The battleground...

[Voigtkampf]

I was wondering; what will be the role of the ground in R:TW? I know that the weather will affect your troops, as it did in M:TW (wind and missiles), that we might have the opportunity to stare and admire some exquisite weather effects, but what about the very soil our troops will move on? From strategic and tactical point, this is no matter that should be neglected all too easy. The firm, solid ground will affect your troops positively and they will have their standard speeds, walking/marching/galloping through swamps will slow your units, infantry and cavalry would receive different bonuses/penalties for different grounds et cetera. In M:TW it's a serious problem for cavalry when it enters the woods, it will be probably in R:TW too, but what about the army movements as well as on the campaign map as on the battlefield itself? Snow, frozen ground, sands, swamps, flat terrain…

What are your thoughts, do you consider this an important enough issue?


EDIT: I actually wrote "infect" instead of "affect"... Oh dear...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]but what about the very soil our troops will move on? From strategic and tactical point, this is no matter that should be neglected all too easy.
VERY important http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Remember Agincourt?

It would be awesome if they considered muddy, swamp or sandy areas of influence, like the tree areas in MTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Cobra]

Yup, terrain has won and lost battles. I definately think it's important on the battle map. On the campaign map, I think it should be there, but not as effecting as on the battle map.

I've recently seen, (probably old info though) That the English victory at agincourt is now more accredited to mud than the longbowmen.

[Math Mathonwy]

yes but you cant give less credit to em, afterall its not the only victory they won.

i also like this idea, units should be slower on beaches and sandy deserts, i think it would be pretty difficult to slog through sand in roman armor. not to mention chariot wheels.

[Ashen]

I think the victory at agincourt should be rightly credited to Henry the 5th (Im 90% sure it was him but not completely). He knew the french charge would die, set up his longbows accordingly, had his own knights dismount, etc, mass slaughter, etc.

R:TW would be go great if that was possible

[Cobra]

Well, I hear that the longbowmen still palyed a big part. As when the frenchies were bogged, they were ordered killed. Knights and nobility would want to capture them for ransom. The archers weren't really nobility, and holding them for ransom was unlikely and rather infeasable, that incentive gone, they had no qualms just swarming around and slaughtering them.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ Dec. 25 2003,16:41)]I think the victory at agincourt should be rightly credited to Henry the 5th (Im 90% sure it was him but not completely). He knew the french charge would die, set up his longbows accordingly, had his own knights dismount, etc, mass slaughter, etc.

R:TW would be go great if that was possible
Exactly That is way I hope this feature will be implemented, it would give a greater depth to the tactical part of the game…

On the campaign map it's already done, I believe; they've mentioned roads that improve the speed of your troops, so the terrain will have impact on your troops movement.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]On the campaign map it's already done, I believe; they've mentioned roads that improve the speed of your troops, so the terrain will have impact on your troops movement.
Mountainous terrain also.

Let's hope they remember ALL terrain factors in the strategic map AND battle map. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Math Mathonwy]

this is already in mtw to some degree, ever tried to charge down a relle steep hill? or up one for that matter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Pyrrhus @ Dec. 26 2003,22:55)]this is already in mtw to some degree, ever tried to charge down a relle steep hill? or up one for that matter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I wouldn't say so, that is matter of elevation, not the soil consistence.

Now you imagine charging up the hill with your cavalry in winter on the frozen ground… That is what I'm talking about.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't say so, that is matter of elevation, not the soil consistence.
Preciselly.




Quote[/b] ]Now you imagine charging up the hill with your cavalry in winter on the frozen ground… That is what I'm talking about.
Yes, really two different factors to be taken into account.

Pyrrhus:
As voigtkampf so correctly said, even Shogun already had height advantage in battles. The terrain consistency is (or will be) a totally independent factor. You would be able to have all combinations of these two factors:

-Flat terrain (no height factor) but with sand or swampy terrain that would influence the outcome.
-Dunes (height factor) but made of sand (soil factor). This will increase the penalties in mobility, for the attacker.
-Hills (height factor) with grassland terrain. Height advantage for the defender, but no penalty for the attacker in mobility.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 27 2003,11:41)]-Flat terrain (no height factor) but with sand or swampy terrain that would influence the outcome.
-Dunes (height factor) but made of sand (soil factor). This will increase the penalties in mobility, for the attacker.
-Hills (height factor) with grassland terrain. Height advantage for the defender, but no penalty for the attacker in mobility.
Indeed, my point exactly…

Though I am not sure as of how it would be done - I'm a gamer, not a programmer, after all - it would be a welcome addition, deepening the all around strategy.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ] it would be a welcome addition, deepening the all around strategy.
Yes. It would increase the amount of calculation and preparation before the battle, and the amount of care for deployement in the battle itself.

[Ashen]

My god, you would actually have to THINKin a game? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Actually, you name me one battle in history not affected by terrain and i'll laugh at you. Even the Romans and Greek Phalanx's chose terrain to their benefit, even if it tended to be wide open plains.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ Dec. 29 2003,07:34)]My god, you would actually have to THINKin a game? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Actually, you name me one battle in history not affected by terrain and i'll laugh at you. Even the Romans and Greek Phalanx's chose terrain to their benefit, even if it tended to be wide open plains.
I'm not sure to what statement you are referring? I don't believe that anybody here claimed that the terrain wasn't important, in matter a fact we all said just the opposite…

[Ashen]

I was making a funny :P

Second part was just aimed at people who were discussing terrain consistancy and not terrain height. AKA Phalanxs and legions operated poorly on rocky/broken land, or those with dense forestland and the like.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] ]I was making a funny :P

Oh, right… Unfortunately I am completely and utterly humorless person; beg your pardon, my sense for good jokes was chopped of in war…

But if I had to bet, I would say you made a funny one...


Quote[/b] ]Second part was just aimed at people who were discussing terrain consistancy and not terrain height.

We are discussing the soil consistence, not the terrain elevation issues here… Hmmm… I guess something got lost during the translation…

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]We are discussing the soil consistence, not the terrain elevation issues here… Hmmm… I guess something got lost during the translation…
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif