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

The New Movement Rules Cripple 2-Move Melee Units

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by CaiusDrewart, Nov 3, 2016.

  1. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The new movement rules increase realism and make terrain more meaningful. But they also make a class of units that was already dramatically underpowered even more so. I'm talking about melee units.

    It is incredibly common that an archer will occupy a hex with rough terrain, and a melee unit will be 2 tiles away. In this scenario, the melee unit cannot attack the archer in a single turn!

    Let's say an archer is on a hill and a warrior enters a hill tile 2 hexes away. That ends the warrior's turn, and the archer gets one attack off. The warrior advances towards the archer but can't enter the archer's hill tile. The archer gets another attack off. The warrior attacks the archer, and both units take damage. Now the archer can either finish the warrior off (if it can kill it with another shot, which it probably can), or retreat, with the warrior guaranteed to be unable to catch up. How is this fair?

    Human players, moreover, can have archers venture forth onto rough hexes fearlessly, safe in the knowledge that melee units 2 tiles away will not be able to reach them.

    All this might be OK if melee units had dramatic advantages in strength compared to other units, but they don't. The 35-strength swordsman is equaled by the 35-strength horseman (which is also cheaper and better located on the tech tree), and isn't even capable of one-shotting a 15-strength archer.

    My suggestion? In addition to a raw strength increase for melee units, I would suggest raising the movement of all units by 1. This would allow melee units to threaten ranged units much more easily. A melee unit will still struggle to enter a forested hill, but an Archer on a bare hill or a flat forest will no longer be totally secure. That seems more reasonable to me.
     
  2. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,068
    I agree with this. In fact I wrote a mod that does exactly this, for the same reasons you posted.

    After thinking about it more though, I think I may need to change it so that Melee units get 3 moves, Scouts are bumped to 4, everyone else stays where they are. That way Archers can't try to run from Melee as easily.

    I do agree this change should be in the base game.

    Here's the mod:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/quos-rocketboots.25476/
     
  3. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I'm very glad to see this exists! Downloading right away. I hope this change eventually makes its way into the base game though.
     
  4. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Yes, extra movements for melee and recon units, please! Right now there is almost no reason to build scouts over slingers, and warriors are basically practice target for archers. I think that melee units like swordsmen need a certain amount of resistance against ranged attacks too, so as not to be outclassed by cavalry units.
     
  5. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,068
    What if we boosted everyone's movement and then increased the radius of zone of control for Melee units from 1 tile radius to 2? That would seem to give the best of both worlds. Far fewer annoyances moving through terrain, but local battles being meaningful.
     
  6. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    2-tile ZOC might be a bit much, though. You can scatter your melee-units sparsely and suddenly have the Great Wall of China effect from Civ 5, except that it will never be obsolete. It will also make cavalry units even more useful than they already are, since they ignore ZOC as far as I know.
     
  7. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,068

    Possibly right. I think the ZoC rules in general need a touch up.

    Basically I think it's currently taking way too much effort to move units through terrain when there is nothing remotely nearby. I'd personally be fine with ZoC applying only to Archery units. They are the ones who should be hiding in cities and encampments.
     
  8. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    I agree, bowmen aren't really the most mobile units in history, and that is also reflected in their more advanced counterpart: gatling guns. I think that giving them 2 movement points and buffing other units' movements should be enough as it is, although your approach might work as well. I think that giving the warrior-line stronger resilience to ranged attacks should more than even the game with the new movement rules.
     
  9. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    I appreciate the modding communities instant reply, but to be blunt: The changes in movement were terrible in general. I would much prefer if there was a mod or patch that would just allow me to go back to the way movement worked in Civ V. I didn't expect it to be a big deal but this has become one of my biggest issues with Civ VI. Also the fact that Scouts can no longer cross rough terrain or river without penalty makes them really, really weak. Still probably your best build option, but I don't see why Scouts should be this bad.
     
    Chinese American likes this.
  10. narmox

    narmox Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,345
    Location:
    Canada
    That's why there's cavalry units.

    The new movement rules change the game sure, cuz well this isn't civ5. I like the fact that now we gotta consider movement and position more than before.
     
    Ferocitus likes this.
  11. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    So in Civ V Cavalry units were pretty lackluster, especially horsemen, they were used mostly for city capture and melee units were used mostly as blockers, but actually had some kill potential.

    Now in Civ VI Cavalry units are really strong, especially horsemen, while melee units don't do anything at all aside from fortifying. Seems like a terrible idea to me.

    Great, Horses are viable now, but another class of units is not. It just doesn't make much sense.

    If anything I feel like now you have to consider positioning even less than before, because ranged units on a rough terrain tiles are almost always safe from melee units (by that I mean the melee class, not all melees like horses).
     
  12. notque

    notque Artificially Intelligent

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,654
    Horse can fortify too though, so there's no reason to use melee.
     
  13. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I guess I'm still in my Civ V mindset, so I haven't really used horsemen yet. Hence my question: Do cav-units actually get a fortification bonus now? If so.. that would be pretty lame...
     
  14. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,935
    Obviously, some tweaking is needed. I don't think boosting movement for melee units is necessary, though. If new movement rules makes cavalry more meaningful, that's good. Ranged units - particularly crosbowmen - do need a general nerf, not least against cities. The fact that a crosbowman can destroy ancient walls in something like three attacks is downright stupid. I also agree that Cavalry units should not get the fortification bonus for reasons stated above.

    I also don't like the fact that melee units get a native bonus against anti-cavalry units - anti-cavalry units are not too great in the first place, and should be your fallback in case you don't have iron, and hence it seems bad for balance to give iron units and additional bonus against them. Or perhaps the problem is just the alternating eras on how units appear: Anti-cavalry comes in ancient/medieval, whereas melee comes in classical/renaissance, which means that in classical/renaissance eras, the anti-cavalry units are distinctly underpowered compared to melee units (they are both weaker *and* suffer a combat penalty).
     
  15. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    To me, the new movement rules feel a bit like "change for change's sake".

    What was wrong with the rules as they were? Sure: People were complaining about 1UPT as a concept, but I haven't heard anyone complain about the old movement-/terrain-cost-system.

    S.
     
    Light_n_Fluffy, skyclad and idjit like this.
  16. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,320
    Well said. In fact as I see it they probably changed systems as they thought troops were taking advantage of moves they did not have while now a lot of the time we loose movement points each turn that are not regained due to game play reasons I imagine.

    Both systems cheat "realistic" movement but there seems to be a clear preference to the old style. Maybe the new movement rules help the AI by limiting the battle options but I suspect as the new AI is not battle clever yet this is not the case.
     
  17. mzprox

    mzprox Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Hungary
    The most balanced solution would be if units couldsave up movement points:
    up to one movement points could be saved for the next turn if not used up in the current turn. The maximum number of tiles a unit can make stays unchanged.
     
  18. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Madrid
    I don't like the movement changes. They make more sense in theory yes. But 1upt already makes moving lots of units quite annoying, we didnt need to make it even worse. So yeah, makes sense, but for gameplya sake, they shouldnt have changed it.
     
    idjit likes this.
  19. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    Like... giving your experienced melee units a +10 combat strength when defending against ranged attacks?
     
  20. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    The defensive bonus needs to be a default instead of a promotion, although +10 is probably too much. Right now I feel that city bombardment is a little too strong as well, so this bonus should return the melee units to the roles they had in Civ 5 - as meat walls who are capable of taking cities.

    And while we're at it, walls should greatly reduce the impact of ranged attacks on cities.
     

Share This Page