Fix the completely unrealistic, frustrating terrain generation

Battles against 400 enemies on rough ground are too much, but smaller battles on that same terrain are interesting. In other words, a little bit of that sort of fighting goes a long way. Generally I try to chase or lure enemies onto flatter surfaces. Usually it's not that hard to do. If you get stuck fighting 400 on a map you hate, then you can always choose to "leave" the battle so you lure them to a more favorable spot.

Another thing I haven't tried yet on the very rough terrain is to equip all my people with steppe horses. I use one myself. It makes a big difference in your mobility in mountainous areas. If your whole army is equipped with steppe horses, you might want to lure the enemy to the roughtest terrain.

I also perfer that they do rebalance the terrain and not make it so spiky. I also which that there was some nice combat maps that are similar to dynasty warriors.

Look, do you know of any historical battle fought on a damned mountain?

Most mountain ranges are not optimal places for skirmishing or open battle. However, they are excellent defensive locations if you have fortifications, and are prime ambush ground. To my knowledge, no general has been idiotic enough to attempt to give battle on/around a mountain.

And personally, I don't think that that settings menu is a good idea. Making the terrain seem like something out of hell and awarding it a higher difficulty rating will not earn you more fans.

Most irrealistic mountain I've seen. How much hiking have you done ?

Click to expand...

As a fifteen year old living in suburban London, not a great deal. Sorry.

What we need to remember is that M&B isn't really about armies, it's about warbands. So yes, two grand armies lead by experienced military generals wouln't chose a mountain as a battle field. But two commanders of war parties may look to this sort of terrain for geurilla fighting.

That MnB is about warbands doesnt change that these strange pointy mountains are irrealistic. However you can not do any guerilla-warfare in MnB because troop-command doesnt support it. Furtheron two groups of equal size and strengh engaging each other will not have the need to engage in any irregular manner. They CAN but there is no need.

My point was that smallr forces would still engage in places such as woods and mountains, whereas large armies would engage in the open. This is mainly because you can conceal a small number of troops much more easily and effectively, and spring ambushes and whatnot, wherease full scale armies would engage in the open. I know that the AI can't do things like ambushes and whatnot, but I'm saying that there is still a reason to fight in mountainous areas.

I do agree that they are a bit too exagerated, and should really involve much smoother ground rising to one high peak somewhere on the map, instead of a hundred peaks rising out of the ground at almost vertical angles.

They really are not that unrealistic.

It does not seem to me that your argument is about aesthetics anyway, it is about tactics.. Saying it is because they don't really look realistic is just a way of obscuring your true agenda.

The mountains succeed at presenting a serious obstacle to cavalry and giving infantry an advantage. 90% of the world map gives cavalry a huge advantage.

If you eliminated the rugged mountainous terrain then all battles would be all too much the same, over and over again.

If you made mountains a constant grade sloping from one end of map to the other, honestly it would not play much different than all of the non mountainous maps. There are some maps that have a nearly constant grade covering fully half the map already. And really even if the mild grade does put the AI controlled cavalry at a mild disadvantage it is still just child's play for the player to ride back and forth across the grade (rather than up/down the grade) and singlehandedly annihilate the enemy forces.

These maps are needed for a break from the same battles over and over again. I enjoy them anyway.

It is also very easy to not fight in the mountains if you don't want to. I know of battles being fought in such rugged mountainous terrain during world war 1 and I'm sure the weren't the first, but if you don't think any general would willingly fight in the mountains then simply don't fight in the mountains.

linehand said:

The mountains succeed at presenting a serious obstacle to cavalry and giving infantry an advantage. 90% of the world map gives cavalry a huge advantage.

Click to expand...

Name me one instance where this was not true in real-life. Mobility is a priceless tactical advantage. If you wish to hamstring yourself by playing an infantry force, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect to gain sympathy when your 200 Rhodok Recruits get ridden down by 20 Swadian Knights.

linehand said:

It is also very easy to not fight in the mountains if you don't want to. I know of battles being fought in such rugged mountainous terrain during world war 1 and I'm sure the weren't the first, but if you don't think any general would willingly fight in the mountains then simply don't fight in the mountains.

Click to expand...

Find me one battle in WW1 where they were still using medieval weapons and formations.

You don't even make sense Night Ninja

Stop quoting me.. you quoted half a paragraph and missed the point entirely.. Who said I wanted to play an all infantry force?

I also don't believe that I said they used medieval weapons and formations in world war 1 either. You are just making yourself look like an idiot.

What is your point exactly? If you have one, other than attempting to ignorantly pick at my posts for no apparent reason than please feel free to state it clearly.

