I HATE fighting uphill

[QuintusSertorius]

I've got a new battlemap loathing to add to forests. For those of you who didn't see my earlier thread, I groan any time I load up a battle and see much or most of the map is covered in trees. That means a battle that's nigh-on impossible to tell what's going on and crap screenshots for the AAR.

Second place in the "now I don't want to play this battle" stakes are hilly maps where I start on the reverse slope and the enemy is conveniently higher up. Sometimes it's avoidable by marching around and getting level, but that means the first few minutes spent pissing about making sure you don't lose your formation in the maneuvering.

Worse are those where there's no room, you just have to fight uphill. I use a lot of skirmishers and many of my troops have precursor weapons. A slope means they're useless. Your slingers and javelineers might as well go home if they can't get higher up than the enemy, and your line infantry could just as well drop their javelins and save themselves the trouble. Not to mention that your cavalry and flankers will get knackered just moving into position.

Now don't get me wrong, none of this is unrealistic or ahistorical. Fighting uphill, or having a height advantage was the kind of thing maneuvering was about. But I still hate it when it happens.

[Senshi]

Uhm, so what is the point of this thread? You just wanted to state how pissed you are or what? Don't quite get what you want...

If you don't like fighting uphill, just make sure you move your army to the better strategic position on the campaign map, then attack et voìla, you can launch the avalanche from the hills...

Of course it's a disadvantage to fight uphill, that's just natural... I suppose this would belong the tactical capability "Use your surroundings wisely".

I agree though with fighting in forests. If really all the battle map is covered in thick, northern woods ordering your army around (especially in BIG battles) is a pain in the ***, as you see absolutely nothing wihtout zooming in to ground level...

[QuintusSertorius]

Given how hard it sometimes is to get the AI to fight, "strategic positioning" isn't really something you can do with consistency. I tend to find you have to take your battles where you can get them.

[chenkai11]

Just withdraw from the battle if you can. Or force you army go around, the AI is somehow stupid enough to move around to the lower ground.

Some uphill in the battle map isn't real enough to have AI standing there and wait for you to come. Just look at the angle, when you look at the side view, the unit almost lying against the ground, instead of standing. How the hell can real people manage to stand on an uphill with an angle of more than 60 degree. Not to mention maintaining formation and engaging in battle.

[QuintusSertorius]

Why is it withdrawing seems to be to some random corner of the map opposite to where you start, rather than just turning right around and marching back out the way you came? I've had this with unwanted reinforcements in some battles where I tell them to withdraw the moment they appear. Yet they don't go back the way they came, they charge right across the battlefield. Bizarre.

When you've got a bigger army, it's much harder to outsmart the AI by marching to somewhere else. Some maps don't have the option either - the whole thing is one big slope.

[Kromulan]

Don't mean to hijack your thread, but. . .

I do believe that, in antiquity, forests were generally seen as impassible terrain during battles. There are many examples of armies using forest to "ground" one end of their line to prevent being flanked in that direction. Obviously, this is not because the men couldn't walk there (not physically impassible), but most likely because the formation could not possibly maintain command and control.
My point, then, is that all those forest battles are basically ahistorical BS. I think the battle-map terrain selection is hardcoded RTW, so there's little use complaining about it, but I'll add my opinion anyway, just 'cuz I can.

[Grriffon]

Fighting an uphill enemy doesn't bother me near as much as fighting in forests. I really hate it.

[Marius Dynamite]

I generally dislike the way battlefields are generated at the moment. The amount of times you end up fighting on a mountainside is jusy annoying. You should get a chance to manouvre your army to fight on better terrain with more details given to you than just the campaign map.

Maybe when you attack an enemy army you get shown a map of the area, larger than the battle map and you get a vague idea showing where the enemy is and where they are going then you can move to get the best attack possible. If they go to a hill you tell your army to attack up the least steep side or something and that becomes the battle map. Particularly in Napoleonic battles the eary movement was really important and the campaign map doesnt give enough details!

[Vorian]

I generally dislike the way battlefields are generated at the moment. The amount of times you end up fighting on a mountainside is jusy annoying. You should get a chance to manouvre your army to fight on better terrain with more details given to you than just the campaign map.

Maybe when you attack an enemy army you get shown a map of the area, larger than the battle map and you get a vague idea showing where the enemy is and where they are going then you can move to get the best attack possible. If they go to a hill you tell your army to attack up the least steep side or something and that becomes the battle map. Particularly in Napoleonic battles the eary movement was really important and the campaign map doesnt give enough details!

Wait for ETW...

[Arminius Germanicus]

personally, i have no problems with uphill battles.

if you are in the defensive, you´re bound to win rather easily.

if you are attacking, you´ll need patience and the right units mix. that is: fast units with very good stamina and morale.

in my Sweboz campaign i have routed a full stack roman army with general and another half with my little more than half stack army without general consisting of 6 two handed swordmen, 3 illyrian coastal levies as cannonfodder, 2 Thegnoz Drugule and one half unit of leuce epos and peltastoi each. in the mountains north of patavium.

i was attacking and had the luck that the enemy army didn´t move to the farthest uphill slope at the beginning but stood rather close to my men. i sacrificed my illyrians in a frontal charge to distract the romans, then flanked with my swordmen on the left side where i could get an uphill position.

my units were rather tired after the quick uphill march, but their morale was excellent due to the fact that this swordsman unit can inspire nearby troops, so all my units inspired each other.

when i had the advantageous uphill postioion, i immediately ordered my swordmen to charge the enemy on a wide front.
and whilst the two handed swords did their grim work very effectively, my peltastoi and leuce epos were able to engage the enemy generals cavalry on a steep mountain slope too. they won and the general fell. now i had the moral upperhand and managed to rout almost all roman units after a short while.

