Stat_ground

[Carados]

Combat modifiers applied to unit only when it fights on the respective specified ground type. Positive numbers are bonuses, negative are penalties. They range from 8 to -8 and they have a 1 to 1 point relationship with attack.

• [scrub_modifier] : self-explanatory (it's quite tricky to know for sure when you are fighting on scrub)
• [sand_modifier] : self-explanatory
• [forest_modifier] : self-explanatory
• [snow_modifier] : self-explanatory

Quite a simple topic this. What are peoples opinion on the above modifiers?

Currently:
Cavalry are: -6, 0, -8, 0.
Light infantry: 0, 0, 0, 0.
Hoplites: -4, 0, -8, 0.
Phalangites: -8, 0, -8, 0.

The rest are typically 0, 0, 0, 0.

[Caligula Caesar]

Archers should have some minus in forests, because they can't see their foes in real life, and generally everyone in the south should have some penalty or another in the snow. Elephants should probably be something like -4, 0, -8, -8.

[Caesar Augustus]

As CC says, I think everyone from the med downwards should be at a disadvantage (the Gauls in Northern Italy being an exception) when fighting in snowy conditions. Anybody who has a missile weapon should be at a disadvantage in forests. CC's stats for elephants look fine to me.

[Carados]

Shouldn't all units get a penalty in the snow though? It's still going to affect the Northern "barbarians", just not as much as people from say, Egypt.

For the elephants, I disagree with scrub. They are large enough to ignore it I would think, especially of the Indian variety.

Would there be any penalties for sand? For the most part I can understand why people would say no, however in desert areas the sand would have a nasty habit of getting into armour and eyes and mouths and ears and toes and... other less savory areas. It might rub against skin and cause rashes and the like. I would think a small penalty should apply for units that aren't desert troops - desert troops have clothing to protect them from the elements. This penalty shouldn't be as large as for snow, because stat_heat has effects of it own. Thoughts?

[Caesar Augustus]

Perhaps an all round penalty for snow then. That does make a bit more sense. I'd be inclined to increase it for the less modest barbarians (the naked fanatics), though perhaps this does come under the heat stats.

Sand wise, I'm in agreement with you. The ground wouldn't be as stable, so you'd be more likely to use your footing - particularly if you've got someone waving a sword around in your face. More heavily armoured units would feel this effect to a larger extent. What do you think?

[Caligula Caesar]

I suppose elephants could avoid scrub, but I don't think they do

Good point about sand. Is sand only deserts? In that case, desert warriors such as Numdians should get small bonuses there (1 or 2)

About snow: Yep, everyone should get penalties, units wearing fewer clothes and from warmer environments more.

Chariots should be severely obstructed by everything...

[Carados]

Of course elephants don't avoid it, they crush it
A small penalty might suffice for the odd scrub layer that could impede an elephant. Then again, what is scrub? I might be getting it confused with something else.

There are lots of sandy places e.g Asia Minor (we might have changed that now), Persia and so forth. Whether it counts as sand or not I don't know. I suspect it'll be anything that looks like sand, I haven't seen any battlemaps that are part sand, part grass.

Totally agree with chariots ^__^
That's an interseting thought... did they ever think to use elephant driven chariots? Just entered my mind then, amused me much.

[Carados]

That's an interseting thought... did they ever think to use elephant driven chariots? Just entered my mind then, amused me much.

Alexander riding a chariot driven by four elephants???





Lol.

[Mogan]

If that is not a parade show-off, I'll reimplement the Yubtseb elephants.

[Boom S]

elephant driven carts while not common are not unknown.

I can well understand alex doing this for kicks !

[Quinn Inuit]

Dude, you could put fluffy stuffed bunnies on ropes behind elephants and they would still rock. A chariot would just be superfluous. Awesome-looking, but superfluous.

We should make sure all ranged units get penalties in forests.

I think the range of troops that get bonuses or penalties in the desert should be quite narrow, since stat_heat will take care of a lot of that. Perhaps Gauls and Germans should get desert penalties but snow bonuses.

Speaking of desert, remind me to make some areas simply impassible, like Arabia is now. I know that native units could swing it, but we have no way of enforcing a rule that only native units can move through deserts.

[Carados]

Dude, you could put fluffy stuffed bunnies on ropes behind elephants and they would still rock. A chariot would just be superfluous. Awesome-looking, but superfluous.

I should give drawing that a go


Wouldn't the penalty for ranged units apply to their melee attack as well? That makes them next to useless in woods altogether, despite some of them actively hunting in woodlands as a living.

Aye, I definitely agree that desert penalties should be much lower. I was thinking up to and inclusive of -4. With perhaps up to +2 for hardcore desert troops. I find there is no point in me ever using desert troops when I'm in the Middle-East because the better stamina doesn't make up for the severe lack of defence they have. Combat bonuses/penalties might give me, and others, pause for thought.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't like these ground combat bonuses, surely flat open ground is when any unit bar stupidly spcialised ones performs at best?? Nevermind... so long as we're consistent.

