1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Stop cancelling a move order just because the space becomes occupied

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Arms Longfellow, May 26, 2018.

  1. Arms Longfellow

    Arms Longfellow Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Anyone ever notice that every time you tell your unit to move to square A, perhaps it's far away and will take 7 turns to get there, the order is always cancelled the moment that square becomes occupied by another unit and the game will ask you for a new order? This is a big contributor to late game tedium because a lot of the times, I'll have a big army, and I want them to rally to my City A to prepare for an invasion. It's annoying how the game will ask me to give my units a new order just because one of my other units arrived in the city first. What's the problem with simply having a unit move as close as possible to the square you told it to move to until it's no longer possible to move into it, at which point it will THEN ask you for a new order?
     
  2. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,379
    Very much agreed.
     
  3. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,740
    It is honestly the one truly frustrating game element that is still in the game at this point
     
    comatosedragon and Duuk like this.
  4. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    I can't upvote this enough. Move until you can't move dammit. Don't worry about what might be an issue in 13 turns.
     
    Banazir864 likes this.
  5. Mojo85

    Mojo85 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    154
    It is one of the most aggravating aspects of this game and trying to move distances. If there is a unit in it when its 1 tile away then fine, but there is no reason when it's 15 turns away it should cancel. It makes moving a large force impossibly frustrating.
     
    tzu likes this.
  6. LKx

    LKx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    59
    Gender:
    Male
    Seconded.
    Very very very very annoying
     
  7. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    Wouldn't it be great to get rid of 1UPT and thus eliminate this annoying problem? 3UPT would be the bomb! :D
     
    Arent11 likes this.
  8. LKx

    LKx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    59
    Gender:
    Male
    Not really, i could never stand the stacks of doom, and i'm not sure that an arbitrary amount of units would make the trick, we alredy have armies
     
    King Rad likes this.
  9. blackbutterfly

    blackbutterfly King

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    715
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    Wasn't there a "Set Rally Point" in a previous incarnation of Civ? III or IV? That'd be nice :)

    The series is regressing. There seemed to have been more features in earlier games. Each iteration loses features. Trade screen, City management screen, etc. (I can go on and on here) :rolleyes:
     
  10. Arent11

    Arent11 King

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    945
    1 unit per tile was fun for a while but I grew tired of it. I miss big armies, moving stacks of units, transport ships and collateral damage.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  11. Arms Longfellow

    Arms Longfellow Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Another thing I miss about unlimited stacks was the feeling that I was running a "war machine": when war happened in Civilization 4, I dropped everything, cranked out as many military units as humanly possible, and sent them to the front. This may have even involved drafting units with Nationalism.

    In Civ 5 and Civ 6, the "war machine" tactic isn't viable because it's too clunky to move a huge army around the map and it costs too much in maintenance. Now it feels more like an RPG where you make a handful of units early on in the game and just keep promoting and upgrading these same core of units throughout the whole game. It also makes those buildings like Military Academy feel pointless, other than their other general benefits.

    That being said, I still like 1 unit per tile better. I think in Civilization 7 we'll almost certainly see a compromise and have limited stacks.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  12. Arent11

    Arent11 King

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    945
    This. Civilization is grand strategy & I want to feel that I run a grand war. I also want to feel that I run a grand empire. Right now, this feeling is lost.
     
    Arms Longfellow likes this.
  13. heinous_hat

    heinous_hat Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    592
    Location:
    under the weather
    Pathfinding is wonky due to the stacking restrictions on a crowded map... no question. If I recall correctly, the original outcome of ordering a unit to move onto an unseen tile containing another unit was a temporary stack. At some point (either patch or expansion) they altered the pathfinding to avoid this, resulting in an unpredictable backtrack (where your unit goes someplace you didn't order). It's related to what the OP describes, but occurs in a single-turn move order rather than multiple. Both are a problem, and the solution is obvious to those of us who would prefer a departure from strict 1UPT.

    Armies (and corps), in their current state, seem like a really compromised solution to both unit clutter and organization. They went with "super units" of the same class instead of a limited stacking model that would better represent combined arms, and better control clutter on these relatively small maps. I guess someone is married to the idea that all ranged units really need to shoot over multiple tiles, and need to remain vulnerable. Most of us arguing for a real army model (multiple unit classes per tile) think that 2 tile range is silly for most units at this map scale, and doesn't reflect how armies actually operate at the tactical level (in any time period).

    You can have a multiple unit per tile arrangement such as this, while still providing tactical challenge... it all comes down to combat rules, order of attack, reactive fire, etc. See Gedemon's civ5 DLL mods that provide exactly this sort of tile occupancy and combat arrangement. It isn't perfect (largely due to the difficulty in hammering the UI into shape), but it's still a lot more interesting than the current 1upt rules, and it really cleans up the map.

    I don't think anyone is arguing for a return to unlimited stacks, or the rather bland way that civ4 treated ranged units... those weren't the best ideas either. They can do better than this.
     
  14. Arms Longfellow

    Arms Longfellow Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    There's a way to bring back the grand war feeling from Civilization 4 without necessarily bringing back unlimited stacks. They just need to stop putting military units on a pedestal. Units should be cheaper to build but crappier. The way that it is now in Civ 6, I'm mad every time I lose a unit, because I lost something expensive, and I made a mistake that could have been prevented. It should be impossible to conquer a decently defended city without losing some units. It should also be very expensive to upgrade units, which means it's only viable to upgrade your most highly promoted ones (this is how it was in Civ 4). This will give players more of a reason to develop a military industrial complex instead of just relying on the exact same units you've had since medieval times. There should be situations where you cranked out a ton of units during a war, but after the war ends you now have this huge army that you no longer need. This army is too expensive to maintain, so the best move is to disband them for a partial refund (all but the most highly promoted units).
     
  15. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    I fully agree with this. This is the core problem with the current military design, and it's not a difficult fix. The size of your potential military should be tied to your military infrastructure (Walls, Encampments, etc.) modified by Policy Cards. Building units up to that potential size should be cheap and relatively quick, so that losing an army in a war costs you, but doesn't cripple your empire for the rest of the game. This would help the AI and create more of a "rise & fall" feel as armies come and go.
     
  16. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,132
    One that just makes me cry is when I point my unit to a destination through some uncharted territory and it decides because its uncharted it will go another route 5 times as long also through uncharted territory. I guess its just a time out behind the scenes but the end result is facepalm even though it was me that did the silly move in the first place.
     
  17. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yep, I'd echo this as well. Basically, it should be cheap to maintain a small standing army stationed in your encampments and cities, but anything more should be very expensive. To me, it should be something like military costs are the same as they are now, except units in foreign or occupied territory cost 4X or 5X what they do now.

    I would also say that it's too easy to "heal" units. Like, it takes me 8 turns to build a unit from scratch in a city, but to heal a unit from 1 HP it just takes a couple turns sitting around without any cost to me other than a few gold in maintenance?

    I think if all units cost, say, 1/4 of what they did now, but they each only had basically 1/4 the strength/HP that they do now, that would make a lot of sense. You'd have to change the rules around Corps, whether you simply let units with less than 100HP join together up to 100HP, or only allow that in encampments, or whatever, but that would also let you quickly run up some raw recruits in an emergency situation.
     

Share This Page