Terrain Effects for movement
-
@redrum Well, the 2 movement ship cannot go from X to X as it wanted, but it can go further as this screenshot shows, as the unit gets a discount on entering yet another windy zone.
My point is that if this system requires the players to do "0 point something" multiplication or division math to figure out how the territory effect affects the units, then I think it is too complicated for use. I mean, all other territory effects are pretty simple to understand and figure out, but this one is totally different.
I also don’t think any map has implemented this system. But I am actually curious if any one would perhaps make use of this feature as it is now …. Perhaps having some map setup where the current system would be really useful and make sense? @Hepps @alkexr @wc_sumpton @CrazyG @Schulz @Cernel ??? <-- Just the names I could come up with
-
@Frostion Yep that's what I expected. If you want it to be able to move X to X then just set this property:
<property name="Enter Territories With Higher Movement Costs Then Remaining Moves" value="true" editable="false"> <boolean/> </property>I generally think that property is probably more intuitive in most cases as true but there are arguments on both sides of it. This is essentially the difference between Civ 5 and Civ 6 movement. Civ 5 let's you use any remaining movement to move into any territory regardless of cost while Civ 6 doesn't allow that and requires enough remaining movement to cover the territory move cost.
In terms of decimals, this is really like roads in say Civilization or other games which are making the territories cost less than 1 movement per territory. I personally think that is fine though if you didn't want decimals you could make every normal water territory cost 2 moves and then the windy ones cost 1 move and double all ship movement.
-
@redrum In the @Frostion example, it would take 2.5 both if you charge upon entering or upon exiting.
If I have to think in terms of user friendliness, I would say charge the highest cost between the territories you are moving.
In the Frostion example, you would pay 0.5 if you move from barrel to barrel, but 1 in any other cases (no matter if moving between no barrels at all of with a barrell in only one of the territories you are navigating).
That way, you could just think in terms of saying "I move 2 per movement point as long as I'm moving in the territories with the barrels, or 1 space per movement point otherwise".
However, here I'm just thinking in terms of user friendlyness, so I would have to ponder the matter more whether or not, on general terms, I would think such a solution would be better than my preferred way of charging only upon exiting.
Clearly, a solution like this would make totally useless single or isolated movement bosting territories, as they would get always overridden by all the movement costlier territories they connect to.
On the other hand, that would increase the influence of single or isolated movement draining territories. In the @Frostion example, if the Maelstrom would give some movement malus, say charging 2 movement points instead of 1, then your movement 2 ships would be able to enter the Maelstrom only if bordering it before moving or moving of only 1, if starting inside the Maelstrom.
Anyways, I think I would still prefer charging upon exiting only. In the example, if the Maelstrom would suck my speed, I think I should not be penalized when I decide to get into it, but only when I want to get out of it (and it would also make sense I cannot get out of it if exiting the Maelstrom would require more movement than I have, thus getting stuck inside the Maelstrom forever (realistically, ships should be lost if they cannot reach a sea zone adjacent to a friendly territory with a port after a given number of turns, but this would be a feature request)).
So, I guess I'm still for charging upon exiting, but maybe taking the worst one of both territories might be at least more user friendly, if not better, than charging upon entering.
But, really, the best would be just leaving the mapmakers free to set, per each territory effect, a modifier for entering and for exiting. This can also have a use to represent things like "high ground", where the high ground would give a malus upon entering (as you are moving upwards), but giving a bonus upon exiting (as you are moving downwards), while such bonuses and maluses would cancel each other as long as you are moving between same altitude territories.
Anyways, I've personally no immediate plans to use this feature, so here I'm talking Platonically.
-
@Frostion said in Terrain Effects for movement:
@redrum Well, the 2 movement ship cannot go from X to X as it wanted, but it can go further as this screenshot shows, as the unit gets a discount on entering yet another windy zone.
My point is that if this system requires the players to do "0 point something" multiplication or division math to figure out how the territory effect affects the units, then I think it is too complicated for use. I mean, all other territory effects are pretty simple to understand and figure out, but this one is totally different.
In your example, if the movement would be charged upon exiting (instead of upon entering), both ways would require 2.5 movement points, thus both movements would be impossible, no matter any current properties, as you would have fully expended your movement 2 capabilities upon reaching the third barrel.
No idea if that would feel easier on you?
-
did this thread get derailed?
there's at least 3 or 4 posters who make like the exact same hilarious parent's basement troll posts :
This is classic Frostion:
"I was just asking about how fuel would work. I really didn’t have any intentions of proposing fuel charge/usage changes."
"As I see it ... yes a wormhole should also let the ship unit save some if not all fuel, but a territory with highways compared to a territory with small roads should not necessarily let the units save fuel buy racing across the territory in high speed. So in my mind movement cost should not always affect fuel cost."