I'll have a play around with these at the weekend when/if I've sorted out a couple of things in the DMB. I'm having trouble with a couple of them at the moment

[Quinn Inuit]

I should give drawing that a go

That would be awesome. I'm thinking Happy Tree Friends level of carnage there.

Wouldn't the penalty for ranged units apply to their melee attack as well? That makes them next to useless in woods altogether, despite some of them actively hunting in woodlands as a living.

True. I guess their ranged attacks do tend to start fairly low. Maybe hit them with a -1 penalty or something small?

Aye, I definitely agree that desert penalties should be much lower. I was thinking up to and inclusive of -4. With perhaps up to +2 for hardcore desert troops. I find there is no point in me ever using desert troops when I'm in the Middle-East because the better stamina doesn't make up for the severe lack of defence they have. Combat bonuses/penalties might give me, and others, pause for thought.

That sounds like a good plan. It would be neat if humans (and maybe even the AI...although that might be too much to ask) were forced to create area-appropriate armies.

I don't like these ground combat bonuses, surely flat open ground is when any unit bar stupidly spcialised ones performs at best?? Nevermind... so long as we're consistent.

Fair enough. I think a better way to look at it is that some units do worse than others when confronted with less than flat terrain.

I'll have a play around with these at the weekend when/if I've sorted out a couple of things in the DMB. I'm having trouble with a couple of them at the moment

That's cool. I'll try to help with those soon. Tomorrow night is life insurance night...I'm finally becoming a grown-up and getting proper life insurance as opposed to the cheap term stuff I have through work.

[Carados]

That would be awesome. I'm thinking Happy Tree Friends level of carnage there.

This is giving me ideas.

True. I guess their ranged attacks do tend to start fairly low. Maybe hit them with a -1 penalty or something small?

I've given them a penalty of some description. Can't remember what though - should be easy to change though, with archers all being listed together.

That sounds like a good plan. It would be neat if humans (and maybe even the AI...although that might be too much to ask) were forced to create area-appropriate armies.

I really don't think the AI has the capacity to choose like that. For humans though, I think it's perfectly doable. I've opted to give even swordsmen and the like a penalty in scrub and forests. This doesn't extend to skirmishers, so skirmishers aren't completely useless because they get no penalty for fighting on difficult ground. Standard infantry all get a penalty in scrub and forest, too. I opted for this because their formation still gets messed up, thye just don't suffer as bad as Hoplites or Phalangites. You would still want a core of your best troops - but faction support units would get a look at in favour of more numourous and more accessible local troops.

By way of example:

Velites vs Germanic youngspears
Velites have attack 7 and defence 16.
Youngspears have attack 4 and defence 13.

On flat ground, you would naturally pick velites over youngspears. Taking difficult terrain into account though, and the best unit is no longer a given.

Velites have stat_ground of 0, -2, -2, -4
Youngspears have stat_ground of 0, -4, 2, -2

Thus in the mainly woodland northern territories, it would be better to bring along youngspears because the theorectical attack and defence stats of the velites are 5 and 16 respectively in woodland, and 1 and 16 during winter! In comparison, the youngspears are 6 and 13 normally. In the winter they are 6 and 13.

Fair enough. I think a better way to look at it is that some units do worse than others when confronted with less than flat terrain.

Yeah. I've given desert troops and some egyptian units a small bonus of +1 or +2. Likewise, German infantry get small bonuses in woods and the like (see above).

That's cool. I'll try to help with those soon. Tomorrow night is life insurance night...I'm finally becoming a grown-up and getting proper life insurance as opposed to the cheap term stuff I have through work.

Oh. And I thought I was all grown-up having become a lot more sensible since turning 22 in March... I eventually got my head around most of what I struggled with, there's a lot to mess about with. Could I have a list of all the charges to units in the West? I'm aware of you wanting to use some of AqD's stuff but I haven't got his mod, nor do I have alexander (I like to be able to see what unit corresponds to what via "playing" the game).

[Quinn Inuit]

This is giving me ideas.

Awesome.

I've given them a penalty of some description. Can't remember what though - should be easy to change though, with archers all being listed together.

Ok, we can see what works.

I really don't think the AI has the capacity to choose like that. For humans though, I think it's perfectly doable. I've opted to give even swordsmen and the like a penalty in scrub and forests. This doesn't extend to skirmishers, so skirmishers aren't completely useless because they get no penalty for fighting on difficult ground. Standard infantry all get a penalty in scrub and forest, too. I opted for this because their formation still gets messed up, thye just don't suffer as bad as Hoplites or Phalangites. You would still want a core of your best troops - but faction support units would get a look at in favour of more numourous and more accessible local troops.

By way of example:

Velites vs Germanic youngspears
Velites have attack 7 and defence 16.
Youngspears have attack 4 and defence 13.

On flat ground, you would naturally pick velites over youngspears. Taking difficult terrain into account though, and the best unit is no longer a given.