Edited because I forgot a ? mark.

First, calm down and dont insult anybody.
Second: Hes right with the WW1-thing. Medieval battles differed in theyr conduct and locations to these of the early 20th century because of weaponry and this is the point. You can not compare your knowledge of WW1 to medieval warfare, there lies the mistake of your argument.
An army or even warband with its main force of heavy cavalrymen wont fight in the mountains - mark that.
With Nord and Rhodok for example you have a great infantry to make up ur army with - i like it a lot. They can excel in mountainsides because of the nasty marksmanship and melee units.

It is also very easy to not fight in the mountains if you don't want to. I know of battles being fought in such rugged mountainous terrain during world war 1 and I'm sure the weren't the first, but if you don't think any general would willingly fight in the mountains then simply don't fight in the mountains.

Click to expand...

Dont accuse others to make no sense in their posts. For me, Night Ninja`s did, but i am still working on your last paragraph to interpret.

Furtheron it is not a MILD disatvantege for AI-cavalry, they get stuck many times with either me missing my backup or being picked one for one with my bow.

@Night Ninja
200 recruits ridden down by 20 knights... ever tried that?

As for me: I am not for totaly removing terrain obstacles like cliffs and steep slopes but the exsisting ones are just ugly and irrealisitic. My point is an asthetic as well as one for the gameplay. These mountainsides just feel to artificial.

Nothing I said needed clarification.. I made my points clearly enough, but since you guys didn't seem to get it and insist on nitpicking:

There are points in the mountains which serve as strategic locations in warfare. Also strongholds and castles are more defensible in certain rough/mountainous terrain. This was the case in WW1 and it was the case before that as well. That being the case, battles were fought in mountainous terrain whether the aggressor wanted to fight there or not because they were ordered to take that stronghold at any cost.

Example: a force is ordered to take a stronghold in the mountains. Scouts see the approaching army and report. The defenders are familiar with their mountains and they also know that the attackers may not be very experienced at fighting in such environments so they decide to go on the offensive before the attackers reach their walls. Perhaps they also know that this army is renowned for its strong cavalry but also understand that the advantage of that cavalry will be lessened drastically by the terrain, all the more reason to take the fight to the invaders before they reach the stronghold.

My last paragraph which you had so much trouble interpreting made 2 simple statements.
1: Battles were fought in the mountains during WW1 and before WW1 (to pretend that this is not true based on some nitpicking about medieval weaponry is just silly).
2: If you don't want to fight in the mountains no one is forcing you (In the game 99% of the time battles in the mountains can easily be avoided).

AS for the rough terrain putting cavalry at a disadvantage, that just adds flavor to the game, most players have cavalry so this puts them at a disadvantage adding challenge to the game. This can work for you or against you depending on how you play.

Reading into that that I have an all infantry army and am crying about getting killed in open ground is just ridiculous. I never even hinted at anything like that, it's just putting words into my mouth and it didn't make any sense to assume that from what I said.

I also never said that the CURRENT rough mountain terrain put cavalry at a "mild" disadvantage. I said that, a "mild" constant grade (WERE IT IMPLEMENTED) would put cavalry at a "mild" disadvantage, as opposed to the extreme disadvantage that the current rough mountains incur. If you have trouble understanding that then you just need to learn to think logically while interpreting written English.

Honestly, if you guys really believe that battles were never fought in rough terrain before the invention of gun powder, you are just hopeless.

Sorry if I seem a little offensive, but I find both of your means of discussion to be highly offensive. It is common on forums to take things out of context, address small side points in a post that were not the actual point of the post, in an attempt to discredit the poster's actual point rather than responding to what the poster actually said or to avoid having to make a cohesive point of your own. Intentionally misinterpreting perfectly clear information in an obvious attempt to confuse the issues and take attention away from a well made point.  It is all very childish and I never have, and never will take kindly to that. When you behave that way you can expect others to treat you with less respect.

Edited for typos (m Y key is ding  )

YES I insist on nitpicking when it comes to history.
First: MOST strongholds where not "in the mountains" but on a mountain or hilltop. Thats a great difference.
Second: I have to admit

An army or even warband with its main force of heavy cavalrymen wont fight in the mountains - mark that.

Click to expand...

missed a word, the word "want" between "wont" and "fight".
Third: If you dont understand the difference of warfare in the 20th century and the 13th century either quit the discussion or read your histories.
Fourth: The last paragraph was written in a Not-So-Good-English imho. I do write in a Not-So-Good-English often too, because English aint my native language. Thank you for explaining this in plain, simple words. Still it contains the mistake of comparing two absolutely different forms of warfare.
Fith: I argumented on atmosphere and reality of the pointed structures (corrosions and stuff) - if you read my complete post. Not reality of hordes of horsemen fighting in mountains - a part of this discussion we could drop to make everybody happy.
Did anybody ever want to completely remove mountain terrain? Id think it would be really boring. Most people here demand an improvement as far as I understand it. (So far with you understanding peoples posts.)

