Movement Display Issue

[Morbio]

There are two issues in one here;

Firstly, the movement display gives away the location of hidden units. See below

Screenshot (51).jpg (272.88 KiB) Viewed 1784 times

I wonder why I can't access the tile where the cursor is?

Ta daa!

Screenshot (52).jpg (266.24 KiB) Viewed 1784 times

The second issue is why can't I move to the tile to the right of the cursor?

[rbodleyscott]

I take your point, but (to state the obvious) highlighted tiles show the tiles that you can move to, and not the ones you can't. That is how the engine is designed to work.

Maybe we could script round it to make the display show that you "can" move to the square and then abort the move when you get to the previous square, but I am not sure it is worth the trouble.

The answer to your second question is that the route to the tile to the right of the cursor goes through the secondary ZOC of the light foot in the forest.

[Morbio]

I agree about the solution and it's possible cost-benefit.

Regarding the second question, is it not a valid move to go immediately diagonally right and then straight on? This would avoid the secondary ZOC.

[rbodleyscott]

I agree about the solution and it's possible cost-benefit.

Regarding the second question, is it not a valid move to go immediately diagonally right and then straight on? This would avoid the secondary ZOC.

Well the program does not look for multiple possible ways of moving to a square, it picks one route to each square, prioritising straight ahead moves first, and checks whether that route is possible. If not, it does not look for alternative routes.

You might be able to do it by moving square by square, however, but that won't show in the tile display until you have done the first step.

[Morbio]

Yup, that's what I often do. Just as a comment, I've sometimes fallen foul of the system choice for moves, I've had times where there are two different possible attacks on the enemy, one that will be head-on and one that will be flank and to my dismay the system has attacked the front rather than the flank I'm a little wiser now so I make that mistake less, but it can be frustrating when it happens!

[rbodleyscott]

Yup, that's what I often do. Just as a comment, I've sometimes fallen foul of the system choice for moves, I've had times where there are two different possible attacks on the enemy, one that will be head-on and one that will be flank and to my dismay the system has attacked the front rather than the flank I'm a little wiser now so I make that mistake less, but it can be frustrating when it happens!

The actual route that will be taken is shown by the dots in the middle of the squares along the default route.

[Morbio]

I understand and ultimately the mistake in mine, sometimes I've rushed the attack because of a desire to complete the moves quickly. My recommendation is that the default move should be the most favourable move as this is the one the player is most likely to want. However I appreciate that this is probably a low priority enhancement request.

[rbodleyscott]

I understand and ultimately the mistake in mine, sometimes I've rushed the attack because of a desire to complete the moves quickly. My recommendation is that the default move should be the most favourable move as this is the one the player is most likely to want. However I appreciate that this is probably a low priority enhancement request.

The scripts use the engine-based route-finding functions, which return one route, and one route only, so this isn't really possible without doing the whole thing in scripts, which would be a lot less efficient.

[Morbio]

OK, NP