DESIGN: Possible alterations to movement

[Maquiladora]

Historical arguements

As for logistics, i wouldnt mind it as long as the AI could use it right and there was more thinking involved than clicking.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by E


Logistics IS A BIG HEADACHE. I know from experience. But the reason I asked it be modelled better as a balance to the bigger is better and militaristic nations as the only way to win the game. Have logistics as a restraint on always conquering always expanding will allow other options like a trade empire etc.

I proposed the RANGE concept because it will be similar to the use of aircraft and the carriers that I believe is going to be worked on for the AI.

But I do favor the abstracting by adding unit cost (food, gold, PW) but have it increase depending on range. So if a legion has a range of five, then when you are 15 spaces away (thats very far in ctp2 terms) its cost is 4 times the normal logistic food/Gold/PW cost (increase exponentially 1,2,4,8,...). It keeps increasing the farther you are away so its very expensive to travel so far. This will also increase the use of colonies. (Of course the AI will have to calculate the costs of movement etc)

If we do have a logistic system it would be nice to have certain advances allievate some of the burden too.

Probably the best way would be the cost system.

this sounds better First yours was sounding to 'restrictive', at least for me. The scale I think we just have to playtest.

But what about possible exploit like, conquere a small city to downsize the effect? (typical human exploit)

[Flinx]

Re: DESIGN: Possible alterations to movement

Originally posted by J Bytheway
There are a couple of things that always bugged me about movement in most TBS games based on a square grid.

Firstly, that it takes as few movement points to move "the long way" diagonally across the corner as it does to move across an edge. It should take about 1.4 times as many. MoM implemented this (with a cost of 1.5) and I liked it there. It means that there is more likely to be a single optimal path to any objective, rather than several different ones, which always struck me as silly. When there are several options it is often optimal to take a path different from that which the game suggests, which is a nuisance. I noticed this during the democracy game - it made it more difficult to decide where we should send our units.

Not a priority for me, but if this is implemented just make sure it is 1.41 and not 1.50

Secondly, It's annoying that movement costs are based soley on the properties of the square being moved into - which means that moving in one direction can be much more expensive than moving along the same path in reverse. It seems to me that it would be better to average the costs of the squares on which th move begins and ends, so for example moving from grassland to mountains or mountains to grassland would cost 2, rather than 3 and 1 respectively (IIRC). I'm not sure what gameplay impact this would have - the only thing that springs to mind is that it becomes less beneficial to sit fortified on a mountain.

Since CTP2 stores movement in hundredths of movment points, there should be no trouble with rounding, etc., with implementing these things.

Thoughts?

Now this one I disagree with. Over the length of a journey, there is no difference in total movement costs so what is the benefit of increasing the complexity of the implementation? It seems logical to me that you can charge down out of the mountains onto plains faster than you can climb up into the mountain from the plains. Instead of thinking of movement as moving from the centre of one tile to the centre of the next, think of it as leaving the very edge of the tile you are on, and traveling across the entire tile you enter.

Now the issue I have with movement is that unused movement points are lost between turns and that a unit can always move at least one square per turn (given no ZOC restrictions). Example: a unit with three movement points takes 3 turns to cross three tiles with a two movement point penalty each, so does a unit with two movement points and so does a movement with one movement point. I suggest that the unit with three movement points should take only 2 turns, the unit with two movement points 3 turns, and the unit with one movement point 6 turns.

[Maquiladora]

Now the issue I have with movement is that unused movement points are lost between turns and that a unit can always move at least one square per turn (given no ZOC restrictions). Example: a unit with three movement points takes 3 turns to cross three tiles with a two movement point penalty each, so does a unit with two movement points and so does a movement with one movement point.

How would that work with the 3 movement unit skipped a turn on the 2 movement land, would it keep those points forever until it moved? or lose them if it didnt use them in consecutive turns?

I suggest that the unit with three movement points should take only 2 turns, the unit with two movement points 3 turns, and the unit with one movement point 6 turns.

I really dont like the idea of any unit taking more than one turn to move one square.

[SMIFFGIG]

but morale and supply lines are not addressed at all the civ games,

Well as ive said i certainly want Logistics to be implemented without a doubt (obviously needs alot of discussion on how to balance it and make it fun etc)
But Morale! surely EVERYONE agrees that this should be implemented (it could be done MUCH easier than implementing logistics too)

This has also reminded me of another feature that needs to be addressed "Propaganda" From religious and military propaganda to more subtle money making propaganda

[Fromafar]

Originally posted by child of Thor
the diagonal movement thing - it will be interesting to see how it works, i'm wondering how it will impact on the Ai path finding alogarithm that St.Swithin likes so much

Not very much. Actually, it already has a provision to favour diagonal paths. The cost of diagonal movement is set to 95% of the actual cost, so you will get better looking - straight - paths when all values are equal.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Flinx
Now the issue I have with movement is that unused movement points are lost between turns and that a unit can always move at least one square per turn (given no ZOC restrictions). Example: a unit with three movement points takes 3 turns to cross three tiles with a two movement point penalty each, so does a unit with two movement points and so does a movement with one movement point. I suggest that the unit with three movement points should take only 2 turns, the unit with two movement points 3 turns, and the unit with one movement point 6 turns.

That frustrates me sometimes too, but I can never decide how the problems Maq mentions should be solved. I think it really would be too frustrating if you couldn't move every unit every turn at least one square.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
How would that work with the 3 movement unit skipped a turn on the 2 movement land, would it keep those points forever until it moved? or lose them if it didnt use them in consecutive turns?

If a unit is under a 'go to' command it gets to keep all of its unused movement points, if it is just idling, sleeping/sentry, or fortified it looses the movement points when the turn ends.

I really dont like the idea of any unit taking more than one turn to move one square.

I suspected this would be controversial. Keeping unused movement points is the more important half of this suggestion to me as I find it ridiculous that my calvary can gallop across hills just as fast as my warrior can walk across them. I also think taking more than one turn to cross tiles is a logical extension of this idea and also the idea to have ‘x’ movement be 1.00 movement point and ‘+’ movement be 1.41 movement points.

[SMIFFGIG]

I find it ridiculous that my calvary can gallop across hills just as fast as my warrior can walk across them. I also think taking more than one turn to cross tiles is a logical extension of this idea and also the idea to have ‘x’ movement be 1.00 movement point and ‘+’ movement be 1.41 movement points.

I must say im with Flinx on this one

I think this will also add more strategy to attacking and defending and make you think harder when mobilizing your troops and planning your routes.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by child of Thor
@ the thought of the diferent results for 'keeping' back unused movement points, i rarely use the go-to command, but both ways should work out the same - not using the go-to command seems more tactical(in that you can respond each turn to events), so is it fair to penalise the player for this method?

And i think in some(all?) of the Mods the ability of Mounted units to enter mountains was blocked unless a road had been built, which seems a decent resolution.

I was thinking of any movement command either by keyboard or mouse.

Give a unit with a positive movement score a movement command; It moves one tile and the movement penalty of that tile is subtracted from the unit's movement score; If the unit still has a >0 movement score, it is available to move again that turn; If the unit has a 0 or negative movement score it cannot be moved that turn; each unit 'remembers' it's movement score and at the beginning of the next turn the movement points of the unit are added to that score up to a maximum positive score equal to the movement points of that unit; if the unit has a positive movement score, it can move that turn, if the movement score is still negative, it cannot move.

Examples:

-A warrior has 1 movement point.
-The warrior ends a turn with a movement score of 1 i.e. it did not move that turn.
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it again has a movement score of 1 {min(1+1,1)=1}
-You select the warrior and press 9 and the warrior moves diagonally up and to the right onto a mountain tile which has a movement penalty of 3 which is subtracted from its movement score making it -2 (=1-3)
-The warrior has a negative movement score and can move no further this turn; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of -1 {min(-2+1,1)=-1}
-The warrior has a negative movement score and can move no further this turn; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 0 {min(-1+1,1)=0}
-The warrior has a zero movement score and can move no further this turn; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 1 {min(0+1,1)=1}
-The warrior has a positive movement score and you press 6 to move the warrior to the right onto a grassland tile which has a movement penalty of 1 which is subtracted from its movement score making it 0 (=1-1)

-A knight has 4 movement points (iirc); let us also assume that movement in ‘+’ directions costs 1.41 times movement in ‘x’ directions
-The knight ends a turn with a movement score of 0
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 4 {min(0+4,4)=4}
-You select the knight and send it on a multi-turn journey to a goody hut revealed by a map trade with the neighbouring Canadians
-The route is left over four grassland tiles, diagonally down and to the left over three hill tiles and finally down over two plains tiles
-The knight moves left (4-1.41=2.59-1.41=1.18-1.41=-0.23) over three grassland tiles and can move no further this turn; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 3.77 {min(-0.23+4,4)=3.77}
-The knight moves left (3.77-1.41=2.36) over a grassland tile and then diagonally down and to the left (2.36-2=0.36-2=-1.64) over two hill tiles and can move no further this turn; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 2.36 {min(-1.64+4,4)=2.36}
-Several Canadian units have shown up, and their ZOC prevent the knight from moving; you move other units etc. and then press the turn button (or enter)
-At the beginning of the new turn its movement points are added to its movement score up to a maximum score equal to its points i.e. it now has a movement score of 4 {min(2.36+4,4)=4}
-You again send the knight to the goody hut and it moves diagonally down and to the left (4-2=2) over a hill tile and then down (2-1.41=.95-1.41=-.82) over two plains tiles to the goody hut only to find that you are beset by barbarians

[Ekmek]

perhaps left over movement points can be:
added to the strength bar (healing)
OR a slight reduction in logistic (food/gold/PW) cost for that turn
OR add to morale (if implemented) if attacked on the next turn....