So far:
WE were offensive? Well the word "idiot" stands in one of YOUR posts.
Take things out of context: taking the discussion of irrealistic mountainsides to the discussion IF one has to fight in mountains? Comparing medieval warfare to WW1 (sorry i WILL hang to that one for a while)?
And ignoring the posters point: As said is had the impression you didnt read the last line of my last post and in no way because you didnt mention it in your post.
As for discredition: Calling people an idiot? And YES I needed some clarification and therefore your points where not clearly enough at least for me.
Misinterpretation in discussions often happen if somebody just misunterstands someone else - because of that nasty language problem maybe.

Well Night Ninja was being insulting to me, just in a very roundabout-hidden-agenda sort of way, I was simply more direct in my response.

Of course there are huge differences between 20th century and the 13th century warfare but there are some similarities as well. There are some comparisons between WW1 and 13th century witch stand, and I will stick too them:

Battles were fought in mountainous terrains sometimes (some countries are mostly nothing but rugged mountainous terrain and that has not changed). Certainly any invading force in their right mind would never look forward to invading such an area because the defenders will have a tremendous advantage, that was true in the 13th century just as it was true in WW1. Yet they were commanded to do so whether they "wanted" to or not.

If the issue really is just about aesthetics and realism, then I simply beg to differ: I have seen and explored environments not so very different from those in the game, and I personally think the mountains in the game look great and I quite enjoy them.

I will apologize to you Carolus, I was perhaps a little out of line in my response to you so I'm sorry about that, I did not realize English was your second language. I will try to have more patience in the future.

@linehand:
Wow, thanks for seeing stuff that wasn't even there. YOU chose to take offense, none was meant. I simply took issue with some of the misguided views you were spouting.

Yeah, there were battles fought in rough terrain, but everybody wanted to stay the heck away from it unless it gave them a distinct advantage, and any decent commander wouldn't want to fight on the enemy's terms. Rough terrain slows you and gives you all sorts of line-of-sight issues to give commands. These were particularly prominent disadvantages when formation fighting was the order of the day.

If M&B had actual mountains, I'd enjoy them too. Right now mountainous terrain seems like a scaled-down version of a mountain range.

@Carolus
20 Swadian Knights and me against 200 Rhodok tribesmen? Any time, dude. 

The Rhodoks are unsually weak in the game, especially when you managed to scatter them all ove the place. Though I must admit, getting stuck in a melee where like 20+ spearmen are mobbing you is not pleasant.

Two things:

1.  I've lived next to mountains for over 20 years, and you're all right.  Here at the Rockies there are a great deal of steep, rocky crags that are difficult for a man to scale, let alone a horse.  That's why we've found and used mountain passes - they're easier for horses/wagons/cars to travel through.  Believe me, battle on any of the mountains around here would suck - especially on horseback.  They are extremely steep in many places.  Running through them with armor on would quickly wear you out.  We have an exercise trail about 15 miles from my house they call "the incline," which travels vertically up the side of a foothill.  It's one of the most arduous and difficult trails in the area.  Again, would hate to have to fight up one of those.

I've also been to "mountains" in the UK - most of which (the ones I visited, anyway) are decidedly not steep or rocky.  To me, after living around and hiking "fourteeners" (peaks at or above 14,000 ft elevation), they were no more than gentle, sloping hills.  I've been told (never visited) that the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern US are also more gentle than the Rockies.  So it really depends on the location and age of the mountains in question.

Examples of rocky crags (foothills, not even in the mountains yet):






(Crags in the background)



And links to mountains I live around (Kingston Peak and mountains in Roosevelt National Park, northwest of Denver, CO - and the people in the pics aren't me or anyone I know):

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushkin/pages/Imgp0390.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushkin/pages/Imgp0394.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushkin/pages/Imgp0395.htm

http://image08.webshots.com/8/8/52/51/2499852510021435239fJMgTy_fs.jpg

http://image53.webshots.com/453/8/13/58/2829813580021435239dcAtOY_fs.jpg

http://image09.webshots.com/9/3/25/36/2362325360021435239CPhZDi_fs.jpg



Because I've lived around the Rockies for most of my life, I can relate to and enjoy the mountains on M&B.  I'd rather keep them - but I guess what really matters is the age, composition, and origin of the mountains in question . . . or Armagan's preference/experience.