"I mean, all other territory effects are pretty simple to understand and figure out, but this one is totally different.
I also don’t think any map has implemented this system. But I am actually curious if any one would perhaps make use of this feature as it is now"
This is Classic Cernel:
"Players are not really supposed to make multiple moves with the same unit, but rather use Ctrl to set the path, if needed (I know many casual players don't realize there is this possibility, but we can assume maps with non integer costs will be played by the fanatics). Unless in future there will be a way for non air units to move both in combat and non combat (which may be cool, especially for land raiding), the matter is current truly relevant only for air units, that would have their movement cost rounded up to integer at the end of their combat move, thus possibly moving less then what they could (for example, a fighter that moves through cost 2.5, would have only 1 movement left in non combat movement, instead of 1.5). So, how about being consistent between movement and fuel costs, and always rounding all up to integer at the end of the single (possibly multi territories) movement? It really impacts only on air units, currently, and only on any units able to move both in combat and non combat, in case this might be extended outside air units only, in the future."
EPIC FUNNY
I thought to make a thread called "New to forum - ignore the aliaser trolls" because it helps get more people to the forum and keep them if they know who the nitwit trolls are
It's like Shulz, Frostion, Lafayete, and Cernel are nerdling quadruplets separated at birth lol amiright
<insert scriptkiddie troll meme here>
.
(don't ban me
) -
@Captain-Crunch
Well, the whole issue discussed here was not original involving "fuel", but I think it was pretty clear to all that territory effect movement modification could/should/shouldn't affected fuel consumption somehow.So of course the discussion evolved to also include fuel. And after implementation of a new feature, the new feature should be tested and evaluated .... and the discussion, and maybe peoples stances, change. I think that is ok
I thought about making a new thread with my feedback, but then I decided to just post in this old one as it still had the old ideas and intentions. (as stated I can not remember the original discussion and didn't think it that important as we are now more like i an evaluating and testing phase) -
@Frostion Did setting the above property to true allow the movement you were looking for?
-
@redrum I wasn't really looking for any specific movement options for the ship unit moving from X to X. More like challenging people to figure out its movement options, like if they were playing the game and had to move the unit.
What I wanted to say with the challenge is, that I think that the multiplier effect that is affecting a unit every single time the unit moves from one territory to a neighbouring territory is a pretty complex (too complex) system to be user friendly. Nothing as simple as if the effect was just a +1 or -1 to Movement out of a territory.Yes, the Civ games use the same concept. But in that game most units just move 1 or 2, and the system just handles if it is possible for a unit use its 1 or 2 movement to enter a territory. That is pretty simple, unlike calculations we se in my example. Imagine if it was not a 0.5 multiplier but a 0.33. I would guess that it would challenge most players trying to figure out how this territory would affect a given 1, 2, 3 or even 4 move unit.
I really hope some mapmaker would give his input in regards on any thoughts about using the system as it is constructed now, or if it also to them seems to complex for fun.
-
@redrum But I personally can still live with and make use of the current system. I really want to make use of territory movement effects in my newest map. But I guess I would have to "camouflage" the more complex system to make it look like it is just giving +1 or -1 to movemt, as I would like the rules to be, when in reality it engine is multiplying the specific unit's original movement with a specific +/- multiplier number. But I would have to make different units have different movement multipliers depending on its original movement.
Edit: And it makes it hard, if not impossible to have other "give movement bonuses" work in conjunction adding "real" +1/-1 bonuses, as these bonuses would also be affected by the territory multipliers.
-
@Frostion Hmm. I'm honestly having a hard time following your thoughts
The system to me is pretty straightforward and really works almost just like fuel as each territory has some territory movement cost which is paid when you move into said territory (pretty much exactly like Civ and most other games I've played). So if I have a bunch of territories with a movement cost of 0.5 then its really just allowing a unit to move twice as far (like in your wind example).
I think you could pair this with structures like airbase or port that also give +1 (or whatever) movement at the start of turn and it would still feel pretty natural. Like in your example, if the ship started in a territory with a port and port gives +1 move then it would have 3 movement and be able to move potentially 6 moves across windy territories instead of 4.
I guess it would help if you had some examples where it feels overly complex or not intuitive as at least your example so far seemed straightforward to me but it would be good to see what others think.
-
it didn't take too long for me but unlike this too complicated terrain effects system that stumped Frostion, I easily figured out which posts and posters to skip over
I'll say again now a 2nd or 3rd time ... trolls with more than one account on the forum wasting our time SHOULD BE BANNED
-
I am a little bit confused. Can we use movementCostModifier right now? It defined as Territory Effect in Pact of Steel 2.