Velites have stat_ground of 0, -2, -2, -4
Youngspears have stat_ground of 0, -4, 2, -2

Thus in the mainly woodland northern territories, it would be better to bring along youngspears because the theorectical attack and defence stats of the velites are 5 and 16 respectively in woodland, and 1 and 16 during winter! In comparison, the youngspears are 6 and 13 normally. In the winter they are 6 and 13.

Yeah. I've given desert troops and some egyptian units a small bonus of +1 or +2. Likewise, German infantry get small bonuses in woods and the like (see above).

That looks like a good system. It'll add a lot of depth to your army choices, since no one unit or combination will now be clearly the best in every situation.

And I thought I was all grown-up having become a lot more sensible since turning 22 in March... I eventually got my head around most of what I struggled with, there's a lot to mess about with. Could I have a list of all the charges to units in the West? I'm aware of you wanting to use some of AqD's stuff but I haven't got his mod, nor do I have alexander (I like to be able to see what unit corresponds to what via "playing" the game).

Not too many changes yet. I've held off on a lot of stuff because of Ferres' new units and the massive new unit influx we'll get from the new RTR. I had some great plans that had to be completely re-written.

Congratulations on the birthday!

[Carados]

Not too many changes yet. I've held off on a lot of stuff because of Ferres' new units and the massive new unit influx we'll get from the new RTR. I had some great plans that had to be completely re-written.

I was having a look through one of his threads trying to find that armenian spearmen unit you mentioned ages ago. Does he have new stuff in the works??

[Quinn Inuit]

I don't think so, but there's all kinds of stuff he's already done that I'd like to use. I'll send you that spearman. I still have the archive around.

[Incomitatus]

Hi guys!

Thought I'd pop back around (after being immersed in Medieval II since New Years... bad me, bad bad me).

Just a note: Horses and snow don't mix unless you're a Cossack. They can't run through heavy snow, and they get very tired even walking (rather like people do). Men on horseback also get cold easier than soldiers who are able to stay warm with marching/running. It seems like cavalry ought to have a penalty in snow - even German cavalry, although perhaps not as much of one. Only the steppe peoples should escape penalty, and maybe have a very small bonus, since they and their horses would be more accustomed to the snow and know how to deal with it (then again, maybe not, they might have been smart enough not to go out in the winter ).

On the other hand... perhaps all this can be done with stat_heat? It does go into negatives, doesn't it... hmmmm... that would account for the fatigue. However, that wouldn't account for the fact that cavalry really shouldn't be able to deliver an effective charge in anything more than moderate snow cover because the horses can't get up speed.

[Carados]

Hi guys!

Thought I'd pop back around (after being immersed in Medieval II since New Years... bad me, bad bad me).

Yes. I think you need to be... re-educated

We are using a combination of stat_heat and stat_ground. This helps to accomodate for local differences too. For example, Egyptian troops will have a low stat_heat of around -2 to 1. However their stat_ground for sand environments would range from -2 to +2 to accomodate for the fact that some of those Egyptian troops might have metal breastplates, greaves, bracers, helmets and so forth. All that abrasion and so forth is going to be uncomfortable and so they won't have as many benefits as the more lightly armed/covered troops who will avoid the elements and thus get bonuses of +2 and a lot less fatigue.

What you say about the charge in snow does ring true. Quinn might have something to say on the matter with his cavalry post that he still hasn't got round to doing (though I'm having reservations as to how powerful the actual charge is in regards to shock damage back in those times - I have a suspicion that a lot of people are under the illusion that it is extremely powerful, mainly through what we know of the medieval knights. The problem here is that the mounted knights were a standard method of warfare and that the horses were bred specifically for that purpose and thus were a lot larger, stronger and faster than the horses of antiquity who belonged mainly to the privilaged aristocracy.)

[Incomitatus]

I'm not a cavalry expert, but the horses bred in the East and on the Steppe for heavy cavalry (cataphracts) were fundamentally the same as the horses used in Europe during the Middle Ages. And while they didn't have the stirrup, they did have saddles that secured the rider at the hips which would have allowed for the same amount of shock value with a lance as knights of the later era. What they would not have been equal at is fighting infantry with sword or mace or axe after delivering the charge, since the second benefit of the stirrup is the ability to 'stand' in it and brace oneself to deliver a more powerful *downward* blow than one can while sitting. The ancient saddles would have allowed the forward momentum of the horse to be transferred into the lance, but wouldn't have allowed the rider to do anything other than sit, making it awkward to fight lower targets, like the poor infantry.

I've also read about some cataphracts whose lances were secured to the horse's tack by chains, taking the rider out of the equation for transferring momentum. But that might have been later, in late Roman or early Byzantine times... I can't remember.

I don't believe there was anything comparable in Europe during your timeframe, though. So, I'd say eastern heavy cav should have a powerful charge - cataphracts were known for being unopposable on level ground - but somehow limit their effectiveness in melee against infantry. Western cavalry should be good at... um... chasing routers? Dying vaingloriously? Draining the treasury?

But that's just my 2 cents, you guys are the experts.