Fighting infantry in forests, research question

[LCJr]

Need some feedback on an idea I've been bouncing around inside my head.  I'm playing with the idea of making the area controlled by an infantry faction almost all forest.  This would explain why they don't use horses and possibly why they haven't been conquered.

So I need feedback on two things. 

1.  What's the impact on your system?  Does the load on your system make the battles difficult or unenjoyable due to fps drop?  No point in doing it if it makes the game unplayable for too many people.

2.  How do your AI troops fair against an AI infantry force compared to fighting on open ground?  Does it appear your cavalry is less effective and/or suffers higher casualties.  Are your missile troops affected i.e. shooting more trees than bad guys?  How about you as a player, do you have a harder time in forests? 

 

[eugenioso]

you mean like a Ranger-style faction?

sort of like the Rangers of LOTR?

or like the celts from northern england kind, who lived in forests and attacked anyone that came near them?

 

[LCJr]

you mean like a Ranger-style faction?

sort of like the Rangers of LOTR?

or like the celts from northern england kind, who lived in forests and attacked anyone that came near them?

Tell me exactly how do your comments relate to the two questions I posted? 

Please people either provide useful feedback or don't participate.

 

[Lord Sami]

1. My machine does have some difficulties handling with big forests... But removing 3d grass helps significantly, so it's not too slow. Even so I prefer open area battles.

2. I haven't payed much attention to this, but I think my troops (especially cavalry) are a bit less effective in the forest. But add some hills in there and they are doomed against fast moving/ranged infantry. A skilled player may use this at his advantage against enemy cavalry too. About ranged units I can't really be sure, but it should have a dramatig affect on their accuracy rate. For instance they can't shoot the enemy until they come relatively close.

Your idea of this kind of faction sounds very interesting. I'm looking forward to other people's comments.

 

[Llew2]

This isn't really an answer to your question, but hills play a large part in forest battles. Having a forest on a flat plain doesn't slow down cavelry that much. If you are going to make the land forested, add plenty of small, rolling hills to the map also.

 

[Adorno]

1. Yes there is a drop in FPS but the forest battlefield size is smaller, so it's not that much.
I don't think it would make it unplayable (but my PC is reasonable).

2. Regarding archery in forests: In my experience, it's the smaller battlefield that prevents the
long missile phase, that makes archery less potent in forests.

Regarding cavalry: Yes the cavalry seems less strong, but the difference is not big enough
to make cavalry anything like useless in forests.

Harder time in forests?
Yes, the battlefield is smaller, giving little time to make troop formation.
And on horseback it's a little more difficult.
On foot it can actually be easier, since there are trees to hide behind,
and the AI doesn't take advantage of that.

(My specs:
CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz
GPU: Geforce 8800 gtx
RAM: 4 gb DDR2 667 mhz
Harddisk: 7200 RPM SATA2)

 

[Markus II]

Need some feedback on an idea I've been bouncing around inside my head.  I'm playing with the idea of making the area controlled by an infantry faction almost all forest.  This would explain why they don't use horses and possibly why they haven't been conquered.

So I need feedback on two things. 

1.  What's the impact on your system?  Does the load on your system make the battles difficult or unenjoyable due to fps drop?  No point in doing it if it makes the game unplayable for too many people.

2.  How do your AI troops fair against an AI infantry force compared to fighting on open ground?   Does it appear your cavalry is less effective and/or suffers higher casualties.  Are your missile troops affected i.e. shooting more trees than bad guys?  How about you as a player, do you have a harder time in forests? 

#1 - On my old system, a P4 with a 128meg Video Card, yes, forest battlefields did drop the fps rate somewhat. On my new system, a Core 2 Duo Quad with a 728meg 8000GTX card, it makes no difference. Between the two, I haven't the foggiest. Obviously battle size is going to have the biggest effect of fps. Gamers with older systems could simply knock down the battle size.

#2 - From what I've seen, forest battlefields (particularly those with broken ground/inclines) have a detrimental effect on calvary. The slow speed achieved by horses in such terrain means that they are more easily swamped by infantry.

 

[Solikos]

#1 - I take a huge beating in thick forest battles...  In short, I like the concept (and love the forest) but unfortunately it is very annoying for me.

#2 - As previously stated, the biggest factor in giving infantry the upper hand are hills.  I almost exclusively play as an infantry commander; when a fight starts the first thing I do is look for the steepest hill...  Enemy calvary can't do charge by attacks nor can they deliver couched damage.  You can also sit your men just behind the top of a hill to provide cover from enemy archers, lure them in, then charge them.

Thus, I'd suggest a mountainous terrain setting.  Maybe with some snow for an interesting/distinct look.  Mountains provide more tactical options for smart commanders, even more so than hills, since you deal with cliffs and valleys.

 

[Mill Wilkinson]

1. My system could hold. I just leave the permanent corpses on, and Ta-da! enjoyment ensured. 

2. It needs hills, or loads of trees. I have noticed that cavalry sometimes hump the trees while footmen chop them up, so I think forest degrades the effectivity of cavalry in M&B too.
Add some hills to the heartland and you are good to go. 

