Roads

[COOLguy]

It would be similar to bridges, costing two turns and built by workers, but it can be built on land and allow units to cross forests that normally can't.

[balint]

Sounds good!

It migjt be good too if units go faster on roads.

[COOLguy]

See, I was thinking that too. But how would that be possible, since the units move by numbers defined in their description. And also all our land tiles have the same definition (I think) as in: desert is no different than plain. But I might be wrong.

[balint]

Each tile has a property (I think ) the move cost. it is the property which define how many move points is consumed in going trough there. It might be good if roads decrase this with 0,5 move points

[COOLguy]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

That's a good idea (I think ). Have you seen the games '1941 Frozen Front' and 'Populus Romanus'? Maybe the move points could be restructured like that: ie unit can move half of its move points and then move again the rest of its points.

[balint]

Both is good game
Well, that would require quite coding. Now you lose the remaining move/attack points (except ranged, cause they shoot automatically then). Maybe we should add the different move point costs and later on the new move mechanic

[COOLguy]

I guess we can't do that then. I cannot code a bit.

I think the system we have now is just as good; its just different.

[balint]

I know nothing of coding too, It might be that Daniel wil easily do it, but it can be that not.

[Stratego (dev)]

here you talk about many things in one thread
1. road across woods
2. making differing move cost of terrains
3. multiple move action in one turn (a knight (on grass) can go 2 tiles, than 2 tiles, than the last tile.)

so:

1. road across woods: road across woods: it can be implemented, exactly like bridges, as i already thought of the "ropes" to mountains so foot units can climb over mountains.
2. making differing move cost of terrains: this also can be implemented and i had a few request for it already, i am considering it since it would change the a game a bit.
3. multiple move: this also can be implemented but i think it makes the game less interesting since
- you can explore step by step so you can reconsider movement direction.
- and hard to get a horse arccher if he advances 2 tiles, shoots, and then steps back 3 tiles.
so it is considerable also.

[COOLguy]

Sorry, it kind of got away and kept running. As far as I am concerned we only need 1. I am fine with our move system; it makes it different and is great as long as you're aware of it. (Though 2 is intriguing to me because it adds an extra function for the roads.)

[balint]

I think the 1. is the most important, but the 2. would make the game much more realistic.