Unit Terrain Modifier

[Vaylon Kenadell]

Well, I used to play a lot of Battle for Wesnoth, and I thought it might be interesting to see the following concept in BattleMaster: particular unit types automatically fight better or worse in particular terrain types.

Rural: The baseline; all units are equally advantageous.
Townsland: All units are equally advantageous.
City: Infantry have a slight advantage over other unit types here.
Woodlands: Cavalry has a slight penalty here; archers fare better.
Mountains: Nearly every type of unit fares poorly here, particularly cavalry.
Badlands: Cavalry have a slight advantage here.
Stronghold: All units fight the same here due to the effects of the stronghold.

We can squabble over the particular details; the examples are just to give you an idea of what I'm saying... although it just occurred to me that we really don't have a big enough variety of terrains for this suggestion to be useful.

[vonGenf]

It has always been my opinion that against a walled city, archers ought to fare better, as they can fire over the walls. Conversely, defending a walled city, archers should also fare better as they can hit the enemy before they climb the walls.

This doesn't translate very well in the actual BM system, where infantry-loaded armies fare better against walls than others.

[egamma]

Well, I used to play a lot of Battle for Wesnoth, and I thought it might be interesting to see the following concept in BattleMaster: particular unit types automatically fight better or worse in particular terrain types.

Rural: The baseline; all units are equally advantageous.
Townsland: All units are equally advantageous.
City: Infantry have a slight advantage over other unit types here.
Woodlands: Cavalry has a slight penalty here; archers fare better.
Mountains: Nearly every type of unit fares poorly here, particularly cavalry.
Badlands: Cavalry have a slight advantage here.
Stronghold: All units fight the same here due to the effects of the stronghold.

We can squabble over the particular details; the examples are just to give you an idea of what I'm saying... although it just occurred to me that we really don't have a big enough variety of terrains for this suggestion to be useful.

I would do things a little differently:

Rural: Cavalry movement bonus.
Badlands: Cavalry movement bonus.
Woodlands: Cavalry has a slight movement penalty here; archers fare better. Infantry cohesion penalty. Archer defensive bonus.
Mountains: Nearly every type of unit fares poorly here. Cavalry move at same rate as infantry. Archer defensive bonus.
Townsland: Cavalry movement penalty. Infantry cohesion bonus. Archer defensive bonus.
City: Cavalry movement penalty. Infantry cohesion bonus. Archer defensive bonus.
Stronghold: Cavalry movement penalty. Infantry cohesion bonus. Archer defensive bonus.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Poor balance. You're giving way too many bonuses to archers and in fact NO penalties to archers' to-hit. I would assume that their to-hit would be worse in woodlands even as their defense is increased due to cover. On mountains, even if there is no inherent to-hit penalty, there should be a higher chance of heavy winds.

Infantry and cavalry look somewhat acceptable, butwe can't know for sure except in a live test. For one thing, it sounds like it may be likely that cavalry can be massacred early by ranged in almost all cases, assuming the AI can make the least bit of sense.

[egamma]

Note that numbers are just placeholders for real values.

Region Type	Archers	Infantry	Cavalry
Rural	No change	No change	Non-combat movement +2
Townsland	Archers defending +1 attacking -1	No change	Non-combat movement -1
City or Stronghold	Archers defending +1 attacking -1	No change	Non-combat movement -2
Woodlands	Archers damage -2	combat cohesion -1	combat cohesion -2 Non-combat movement -1
Mountains	No change	no change	no charge, Non-combat movement -3
Badlands	no change	no change	Non-combat movement +1

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Might want to run several tests to see whether theory translates, but otherwise, it seems viable. Most strategy games do have this in some form. But as it is also BM, if we do this let's try to make sure that those who do want to figure out and master terrain get an advantage in battles worth their effort, but also not penalize those who really can't do that too much.

[Zakilevo]

cavalries would be horrible in a city region or a townland region. They cannot charge because they won't have enough space to do so. Cavalries without charge = a man on a horse :(. In mountain regions, archers would be better if they can get a higher position.

[Sacha]

What if cavalry had the option to fight dismounted? Cavalry commanders would have the ability to dismount their troops, turning them into regular infantry with the same stats for the rest of the turn. If they are dismounted, and any battles would occur at the following turn change, the unit would fight as infantry. Units would only be able to mount/dismount once every turn (or every full day). I'm not sure if there is a difference in troop payment costs between infantry and cavalry with the same stats, but if there is, dismounted cavalry would cost the same as mounted.

