> I'm somewhat agnostic on diagonal movement---I'm not strongly opposed to
> it, although I think it clearly can't be retrofitted to the existing
> game---but I definitely disagree that it makes sense or is more
> intuitive. It is much less intuitive in that, for example, two units
> can cross paths without ever passing through the same location. The
> *only* thing that it gains is that game distance is more closely
> proportional to Euclidean distance. (Hexes would be an even better way
> to do that, with less weirdness, of course.)
Assume the following map grid:
A B
-------
1 | | a|
|--|--|
2 | b| |
-------
Unit [a] is in location 1B.
Unit [b] is in location 2A.
Unit [a] wants to travel to location 1B by the most direct route.
Unit [b] wants to travel to location 2A by the most direct route.
Intuition suggests that, under most circumstance, they should pass each other.
Our real life experiences reinforce this. However, given the current movement
rules in Olympia, unit [a] could move West then South, while unit [b] moves East
then North -- thus exchanging places yet not encountering each other.
-joel