Opinions about the new movement system

[NukeAJS]

I like it but all units need to get +1 movement.

 

[c4c6]

At first I liked it, because it DOES add some tactical depth. The problem is that constantly clicking "skip turn" gets tedious fast.

YES. And this UI problem becomes solved by changing the movement rules?! (introducing other problems)

When an order is issued to an unit the brain knows, whether this unit shall be available for further commands (& shall stay in the queue of "active" units and be shown again) OR this unit is done for this turn (& not shown again). This bit of information has just to be transfered to the PC. How can this be accomplished?

For myself I would use e.g. the 'shift' key on the keyboard while issuing the command to the unit for signaling, whether it shall 'end turn' by this move or not (just this unit). But I'm open for every other solution ... middle button instead of left button ... thumb button ... who knows the features of a "gaming mouse", I just heard of them, maybe those could be useful in this case?

 

[TaoFarmer]

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?

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.

Indeed, that's the entire problem right there. I think wartime should prevent movement certainly. Alternately, the policy card implementation could have one which blocks movement of missionaries not of your state religion, or allow military units not at war to prevent missionary occupancy of a tile. I personally relish the quashing of missionary armies with state armies, as I think it's a good mechanic which goes well with roleplaying.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I'm clueless, whether you mean something I wrote.

It was another poster who said movement should be slow. Find on your browser would have gotten you the post in question fast enough. But I didn't link because my post wasn't a reply to them. I just wanted to frame the question, how do we consider what movement "should" be

Shift-clicking movement to surrender unused movement points would possibly be a UI solution. The problem I predict is that there's many different ways we use movement and in practice the player will have stopped thinking about shift-click right before the next moment they should have used it. Shortcuts that aren't used all the time just get perpetually forgotten, and don't save time. The problem with almost every shortcut in gesture and touch UIs…

Anyway melee units shouldn't stop in front of a hill and picnic

 

[nzcamel]

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.

Indeed, that's the entire problem right there. I think wartime should prevent movement certainly. Alternately, the policy card implementation could have one which blocks movement of missionaries not of your state religion, or allow military units not at war to prevent missionary occupancy of a tile. I personally relish the quashing of missionary armies with state armies, as I think it's a good mechanic which goes well with roleplaying.

In some countries the military actively hunts down missionaries :/

But overall I agree with BarshyJ's point that given the overall dynamics, I don't think military units should be able to block religious units. It just encourages formations that lead to greater traffic jams.

If people play the religious game (rather than sulk about it's existence) they'll find that an apostle/inquisitor combo is far more effective at keeping unwanted religious units away than circling their cities with military units!

 

[nzcamel]

Shift-clicking movement to surrender unused movement points would possibly be a UI solution. The problem I predict is that there's many different ways we use movement and in practice the player will have stopped thinking about shift-click right before the next moment they should have used it. Shortcuts that aren't used all the time just get perpetually forgotten, and don't save time. The problem with almost every shortcut in gesture and touch UIs…

If you and others want it as badly as you make out, you won't forget it!

The way you've written this suggests that you won't use it all the time though...despite preferring the game impose it on all of us by switching out the current system for it! I find that quite...hypocritical.

 

[GhostSalsa]

If you and others want it as badly as you make out, you won't forget it!

The way you've written this suggests that you won't use it all the time though...despite preferring the game impose it on all of us by switching out the current system for it! I find that quite...hypocritical.

???? No, the way I've written this implies that I might spend 10 turns with my units doing nothing, or only moving calvary, or only moving units near a city, and then next time I go to move a melee unit out in the wild, forget to hit shift to signal I will waste a movement point, and thus lose a few seconds, indicating that this UI solution is imperfect.

I don't think there is any perfect or even adequate UI solution to "units who still have stuff you want them to do but are not using all of their turn." If the UI solution is a keyboard shortcut, it will be forgotten whenever a few miraculous turns happen where my units have stuff I want them to do and I actually use ALL their movement, like some kind of I don't know player controlling their units and being allowed by the map to just say what they want them to do, WEIRD. It's a garbage system. I wasn't being hypocritical I was being nice

 

[nzcamel]

???? No, the way I've written this implies that I might spend 10 turns with my units doing nothing, or only moving calvary, or only moving units near a city, and then next time I go to move a melee unit out in the wild, forget to hit shift to signal I will waste a movement point, and thus lose a few seconds, indicating that this UI solution is imperfect.

