your prefered landscapes :)

Seeing the Main Hall quiet is sad, and so i think i am left with no choice other than... starting a new thread :)

So we have discussed and discussed for factions and units and starting positions to no end; what about our favorite landscapes?

As you all know (or should know) there are five distinct landscape types in MTW:
rocky desert, sand desert, arid, lush and temperate.

Every landscape comes with its own vegetation, but it can be combined with any architecture type (that is determined by the declaration of the default province culture for those who mod).

These were meant originally to be tied to the map - for example for those who wonder why some southern/eastern regions are dark, it is to denounce that they are rock desert provinces. Sand desert provinces are usually despicted... sand deserty in the strategy map, like say Syria or Arabia complete with sand hills. Arid maps contain small hills and coconut trees (with all the MontyPythonesque correlations). Lush maps are denoted by... lush green in the strategy map and conventional forestland, like say most of westen europe, and finally temperate maps are denoted with a distinctively tundric whitewashing as the steppe provinces.

Now this convention is not strictly maintained in the vanilla game, although the strategy map depiction is quite accurate. For example Venice and Milan are depicted as lush and actually should have been lush as they are in fact lush in reality, and yet in the vanilla game the maps are arid. Some home modding can change these inconsistencies, my home mods always do and Cavarel's pocket mod also did.

So, in what order you prefer playing battles in these landscape types? and a few words why please.

To start with:
1. My most favorite landscapes are probably the desert ones. The bareness of the landscape in and around the Holy Land has something of the vastness and silence of the Divine that attracted Christian ascetics and hermits from the earliest centuries of Christianity, and it is quite a setting for decisive encouters that echo the horns of Hattin, Yarmuck and other such famous battles. Sand storms make the encounters particularly dramatic. And after the fight, one senses how the dead must suffer the vultures that were eagerly awating the end of the battle to take their own trophies...

2. Arid. Friendly and majestic at the same time, arid with its nice plummy groves and brown prosperus fields transports one well into the Southern Italian climate as a Norman Sicilian King or in Byzantine Greece/Anatolia as a Roman Prince, or as an Almohad or Christian Spanish Iberian Lord or as a Turkish Sultan, wise and cruel. It echoes the richness of nature in pine and olive tree groves, with the endless summer song of the cicadas, that slightly covers the sound of the waves from the coast, above the drywalls that divide the fields.
However the arid landscape is also very imposing when applied to the flat vastness of the land in Khazar, beautifully introducing the Asiatic steppe: flat, vast and dusty worn out by the hoofs of impious and ruthless horsemen from the wilderness...

3. Lush. Especially inviting when coupled with the rolling hills as in northern france/germany. Also very well represented when combined with the white rocks of Dover or Cornwall as one lands his forces to take over the British Isles in a new Hastings. The soft fields divided by hedges are occasionally interrupted by a small village that will eventually due to the proximity to the battlesite (or due to the cunning of its inhabitans) give its name to the battle that is about to happen...

4. Temperate. Particularly brooding and moody, the temperate landscape of MTW gives chills when i enter, under a grey and ominous sky, that is ready to be torn apart and drown all in a cataclysmic rain, in battle with some Teutonic Knights to fight the Russians or the Mongols or as the Russians to fight some Crusaders (or the Mongols). Especially when the map is large the vastness combined with moodiness is particularly haunting and awakens dark instincts in one. If only the enemy knew what awaits them in that tall and quiet Fir forest...

What about you guys? :)

I love to fight in Minor Asia (Lesser Armenia, Rum and Armenia are usually a stable border for several decades). Greece, Serbia are also favoured battlegrounds. For obvious reasons Bulgaria is a noble exception of this rule: it's lush weather and bridges really make it the perfect border. It depends on the stupidity of either Egypt or Hungary to determine which direction I will take whilst I will fortify the other direction with a full stack of armies determined to serve their Emperor. On these terrains odds are not a matter with a full stack. A game I started some time ago made me love Naples (again arid). Usually the general is displeased to see himself left to his own in Naples but using the hills, forests and the fact there is no retreat can make of the Byzantine infantry men an elite force and a bunch of militia men heroes. SPanish terrain is also enjoyable for fighting.

I do not feel very comfortable in desert since it makes the Egyptian and esp. the Almohad weakness a strength (I consider the hit and run tacticts with Berber camels to be more deadly than the fair fight with their Bedouin brethrens) and I generally dislike fighting on a flat terrain both in defence and when attacking. Give me hills and forests and an arid terrain and I am almost unbeatable on defense. Give them when I am attacking and I will find out a way to push the enemy out their comfortable position, slaughter their general in the forest and rout the reinforcements. And of course, the weather must be nice, it makes the arrows of my brigands and Trebizond adventurers ineffective. Arbalests can work, but they lack the versatility and the charm of the archers. Yes, if there is a unit I like most, these are the archers. Trebizond archers and especially those brigands who are fast enough to chase a broken enemy... It's not comfortable to command a battle when you are wet and cold. ~:)

Edit: May I also ask for a Demi-Culverin when the gunpowder age arrives. I really love the sound that the artillery makes when it fires at the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prince Cobra
Edit: May I also ask for a Demi-Culverin when the gunpowder age arrives. I really love the sound that the artillery makes when it fires at the enemy.

---

You mean, something like tut-tut ka-boom?

