[BUG?][.912]Roadblocks

Kantok

Join Date 10/2007

+67

[BUG?][.912]Roadblocks

Is it in the cards that we'll eventually be able to move through areas occupied by other units/outposts/resources of those we're at peace with? To examples below. The first one went on for roughly 25 turns. The pioneers in the picture never moved, preventing my heroes from exploring further.

The other is worse. The only link between the eastern and western halves of this randomly generated large map is across this one-tile wide land bridge. So of course Tarth built an outpost in the middle of it. I'm at peace with Tarth and have a non-aggression pact with them. I can't walk through though. My only choice is to eventually go to war with them once I finish conquering everything on this side of bridge.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Kantok,

reply 10

Quoting Kalin,
reply 8
Well that might just be the point, everyone tend to neglect terraforming spells, and here's finally one occasion when they are actually useful for something. Perhaps it's made that way so you might pick them up? I mean, if this is the obvious, and easy solution, then what's the problem?

As for the movement through peaceful nations. I might not want someone peaceful to go through my territory, but don't want to threaten them to leave every time they do, so I post some guards. That seems fine in my book... so I don't have a problem with them doing the same. Maybe we just differ in opinion on this.

I can't believe that the reasoning for this crappy mechanic is that it justifies the existence of terraforming spells. Besides, those spells have other uses, such as building natural barriers around your territory or finding new ways into territory for enemies you otherwise can't reach.

I have no problem with the game containing mechanics for fortifying your territory. Indeed, I hope it does. You should be able to force the enemy into choke points (or force them to use magic to go around). But the mechanics as is are half-assed. I can stick a pioneer in any spot that is only 1 passable tile wide and, short of war, can prevent anyone in the world from going through that spot regardless of the circumstances. Maybe we do just disagree, but I'm not sure how this can be justified as a good mechanic.

It's like killing a spider with a shotgun. Sure, it works. But something a little more subtle would have worked much, much better.

Ok I was miss understaning your point, My apologies. Yes if there is an Allance or Non-agression pact with the owner of the unit in question then you should be able to pass through the unit squre but not land on occupied square. If there is no Allance or Non-agression then you should not be able to move through the occupied square.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Kantok

Join Date 10/2007

+67

The analogy makes perfect sense, although I guess if I have to explain it's not a very good analogy.

If killing a spider is your goal, there are many ways you can go about it including using your handy shotgun. However the shotgun will have all sorts of unitended consequences, like destroying the surface the spider was on, leaving a bad smell in your room, disturbing the neighbors, etc.

The current system we're talking about is the same thing. Sure, it accomplishes the goal. But it has a ton of terrible consequences as a result. Caravans can't complete their routes. Caravans have the ability to block their own units. Pioneers, 3 dudes with a pick axes, can block opposing Sovereigns, essentially magical gods, from exploring simply by parking their fat ass in any one square wide area of passable terrain (including terrain they don't own).

The system as is definitely lets you have a walled kingdom and block your territory, but it is a shitty solution (if it is intended as the solution, which I don't think it is hence the [BUG] listing) and sends problems throughout the rest of the game. That's the point of the analogy.

Edit: I was responding to Bellack in Post #26 saying that the analogy made no sense. I left this despite the fact that we've come to some agreement, because I still think the point still stands. If the current system is intended, it's terrible. If not, then it's a BUG.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Drakohan,

reply 2

Doesn`t invalidate the point. The roadblocks in question are not reasonable game features to be overcome, they are logically abrasive situations that reveal the invisible walls of the game.

I couldn't agree more. Drives me crazy, I had an army trapped by two caravans once and it drove me crazy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Kalin,

reply 19

Quoting Gammit10, reply 18
You completely missed the point.

I doubt the pioneers in the OP did not move because of strategy. I doubt the OP could not walk through friendly territory because of the intended game mechanics. I know there was little more I could do in my scenario.

The issue, IMO, is indeed in world generation. After tens of turns, simply saying "oh well" and hitting ctrl+N is not a viable option if you want the customer to not think your game is broken.

Um, are you sure I'm the one who missed the point? You are arguing about world generation, no one is arguing against you. This thread is about being able to move pass non-hostile units.

The pioneers there didn't move most likely because he was trying to move somewhere, and can no longer do so (blocked by the champion or city right below). In other words, that's exactly what I expect to happen in that instance. Say I don't want that pioneer going down and building a city or outpost bellow that path, and I send a unit to block it from doing so. I expect it to be blocked. I don't want the pioneer just walking through me and then build their city like I wasn't there.

It looks like while replying, I accidentally edited out the portion that stated something to the affect of "if you are referring to me." It appears you were not arguing my point, so yes, my bad and I apologize.

Regarding the OP's point, I think he is correct. If you have a non-aggression treaty with a faction, you should be able to pass over his construction if and only if that construction blocks a one-tile-wide portion of land and there are not other available options to navigate to the land beyond.

Perhaps neutral factions should block you, and certainly factions with which you are warring should, but not friendly factions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Bellack,

reply 21

Quoting Drakohan, reply 2Doesn`t invalidate the point. The roadblocks in question are not reasonable game features to be overcome, they are logically abrasive situations that reveal the invisible walls of the game.

Actully they are very resonable and should remain in the game. Remember they game should not be handed to you. If you want to get pass that coke point then you will either have to Ally with the Other Kingdom/Empire, Create land or fight them. Now until they have a diplomatic options like I mentioned in a previous response or they add boats (still don't understand in a modern game why they did not have boats and sea going creatures) you will be stuck with the above options.

I still disagree. It is the nature of the game that makes this a design sin. It is repetitive randomized obstruction whether it is based on world design or otherwise the issue is there. The nature of this kind of game is to face a challenging but realistic starting position for an empire because in the situation the game is a metaphor for, that kind of thing would not happen. They sovereign is dropped wholesale randomly on a map somewhere, but in the concept of it being a lore rich world with a past, they wouldn`t just randomly settle somewhere and randomly start in poor places, their should be a bias towards reasonable starting positions. The sovereign we represent would try to start somewhere smart.

Because the game design limits the ability to do that, random maps, the game needs to prevent random obstructions from creating arbitrary early game choke points. In a game with a different scope and as you said far more diplomatic options it might be more reasonable an issue, but the scope of this game right now requires some design flexibility. Fundamentally its a plant and grow empire game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think you should be able to share tiles with the AI units if you have a treaty. Similarly, I think the game needs better UI for dealing with multiple units on the same tile (both managing your own units and attacking neutral/enemy units.

I also think you should be able to move "through" cities and outposts that belong to your ally, though this seems like it might be a complex feature to add.

Successfully updated karma reason!