many of the roman units chased after my fleeing coastal levies, exhausting themselves totally. so i was able to pick them up with my remaining swordsmen, which had some time to recover.

it was a heroic victory, allthough i originally planned to sacrifice these units to wear the romans down a little before i attacked them with my second full stack army nearby. but due to gaining the higher ground with skillfull maneuvering with my vastly inferior army that wasn´t necessary at all.

so yeah, fighting in a mountaineus area can be a ral PITA, but it can also be a great tactical advantage for those that know how to gain and use it. if you let your enemy gain the higher ground though and if he has the better unit mix, you´re in a world of hurt. but same goes the other way. so yeah, there you have it.

most important thing when attacking an enemy uphill is, to have fast flanking units with lots of stamina. skirmishers and light cavalry.
they have to quickly gain height and get into the flanks or back of the enemy, even if this tires them out completely. maybe they can even draw away some enemy units from the formation, so you´ll be able to pick them up with your units before engaging the main force. but if the enemy army consists mainly of pike or phalanx units and ranged attackers, you´re better off retreating to fight another day.

oh yeah, but i really too hate fighting in forests. you have absolutely no overview over the situation. everything is very chaotic and you can only see the units if you zoom in almost to an over the shoulder view. granted, this has it´s quite cinematic and dramatic moments. and in a certain sense, it´s also somewhat realistic. but i often experience that single soldiers of routing units get stuck between two trees standing too close to each other. the unit has alredy left the battlefield, but one or two soldiers are constantly running against the trees but cannot pass through them in the wanted direction. this sometimes prevents the "battle victory" screen to appear and end the battle even if it´s already completely won.

the mappers should really look out to not make the forests too dense and leave enough space between the trees in every direction.

[QuintusSertorius]

I appreciate all that Arminius, but there are some maps where you simply can't get higher, especially on Huge unit size where two full stacks take up a lot of space.

[Apgad]

What's going to happen when you have to fight an uphill battle in a forest?

[QuintusSertorius]

What's going to happen when you have to fight an uphill battle in a forest?

Then I'll be stuffed.

[duncan.gill]

I dislike fighting in forests from a gameplaying perspective but I would disagree that it is ahistorical - wasn't the Battle of the Teutoburg Wald a forest battle? I think that it actually gives an advantage to less rigid, less missile based armies (phalanxes and slingers suck in such terrain).

Although it just makes it more difficult to actually fight the battle - does anyone know if there is any way of changing the display to cuts to the tops off the trees?

[lobf]

Then I'll be stuffed.

Doesn't that mean effed in the ayy in England?

[Nirvanish]

What's going to happen when you have to fight an uphill battle in a forest?

After running into many of these types of battles I realized that I really didn't want to play as Getai after all.

[Xipe Totec]

I've got no qualms about fighting uphill when I'm attacking, after all no decent general would attempt to defend anything but a hill. It's annoying when I'm attacked to find I'm forced to defend the bottom of a slope, as if my general was a complete idiot who did'nt bother to use pickets or scouts. It is usual evenso for me to win anyway so it ends up being a case of anything which helps the AI makes the game more challenging. Hell we all want to win in the end to polish up our egos. It doesn't have to be nigh on impossible to win to be fun, just require a bit of effort to give you satisfaction for the time you invest. If it's too damn easy it's pointless even bothering

But the computer games I have played in the past and quickly dumped are the ones that you can't even get started without being trashed every time cause the PC cheats you out of any chance of anything. RTW always lets you win but keeps on throwing up challenges: that's why it's the best game ever made. It makes you feel like a great conquering genius, when you are really just a nerdy nobody relatively speaking of course. I don't claim to be the equal of Alexander, Julius or Hannibal, but it's nice to think I am when I conquer the world with head hurlers or head hunting maidens!

[Arminius Germanicus]

I appreciate all that Arminius, but there are some maps where you simply can't get higher, especially on Huge unit size where two full stacks take up a lot of space.

right, if that is the case, then you´re pretty much screwed. typical case of predecided battle outcome because of terrain. well, that´s war!

What's going to happen when you have to fight an uphill battle in a forest?

well, that is indeed the very worst case scenario. just try to avoid at all costs!

not only are you in a disadvantageous position from the start, you also cannot see properly where the enemy is, where you are and how to maneuver. it´s the situation from which legendary crushing defeats are made.

[tapanojum]

right, if that is the case, then you´re pretty much screwed. typical case of predecided battle outcome because of terrain. well, that´s war!



well, that is indeed the very worst case scenario. just try to avoid at all costs!

not only are you in a disadvantageous position from the start, you also cannot see properly where the enemy is, where you are and how to maneuver. it´s the situation from which legendary crushing defeats are made.

I've fought a couple of these. It wasn't THAT bad because the slope wasn't extremely high and my army consisted of 3 Hay FM's and 6 units of Scythian Horse archers....just ran around the enemy armies and fired away =]

[Kromulan]

@Duncan

Teutoburg Wald was a vast ambush, not a set-piece battle. No (Roman) commander would choose to fight there. The Germans chose to ambush the Romans on the road they were using through the woods specifically because they knew it would disrupt the ability of the Romans to establish command and control. This was one of the things Arminius learned from the Romans: We don't fight where we can't see our own army. The only reason Varus was there is he (apparently) trusted Arminius to lead him safely through what was becoming increasingly dangerous territory. I guess there's another lesson the Romans taught Arminius: Backstabbing is much easier if they trust you to watch their back!