Well, you won't waste the movement point; you'll just be brought back to deal with it later, though yes, losing a few seconds.
I guess thus far in VI, I leave at least one unit unfortified in each area of my empire to prompt me to scan the area for missionaries or enemies of any sort, so I'm constantly dealing with them, and the idea of not moving a unit for 10 turns feels very foreign! Given though, that roads aren't completely under our control, moving my units near my cities can still result in that partial movement point left so I'm not sure how you're avoiding it as much as you are!

I don't think there is any perfect or even adequate UI solution to "units who still have stuff you want them to do but are not using all of their turn." If the UI solution is a keyboard shortcut, it will be forgotten whenever a few miraculous turns happen where my units have stuff I want them to do and I actually use ALL their movement, like some kind of I don't know player controlling their units and being allowed by the map to just say what they want them to do, WEIRD. It's a garbage system. I wasn't being hypocritical I was being nice

Hell, I can't wait for a keyboard shortcut for "wait" (even the command without a key would be a good start!) These things work best when they're allowed to be customised by us, as many key commands are in VI yet if they made it the most random key on my board -which couldn't be changed- I still wouldn't forget where it was, cos I want it bad enough!

 

[c4c6]

Shift-clicking movement to surrender unused movement points would possibly be a UI solution. The problem I predict is that there's many different ways we use movement and in practice the player will have stopped thinking about shift-click right before the next moment they should have used it. Shortcuts that aren't used all the time just get perpetually forgotten, and don't save time.

I have no fear, that THIS Shortcut will be forgotten ... as Mr. Shadows phrased it: "The problem is that constantly clicking "skip turn" gets tedious fast."

[A supporting possibility would be a hotkey, which toggles the meaning of 'shift' in this case (current status reflected e.g. by a tiny 'LED' on screen), so that the default behaviour could be inverted (freeing up the "other hand" from the keyboard) ...
It depends on the situation, but I suppose for several/many units in 'close combat' of combined arms (with often selected units by clicking on them, moving maybe 1 tile, selecting another unit, moving this, selecting the first unit again ...) the standard behaviour for a sequence of commands would prefer "stay active" while a sequence of commands of several/many 'standalone units' (often selected by "NEXT in the queue") probably would prefer "end turn".
Just as option, nobody needs to use this feature - as well as it's ok to constantly click "skip turn" and never use 'shift' / toggle hotkey]

Anyway melee units shouldn't stop in front of a hill and picnic

Agree 100%. But the commander is responsible for that! He has to achieve this with the valid MPs.
(Provided that the units have enough MPs and no shortage in general. What correlates with the overall size of the map. What in turn correlates with the possible performance and hardware requirements ...)

No "we are too late and we have no more gasoline, but we drive still up the hill with lightspeed" magically. Carry over 'unused movement points' to the next turn and use then is fine for me. (Even carry over 'deficit movement points' to the next turn and move then less?)
Just no FREE defensive bonus from MPunderflow: using the defensive advantage of rough terrain slows down.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Carry over 'unused movement points' to the next turn and use then is fine for me. (Even carry over 'deficit movement points' to the next turn and move then less?)

Yeah the second thing is what I keep recommending. It is fine with me, allows attacking into hills/rivers with 1mp and doesn't give or steal MPs from any units.

To reply to one from another poster yesterday, not being able to attack into hills/rivers and thus allowing your unit to escape while almost surrounded, indeed sounds like a fun time, and a totally bonkers, sad, stupid design for any video game's "stabby guy who wants to stab the enemy and is right by the enemy and sees the enemy but can't do it"

 

[nzcamel]

To reply to one from another poster yesterday, not being able to attack into hills/rivers and thus allowing your unit to escape while almost surrounded, indeed sounds like a fun time, and a totally bonkers, sad, stupid design for any video game's "stabby guy who wants to stab the enemy and is right by the enemy and sees the enemy but can't do it"

I guess you're referring to my post where I got a unit out from what looked to be an impossible situation.
Maybe I'm guilty of doing something here that I have criticized others for, which is enjoying a tactical aspect being added to a strategic game. Yet I don't think so... Forests and jungles have often been a refuge for the under dog over the centuries. If an army arrives at one having already walked a large chuck if their turn to get there; I don't think their inability to get at another unit inside the forest/jungle is that unrealistic; even on a strategic level.

Keep in mind, the same rules are imposed on both units. At times the chaser will benefit as a fleeing unit can't enter the dense tile when they want to either.

Once again, the terrain (either way) is much more interesting than it was in V; and even than IV.

 

[c4c6]

Yeah the second thing is what I keep recommending. It is fine with me, allows attacking into hills/rivers with 1mp and doesn't give or steal MPs from any units.