Personally, I hate hearing tut-tut ka-boom since it means I am under attack. Instead, I love that nice sound when the cannon fires from my positions. :evilgrin: I also enjoy commanding assaults against minor garrisons personally and I have a lot of fun with the catapult towers... The combination of my cannons and the rocks flying at my people is impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Now this convention is not strictly maintained in the vanilla game, although the strategy map depiction is quite accurate. For example Venice and Milan are depicted as lush and actually should have been lush as they are in fact lush in reality, and yet in the vanilla game the maps are arid.

---

I can't believe I've never noticed that!

I personally love the sandy desert maps, especially the ones with an oasis and a small town near the oasis. And as your tired crusaders march through the desert they can spot the enemy in brief glimpses through the sandstorms.

There are other examples, the most obvious is Antich, Tripoli and jerusalem. As explained they should all have been rocky desert from all appraoches, however the crossings along the coast (Antioch to Tripoli to Jerusalem and vice versa) are designated as arid (as most people would know). This in game terms is bad for Muslim armies obviuosly as even the few all desert provinces they have are turned favorably for Catholics/Orthodox. However if anyone gets to play a siege in any of these provinces we will get a rocky desert landscape.

I myself turn all the crossings to rock/sand desert, accoding to the strat map in the Holy Land, including the sea landing maps.

Prussia also should have been lush (its descrption is in the strat map), but the actual map was changed to temperate, while some russian steppe maps are lush instead when depicted temperate. Also iirc there is a confusion in Serbia (its depicted lush in the strat map but the battle map is arid) and Croatia (vice versa).

i know what you mean about the ominus ka-boom Prince Cobra. I remember a particularly unlucky incident that a catapult rock landed on top of my general as the battle commenced (i had deploy close and they had too).

:bow:

trees in flat land or rolling hills. cheap woodsmen can be heroes too

Trees in flat land and rolling hills, yes, but in which lanscape type?

For battle give me Arid or Desert anytime!
Generally clear and easy to see what is going on.

I like the look of Lush and Temperate though; easy on the eyes and (some) rather pretty :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

i know what you mean about the ominus ka-boom Prince Cobra. I remember a particularly unlucky incident that a catapult rock landed on top of my general as the battle commenced (i had deploy close and they had too).

---

I've done the reverse. Destroyed the Byzantine Empire with a single lucky serpentine shot.

Monarchies are like dictatorships, a snake: if you step on their tails they'll turn and bite you, you have to strike at the head.

Speaking of Byzantium, here is a small but interesting video about Greek Fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aph-...eature=related

I know this isn't an original election but I prefer both arid and lush terrains in flat or hilly lands. I don't really like to fight in any type of landscape with a mountainous vista, this isn't comfortable for me.

Another fan of the arid/desert maps here. There's just something about the way they're presented that really grabs my attention. (In truth, I suspect that's part of the reason why the Spanish and Egyptians are my two favorite factions -- all those lovely battle maps in & around their home territory.... ~:) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Speaking of Byzantium, here is a small but interesting video about Greek Fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aph-...eature=related

---

fun vid

My favourite is when you expect a temperate map and instead it's all covered in snow.

You hear the enemy before you see them. Fantastic battles!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I know this isn't an original election but I prefer both arid and lush terrains in flat or hilly lands. I don't really like to fight in any type of landscape with a mountainous vista, this isn't comfortable for me.

---

Gah. The mountains are no fun to fight in. Really, they can become very awkward when lining up your men in formation and attempting to approach up a steep angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Gah. The mountains are no fun to fight in. Really, they can become very awkward when lining up your men in formation and attempting to approach up a steep angle.

---

Hello,

I actually prefer the mountainous or hilly terrain. I also like the arid/rock/desert maps the best. Mountains give an interesting challenge as you try to out manouvre the AI and take/hold the high ground. I dislike the flat maps personally.

Yohei

I would have really liked the mountains/hills much more than i do if the AI was more adept at exploiting them defensively and more apt at attcking in them. My personal favorites for terrain are rolling hills and flats, then hills, then mountains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I would have really liked the mountains/hills much more than i do if the AI was more adept at exploiting them defensively and more apt at attcking in them. My personal favorites for terrain are rolling hills and flats, then hills, then mountains.

---

This is only a real issue with the hugely mountainous maps such as the Scotland ones. The AI handles the hills ok so long as you don't outright edge/corner camp. It certainly handles hill better than it did in some of the later games.

Yohei

Indeed - that was probably partly why RTW maps were flat mostly. However, sometimes i do feel cheated from how easy it is to defend against the AI attacking against highground. However he is not as inept as in RTW and later to be outmaneuvered from the highground as the player attacks.

I personally feel that rolling hills give the most "equal" opportunities and variety to both player and the AI in using them tactically and even strategically.

By the way i remember old mpers testifying that Totomi in STW that had very small bumps in an otherwise flat map, saw ferocious battles with diminishing forces in order to control them as they provided a good firing platform and an advantage in melee.

:bow:

It depends on starting position and if you are the attacker or defender. I find some hilly maps to be a big challenge when you start facing up hill to the enemy. It seems that some of those maps are designed in such a way that you cannot exploit the hills. I agree though, the rolling hills are best.

What about woods?

Yohei

Very much important tactically - some times can even make the difference between victory and defeat. And as an added plus they are really well proportioned to the camera view and the sprites - something that no later tw game managed to achieve. I think that the sprites in MTW are a bit smaller than the STW sprites and the woods in MTW are a bit less dense overall. Both good moves - and the tree models are very nice too in all landscapes.