Computation of WayCosts

[MetalKing]

If I understand right the Computation of WayCosts does either consider Costs for the Terrain a Unit want to enter. The other Way around isn't better to take just Costs for the Terrain the Unit already is and have to leave. Thus are Costs for a Move from Field A to Field B different then from B to A. The simplest Way to make that equal is to double the MovePoints of a Unit and and take Costs for the Field the Unit enter and the Field the Unit leave. Thus the WayCosts are equal for both Directions and doesn't affect the Balance or require new Configuratations of WayCosts.

*edit* typo in topic-line

[Caphriel]

Actually, this would change map balance. Say I put a 5MP spearman on a mountain at the end of my turn. A reasonable, common move. Next turn, I want to move him across flat. Under the current system, he can move through four hexes and end on the fifth. Under your proposed system, moving off the mountain costs 3MP, so he's down to 7. Moving into the first flat hex costs 1, so he's down to 6. Now moving out of that and into a new flat hex costs 2, so he can move 3 more hexes, for a total of moving through 3 flat hexes and ending on the fourth. Similar situations will occur in many places. A spearman starting in hill can move through two hill hexes and then into flat under the current system, but under your proposed system would be short one MP of moving into flat.

The reverse situation also occurs. Right now a non-quick spearman can move through at most two hexes of flat before moving into mountain. Under your proposed system, he'd be able to move through three flat hexes before entering the mountain.

The issue, obviously, is entering an expensive terrain and not leaving it on the same turn. Which happens constantly. You are, in effect, allowing the unit to borrow movepoints from its next turn in order to move further this turn. As I said above, this does, in fact, affect map balance.

[JaMiT]

Why is having symmetric movement costs (meaning the same cost from A to B as from B to A) a desirable thing?

[fabi]

Why is having symmetric movement costs (meaning the same cost from A to B as from B to A) a desirable thing?

While it might debalance current maps, the symmetric costs might maps being easier to balance in the future.
It's also nearer to real life, even if that is not big concern in the Wesnoth universe, it might be easier for people used to real life physics to get.

[Caphriel]

Are there any wargames that have a cost to move out of a terrain existing? I can't think of any, but I don't play that many, either.

[nuorc]

Why is having symmetric movement costs (meaning the same cost from A to B as from B to A) a desirable thing?

...
It's also nearer to real life, even if that is not big concern in the Wesnoth universe, it might be easier for people used to real life physics to get.

I second that; I only played BfW for ~5 yrs and still hope I get it...
How do I know the mp cost for leaving terrain?

[JaMiT]

Why is having symmetric movement costs (meaning the same cost from A to B as from B to A) a desirable thing?

It's also nearer to real life,

I thought it was harder to climb up mountains than to climb down. Then again, I lack the experience needed to determine if the difference is small enough to be accurately represented by symmetric movement costs. So... maybe.

Personally, I've always thought of asymmetric movement costs (in war games in general, not just in BfW) as part of the abstraction. The cost to enter a terrain seems to represent the time to go into a space and to get to the other side (after all, once a unit is in a hex, it can attack a unit on the other side). Basically, the game abstracts away the exact position of a unit, instead allowing it to exist anywhere and everywhere within its hex (which may be miles across?). If you picture a unit in a mountain hex as stationed at the foot of a mountain, then not counting the movement cost of the mountain makes sense when the unit steps onto the plains. (Since it does not really travel over mountainous terrain in taking that step.)

I wouldn't say that symmetric movement costs are a bad thing, but I do not yet see a significant justification for changing to them, especially given the work it would take to implement and the confusion it may cause current players. (For whatever that is worth.)

[MetalKing]

WayCosts for examining a Terrain, moving stealth and using different values for entering and leaving a Terrain are Abstractions the present Code doesnt perform. if you go down a Mountain you have to "brake" all the time to avoid to get more accelarated than you can brake. If you go faster than you cant avoid that you accelerate more and more till you tumble due to exaggerated speed, fall and then potentially roll down the mountain. You have to go slowly even there is a flat area you can run. For deserts doesnt exist any potential physical advantages for leaving. Changing to symetry is a step into right direction. Additional abstrations are fine but were still not mentioned here but sounds good to me. present implementation doesnt enable a unit to place it at the foot of a mountain but just at the center_of_field=top_of_mountain.

[fabi]

I wouldn't say that symmetric movement costs are a bad thing, but I do not yet see a significant justification for changing to them, especially given the work it would take to implement and the confusion it may cause current players. (For whatever that is worth.)

Yeah, that is a good point and the way I see it myself as well.
The current system is a little off from real world but there is not much to gain from changing it.

We can spend time better on more urgent tasks.