Terrain CS Modifiers

[Zakilevo]

Title: Terrain CS Modifiers

Summary: Region types influence CS of different types of units.

Details: To give more unpredictability to the game, region types should influence CS of different types of units. Except for SF.

Examples)

Mountains: (Benefactor) (+/- CS bonus)

Both +5~15% Archer
Both +5~10% Mixed Infantry
Both -10~15% Cavalry
Attacker -5~15% Infantry

Woodlands:

Both +5~10% Mixed Infantry
Def +5~10% Archer
Atk -10~20% Archer
Both -10~15% Cavalry

Rurals:

Both +15~25% Cavalry
Both +5~15% Archer

Badlands:

Both +5~10% Mixed Infantry
Both +5~10% Archer
Both -10~15% Infantry
Both -10~15% Cavalry

Possible Exploits: Can't think of any for now.

Thread referring to: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4996.msg117661/boardseen.html#new

P.S: Bonuses will have to be tweaked through running test battles probably.

[Dishman]

I like it. A slight nudge of complexity without drastically changing the game. Will boost militia too (as long as it's placed with some forethought).

[Eirikr]

I like the concept, but doesn't this already happen, to a degree? Nothing so detailed as actual percentages or direct effects on CS, but rather the general effectiveness for different units and the line settings they should use. For example, cavalry are useless in attacking cities (and their various types) due to the fortifications exclusive to that region type.

I also see an issue with Archers essentially always getting a bonus, except when attacking Woodlands. Might as well blanket increase the CS of Archers and forgo the complicated region-specific coding if accepted as is. I'd say the easy fix here would be to take away the Woodland bonus (leave the penalty), switch the Mountain to be a penalty for attackers, and make one other region type have no effect at all.

Since it seems you are looking to make it somewhat realistic, too, here's my realism justifications:

• Woodland - Defending archers have likely chosen their desired positions, but they are still shooting through trees; they no longer have the full range of angles available to them. Medieval archers typically shot volleys on a high trajectory (through the branches) rather than direct shots like you'd see in movies featuring a forest ambush.
• Mountain - Theoretically, attacking archers are shooting uphill. This does tend to make things more difficult. Physics says so.

I understand your bonuses are just ideas at this point, I'm just trying to help form them.

[Indirik]

I like the concept, but doesn't this already happen, to a degree?

No. There are currently no terrain-based modifiers to combat.

[Eirikr]

No. There are currently no terrain-based modifiers to combat.

Oh, right, terrain is separate from region type, right? That is, a City can be on a Mountain or on a Rural? Or a Townsland can be Badlands or Rural?

[Anaris]

Oh, right, terrain is separate from region type, right? That is, a City can be on a Mountain or on a Rural? Or a Townsland can be Badlands or Rural?

No. A City is a City, not a Rural.

The one effect you mentioned—cavalry being useless against a fortification—is true, but is related to the fortification, not the terrain. The only connection is that fortifications can only be built in certain region types.

[Indirik]

As Anaris says, the only difference between regions is that some can have fortifications. Other than that, there is no difference at all between a battle in a city and a battle in a rural.

[Eirikr]

No. A City is a City, not a Rural.

The one effect you mentioned—cavalry being useless against a fortification—is true, but is related to the fortification, not the terrain. The only connection is that fortifications can only be built in certain region types.

Which is precisely the extension of logic I'd made originally. I thought that Indirik was indicating that such a connection is entirely independent of terrian... So now we're back where we started.

[Wolfang]

I like this idea, as Eirikr says though,

Mountains should give the defending archers a big advantage, adn the defending archers a big negative.
The same goes for infantry.
Cavalry should be terrible in mountains.

Woodlands
Archers should be terrible in both cases in woodlands. Although, I can see archers being good in woodlands in skirmishes or hit and run, they should be terrible in battles. There's just so many things in the way deflecting arrows, your range is horrible, you can't shoot unless you're practically on top of them as you need sight on them and angling your bow isn't going to work in woodlands because of the trees and stuff.
Infantry and mixed infantry should be pretty good.
Cavalry should be bad.

Rurals Pretty much balanced on all sides, but cavalry should have a big advantage.

I don't really have an opinion about badlands, the modifiers should probably be chosen for balance purposes.

[Fleugs]

The overall idea is great and the basic outlining of the bonuses look good.
As discussed on IRC yesterday, though, I still believe that there should not be a separate attacker/defender bonus, as I feel this will impair the ability mostly for the attacker. Additionally the code would then assume that the defender always has the best location in the region to defend from - which is assuming every single person in charge of the defence is a strategical mastermind that never makes a mistake.

Also, to long lengths: woodlands are not 100% woods and it still appears naive to me to assume an attacker will just attack a defending army in a forest like a zombie, even if that is clearly not in their advantage. To cancel that assumption I would dump the attacker/defender bonus. You could argue people could travel around the woodland region, but as it is, most already have to travel far enough to get into a battle or to the frontlines of a war. This means we would only make it further away (and then we enter the realm of player retention, I think).

[egamma]

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3934.0.html

I'd like to mention this other, similar way to handle regions, that I happen to like better. It gives long-ranged archers an advantage in mountain regions, etc.

[Eirikr]

Also, to long lengths: woodlands are not 100% woods and it still appears naive to me to assume an attacker will just attack a defending army in a forest like a zombie, even if that is clearly not in their advantage. To cancel that assumption I would dump the attacker/defender bonus. You could argue people could travel around the woodland region, but as it is, most already have to travel far enough to get into a battle or to the frontlines of a war. This means we would only make it further away (and then we enter the realm of player retention, I think).

I'd tossed around this same point in my own head; fighting in the woods proper was uncommon in medieval times. Even if there were woods, they'd fight on the open plain at the edge of the forest and use the forest itself only for very special tactics. Strictly speaking, I'd agree with dumping the bonuses there.

However, this is BM, not medieval Europe. We have some regions that are pictured as 100% woodland and it's very possible your General has no choice but to order a fight there; it definitely would not replicate rural conditions. I think Wolfang has the right of it; Cavalry and Archers are going to have a bad day, Infantry and MI will have a field day (get it? haha). I might even suggest that MI get a higher bonus than Infantry; if you imagine MI like a Fantasy ranger unit (mobile archers/crossbowmen that are closing to melee and therefore shooting directly instead of doing volleys), they could be picking people off as they see them running forward.

Which reminds me, I've been wondering whether most people imagine MI as having crossbows or standard short bows. Seeing as they typically move and shoot in the same turn and crossbows weren't really easy to reload, I'd say probably bows...

[Zakilevo]

I believe there should be separate bonuses for different regions.

Not because I don't agree with Fleugs but I want to see different composition of armies for each realm. Realms with lots of forest regions like Sirion would prefer to have less cavalries since they won't be able to use them properly while realms like Morek or Astrum will have massive cavalry armies to fully utilize their plains.

It would be nice to see realms being known for a certain military aspect like a realm of strong cavalry units or archer units etc.

[Wolfang]

I agree with the points Lapallanch makes.

[Dishman]

Which reminds me, I've been wondering whether most people imagine MI as having crossbows or standard short bows. Seeing as they typically move and shoot in the same turn and crossbows weren't really easy to reload, I'd say probably bows...

I've always figured spears and pilums, maybe shortbows for longer range MI.