terrain and combat
 

I just read in one of the AAR that a battle in swamp terrain resulted in penalties for units without swamp survival. Excellent!

Do forests, wastes and mountains have the same combat effect?

Anyone know what the combat effects are?

Re: terrain and combat
 

Not atm, but since the mechanich is there now, there might be changes to this.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I was pleased to see this as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: terrain and combat
 

I would like to see terrain & survival affecting the stats.

Mountains and wastelands could encumber units without mountain survival thanks to altidute and harsh conditions.

Forests could slow down and reduce precision of units without forest survival because it's harder to move through and see in forest.

Re: terrain and combat
 

This should have a stronger effect on some troops, such as cavalry, who would find it much harder to move amongst the trees and thickets than infantry.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Mmmhm, true true.

Perhaps we could get a new "Cavalry" attribute...it could affect stuff like Cavalry suffering vs. Animal Awe, and perhaps cavalry being more suspectible to some nature related spells like Beckoning...

Re: terrain and combat
 

Here is how I look at that: just because a province is a wooded province doesn't mean commanders will choose to wage a battle in the woods. They'll probably find an open field. This is pretty much how it is represented in combat, anyway.

I guess mountains and swamplands pose a different problem. If you are in the mountains, you are stuck there. You will probably be fighting the battle on a mountain pass somewhere. As for the swamps, I guess we can assume that if an entire province is literally swamp land (which is, I guess, more fantasy than reality) then it covers every square inch of the land. I suppose you could use this same fantasy reasoning to say that forest provinces are covered every inch with trees, though.

Anyway, when fighting in mountains, all I'd ask for is that the defender receives higher ground. Higher ground simply means 2 things:

1) 150% range on missile weapons
2) Attackers gain a small amount of fatigue moving towards their enemies for fighting uphill.

Doh, this is probably way too complicated, though.

=$= Big J Money =$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

I don't know, that sounds fair to me. Maybe hard to implement, afterall fatigue penalties would propably be a lot easier to make, and thematic (thinner air, altidute)

About forests...well, you are right, but I think that units who have Forest Survival could get some bonuses there.

EDIT: Information like this ought to be viewable in the province type overviews. Like, terrain type "Swamp: *list of penalties*".

Re: terrain and combat
 

I like the idea of not penalizing someone just because they don't have mountain survival, but possibly giving a bonus to a unit that does.

Re: terrain and combat
 

That's one way to do it, but giving mountain survival units for example reinvigoration bonus in mounts, or attack or defense bonus might create weirder results than giving units without mountain penalties.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I was sort of thinking that too, Nerfix. I'll say though, that I see no problems with swamp being the only terrain that actually bestows penalties in battle.

=$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

Same here, but having people who don't have mountain survival suffer penalties in mountains would make sense.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I think BigJMoney had a good point, commanders will avoid bad terrain. In swampland this is hard, if not impossible, so that could be left. In a forested or mountainous terrain, however, they will often look for a clearing/valley to fight in.

I would therefore propose that forest/mountain survival units could take the most direct route (through the forest/over the peak) whereas those without the necessary survival would have to go the long way round. Would it be too hard/unbalanced for those without survival to start with 10 - 20 fatigue (to represent the extra walking)?

Re: terrain and combat
 

That's another way to do it too.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I just thought of this: maybe non-mountain survival troops should get greater fatigue, on account of the thinner air making you tired faster. but mountain-survival types are used to this, so they don't mind.

Re: terrain and combat
 

IIRC we already have a "Mounted" attribute. (Which IIRC bans the commander from using the bigger shields)

Re: terrain and combat
 

@Fate
Superb! That is so simple, it's genius. All units fighting in mountain or forests start combat with (let's start the experiment with...) 10 fatigue. Units with proper survival don't. It's explained thematically, it adds a bit to the usefulness of a skill, it adds a bit to the variables of combat via terrain, and it's not too drastic. I back this one 110%.

The question is if it can be done. I hope so.

=$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

You could give them negative reingvig instead. Maybe reinvig -1? thats not really going to affect gameplay, and it's kinda thematic. Especially for mountains. Not too sure about forests though... Starting with fatigue is good idea too though.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Negative reinvig was what I thought for mountains.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Ahhh. Sorry, I thought you meant encumberance, which would also work (like heat cold already is).

