Yea good point
Terrain suggestion - hills vs. forest
Hills and forests should have different effects. Currently there is no distinction between them, either for movement or for combat; that is, whether a unit is on hills, or it is in a forest, the effects are the same. I suggest that some differences be made between the two, and in that way make strategy and tactics more interesting.
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.
- Lord Byron
7 Replies
could you give some examples of the different effects?
At the moment both hills and forest are shown just to show a rough terrain.
I think visibility will be an issue for forest and we might have advantage in hills or disadvantage when you are below
I would like to have that as well. Its on the list, maybe it will be done with 1.5, but maybe other stuff gets prio first.
If units are in a forest Provence, maybe they could be hidden due to the vegetation and shrubbery, and set up ambushes, if a ambush I occurs, the defender would get a bonus to attack.
Yes, that sounds like a good 1.5 feature.
Well, maybe something simple (and small, so as not to compete with forts)...
Such as:
1) Both HILLS and FOREST give ANY DEFENDER a +5% advantage, when the defender is on the hill or forest; and
2) ONLY INFANTRY receives another +5% (for a total of +10%) when defending in FOREST.
Those are just suggested starting values; the specific percent advantages could be tweaked based on play-testing.
I don't think speed/movement should be adjusted at this time, just defense values. We don't want to change the game too much.
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.
- Lord Byron
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.