Well, it seems to me that it should take a turn to attack someone as well.

Perhaps we can define a turn as:
"A movement or doing something in a sector that will result in a change to that sector."

You read the CLV = nothing changed

You fire a photon, you (hope to) incapacitate a ship (change).
You move a planet, that sector has changed.

You're causing "change" should result in a turn being used.

I'm interested in hearing your reasons Vid, if you care to share.

Possibly require a turn balance, but not burn the turns to move. 0 turns, then no movement. To me the key is movement.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

Would you include lifting and landing on a planet, or trading in your same sector movement?

I would not change anything else. Trading in the same sector or pulling product from a planet require turns and should be left alone. The game is setup well on turn requirements except for possibly planet movement. A side effect is that you might not be able to save yourself on an L4 during an invasion, and it would also make the pdrop risky - esp for a solo. Risk is sometimes a good thing.

An unlim game could require time to get movement back as it currently does for a player to move in a ship.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

I could agree to that, only affects if the driver of the planet = 0 turns, otherwise no turn penalty. Ah the power of a civil discussion on the forum no less...

I agree with Caretaker, there is no real reason to charge a turn to move a planet if were charging gas. Exempting unlimited games, gas/colonists cost turns.

What your recommending is a change that would affect the game imo in a negative way, since your compounding the cost of planets.

Sure people can account for the turn/turns it would cost to move but wouldnt a planet move delay be much more effective?

After all the conversations the proposed change requested would be as such.
Player driving the planet has no turns (0) the planet can't move.
If the player has turns then the planet can move but does not cost any turns to the player.
Reasoning would be, player is more than likely using the planet as a weapon (P-Drop / Photon Delivery) but has no turns yet can move anywhere and everywhere they chose. If you have no turns then I feel you should not be moving around. Just my thoughts, I like a good conversation.

I disagree. I think it should actually cost a lot of turns to move a planet. You shouldn't be able to use a planet as a ship to drive around the universe in.

In spirit of the large banner that says its not to debate I'll just say two things. If you want to continue this debate we should move to a more appropiate part of this forum and you can't use it as a ship.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32585

OOPS, I didn't realize what forum this was in... Sorry JP...

No problem. The spirit of the rule is to keep things civil, and this debate was very much so. I just wanted to avoid the kind of beat down that some people get for suggesting new ideas in other areas of the forums ;)

As usual, I think many of the objections to the idea assume that it would be a universal change, not an option. In the interest of allowing people to experiment, an option could include the "turns needed to move, but not used to move" setting as well as a setting to actually require turns and specify how many, or just keep it as-is.

I think it should be configurable at the planet level. For example, a class H planet might use more turns to move than a class M.

Now that may not be a bad idea!
I do however like the idea that if a person has no moves, he can't "move".