Re: terrain and combat
 

Negative reinvig and encumbrance would be similar, right? The only difference being that encumbrance affects you during spell casting and melee combat, while negative reinvig would affect you each round. I think that makes sense for simulating fighting under extreme weather.

For simulating troops spending a month in terrain they are uncomfortable in, I'm gonna have to go with the "a few points of fatigue before" battle notion. It gives me images of soldiers who spend nights awake swatting mosquitos, or fighting off the wolves, or trying to keep from getting buried in snow drifts. By the time they get to the battlefield, they're already somewhat fatigued. That is such a tight idea.

=$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

Negative reinvigoration doesn't stop when the unit is unconscious, and slows down reinvigoration that happens during that time. Negative reinvigoration is probably worse than encumberance increased by just one or two.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Well then negative reinvig wouldn't work.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Can we expect more important effects of climate ?

I.E. a jotun unit (ideal climate = cold+2) fighting in a heat+2 province would have penalties (encumbrance, attack or defence lowed, etc...). Maybe it can be in mods ?

Re: terrain and combat
 

That Jotun would have +1 or +2 enc in Dom2 already ...

And don't forget the -1 morale modifier for fighting in enemy dominion !

Re: terrain and combat
 

Severe Heat and Cold already bestow Encumberance penalties. Any Cold or Fire Resistance negates it, IIRC. This already existed in Dom2, maybe in Dom:PPP. It might be based on national heat preference now; at least a non-fire resistant pretender only got extra encumberance at Heat 3 instead of Heat 2 as Kailasa (EA monkeys), while I would've thought it would already affect him at Heat 2.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I've difficulties to "feel" the penalties of climate when I'm playing ( encumberance means few for me, I know Units are faster tired, but I don't easily quantify how much it will affect a battle). Same for economics, I know wrong climate can affect It, but it doesn't seems as important to me as turmoil or death. I just wanted more meaningful effects to me.

But maybe it's because I'm a weak player. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: terrain and combat
 

Yeah, I always thought climate had only a very modest effect on the game. I don't really know what to say to that. I might suggest that the effects of climate be exponential, rather than additive. Where X = the climate penalties; level 1 heat or cold scale = X, level 2 = 2X and level 3 = 4X. All this really changes is level 3, but maybe that makes the most sense.

And I see your point. When one looks at history and reads stories like the German advance into Russia being halted mainly because of the weather, it causes one to realize the effect extreme weather can have on war.

=$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

I was thinking today that maybe Mountain Survival troops should be able to cross unpassable heavy brown borders. I think that would be pretty strategic. Worth resurecting this thread for.

=$=

Re: terrain and combat
 

Or flying troops go over them, Agarthic troops use the mysterious tunnels under them, and Siddhas just ignore them. These all have the same problem -- there are no borders in the game, mountainous or otherwise. The provinces are connected point to point. Adding a "hexside terrain" value to those connections is a Dom4 wish. It might be worth starting a Dominions 4 Wishlist thread for, because it is a good wish.

Re: terrain and combat
 

I really would like to see this aspect greatly expanded,and the A.I programmed to understand it of course.

Re: terrain and combat
 

There could be different kind of terrain "connections", for example a mountain trail that only flying/tunneling/mountain survival units could cross. Maybe something for Dom4?

Re: terrain and combat
 

You could see an impact on starting distance or initiative -- ex. an army with more units with forest survival being able to get initiative even on the attack when ambushing enemies in a forest.

Survival skills and terrain might also affect stealth/patrol efficiency and ease of moving supplies from a nearby fortress.

On a more universal level, you would expect a forest to hamper ranged attacks (lots of cover, difficulty spotting) so a precision penalty would make sense, and possibly attack penalty. It being a forest might also force a shorter initial distance between the armies.

In mountains, one realistic but potentially complicated and dangerous factor would be making it difficult to coordinate multi-province attacks. Mountain passes might also have closer initial deployment; and one might want to see encumberance penalties.

Swamps are going to be brutal on ground-pounders; heavy encumberance, probably lower att and def as well. Patrols should have a harder time finding sneakers that have swamp survival.

Re: terrain and combat
 

Sneakers were really hard to come by back then for everyone. You just didn't have many people selling them because they weren't in style.

I thinking that it would be a nice touch if experience points gave bonuses to stealthy troops. Maybe +5 stealthy per two level of experience.

=$=