[vonGenf]

In mountain regions, archers everyone would be better if they can get a higher position.

[Jhaelen Irsei]

I like the idea. Region types are already there and it'd be more fun if they influence in some way the outcome of the battles.

Anyway I think it'd be better if this mix to other BM traits: for instance I'd give a bonus to Archers who are defending a woodland region of their realm and they're set to Sentries because with this setting it's assumed that they know well the terrain.

Generally I 'd not give automatic bonuses, players have to do something in order to get this gain.

[Shizzle]

What about smaller units getting an advantage in Badlands? They can hide in the irregularities of the landscape, where big units cannot (let's say ove r40 men)...

[songqu88@gmail.com]

What if cavalry had the option to fight dismounted? Cavalry commanders would have the ability to dismount their troops, turning them into regular infantry with the same stats for the rest of the turn. If they are dismounted, and any battles would occur at the following turn change, the unit would fight as infantry. Units would only be able to mount/dismount once every turn (or every full day). I'm not sure if there is a difference in troop payment costs between infantry and cavalry with the same stats, but if there is, dismounted cavalry would cost the same as mounted.

I don't like this idea, unless there came some sort of penalty to dismounted cavalry. The thought is that they are trained to fight mounted, and throughout history, there were the fairly uncommon exceptions to cavalry that could fight well on foot. In recent history, there was that one guy in the Battle of Gettysburg who held out on that hill (Gee, my Civil War history sucks so bear with me).

Furthermore, the armor might be slightly different, as horseback riders will generally not want too heavy armor. Sure you can have this changed, but what if we introduce the idea that archers can also do the same? Then we might as well not have any set unit types in the first place and just call them "soldiers" at the RC, for the troop leader to customize.

So the point is, generally, bad idea to have convertibles unless this was balanced out some other way. Also it would mean we can't just define unit type variables by infantry, archers, mixed infantry, cavalry, special forces, peasants, daimons, monsters, undead, whatever else, but need a further special indicator for which infantry are obligate infantry and which are converted from cavalry.

[egamma]

I don't like this idea, unless there came some sort of penalty to dismounted cavalry. The thought is that they are trained to fight mounted, and throughout history, there were the fairly uncommon exceptions to cavalry that could fight well on foot. In recent history, there was that one guy in the Battle of Gettysburg who held out on that hill (Gee, my Civil War history sucks so bear with me).

Furthermore, the armor might be slightly different, as horseback riders will generally not want too heavy armor. Sure you can have this changed, but what if we introduce the idea that archers can also do the same? Then we might as well not have any set unit types in the first place and just call them "soldiers" at the RC, for the troop leader to customize.

So the point is, generally, bad idea to have convertibles unless this was balanced out some other way. Also it would mean we can't just define unit type variables by infantry, archers, mixed infantry, cavalry, special forces, peasants, daimons, monsters, undead, whatever else, but need a further special indicator for which infantry are obligate infantry and which are converted from cavalry.

Cavalry hate to fight dismounted, and typically do so poorly.

I suppose that since all of our battlefields are "wide open", with no tents/carts/huts in the way, that Cavalry might as well be allowed to charge.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

When defending with fortifications, the cavalry does charge and the message says that they drive the guys attacking the walls back from the fortifications. So I am thinking that those encounters occur on top of the walls, which can be pretty wide, depending on the builder. We can just assume for sake of the game that the walls are really wide and a bunch of horses can comfortably ride down it.

In a city or town without walls? I guess we can say that the city/town square is really big and always are situated behind the gates to the city/town, or all battles always happen there for some strange reason.

Look, we can RP it differently, but if it helps balance, let's keep in mind: Still a game. Doesn't have to be absolutely realistic. When was the last time you played a strictly realistic game and enjoyed it anyway?

[fodder]

well.. in a walled town/city or for that matter a rural area with a citadel of some sort of the local lord, you normally won't fight every turn. there's only a fight if those inside sallies forth or those outside mounts an attack with engines of some sort. or they might even shoot at each other until kingdom come, or until food is gone. that is... food inside the walled bit and food outside it are tallied separately... they might not get much of a harvest when besieged (bar smuggling) but they shouldn't have to feed all the pop outside either.

which is basically what the game is missing.

it would be interesting with the new map thing to have the concept of a local lord's keep/etc in any and all types of regions.. size of which depends on the rank of the lord? which can be bypassed at will without triggering fights with militia if they don't come out.