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.
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more. Drives me crazy, I had an army trapped by two caravans once and it drove me crazy.
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.
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.
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.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
