Roads, Roads, and more Roads

[jg]

Hmm. Not a problem for the +1 version of course, but good point.

Don't want to be a nerd, but that would still mean you would cross the road in no time... lightspeed?

jg

[turin]

I think a mud terrain is an interesting idea. We would have to make it clear, though, that all units are supposed to do badly in it - not some units do badly, some do OK, some do well.

What would be the difference between mud and swamp? I think they fulfill the same purpose.

Except saurians, mermen, nagas and flying units are good in swamp (or at least not bad in swamp), while no units would be good in mud...

Note that I'm not saying it is a good idea, but an interesting one. I'm undecided as to its desirability, thus far.

[Stilgar]

How would you rationalize flying units doing okay over swamp but not over mud? They could fly over either just as easily, and it seems to me to be a little too bizarre to be explained away by WINR.

[turin]

How would you rationalize flying units doing okay over swamp but not over mud? They could fly over either just as easily, and it seems to me to be a little too bizarre to be explained away by WINR.

OK, so let flying units b just as good on mud as on grass. The point is that no units are better on mud than on grass.

[server]

OK, so let flying units b just as good on mud as on grass. The point is that no units are better on mud than on grass.

Mudcrawlers, anyone? Shouldn't they be better in/on mud than on grass?

[Flametrooper]

Quick Mud image:

[FleshPeeler]

I think a mud terrain is an interesting idea. We would have to make it clear, though, that all units are supposed to do badly in it - not some units do badly, some do OK, some do well.

What would be the difference between mud and swamp? I think they fulfill the same purpose.

Saurians don't own in mud. They suffer the same penalties as all other races.

The point is that it is currently hard to balance for all races because each current terrain type massively benefits one or two factions while hindering the rest. This is not always the intended effect; sometimes a map designer (myself included) would like a terrain that hinders/helps all units equally. Sometimes we also want a terrain which can slow down a unit that presently cannot be stopped (Good example: I like to put in isolated battle circles in my maps, but the fact that Gryphons and Drakes fly over water, mountains, and everything else that is usually an impediment totally ruins this. Thus, I am forced to using cave walls or impassable mountains which grants NO maneuverability where I would like SOME.)

This is exactly why theoretically balanced maps, as I've heard them described, result in being an ugly porridge of non-concurrent terrains all jumbled ramdomly together. In order to be theoretically balanced you need to have at least one of practically each terrain type in a small area where a battle is expected in order to benefit every faction. This is really limiting when it comes down to perfecting the art of map-making because it is a really high demand that consumes a lot of time and attention per hex. This isn't really a complaint, just an observation.

And I think my suggestion for roads was misunderstood . . . giving +1 for every tile of road moved over means INFINITE MOVEMENT OVER ROAD. Nonononono! I meant that if you move over at least 1 tile of road in a turn, you gain a SINGLE extra move point on that turn -- NOT one per tile of road moved over.

[Jetrel]

Currently the proposal sounds far too much like "well we have these nice looking roads, now let's make them do something!" rather than being gameplay-driven.

It's a good point, does anyone have a gameplay reason for this change? I guess I could see changing the defense value of roads or other movement-friendly terrain, but all of this +move stuff doesn't seem like it's necessary from a gameplay standpoint. (Or I don't understand why it would make the game more interesting, at least).

Sure.

If the effect is to give certain units of certain races (for example, HI) a move bonus on roads, then it gives those races additional ties to ground logically connected to them. It makes sense for elves to be more mobile on wild ground, and for men to be more mobile on tamed, paved roads.

The idea would be to give unwieldy units (dwarves come to mind as a great example) a very limited workaround to their handicap, but only under certain conditions. This way, they would be able to back each other up on certain terrains, but not in the open. This would give civilized races an obvious and intuitive connection to more "civilized" terrains. It makes sense for a man to have an easier time walking on road than on grassland, whereas for something large like a wose, it makes no sense (and hence the woses would not get a bonus).



An easy way to give dwarves 5 moves on road would be a move cost of .8 per tile, rather than the usual 1. Quick would still be very useful, and there would be no edge cases with the coding; like now, simply, if one does not have enough move points to enter the terrain, they can't.

[Kel]

Good point.

Question: How does .8 display? If a 4-move unit moves over a .8 move-cost terrain, does it round to 3/4 moves left, or display as 3.2/4? This obviously affects gameplay (it'd be weird to have a unit that could move 5 hexes at once but only 4 if moved gradually).

[irrevenant]

I thought the Devs were strongly against fractional move costs?

[Oreb]

I thought the Devs were strongly against fractional move costs?

Times are changing...

What's happening with the high grass idea, anyone like it.

[zol]

I thought the Devs were strongly against fractional move costs?

So should players be if they know what's good for them (And multiplying existing values by five in order to get fifths is not much better)

If anything, something like a +1 MP effect like those already mentioned would probably be the way to go. (And then a precedent would be set for other terrain effects)

[FleshPeeler]

I thought the Devs were strongly against fractional move costs?

Times are changing...

What's happening with the high grass idea, anyone like it.

Here's a vote. *yey* Like I've been saying we need basic terrain that is equally hindering/advantageous to all factions and doesn't favor any one over others.

[Thrawn]

would this be a terrain, or a terrain filter, like the "snowy" mountian propsal?

[Noy]

I thought the Devs were strongly against fractional move costs?

Times are changing...

What's happening with the high grass idea, anyone like it.

No, they aren't. Its a non-issue among devs (ie it will never happen), so don't come here and hint that they might be.