While on the topic of movement, I'm curious as to what people think about our hybrid approach to ranges. In most typical tactics games, there is no diagonal movement resulting in a diamond shaped movement area: Since we have diagonal movement, assigning the same cost to diagonal movement as cardinal movement would create an awkward square shape: Since we're committed to squares rather than hexes, we wanted a solution that was in-between the two options in order to obtain the most natural feel. If the cost of moving up/down/left/right is '1' point, then moving up-right/down-right/down-left/up-left should cost roughly '1.4' points (the square root of '2'). Since dealing with tiles is a bit more binary (you can walk across '1' tile or '2' tiles, never '1.4' tiles), we multiplied these values by two and rounded 'em up similarly to what old Civilization games used to do. The end result is that cardinal movement costs '2' points, and diagonal movement costs '3' points. This is how it looks in action: The algorithm makes for a more natural radius; a circular area projected onto individual tiles. However, there was one reason why we didn't instantly jump on this solution: the ability of units to constantly circle each other using diagonal movement as a shortcut. This is something of a pet peeve of mine in tactics games. Since many of them implement the idea of different vulnerabilities for a unit's sides (forward, left/right, back), melee units tend to hopscotch around each other in order to attack the most vulnerable spot: the back. This is particularly awkward and tedious when two melee units are isolated but within range of each other, and diagonal movement only makes this easier to accomplish. The issue can be alleviated with unit-specific abilities, e.g., some units can only attack with at least one tile of space between them and their target, others get a free hit on any adjacent enemies that try to walk away, while others still always turn to the attacking direction, etc. While these all help to limit hopscotching, I was still concerned over the behaviour manifesting itself without a global rule to discourage it. Our solution was the aforementioned diagonal movement caveat: it's only possible to move diagonally if there's nothing perpendicular to the movement path (i.e., to the left or right of it). This way a unit can't walk around to the back of its enemy in just two steps, but has to take the full four steps route. A few other rules helped to avoid the issue as well, namely the ability to cause extra damage by shoving the enemy into a wall or off a ledge, and the potential to score a critical hit when attacking from an elevation. Combined with elemental vulnerabilities and unique modifiers, we hope to present various strategic options at each unit's turn that rarely boil down to the obvious "attack the back" choice. Let us know what you think of our approach!