I'm still undecided with a negative carry over ... it "feels" wrong. There is nothing like a negative content in the tank ... but, hey, who knows? Some years ago I thought too, negative interest rates are nonsense.

Concerning the 'carry over unused movement points' I'd like to state more precisely 'carry over unusable movement points': the carry over needs to be limited to the amount for entering the first tile in order to eliminate 'on purpose unused movement points'.

Could you please explain or give a link to your idea of "unstacking the turns" mentioned in that other thread? I don't know the mentioned game there, but find "alternating player moves within the same turn"(?) at least interesting! (especially if it helps the AI).

 

[kaltorak]

Totally agree with OP. More realistic, yes, but brings many problems to the game and makes it less fun

 

[GhostSalsa]

I guess you're referring to my post where I got a unit out from what looked to be an impossible situation.
Maybe I'm guilty of doing something here that I have criticized others for, which is enjoying a tactical aspect being added to a strategic game.

Yes yours I think.

It's not that I would blanket assert that movement rules which spice up chase tactics are bad for multi-unit battle tactics, but when I think of what makes your example scenario fun, I think of Legend of Zelda. Where enemies just zip by you but have no will to attack, only by accident. Here the terrain limitations act as random gates for melee attack. It's Russian roulette on a hex grid so it's obviously very fun. But then try playing out a huge battle in the same system and in SP it feels like a comedy scene, but I should play MP to get a better view

 

[GhostSalsa]

Yes yours I think.

It's not that I would blanket assert that movement rules which spice up chase tactics are bad for multi-unit battle tactics, but when I think of what makes your example scenario fun, I think of Legend of Zelda. Where enemies just zip by you but have no will to attack, only by accident. Here the terrain limitations act as random gates for melee attack. It's Russian roulette on a hex grid so it's obviously very fun. But then try playing out a huge battle in the same system and in SP it feels like a comedy scene, but I should play MP to get a better view

Anyway, if there's a realism argument for not attacking a fleeing enemy in jungle, it should just imply an attack strength penalty (an additional one if attacking at 1mp), as someone already mentioned I think - but then ranged should get strength penalties too. Imagined limitations for melee should scale to the capabilities of range. An often 1 tile attack for the former footprint vs often 3 for the latter is bad imo

 

[nzcamel]

It's not that I would blanket assert that movement rules which spice up chase tactics are bad for multi-unit battle tactics, but when I think of what makes your example scenario fun, I think of Legend of Zelda. Where enemies just zip by you but have no will to attack, only by accident. Here the terrain limitations act as random gates for melee attack. It's Russian roulette on a hex grid so it's obviously very fun. But then try playing out a huge battle in the same system and in SP it feels like a comedy scene, but I should play MP to get a better view

But the terrain isn't random. Not once the map has been laid down. As I already noted, the same rules apply to the fleeing unit as to the chasing unit. There is no Russian roulette.

Anyway, if there's a realism argument for not attacking a fleeing enemy in jungle, it should just imply an attack strength penalty (an additional one if attacking at 1mp), as someone already mentioned I think - but then ranged should get strength penalties too. Imagined limitations for melee should scale to the capabilities of range. An often 1 tile attack for the former footprint vs often 3 for the latter is bad imo

That could be another way of doing it. But given the choice, I'm still in favour of the status quo. I like the movement in VI the most out of the entire series so far

 

[@Rob76]

I like it but all units need to get +1 movement.

You can get this now w/ the 'Quo's Rocketboots' mod.

 

[KmDubya]

I also like the current movement system. It is much better than in ciV where you'd always be able to end movement on a hill or forest for extra defense and/or better vision. The current system makes me think more about terrain and its effect on movement and combat.

Concerning the barbarian scout problems that some are having the solution is to use some fog busters to maintain LoS over your trade routes. Scouts are maintenance free as are several military units depending on civic cards so there is no excuse not to protect your trade routes and keep barbarians clear.

 

[klail]

+1 on the current system forcing you to manually select "skip turn" on many units every turn annoyance

I like the system other than that problem. But if the only way to fix that problem would be to revert to Civ 5-style of moving, I would be in favor of it.

I also think roads should get a +25% increase every era -- they are way too slow.

 

[KmDubya]

Roads make a big difference in rough terrain at classical era.

Try walking through one of those ten tile wide bands of jungle that spawn frequently on the east and west sides of an Inland Sea Map. Now send a trade mission to something on the other side and move your troops on the road, the difference is YUGE! In flat terrain roads don't help but are very noticeable in lots of rough terrain.