Accounts e-mail HP

Movement and vision of the units

Movement and vision of the units

Poll ended at Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:17 pm

move x3 / sight x4 (LT31)
0
No votes
move x2 / sight x3
0
No votes
move x1 / sight x2
0
No votes
move x4 / sight x3
0
No votes
move x3 / sight x2
3
38%
move x2 / sight x1 (GT01)
4
50%
move x1 / sight x1 (default)
1
13%
 
Total votes : 8

Movement and vision of the units

Postby ifaesfu » Mon May 27, 2013 6:17 pm

Vote
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby monamipierrot » Thu May 30, 2013 2:26 pm

My personal tastes are 3x mp and low vision, thus 3x/2x, as I voted.
I like x3 because it DOES make difference between, say, a hill and a mountain (a horse, unlike a infantry, can pass a hill and still have some mps, while he can't with mountains)
On the other hand, I don't like supervision of LT games cause it spoils the game. I think a 2x vision is a good choice to match the huge 3x movement: infantry can still walk in the unknown.
GT01 settings (2x mps and 1x vision) is good cause it keeps vision low, but in those games it doesn't really make difference from hill to mountains to forest to swamp..., in any case, till automobile, you can't go there and still move, so all of those terrain mp points are quite useless and odd.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby Major Nimrod » Thu May 30, 2013 9:13 pm

I wouldn't mind trying x3 / x2 for a change.. so I've voted accordingly.
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby XYZ » Fri May 31, 2013 2:18 pm

Problematic about 3x moves is that you have to increase defense spending. A territory is more or less like a circle. So increasing your territory lowers defense cost in relation to the territory's border. 3 movements compared to 2x destroy that calculus leading to higher defense cost due to a thicker "defense circle" and cripples an offensive game play. Example: A horsemen can penetrate your territory by six tiles, forcing you defend every city in that range, roads not included! Two movements is from my point of view the best solution, because it gives you enough movements on a slow game (23 h) without making the "penetration/defense ratio" to high.
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby monamipierrot » Fri May 31, 2013 2:34 pm

I don't know if I caught all of it, but I think I agree with you.
My defense of x3 movements is due to 2 principles:
1- it allows bigger and more detailed maps to be played (or it allows to play faster in average maps)
2- it improves the importance of terrain.

Given that (1) could be quite a subjective advantage, when I played in x3movements matches, I found out that is much more funny and trickier to move units during exploration or recognition or warfare. You have to carefully plan your movements, and manage carefully different kind of units when moving big armies. In LT29 I fought a big battle in a hilly landscape against OleTraveler, and won it with a bit of luck and lot of careful chess-like tactical moves.
It has been a great pleasuer (wonder if I didn't win it...).
To achieve the same thrill in x2 movements I think one could try to lower terrain mp cost, e.g. 3 for hills/swamp etc., and 4 or 5 for mountains, and maybe adopt some 2 mp terrains.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby XYZ » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:46 pm

You got me wrong. 3x movements force you to defend even cities that are far away from your border, hampering your production that would otherwise go into offensive units.
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby Davide » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:09 am

XYZ wrote:You got me wrong. 3x movements force you to defend even cities that are far away from your border, hampering your production that would otherwise go into offensive units.

Considering both 1) monamipierrot's preference to have wider battlefields richer of terrain features where to squeeze meninges moving units thru the ground, and 2) XYZ's worry about the excessive ability of units to penetrate into national borders, what about increasing citymindist and using an accordingly-scaled Earth map to nicely fit 10 or 20 cities per player?
User avatar
Davide
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:34 am

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby Major Nimrod » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:00 pm

The ruleset we use will *greatly* affect the determination of which movement / sight allocation we use... even more so than the size of the map.

I've been practicing with the Civ2Civ3 ruleset (locally) for a few days now, and have a good understanding of how it works. One of the biggest challenges is the fact that roads/railroads CANNOT be used by your own units in ENEMY territory. Movement then crawls to a halt whenever attempting to penetrate enemy territory in any quick manner. Even Diplomats are not immune to this restriction, therefore they cannot easily move around behind enemy lines. Consequently, they aren't able to easily establish embassies, much less steal techs or bribe cities/units.

Therefore, if we end up using the Civ2Civ3 ruleset, we'll want to give as much movement points as possible: otherwise the game will crawl once we end up in any kind of conflict resolution phase. Fast moving mounted units become nearly useless in an offensive capacity, since they cannot move very quickly at all in enemy territory. Therefore you're stuck with moving pairs of siege weapon units with defensive units along defensible territory on your way to an enemy city.

Of course, if we don't use Civ2Civ3 ruleset, then it's no big deal we can go with a more conservative (similar to GT01) movement bonus.
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby ifaesfu » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:00 pm

The setting to allow/disallow the use of the road/rail in the territory of the enemy can be used in every ruleset. It's "restrictinfra". I don't know if civ2-3 ruleset has this one enabled by default, but it can be changed anyway.
The poll to play that way was passed in Gt03, but it was useless because we didn't change the national borders, which are disabled by default in the multiplayer ruleset
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Movement and vision of the units

Postby XYZ » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:07 pm

It would be nice to allow the use of enemy infrastructure. It slows the game down and it is completely unrealistic! An enemy player who retreats can still pillage the infrastructure to slow down the enemy if he wants.
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron