Roads, Roads, and more Roads

[suvorov]

Currently there are three different types of road graphics, but not one of them actually has any effect. Would it be possible to gran a movement bonus for the roads, either 1.5, or 1.2, or some small bonus that would provide an incentive to utilizing the roads we find on the maps.

This might make big maps more playable, as right now they take forever to play.

[scott]

This idea, in its current form, has been previously discussed and rejected.

Indeed...this is the KISS principle at work. While we could say that no-one would ever be as fast in forest as they would in grassland, and so Elves should have 1.25 or 1.5 in forest, rather than 1, and Dwarves should have 1.5 in mountains, etc etc, we just simplify things by giving Dwarves 1 in mountains and Elves 1 in forest.

It's perhaps not quite as realistic, but it's simple, stupid, and easy to understand.

This isn't saying that fractional movements would be totally useless though, they're still on the list of possible additions.

David

Edit: Here's some support. The reception was lukewarm.
Edit 2: I think I was actually thinking about this thread, which isn't quite the same.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Using roads? On my maps, I usually build roads through rough terrain, making them actually kind of useful. Who would build a road where it's already easy to move?

[toms]

Using roads? On my maps, I usually build roads through rough terrain, making them actually kind of useful. Who would build a road where it's already easy to move?

me, when I think the plain grassland is too boring.

[Kel]

I know! You could make traintracks, with a Move cost of 0, like in the Civ series!

[turin]

Has anyone ever checked what happens when you make a terrain with a move-cost of 0? Does it work, or does the game crash, or does the hex act like cave wall?

[JW]

Has anyone ever checked what happens when you make a terrain with a move-cost of 0? Does it work, or does the game crash, or does the hex act like cave wall?

I believe someone did this with the effect of not being ale to move on the terrain, though you could see over it. I think. Test it yourself and report back if you like.

[Dragon Master]

for the record I did it, but I made it so a unit's movement cost is 0 on certain terrain, which results in seeing the whole map with an unmovable unit.

[scott]

for the record I did it, but I made it so a unit's movement cost is 0 on certain terrain, which results in seeing the whole map with an unmovable unit.

You should start a wiki page with weird unit configurations. Two other no-nos are a unit with no attacks and a unit with 0 moves. They [used to] cause strange behavior. I also vaguely recall using 0-0, 0-1, or 1-0 may have also caused strange results, but I forget which (if any). It would be good to have it written down.

Anyone going to actually discuss the topic? I remember Dave saying the granularity that exists in 5 moves vs 6 moves over 2 and 3 MP terrain is intentional, and that would seem to deny the desirability of fractional moves. On the other hand, fractional move support was once considered something that could possibly be useful. For what purpose? Does losing the simplicity of integer moves make it not worth it?

[Dave]

I know! You could make traintracks, with a Move cost of 0, like in the Civ series!

It's no longer like this in Civilization 4. Units can move up to 10 spaces along railroad in one turn, regardless of their movement ability.


...

To be convincing that roads being faster to move on than grassland, I think that one would have to come up with a convincing reason why this benefits gameplay. Currently the proposal sounds far too much like "well we have these nice looking roads, now let's make them do something!" rather than being gameplay-driven.

David

[zol]

I'm all for increased granularity and integer values; the more one can recall and manipulate rule data mentally, without recourse to the manual or a calculator or prepared tables, the better.

Keeping move points within the single digit range is nice, and sets the minimum relative coarseness of integer steps.
A movement cost range of 1 to 4 seems plenty for accessible terrain.

It also beefs up the consequences as in the 5/6 example above, rather than smoothing them into uninteresting trivia.

Aside/related: There are already quite a few terrain types, though.
If there were only a few movetypes this wouldn't be an issue, but I haven't found a convenient reference for them so I don't know.

edit: While playing just now I was reminded of another point.
Restricting movement costs (and, incidentally, defense) to few values allows them to be represented by clearly distinguishable graphics (in future, or by anyone who draws up their own charts). E.g. bars of varying length and colour.

The present column of digits doesn't tell me anything at a glance and getting a general idea from finer distinctions would be even more difficult.

[Oreb]

When using roads on the maps I make, they are mainly used in cases where there would be roads... not just some random road.

For roads can be very useful compared to campaign.

And instead of giving road movement advantage, give grass less movement ability.

*IDEA*
In life there are different types of grassland everything isn't just a happy meadow to skip through. There are sometimes high grasslands with things hidden in the grass. So 3 different grass tiles could be made with diferent por's and con's.

[Steelclad Brian]

In life there are different types of grassland everything isn't just a happy meadow to skip through. There are sometimes high grasslands with things hidden in the grass. So 3 different grass tiles could be made with diferent por's and con's.

I don't think the solution to making road implementation more straight-forward is to make grass implementation more complex. What would they even be? Dry grass that increases fire damage by +10%? Rocky terrain that forces mounted units to take 2 points to move over instead of 1?

Actually, I like the idea of rocky terrain... and there really isn't a form of "Difficult Terrain" that isn't a major change in geography, like forests or hills. You could implement mud and rocky terrain as the same type, costing 2 movement from units big units like Horses and giving 10% less cover. You could then use it to break up plains without having to stick in terrain that grants extra cover. It would go well with the Test of the Clan Lords map, for example.

edit: You could also use it to create sections of the map that are just slaughter-zones, with low defense values even though infantry can move through it fairly easily.

[Dragon Master]

isn't that what snow and ice is for? I know you want variety, but those terrain are death traps for units

[Rhuvaen]

isn't that what snow and ice is for?

No, he means move 1 terrains that aren't an obstacle to movement (except for riders), and also don't break map realism (patches of snow and ice everywhere is just not thematic for all sorts of situations).

Generally I find it an interesting idea, because for some of the factions at least the low defense terrains are often avoided because they are so hard to move through. For those reasons, they also have to be used with care by map designers.

However I just don't agree with the premise that rocky terrain would give less cover (and thus less defense) rather than more (except for mounted units).

EDIT: so what terrain "variations" could be used for such an idea? Blighted or cursed terrain would come to mind ("blighted forest")... hm. Ideas