Fighting in woods

**Cambyses** · 01-24-2010, 12:15

Originally Posted by lionhard

the worst part is that germanic and a lot of callic warriors get combat bonus in the forests so they actually match if not overpower your men :( unless u have them too

The worst part? Surely its the best. Well organised armies lose many of their advantages when fighting in broken or forested terrain. That's as it should be. Romans and Greeks will - all things being equal (ie no AI involved) - usually beat Germans and Gallic troops on flat plain and lose in a forest. To avoid that you just need to move more carefully and use the general's moral bonus effectively.

Also, from memory its the Lusotannan that actually have the strongest bonus in a forest.

**lionhard** · 01-24-2010, 17:01

Originally Posted by Cambyses

The worst part? Surely its the best. Well organised armies lose many of their advantages when fighting in broken or forested terrain. That's as it should be. Romans and Greeks will - all things being equal (ie no AI involved) - usually beat Germans and Gallic troops on flat plain and lose in a forest. To avoid that you just need to move more carefully and use the general's moral bonus effectively.

Also, from memory its the Lusotannan that actually have the strongest bonus in a forest.

No mate just no mate.

It gets borin afta uv been doin it for 3 years

**anubis88** · 01-24-2010, 17:05

Is sarcasm really so hard to pick up on this forums?

**lionhard** · 01-24-2010, 17:10

no mate

**Ibrahim** · 01-24-2010, 19:31

Originally Posted by anubis88

Is sarcasm really so hard to pick up on this forums?

no, but I doubt that your comment was sarcastic in a good way

anyways: I personally avoid the. woods like the plague. I tend to stick to rivers and coasts, venturing inland only to get to a city. when that is the case, I get really angsty.

however, if I have no choice, I just fight; behind, in front, I'll attack the enemy wherever he is.

**anubis88** · 01-24-2010, 19:42

I didn't mean my comment, i ment Subotan's. He clearly states how it's "unhistorical" that the Generals didn't have the look of eagles of his men, and how it is "historical" in the RTW engine.

I think he was clearly joking, since in those wood battles you get the view the generals really had. Unfortunatly the units in your army are plain stupid if not commanded directly by you, so the "eagle" view was necessary.

**Jikot** · 01-24-2010, 19:58

Originally Posted by anubis88

I didn't mean my comment, i ment Subotan's. He clearly states how it's "unhistorical" that the Generals didn't have the look of eagles of his men, and how it is "historical" in the RTW engine.

I think he was clearly joking, since in those wood battles you get the view the generals really had. Unfortunatly the units in your army are plain stupid if not commanded directly by you, so the "eagle" view was necessary.

Well I did pick up on the sarcasm, and in my last post I pretty much said what you said in that last paragraph. Hello!

**anubis88** · 01-24-2010, 20:05

Ok, i'm an duche, i admit it. I missread your post, wasnt paying enough attention, so i owe you mi sincere apologies. I've just seen a few threads where sarcasm just wasn't noticed, and when i saw this one i just felt the need to say something. It's a bad habit, and i had a bad day.

I'm an idiot. I deserve to get a

on my behind

.

Don't make your judgment of me by this one post, usually i help where i can