 

[SharpFish]

I think it does make quite a difference, partly because its harder to pick targets, partly because horses collide with trees and then get mobbed, and partly because it's much harder to get a clear run while weaving between trees.  The AI does not do it so much, but players on foot can use trees quite effectively to hide behind.

It's not as bad as it would be if there were significant underbrush, as was often the case in real life.  But it does degrade the effectiveness of cavalry quite significantly IMO.

 

[Pode]

Said faction would have to be poorer and get fewer, lower qualtiy troops to maintain a realistic strategic balance.  There's a reason most major cities are not in heavily forested hilly country, it's hard to farm there.

 

[Solikos]

1. My system could hold. I just leave the permanent corpses on, and Ta-da! enjoyment ensured. 

Is that to say that leaving corpses on improves FPS?  In that case, how do I toggle that?

Or is that simply implying that you enjoy carnage? 

 

[TheGnome]

1.  What's the impact on your system?  Does the load on your system make the battles difficult or unenjoyable due to fps drop?  No point in doing it if it makes the game unplayable for too many people.I haven't noticed a difference in performance due to the map, only the number of players in the map.  I currently have the Battlesizer set at 200, and my machine lags a little if i get into the thick of the fighting.

2.  How do your AI troops fair against an AI infantry force compared to fighting on open ground?   Does it appear your cavalry is less effective and/or suffers higher casualties.  Are your missile troops affected i.e. shooting more trees than bad guys?  How about you as a player, do you have a harder time in forests?  I agree with what's been said before about the hills being the major factor in eliminating most of the cavalry threat.  I have noticed that the trees do make archers nearly inefective until close range.  the game was well designed in that arrows take fairly realistic flight paths, and archers have to aim up to get distance on their shots.  The arrows do little to no damage to the enemy until they come into the clear at closer ranges. Infantry, no difference, aside from the troop types.  In forests, no big deal.  Forest with hills is another story.  very difficult for me to hit infantry from horseback when they are lower on the hill.  It also is more difficult b/c of the constant up and down.

 

[italiano]

but my PC is reasonable

That's more than a slight understatement

I don't seem to suffer too badly in forests. There is no doubt a drop in framerate but it's very playable. As for you idea, the Nords should have really been placed in a land covered in snow and forest. Unfortunately, the snowline in the native map seems to run from north-to-south instead of east-to-west, and forests are currently too demanding to cover large parts of the map.

 

[fisheye]

I avoid forests like the plague. If I end up fighting a battle in a forest, I surrender rather than endure the pain of slideshow.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

My GPU sucks, so I NEVER fight in forsets. If I run away from someone, I will make sure I am not going through a forest since that is the only way to avoid possibility of that nightmare.

As Fisheye said, battle in forest is a slideshow.

 

[Skorpion]

I have a fancy graphics card and no shortage of RAM, but I avoid forests because they often come with cliffs and rivers to slow down my khergits.

Fighting infantry is a PAIN. I once found a bunch of forest bandits clustered up a cliff. Not good at all.

 

[Aethelred]

1. I've no problem with FPS in forests, but my PC is a bit above average and doesn't have any problem running most games on the highest settings.

2. I normally try to avoid fighting in forests with a large army. Not so much because of the trees, but because of the madly steep little hills they often have all over the place - they nullify a lot of the advantage of cavalry, and make it likely they won't be going fast enough to blast through packs of enemy infantry. It's not so bad if the player is on horse, since you can be smart enough to use the terrain properly, and if your stupid AI cavalry men get swarmed you can ride in and clear them out. If you're a foot soldier leading a mixed army, it's not good, since the cavalry will charge ahead, get stuck and mobbed by enemy infantry, and get killed before you can help them. It's generally better to dismount cavalry in a hilly forest battle. Even with an infantry army, hilly forest terrain tends to make your army more split up and increases the chance that a soldier might get isolated and killed.

On the whole I'd say forests are most benificial to foot armies facing cavalry. Although they obviously reduce the range of missile troops, forest hills are often short and steep, and a ranged troop at the top of one of these has a lot more time to shoot at an advancing enemy. The AI doesn't know how to do that intentionally, but when they do it by chance it can result in a few deaths.

It obviously makes sense that a people who live in forested terrain would not use cavalry, I like that you put some thought into that. What sort of equipment are they going to use? If you want input on that, I'd think leather/padded armours, axes, spears and bows would be most appropriate. Troops should have high athletics too.

 

[quiet420]

The ai calvary is dumb as a brick around dense trees, whether it's flat or hilly, for some reason they just can't grasp the concept of threading the needle.

 

[Arzeal]

My most experieces with calvary forces was playing Rohan calvary commander venturing deep to Elven forests fighting Orks, throw in some rivers and it will be total nightmare. I was glad when getting out of there alive with half of my calvary. Hills made calvary charge and speed ALOT less effective, but I dont think archers get better in these forests.
The other question about performance, others have mentioned it  .
P.s: I was playing TLD for 0.75 at that time