Let us discuss the battlefield maps

[V.T. Marvin]

O.K., when I started this thread, I did not know yet how the engine works in producing a particular battlefield map. This thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...tga-understood helped me a lot to correct my previous silly assumptions.

Still, I hope that in EBII it will be easier to maintain clear operational picture than it is in RTW/EB.

[Ludens]

From my recollection of M2:TW, it will be more difficult, but in a good way. The "field" and hilly maps have more features (ridges, small copses of trees) that block sight. The real offenders in R:TW are the "giant forest" and "giant slope" maps. I don't know if M2:TW still has the "giant forest" maps, but the "giant slopes" that I saw were more varied and interesting than before.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Battle terrain is often very hilly in EB.

If the enemy is on very high ground, I won't attack him unless I have considerable superiority - otherwise, I choose not to fight at all and hit the withdrawal icon. I can always fight somewhere else another turn. There is no shame in avoiding battle if the terrain is against you - historical generals did that all the time. If necessary, I can lure an enemy army away from the high ground by putting a much weaker force near him, so he advances and attacks.

If my army is on very high ground and I have the advantage, I deploy on the lowest ground available as near to the enemy as possible, so he doesn't have to tire his army out reaching me. I believe in giving the AI a fighting chance.

IMO, the human player should only occupy really high ground if he is the defender and is outnumbered by at least 4 to 1 (even a multiplayer human enemy would attack in that situation, numbers compensate for the terrain disadvantage), or if the player's army is far more mobile than the AI's (e.g. an all-cavalry army against AI infantry, horsemen can generally reach high ground before infantry, because they can move faster.)

[Cybvep]

Taking the high ground is one of the most common RL tactics, so I don't see how it can feel gamey for somebody. If the AI is crap, then it's a completely different problem, but the AI gets other bonuses on the strat map to compensate for its stupidity and RL commanders were often hardly better. The real problem is when terrain on the strat map isn't anything like the terrain on the tactical map, as picking your battles become impossible.

[Blxz]

It is the battles that are totally forest that annoy me. Realism (or lack there-of) aside, it isn't fun. I can't see anything from any height. The smallest trees are about 5 times the height of my men and the tallest must be over 50metres high. It is insane, impossible to direct the battle and no commander would choose to fight in such terrain.

It is so bad that when i play barbarian factions I do my best to fight away from their ideal forest area's because of the interface stupidity. I would be much happier dealing with trees that were no more than 2 or 3 times my soldiers height and far, far more sparse. If you want to make it realistic then surely you can use some modifiers to give a very large negative fighting bonus to simulate denser woods while allowing the Sweboz, etc to actually play to their strengths and fight effectively in forest maps.

[Leon the Batavian]

It is insane, impossible to direct the battle and no commander would choose to fight in such terrain.

A true commander can work with any terrain. Its maybe even preferable to have forest around so u can set up ambushes or screen your flanks.

Maybe phalanxes don't like forests but a roman manipular legion could cope with it maybe not as good as babarian factions but still. And I love the views you get through the forest.

[Cybvep]

You didn't get it. He doesn't like forest maps because he cannot see anything properly on them because of the size of trees and the game's camera. The AI has no issue with that, but for the player it's simply annoying.