Chain shipping

[Bahgtru]

But in that case just make shipping immediately drop remaining MPs to 0 and reduce the player to the level of the AI... I find it unreasonable, throwing the player skill with the bath tub. Is it abuse if it requires planning?

[Seravy]

Of course it is. There is no freaking way any unit should be able to move half the planet's distance on Triremes just because the trip was planned well. Skilled players will still be able to move further than normal, taking advantage of the fact units don't use up actual movement points. But it's limited to the movement of the ship plus the unit at most. (which btw is what Nelphine wants to get removed as well. I'm still not sure it's worth doing that.)
Did you read the previous posts? We want the player to be able to leave the ship immediately so no 0 MP.

[Bahgtru]

Half the planet's distance? A move 2 unit is not capable of loading/changing ship/unloading, a move 3 unit can use 2 triremes+load and unload... It's not that big of an issue as real chain shipping, on this at least you'll agree. I don't see it as abuse at all in the context of a game that (just an example) allows to run away to hold a city... Maybe open a poll on this? It'd be informative to know other opinions.

To answer to you, yeh I can read, my point is that if that's forbidden there isn't any significant difference (logistically speaking) in also removing the rest of the move tbh. So if that's easier to do then just do that. Both solutions throw away an aspect of skill (no, using the remaining movement doesn't take any skill) and make the game a bit more annoying anyway.

Let's look at this from another POV: how difficult would it be to code the added bit I'm saying, to reset the ship id thing you propose when the unit moves on its own? It sounds really simple but as usual I can't know that until you confirm.

[Nelphine]

Baghtru with starting spells and 2 buildings I can build units capable of moving 24 squares a turn under your proposal. That's absolutely early game and IS chain shipping. What you're calling chain shipping is just a minor refinement. The ability to use multiple ships at all in the same turn is the problem seravy described. (My problem is using the full movement of multiple units at all.)

So it's 3 related problems, just with slight variations. 
Baghtru version: using multiple ships full movement + full movement of the transported unit.
Seravy version: using full movement of multiple ships
Nelphine version: using full movement of multiple units

My version, which is the harshest, is because I'm already of the opinion that overland movement is king. I wanted to reduce heroes even more than they were and consider jaer the strongest hero bar none, and reasonably the strongest unit in the game including all very rares.

[Bahgtru]

OK, I wouldn't mind making it harsh - it's the middle measure that I find unreasonable: if I can move further on land why can't I move further on another ship?

Once that's forbidden, go the full measure, as not being able to move further to land is frankly the same. There's no meaningful variation on game balance between the two.

I really think that a poll asking what people consider abuse would be informative - as long as the questions are fair.

Another point, this would make draconians even more of an outlier than they already are...

[Bahgtru]

Baghtru with starting spells and 2 buildings I can build units capable of moving 24 squares a turn under your proposal.

On that note, given that I consider life still way more OP than any other realm you just gave me an idea: WTF are inanimate objects such as ships doing better under endurance? Endurance should not target transports. (or catapults, etc ideally)

[Nelphine]

My assumption is that inanimate objects still have stressor points that prevent them from moving infinitely fast. So instead of staving off fatigue like living units, endurance instead makes those stressor points more flexible, allowing the object to actually move faster in the same time frame, as opposed to living things which move more in the same time. Given that endurance increase c iiombat speed on living things, I have to assume it's the same there, since fatigue wouldn't be an issue for individual combat turns.

And while I'd be fine if endurance didn't affect ships (as per the discussions during wraithform, that's already a potentially controversial topic even before this chain shipping), it would be awful for catapults and steam cannons. Still probably acceptable though, since those units are awful for other realms.

Note however, it has to be ships that are the target, not windwalkers. It makes no sense to not be allowed to cast it on a hero you cast windwalking on. Which means draconian airships could be targets, but not draconian warships.

But that would still let my starting spells/early units move 18, which is still too high.

[Nelphine]

Now, a valid concern that baghtrus point raises, is if seravy does his fix, and you have a cavalry who spends 1 movement to hop on a trireme, which moves 1 square, then the cavalry spends 1 movement to hop on a second trirene, which moves 1 square, and then the cavalry hops off again. 

Under current rules that would be fine. Under my solution that would be fine. And based on my interpretation above of the 3 versions of chain shipping problem, that would be fine in all 3 versions. (I could be wrong of course, particularly about seravys version.)

But if my understanding is correct, that would not work under seravys solution, and I think that's a valid concern.
In general, seravys solution has problems any time you would use two ships, but the transported unit would move a total of its land speed or less, usually caused because the ship's are not in position at the start of their turn, and so don't have full movement available for transport. (This is mostly an issue for heroes, life, and cavalry, so I could see simply saying nope not allowed, particularly as AI can't remotely do that. But I think there would definitely be player push back on that due to how things have worked the last 20 years AND because it's fairly rare so it's not something that would come up regularly to learn about.)

[Seravy]

No, on sea units should not move more than what the SHIP can move. It doesn't matter if it's a steam cannon or cavalry, if they use a Trireme, they should move 3. Indeed, if you somehow end up boarding a ship that has only 1 move left, you can't use that 1 move then switch to another ship. But that's still logical. The 2 moves are missing because the ship used it earlier that turn so the units had to spend that 2/3 of the turn waiting on shore for it.
So no, I don't think a cavalry should be able to use 2 ships just because it has 5 movement.
It's the same deal as the item swapping restriction on heroes : switching to another ship creates a time travel effect. You are jumping back from the end of the turn to the beginning (from a ship that already finished the turn to one that still hasn't started the turn). How much movement the and unit had has nothing to do with it.

Independently of chain shipping, we can consider also making units carried by ships have 0.5 moves left. I'm not a fan of that idea, but it's a possibility. We should probably make a poll about that?

[Nelphine]

I don't understand the difference between my above scenario and

'ship moves 2 and is now adjacent to land on both sides and then a land unit with 4 base movement moves 2 and goes from one continent to the other'
and
'ship moves 2 and is now adjacent to land and a land unit with base 4 movement moves 1 onto the ship. Then ship moves it's thirds square, then the land unit disembarks'
And
'ship moves 2 and is now adjacent to land. Land unit with base 4 movement moves 1 onto ship. Ship moves 1 and is now adjacent to another ship, and the second ship is adjacent to land. Land unit moves 1 onto other ship, and then moves 1 to disembark.'

In ALL of these cases, as well as my cavalry over 2 moving ships above, no single unit moves more than its own movement +1 transport movement -1, and in fact none of these scenarios move more than 1 units movement.

I'd like a clear breakdown of which of the 4 cases is a problem, and why that one is a problem but the other cases are not, and why current windwalkers do not have the same problem described.