history. This has all been made possible by the choices regarding movement introduced into VI.
I'm finding I use melee plenty (then my last game was as the Aztecs which encourages you to do so out of the gate as the Eagle Warriors are just so good), but if balancing does need to happen to make melee more important; I'd rather see ranged loose a bit of their ranged power, and cavalry lose their new defensive abilities; rather than see melee given more movement points.
c4c6
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 462
I'm clueless, whether you mean something I wrote. If so, please quote.
I used the civ1 values as example, because the point, which I wanted to make about the "old rules", originate from civ1: the exploit of allowing MovePointUNDERFLOW, abused by the human as "FREE" defensive bonus, weakening even more the AI (which always is 'too weak', isn't it?!) -- all I want is the removal of that relatively huge (civ1: mounted units: 2MP, with max possible underflow 3 2/3MP) abused MPunderflow (which is, as I understand, part of the "new rules"), but unfortunately (i.e. nothing what 'should be') that brings back the original problem of leftoverMPs or forced use of _all_ MP at once.
The civ1 values were just an example - I don't "want back" those 'slow' small values from civ1-civ4.
In fact, those 'strategic' values would not fit to civ6. In PzGeneral the slowest unit (HeavyWeaponsInfantry on foot, without truck) iirc had 3 MP, the fastest maybe 16MP (20?) or more. It was played on a sequence of regional / tactical maps (with VERY different scales!) over days or months (again with VERY different scales!) per scenario.
To include successfully this concept into a continuously evolving StrategyGame played on a WORLDmap over a really long time (well, the known part of mankind) needs giants. (And has implications : we can still play on world maps, but we should stop to compare them to Earth, because they are Artificial worlds. And this is a game.)
In Chess the normal time limit for a game is 2 hours. I love to have that time to find good moves, ideally the "best" move ... Sometimes I play BlitzChess too in the club, (to train positional understanding, time limit for a whole game is 2 minutes). It is mainly about avoiding bad moves; do anything, but be quick. I do not enjoy it much. And I would stop playing CIV under such conditions ... (which perhaps occur under multiplayer - simultanious moves?)
[edit: of course PzGeneral had 1 unit per tile. No exception on sea or land level. Just the air level above.]
Last edited:
Mr. Shadows
Nomad of the time streams
At first I liked it, because it DOES add some tactical depth. The problem is that constantly clicking "skip turn" gets tedious fast. I don't mind that it slows down movement and exploration though; the game moves too fast as it is.
TaoFarmer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 2
Honestly, I've felt this way since Civ V. It's ridiculous how your missionaries can't occupy the same hex as the units from another peaceful nation, especially considering that open borders allow free missionary movement through that territory anyways. With the new movement mechanics, it's just not a lot of fun to move missionaries into another territory - it requires waaay too much micromanagement. Combine this with the unit spam of larger civilizations on higher difficulties, and it's just not worth it to utilize that style of play.
Stringer1313
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,202
I'm agnostic on this question but I definitely think religious units should have their own layer. That is a no-brainer.
And yet, were your change to be made, how many players would bemoan loss of the ability to passively block enemy missionary movement with their own units?
Stringer1313
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,202
Fair point, but I don't think military units should be able to block missionaries. It's a silly gameplay mechanic that rewards the creation of unit "blockades" that looks and feels ridiculous -- lining up an army to block one missionary preacher -- and is also not fun. Perhaps during wartime the missionaries' effectiveness could be reduced, or their combat power weakened, but the point is that a religion layer reflects a separate game beneath the game.
Similar threads
