Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, now that you say that, I do remember it with Civ I and (possibly) II. III and IV do not use diagonal movement.Yes they do.
Both Civ III and IV use a square grid, with movement allowed in all directions.
The grid is aligned as a diamond, so it may not seem to be a square grid, but those are definitely squares, and diagonal movement is definitely allowed.
There is no penalty for diagonal movement. There is a possible failure to enter a square if you do not have enough movement points to enter it, but there is no additional cost for moving diagonally along the grid.
Sheesh, this Civ tangent...
Yes, you can move diagonally in Civ - my comment was intended to capture the concept of the diagonal move penalty, not the ability to move diagonally itself.
Civ I and II use the mechanic Rambling Scribe described where you can fail to move diagonally if you have insufficient movement.
Civ III and IV do not charge extra for such diagonal movement and do not use that mechanic. You do not fail to move into a square because you have insufficient movement.
None of this is relevant to the topic at hand.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Okay, now that you say that, I do remember it with Civ I and (possibly) II. III and IV do not use diagonal movement.Yes they do.
Both Civ III and IV use a square grid, with movement allowed in all directions.
The grid is aligned as a diamond, so it may not seem to be a square grid, but those are definitely squares, and diagonal movement is definitely allowed.
There is no penalty for diagonal movement. There is a possible failure to enter a square if you do not have enough movement points to enter it, but there is no additional cost for moving diagonally along the grid.Sheesh, this Civ tangent...
Yes, you can move diagonally in Civ - my comment was intended to capture the concept of the diagonal move penalty, not the ability to move diagonally itself.
Civ I and II use the mechanic Rambling Scribe described where you can fail to move diagonally if you have insufficient movement.
Civ III and IV do not charge extra for such diagonal movement and do not use that mechanic. You do not fail to move into a square because you have insufficient movement.
None of this is relevant to the topic at hand.
Nice (unintentional) thread jack, Sebastian! It amazes me what people focus on in some of these posts.
*chuckles to self*
Yes. Very handy if you were a missle boat (like the Archer I favored at the time).Then sit in a pond to vent your heat sinks...Bah, back to hexes, and each turn of your facing costs one movement point!
Or something. :P
I prefered the crusader and the grasshopper, but then I always tended to use speed and unusual tactics (like replacing the LRM system of a cyclops with an arrow IV). Ahh...good times.
|
Mommy, make the bad man stop!It could be worse... they could simply have said that all things in the world may only move orthogonally along the straight lines of squares and may not travel on the diagonal. ;)
How do you fathom Octagons ? MAWAHAHAHAHHA.
Nothing personal : I just multiclassed into cleric of Tharizdun.
Lilith absolutely! I appreciate it! Thanks.
Actually, a thought; we know that diagonal movement is equal to orthagonal movement, but that may not actually mean that diagonal distances are equal to orthogonal distances. Perhaps distances work the same way it always did, and diagonal movement and range is simply handwaved? Maybe characters just move a tiny bit faster when they're moving diagonally, now.
If that's the case, than this is a dramatic improvement. The way creatures interact with the world would be improved, but the actual geometry would be just as messily realistic as ever, so a circle would still be a circle.
Actually, a thought; we know that diagonal movement is equal to orthagonal movement, but that may not actually mean that diagonal distances are equal to orthogonal distances. Perhaps distances work the same way it always did, and diagonal movement and range is simply handwaved? Maybe characters just move a tiny bit faster when they're moving diagonally, now.
And how, exactly, does that make any sense? Moving like a bishop shouldn't make me any faster than moving like a rook. If diagonal movement costs the same as Orthagonal movement, a square room drawn on the battlemat is really a circle: If I were to stand in the center, no matter what direction I run, I reach the wall at the same time. Either geometry is bent in a hugely non-intuitive (and not entirely consistent) way, or I for some reason just run faster when I want to go North West instead of north.
If that's the case, than this is a dramatic improvement. The way creatures interact with the world would be improved, but the actual geometry would be just as messily realistic as ever, so a circle would still be a circle.
How is a bizarre discrepancy in movements rates an 'improvement' in interacting with the world?
How is a bizarre discrepancy in movements rates an 'improvement' in interacting with the world?
A discrepancy in the way things interact with the world is a lot better than a discrepancy in the world's fundamental geometry.
The problem is that they equate to the same thing. Let's say I'm trying to flee a Delayed Blast Fireball. I don't know about you, but it seems silly to me that running on a diagonal is the faster way to escape.
Or, a few examples. Lets say a monster is standing in my way. But he's due east of me. It's absurd that I can just go NE and then SE to go around him, and have used the same amount of movement as if I'd gone in a straight line and he wasn't there. Especially when you consider that the same trick doesn't work if he's NE of me instead of east.