The New Movement Rules Cripple 2-Move Melee Units

[GhostSalsa]

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.

Or just allow units to enter two-MP tiles this turn and start the next turn with one MP already used

That let's every unit keep moving in the direction it wants to go and should be way easier for the AI too

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Realism can be a good argument, if the game is so far from realism that it breaks immersion for the player. To me, a slow melee unit approaching across flat land and successfully assaulting a ranged unit fortified in rough terrain would do exactly that, because it's the complete opposite of what should happen. That's just awful tactics and should not be rewarded.

I would certainly admit there are issues with the AI, but blaming them all on the movement changes seems like a stretch. Just giving the AI the ability to move & fire ranged units in the same turn should theoretically be a massive boost to the AI in this regard. Ranged can be a much better counter for them than it used to be. Maybe they just need to build more ranged units.

There is a triangle of balance where ranged is good against melee, melee is good against horse, and horse is good against ranged. This makes a ton of sense both gameplay-wise AND is historically accurate. I'd much prefer to see the AI learn to use ranged better for their own defense, rather than throw the entire system (which is good) out the window.

1) The case that the current state of melee...the most common units used in history...is "realistic" is absurd. Melee should have no trouble whatsoever pressing archers on flats and should trivially win 1v1 consistently.
2) Right now, melee is in such a bad spot that unless you have a UU it is more optimal to skip it entirely and run horse + ranged combination.
3) Melee is not good against horse in civ 6. That notion is the fantasy, not melee being the backbone of most historical armies for millennia until guns started punching through armor.

If it wasn't melee, it was cavalry. I would definitely advocate a base movement speed of 3 for melee if you don't change the rough terrain rules in civ 6.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Tangentially, I'm also very tired of scouts, and any other three-movement units, "get themselves" stuck next to revealed enemies.

Rare as it is to actually be able to move my scouts three hexes, I'm repeatedly in the position where when I can, I move forward the first two in one click and am stuck next to a unit. Good bye scout.

I could just move one hex at a time, but the game should stop on the first hex when an enemy is revealed. It's not "strategy" to choose between coping with the slow movement by saving a click, and losing my units.
Sorry if that was already brought up in this thread ..

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The game just plays so much better if you add +1 movement to all units. Units are better balanced--cavalry are still noticeably faster but infantry are no longer so slow as to be useless. With 4 movement Scouts can now move across rough terrain decently well and are much more worthwhile. Terrain still matters, and in fact terrain is more distinctive than it was before. Previously, a swordsman wouldn't care about the distinction between a flat forest and a forested hill--all rough terrain was the same to him. With 3 move, he can now move through one hex of open terrain and one hex of flat forest (or unforested hill), but forested hills are still a major obstacle. Finally, traffic jams are less common and relocating an army is way less of an annoyance. Units get where they're needed faster and a good chunk of the pointless clicking of 1UPT is gone.

I heartily encourage everyone to download the Quo's Rocketboots mod and try it out.

 

[TomKQT]

I first thought that the new movement system is more realistic. But it's not.
Sure, in CivV it was quite weird that a unit with just 1 movement point left could with no problems climb a hill requiring 2 movement points. While some other unit with 2 movement points left would be able to do exactly the same thing and nothing more.
But in CivVI there are other problems. A unit with 2 movement points moves towards a hill and has 1 point left ... and cannot do anything at all. He still has movement points, but cannot move at all, not even half the hill.

How to implement it the most realistic way? This question is very stupid in fact, because Civ is a turn-based game with discrete movement distances (tiles), so nothing will be realistic. But it would be more logical if for example the game remembered remaining movement points and transfered them to the next turn.
So - you approach a hill with only 1 MP left and you give order to enter the hill. The unit will stay where it was (cos it doesn't have enought points to climb the hill), but the game remembers that it has one point left. Next turn it will finish the climb, the unit will appear on the hill tile, but will still have 1 MP remaining, because it used 2 out of 3.
But I wouldn't allow to reserve points by intentionally skipping the turn, you would have to finish the move. Not something like moving 1 tile on a flat land, hitting skip turn and the next turn being able to move 3 flat tiles.
In other words - the game would internally allow the unit to end "in the middle of a move" - for example in the "middle of the hill slope, half the way up".

 

[GhostSalsa]

I first thought that the new movement system is more realistic. But it's not.
Sure, in CivV it was quite weird that a unit with just 1 movement point left could with no problems climb a hill requiring 2 movement points. While some other unit with 2 movement points left would be able to do exactly the same thing and nothing more.
But in CivVI there are other problems. A unit with 2 movement points moves towards a hill and has 1 point left ... and cannot do anything at all. He still has movement points, but cannot move at all, not even half the hill.

How to implement it the most realistic way? This question is very stupid in fact, because Civ is a turn-based game with discrete movement distances (tiles), so nothing will be realistic. But it would be more logical if for example the game remembered remaining movement points and transfered them to the next turn.
So - you approach a hill with only 1 MP left and you give order to enter the hill. The unit will stay where it was (cos it doesn't have enought points to climb the hill), but the game remembers that it has one point left. Next turn it will finish the climb, the unit will appear on the hill tile, but will still have 1 MP remaining, because it used 2 out of 3.
But I wouldn't allow to reserve points by intentionally skipping the turn, you would have to finish the move. Not something like moving 1 tile on a flat land, hitting skip turn and the next turn being able to move 3 flat tiles.
In other words - the game would internally allow the unit to end "in the middle of a move" - for example in the "middle of the hill slope, half the way up".

Just move the unit on the tile this turn and -1 next turn. No -2s (move to a 3 with 1 is still -1). That way attaching hills with only 1mp works again, thank god


I can't believe the devs played more than one test game with these terrible rules and didnt immediately put that in. Seeing as:

The current rules are that hills often not only cost a unit 2mps but 1mp from the previous turn of getting to the hill

What were they on when they designed VI I mean WHO hurt you, Ed was it a really fast man who loved hills

 

[Dicemechanic]

Yeah, cavalry units are so much better than swordsman in any scenario except versus spearman(which isn't enough to counter cavalry).

Historically speaking, when conditions suit, Cavalry is devastating. But it's easy for cavalry to advance too far and get isolated. Contrast Caesar, who used cavalry as a mobile force to protect the vulnerable flanks of his devastating legions, with the traditional knightly charge, which puts heavy cavalry in the centre and is devastating against a combat enemy. A Great General should really help here, as they're the ones who call the cavalry back from their hot-headed charge or even get them to dismount and deploy as an infantry when confronted by horse archers.

This is where historical realism is tricky, but you could certainly argue that Spearmen should get no bonus against Knights. I'd also argue that Spear/Pike bonuses should only apply vs the first cavalry attack of a turn (or even that a subsequent, flanking cavalry attack actually gets a bonus against an already deployed unit)

And as for archers, they should be strong when defending vs Melee (especially if in rough terrain), but weak if attacking vs Melee. Which ironically could be reflected in the old Civ model of getting a free strike vs. an attacker.

Here I am, trying to over-complicate things with bloody history again