2.  So historical armies/warbands wouldn't want to fight in mountains.  So many people on M&B don't want to fight on mountains.  So don't fight on mountains.  Makes sense to me.

NOTE:  Don't get me wrong, an incline in the direction of the peak and a broader view in the direction of the plains would be a great addition (not sure of the feasibility in the battle area, but would be cool) - but rocky, pointy, "cliffs-on-both-sides" terrain is not unrealistic. 

Xiphos said:

NOTE:  Don't get me wrong, an incline in the direction of the peak and a broader view in the direction of the plains would be a great addition (not sure of the feasibility in the battle area, but would be cool) - but rocky, pointy, "cliffs-on-both-sides" terrain is not unrealistic. 

Click to expand...

I think what gets people is that the craggy terrain in M&B doesn't LOOK like rocky crags coming out of the landscape, it's oddly-shaped grassy bits. There just needs to be some tweaking of the textures, I think.

My biggest complaint is that you have to be too far away from mountains or forests to actually avoid them affecting the terrain you fight on.

^ QFT.

The 'mountainous terrain' is not quite mountainous terrain. It looks like a very large giant's leftover sandcastle after a baby giant went and stomped on it a few times.

Some of the inclines are inaccessible by foot, though strangely enough, cavalry CAN climb those inclines; it's just that you have to zig-zag like a fool to get up.

Personally, I'd prefer actual mountain passes, rather than just 'mountainous terrain'.

Another gripe that I have is that the roads don't appear in the battle map, and sometimes rivers pop out from nowhere. Once I was fighting some looters (next to the I-something Khergit city), and there was a river on the map. Makes me wonder if aforementioned giant decided it was time for a piss...

Night Ninja said:

@linehand:
Wow, thanks for seeing stuff that wasn't even there. YOU chose to take offense, none was meant. I simply took issue with some of the misguided views you were spouting.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly the impression I had.

Night Ninja said:

@Carolus
20 Swadian Knights and me against 200 Rhodok tribesmen? Any time, dude. 

The Rhodoks are unsually weak in the game, especially when you managed to scatter them all ove the place. Though I must admit, getting stuck in a melee where like 20+ spearmen are mobbing you is not pleasant.

Click to expand...

Dont know about the newest version but if ur surrounded by 5 farmers it can be enough to be killed. You just cant counterattack while they keep hacking away at you causing 1 or 2 damage to your plate armor until you die. Since Swadian Knights have only melee weapons id just let my 200 tribesmen hold ground and wait for the tin cans to charge home.

I'm sorry, I just think you guys are hilarious.

They have done on awesome job on this game's world maps and on its battle maps. Some people will just never be happy though.

They are abstractions of each other. If you made the battle maps accurate representations of the world maps then the battle maps would be horribly mundane and boring. If you made the world maps accurate representations of the what is found in the battle maps, then the world map would cause most computers to slow to a crawl. The abstraction works well.

There are foothills extending out around the mountains some distance (not even very far). The mountainous terrain generated in those areas is general far less extreme than what you get as you travel higher into the mountains.. It is still very easy to avoid battles in those areas, in fact it is child's play.

Honestly you should listen to some of the things you people have been saying and think about how it must sound to other people with different views. If I were Armagan and I had put this much time and work into creating something so awesome I would be quite offended at many of your remarks. Of course that is just me, maybe the developers enjoy having people pointlessly nit pick at their creative vision.

I'm sure they welcome all sorts of constructive criticism and I'm sure that such criticism has helped make M&B what it is today, but the terrain generator here is brilliant and designing it was probably far from a simple endeavor.  So while I'm sure there could still be room for improvement, many of you come off sounding like your saying that it is garbage.

You also fail to respect the fact that many players like it a lot as it is. Combine that with the fact that no one is forcing anyone to fight in these areas (basically it is an OPTIONAL feature already) and that makes you sound very selfish and lacking in objectivity. If you want more different types of terrain to enjoy, then I doubt that anyone would have a problem with that and most would agree with you that more is better. But you want less, and not just for your own enjoyment but for everyone else too whether they want it or not.

IF I was a developer, I'd take a look at those comments.

There are some very valid points raised. For example, having mountain passes would be pretty great for area control. You can plonk your army there and interdict everybody. Also, I'd like to see a decent road projected onto the battle map. There are certain roads (somewhat like a highway, in medieval terms) which appear as roads on the main map and rolling hills on the battle map.

And, thanks again (as usual) for 'reading' stuff that no one posted. We are trying to help, not like certain people I could name who keep whining that they're being peppered with non-existent insults.