Remaking of the terrain

Users who are viewing this thread

Copy_con

Recruit
I did a search and I didn't find anything, anyway.

As it is now the terrain can be very much like this /\/\/\/\/\ even at quite flat ground. And when the battle starts and I found myself and my army on the top of a mountain I wonder how the heck I got there. I mean, I'm not even able to get back up there after I get down.
The game doesn't take in consideration that you're actually traveling on the world map. Sure, you get reduced speed at some places, but even at places where I'm able to travel in quite high speed I've noticed places where the hills are very steep.
In short:
I want that there should be more plains, realistic topography and elevation levels. And where there are big differences in altitude, please don't let me start at the top of a mountain.
 
i do i dont like the curent random train genrator at this time it is well.... to random for me. Like when you fight 2 times in arow once its flat next time its in the middle of the ALPS!!! now i knw that the bttles arnt takeing place in same spot(ie you fight, run, then meet the foe somewere else within say a hrs wlak) but come on we didnt hike into the stinking mountens inbetween scrims!gaaaaaa!!!! okok ill stfu peace out all.
 
I'm torn on this subject.

The random terrain is soooo much better than it used to be. Armagan tweaked it this last time and it was the difference between night and day. :wink:

It could use some more tweaking, but truthfully ... I don't want 98% of all my battles to be on an open plain. I like the hills and occasional mountains that are scattered through some of my battles. It adds spice and makes battles ... well, random.

So, yes ... I agree that the terrain needs more tweaking and that in the plains area ... the randomness needs to be lowered more. Yet because the world map is a very simplistic view ... I wouldn't want it to determine precisely how the terrain will be.

Narcissus
 
Well, I believe hills and mountains tend to be more spread out, and have a relatively more gentle incline if they are stuck together like they are in game. I would tend to agree, but mountains should still exist, just not in the middle of nowhere, and maybe somewhat smoothen the inclines, while reduce the number of hills? I mean current problems with the mountains we have is based mostly physics and AI. I believe they are the following:

- some hills are accesable only to AI
- horses sometimes can't climb a hill which footmen run up without any problems
- horses sometimes can climb up vertical hills (or so somebody mentioned in another thread, but I haven't seen that yet)
- your troops (and enemy) constantly gets stuck, making it a royal pain in the ass to control them, and they get killed
- AI knows exactly where you are because they have X-Ray vision, but you can't see them
- Slopes only give a disadvantage to horses, while footmen have no disadvantage whatsoever
- If you tell your archers to try and go up a hill and shoot from there, they refuse, run the other way, get stuck, and eventually (if) they get up there only to be skewered by the enemy
- Enemies archers like to spawn on top of a hill where you, your troops and your horse can't get up on
- Your troops mindlessly smack their heads into the wall at the bottom of such hills, untill they are shot
- Horses break a leg from jumping down a meter, or take 3 damage after jumping from a 100meter cliff. Both I have experienced, and in my oppinion kinda don't make sense. (oh armor 'saves' some fall damage as well)
- Your troops purposely jump into a 'valley' filled with enemies, for the sole reason of getting killed and forcing you to spend another week training a new troop - who eventually does the same

I would believe that those are the most common problems, please add on to them. Mountains are not really a problem, as long as they are realistic. In my oppinion though, currently you can simply get a better 'feel' of the game if fighting in a clearing or an open field, since you can use more strategy there. What I would really love to see, are very gentle slopes (maybe 5 degrees or so) which stretch through the entire battle map, maybe a cliff with a narrow passage, etc. Something which resembles world a bit more, but that would be a bit long to code in.. Just my view on the matter ::smile:
 
I'll add to Volkier's problem list:
Sometimes your chest spawns on the side of a cliff making it impossible to return their mounted and it still takes a while to get there if you dismount and walk.


I think that if you take the effort to entice the enemy to attack you on flat land on the main map, you should fight on relatively flat land in combat. There shouldn't be any himalayan mountain ranges.

For balance purposes, there needs to be a terrain type that does favor footsoldiers, that being hilly. So I do not want hills to be removed altogether, but I do want to see the slopes toned down a bit, unless we can buy skis from the merchant :smile:
 
Another edition:

When there are cliffs, I'd like to see real cliffs, real cliffs are the ones that you could fall down from and actually get damaged without actively trying to do so by jumping down the slope.
 
Hate to bump this thread, but I would like to add that the random maps need to lose their square shape. I hate seeing the "corners" of the map as perfect 90 degree turns.
 
The terrain could do with a little tweaking (perhaps just by getting rid of those small mounds that crop up in the mountainous battlemaps) but what I find with these threads is that people suggest ways the terrain could be changed to suit their playing style.

That aint cool folks.

If you're an archer and you want a clear field of fire then try to fight in the open, if you're an army of cavalry then avoid the forests and mountains etc etc.

You shouldn't be able to dominate the battlefield every time, luck of the draw fellas.
 
Back
Top Bottom