John the Mad
07-19-2009, 22:56
Actually,i guess this is going to be part ranting question.
I know this isn't an EB specific question even so i hope you guys don't mind me asking it here.
Anyways i understand that when two armies fight a field battle that the armies starting position is relative to their facings on the strat map,so say that if you attack an army to your northwest it will be facing southeast after deployment.That part i understand.
What i don't understand is how the game decides the starting terrain.As an example there could be 3/4 of a map with wide open terrain,flat or rolling,and 1/4 of it is composed of woods...The game will almost always decide that both armies start off,thereby the battle being,in the woods!Same way with steep hills,on the strategic map if your army is atop a hill and an enemy army is below on level ground the game very often decides that wether you are the attacker or defender that your army placement is at the bottom of the hill.
Is this done on purpose as a way to nerf the human player a bit and to give the AI some kind of terrain advantage or is it just one of the quirks of the last couple TW(Rome and Medieval2) games?
My main complaint on this is that even in the lighter category of woods you have to tediously micromange your movement step by step,and even then,the game decides that,even if you are facing straight at the enemy when starting the movement,that what you really want to do is to end your movement with your flank exposed to them.
It almost actually gets to be a bit tedious with the pattern of siege,siege,siege,..fight a battle in the middle of the woods..siege,siege,siege..fight a battle up a hill..siege,siege siege..fight a battle on a wooded hillside.I guess you get the point.
I can actually count on one finger(and its not the one i'm holding up thinking about this) the number of battles that took place on open rolling terrain,and OH WAS IT GLORIOUS!
There was an awesome opening fight between the skirmeshers on both sides,cavalry charges and counter-charges,then the main lines clashing,units manuevering,without constant management,towards their goals in somewhat cohesive formations.On the largest unit setting it was truly amazing to watch it unfold.
I guess thats why i keep playing hoping that a battle like that happens again and why i dont understand that the game has most field battles taking place in terrain,where unless the army was ambushed(in the case of woods) or was forced by a lack of other options(attacking up steep hills)that so few allow you to play in open terrain.I think the one battle that really set me off on this was when i fought a rebel army that the strat map was showing on a beach tile and the game decided that it took place on a map that was completely covered in woods from one end to the other.:wall:
Well thanks for listening.
I know this isn't an EB specific question even so i hope you guys don't mind me asking it here.
Anyways i understand that when two armies fight a field battle that the armies starting position is relative to their facings on the strat map,so say that if you attack an army to your northwest it will be facing southeast after deployment.That part i understand.
What i don't understand is how the game decides the starting terrain.As an example there could be 3/4 of a map with wide open terrain,flat or rolling,and 1/4 of it is composed of woods...The game will almost always decide that both armies start off,thereby the battle being,in the woods!Same way with steep hills,on the strategic map if your army is atop a hill and an enemy army is below on level ground the game very often decides that wether you are the attacker or defender that your army placement is at the bottom of the hill.
Is this done on purpose as a way to nerf the human player a bit and to give the AI some kind of terrain advantage or is it just one of the quirks of the last couple TW(Rome and Medieval2) games?
My main complaint on this is that even in the lighter category of woods you have to tediously micromange your movement step by step,and even then,the game decides that,even if you are facing straight at the enemy when starting the movement,that what you really want to do is to end your movement with your flank exposed to them.
It almost actually gets to be a bit tedious with the pattern of siege,siege,siege,..fight a battle in the middle of the woods..siege,siege,siege..fight a battle up a hill..siege,siege siege..fight a battle on a wooded hillside.I guess you get the point.
I can actually count on one finger(and its not the one i'm holding up thinking about this) the number of battles that took place on open rolling terrain,and OH WAS IT GLORIOUS!
There was an awesome opening fight between the skirmeshers on both sides,cavalry charges and counter-charges,then the main lines clashing,units manuevering,without constant management,towards their goals in somewhat cohesive formations.On the largest unit setting it was truly amazing to watch it unfold.
I guess thats why i keep playing hoping that a battle like that happens again and why i dont understand that the game has most field battles taking place in terrain,where unless the army was ambushed(in the case of woods) or was forced by a lack of other options(attacking up steep hills)that so few allow you to play in open terrain.I think the one battle that really set me off on this was when i fought a rebel army that the strat map was showing on a beach tile and the game decided that it took place on a map that was completely covered in woods from one end to the other.:wall:
Well thanks for listening.