I prefer the logistic impact in relation to movement points because it goes the "Empire" view. That way your treasury can calculate how much military you can move a turn as opposed to uits being able to move all the time.
This would mean logistics would be abstracted in two ways:
1) basic upkeep maintenance (food/gold/PW)
2) movement cost (not just move points but possibly PW/food/Gold as well to abstractly represent the supply wagons that are supporting the movement)

So as an example if you try to move a cav unit over a hill with a 1.4 movement cost, that factor is mltiplied to the maintenance cost (or a present unit move cost) that subtracts fod/gold/pw for the movement. Since the Cav can only move two spaces per turn that represents my range concept. On top of that the farther you move on exterior lines of communication the greater the cost of NOT maintenance (like I previously recommended) but of movement so it would a multiplication of:

terrain move cost * tile distance * unit move points * PW/GOld/food cost for movement (or maintenance if people want to make that the standard since supply varies with unit)

My math may be off, but I think the concept can be handled fairly well by the AI since its basically movement. But it make require the "AI" to plan a stack of death attack or prioritize if its resources go to War or Peace. That may have to go into Goals text.

Overall I think it could be a positive implementation to represent logistics abstractly and curtail "excessive" militaristic growth.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
for city sizes: IIRC in CTP they were 'exponential', or? Which would make far more sense, as you kind of described with a 210-size city.

In CTP they were linear, a fixed multiple of the number of population point, but the factor varies with age, which meant that every time you advanced an age your population increased dramatically, which was slightly bizarre.

[J Bytheway]

Flinx: I think your method could work, and I would certainly appreciate the additional realism. It also essentially takes care of my second objection in a roundabout fashion, since it matches well with your conception of movement as being from "edge to edge" rather than "middle to middle". I think we'd have to tweak the movement values to make it work properly though - for example, I think units who currently get 1 movement point should get about 1.2, or maybe 1.4 so they can still maintain a decent speed. It would certainly be interesting to try it out...

I guess It should also make calculation of movement for the pathfinding simpler since it needn't worry about points lost at the end of the turn.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by E
perhaps left over movement points can be:
1. added to the strength bar (healing)
2.OR a slight reduction in logistic (food/gold/PW) cost for that turn
3.OR add to morale (if implemented) if attacked on the next turn....

Actually why not all?

If 1 is full, add to 3 and then decrease 2. Which would be 'logical'.

Adding strength, would just mean getting support and re-inforcement. Due to this the overall moral would increase as well, as the troop can recover. And when those 'tasks' are finished, the logistics can decrease as they don't need the full support anymore.

BUT:
It would be needed to be limited to a certain extend, if outside of a town/fort or similar. My suggestion would be a max. of 30% of the current value, which would mean that a fortified can only recover 30% of it's current health (same for moral and support).

This would mean logistics would be abstracted in two ways:
1) basic upkeep maintenance (food/gold/PW)
2) movement cost (not just move points but possibly PW/food/Gold as well to abstractly represent the supply wagons that are supporting the movement)

Me thinks sounds good

[/quote]
So as an example if you try to move a cav unit over a hill with a 1.4 movement cost, that factor is mltiplied to the maintenance cost (or a present unit move cost) that subtracts fod/gold/pw for the movement. Since the Cav can only move two spaces per turn that represents my range concept. On top of that the farther you move on exterior lines of communication the greater the cost of NOT maintenance (like I previously recommended) but of movement so it would a multiplication of:

terrain move cost * tile distance * unit move points * PW/GOld/food cost for movement (or maintenance if people want to make that the standard since supply varies with unit)
[/quote]

Actually for the maintance cost, me thinks, the calculation shall be as of there was road (normal), but with a slower movement-rate, like 2.5 instead of 3.
BUT: It shall be calculated from the closest existing normal 'road'-system including RR and mag-tube. The only problem I see for this would be the AI implementing it on long distance.

BUT: What about cross-water invasions? As you can't build till REALLY late anything across water

EDIT:
Maybe we shall create for this a new TI? Like support harbour? You would have to build one on your home-place and one across. You could even build it on the same continent. If for example a huge mountain range would be between you and the AI (or visa versa), you could assume that supply would go rather by ship.

Cost for the TI, shall include PW/gold/food. Not sure, if we could program, that this would expire (meaning to calculate every turn how much would be left). Like 1000PW/500gold/1000food: The army would be using 200/100/200 every turn, so after 5 turns you would have to build a new one. (or rather just subtract it directly [again] from the empire)

/EDIT

Reason why I am suggesting like this: If you have build forts/road-system (including RR and MT), you shall have to pay less for the support, which would be logical, as the support could travel quicker as on 'dust'-roads. But anything beyond this point shall be treated as normal road (invisible).

Overall I think it could be a positive implementation to represent logistics abstractly and curtail "excessive" militaristic growth.

Yep, let's hit those warmongers

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by J Bytheway
In CTP they were linear, a fixed multiple of the number of population point, but the factor varies with age, which meant that every time you advanced an age your population increased dramatically, which was slightly bizarre.

Thanks, to long ago I played it