[Suggestion: Gameplay] Diagonal Moves cost 1.5 Movement Points

Because zig-zagging makes your Sovereign look like a douche.

But yeah, this is one of the reasons that I was disappointed to learn that Sovereign wouldn't be using hex tiles. An increased movement cost would be good, although who knows what manner of sorcery must be unleashed, what perils of hard-coding into the game engine must be overcome?

This was a big reason why Civ 4 -> Civ 5 means a shift from squares -> hexes.  I must admit I was a bit disappointed that 1. Elemental uses squares, and 2. diagonal movement (going through the corners) cost the same as going through the sides. Basically, having squares, and equal cost for diagonals and side movement, means that the risk/reward ratio is not really balanced (extra vision and scouting ability for no extra movement cost).  (Why would you go by the sides when you can cover 1.5 times the distance for the same cost in movement points?)

Frogboy, is the movement cost for sides and diagonals heavily hard-coded into Elemental?

Best regards,
Steven.

See while I understand the logic of whats being said here since all have access to it I do not see it as a big issue trying to always use diagonal path means having to move 1 spot at a time and that level of managing movement takes time.. dont get me wrong I think hexes are the way to go.. I just do not see it as a big issue..

but heck that's just my 2cents worth and that won't even buy ya a cup of coffee..

Well, if it isn't hard-coded I think it would be good if there was an option in the game or mod ability to have 1.5 MP per diagonal move, and the AI just needs to be able to calculate the quickest (least movement points) path to the destination.

Best regards,
Steven. 

Square tiles have MOAR straight lines, which makes movement simpler. I prefer it on maps where I can have a huge army on only one tile.

Hex maps, imho, are better for 1 unit/ per tile circumstances.

^

^

^ which is why I feel the Tactical Battles should use Hex Maps

1.5 movement is essential if you use squares.

I'd vote for 1.5.  Or 1.4 if you want to get fancy.  But it's hardly a deal-breaker.

Maybe 1.5 and you need need to have, say at least 0.6, to have one more diagonal movement (if you don't have the full amount).  Currently you only need to have >0 (more than 0.0) amount of movement points to move one more square, but I think a way to simulate the greater distance travelled over a diagonal would be a requirement of, say at least 0.6 movement points remaining.

Or a different value to emphasise/de-emphasise the effort to take a longer, diagonal path.  I think a minimum of 0.6 movement points would be a good starting amount - it does need to be a bit higher than the minimum amount of movement points (0.1) needed to take the shorter path, and maybe just high enough so you don't get a 33% boost on a a unit moving the shorter route.  So with a minimum movement point requirement of 0.6, 2.0 movement points left means you could move 2 more regular squares or 1 diagonal (where you would be able to move 2 regular squares or 2 diagonals if the minimum movement points to move one diagonal was 0.5).  So I think overall 0.1 (as currently) means at most one regular move, and at least 0.6 (proposed) for one more diagonal move.

What do people think?  I think it would be great if such a system could at least be modded in, and the data-driven AI is able to work out (and be able to use the knowledge of) the maximum number of regular and diagonal squares units can move in one turn based on total movement points and movement points remaining.

Best regards,
Steven.

(PS: It looks pretty funny that, even if you run out of movement points, you can move all you want to on the same square. ;-))

I don't care.

Well, I won't worry at all if it doesn't make it in.  But if it can, either as an option or as a mod capability, then I say, Frogboy and Team, go for it! 

And I think some others might enjoy it too.

Best regards,
Steven.

There are 2 ways to implement the 1.5: round up or round down. It depends how large you want the radius to be. You could also use both radius: ex: movement is round down and range attack are round up.