Terrain?

How about Terrain for custom maps? Certain units can cross certain parts. You can name your own terrain. How about it?

An improvment of the idea:

作者： EpicRice, 23.02.2014 at 20:09

In Crusader Kings II they have a map view button where you can change from political landscape, to geographical, and then to religion, what if we had that? We already have buttons for sight/stealth detection range, why not a button which shades in areas of the map via terrain.

Ex: clicking the Terrain button would color in a country like France green as 'Plains' giving +1 movement speed for example. if you put you mouse over it, you will see the description of the terrain bonus. It doesn't even have to be colors, it could be stripes or polka dots.

>What is No-Go zones

作者： Guest, 18.12.2013 at 13:25

>What is No-Go zones

作者： Tundy, 18.12.2013 at 13:40

作者： Guest, 18.12.2013 at 13:25

>What is No-Go zones

It's a place where no unit can cross. I'm talking about places where only certain troops can cross. Like a cliff, tanks can't go over cliffs. But helos can.

作者： Guest, 19.12.2013 at 02:51

作者： Guest, 19.12.2013 at 01:13

作者： Tundy, 18.12.2013 at 13:40

作者： Guest, 18.12.2013 at 13:25

>What is No-Go zones

It's a place where no unit can cross. I'm talking about places where only certain troops can cross. Like a cliff, tanks can't go over cliffs. But helos can.

It's a place where *Most* units can't cross.

Air units can... :/

Really? Sorry for being noob but I have never heard about that. But another thing about terrain, we could have dangerous seas and radioactive areas. Both are cross able, but may damage units. How about that?

I think it sounds interesting, but instead of this, I rather would just like to have a way to prevent aircraft from simply crossing oceans without carriers.

This is something which really should be done, imo.

Units that can deploy terrain, like troops planting mines. Planes invulnerable, tanks could have 50 ~ 75 percent of getting hit, special units that can fix the mines or remove terrain. Sound cool?

You can already do this :l

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 04:16

You can already do this :l

No u cant

作者： Cpt.Magic, 21.12.2013 at 09:41

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 04:16

You can already do this :l

No u cant

yes you can, no go zones anyone?

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 11:49

作者： Cpt.Magic, 21.12.2013 at 09:41

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 04:16

You can already do this :l

No u cant

yes you can, no go zones anyone?

I didn't know you could have units that deploy terrain. Or that you can place terrain that SLOWS DOWN units.

作者： Guest, 21.12.2013 at 11:55

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 11:49

作者： Cpt.Magic, 21.12.2013 at 09:41

作者： LordEdwardthe5th, 21.12.2013 at 04:16

You can already do this :l

No u cant

yes you can, no go zones anyone?

I didn't know you could have units that deploy terrain. Or that you can place terrain that SLOWS DOWN units.

ahhhhh I seee

I think I did.

If you mean by zones slowing down units, I think this has been suggested a long time ago.

作者： Guest, 22.12.2013 at 10:07

If you mean by zones slowing down units, I think this has been suggested a long time ago.

BUMP. And was it coded into the game? I don't really think so, or I am so bad at map editor.

Guys, my idea is that you can have zones like a fog maybe, air units slow down but land units have no problem. Zones where all units slow down. anyone understand?

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Support
Terrain effects and no-go-zones would be a wonderful idea to implement. I can see how it would be a development hassle though.
Of the thousands of wonderful things that AW manages to capture, the effect of terrain on the battlespace/development of bottlenecks/free-fire zones/'taking the high ground'/tactical friction has apparently been sacrificed for awesome playability and ease of development.

I think you could develop no-go-zones for custom maps now (in a way) by making each unit land based and your no-go-zone water based (as previously implied)

I can't think of a 'hack' to impose a movement penalty around just a piece of terrain though, at least not one that would affect a formation more than once.

All that being said, if you plan to create a fictional battlespace, where all units are penalized to the same relative degree (vs. absolute degree) just make those places far apart from one another.

Regarding 'bombers'

My belief is that any particular unit is composed on many parts, represents a large formation of vehicles and personnel, and in the end, is an abstraction anyway. My evidence:
Infantry has a default range of 5. Tanks have a default range of 6. Bombers have a default range of 15.

Questions
1. Do we think that a typical Infantry formation would have movement fully 1/3 of that of a bomber formation?
2. Do bomber formations IRL frequently circle the globe with in-air refueling, and even without it, have ranges of 1000s of KMs?
3. If we want to force air units to 'stop' midocean for refueling, do we want infantry units to stop for food, or tanks for maintenance, or everything for repair, refit and resupply?

作者： Klabauter, 19.12.2013 at 03:54

I think it sounds interesting, but instead of this, I rather would just like to have a way to prevent aircraft from simply crossing oceans without carriers.

This is something which really should be done, imo.

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

作者： Guest, 10.02.2014 at 09:11

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

Explain your point first so I can elaborate.

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:06

作者： Guest, 10.02.2014 at 09:11

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

Explain your point first so I can elaborate.

You don't know my point, so you don't support? get out of here troll.

作者： Guest, 11.02.2014 at 00:49

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:06

作者： Guest, 10.02.2014 at 09:11

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

Explain your point first so I can elaborate.

You don't know my point, so you don't support? get out of here troll.

You asked me...

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:52

作者： Guest, 11.02.2014 at 00:49

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:06

作者： Guest, 10.02.2014 at 09:11

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

Why don't you support the idea?

Explain your point first so I can elaborate.

You don't know my point, so you don't support? get out of here troll.

You asked me...

作者： Guest, 11.02.2014 at 00:59

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:52

作者： Guest, 11.02.2014 at 00:49

作者： 4Chan, 11.02.2014 at 00:06

作者： Guest, 10.02.2014 at 09:11

作者： 4Chan, 05.02.2014 at 07:39

Everything above my post needs to be swept under the rug and never mentioned again because I do not support

Explain why.

Why don't you support the idea?

Explain your point first so I can elaborate.

You don't know my point, so you don't support? get out of here troll.

You asked me...

You just quoted me for no reason, obvs post farming omg...

Lol, that was an accident. I asked: why do you not support this? why is this idea bad?

The terrain is fine how it is, don't want to overcomplicate the game because it's hard enough for new players as is

I understand the idea, but how would that be represented in game? How do you know when you're heading toward a terrain that will slow you down?

Well if the map was a fat chick then like....if you are traveling over her breasts the angle of the climb would be more than say passing through her cleavage (eg a canyon) so you could wall her clevage and force troops to travel over a mounta- boob reducing their total range so you are turning atwar into a 3d game basicaly I don't think this will happen since Amok is too lazy to even say hi to me even though he promised.

Calculating the distance is some basic math although I won't go into much detail since you are from USA I don't think you will understand but here is a diagram (Red long more distance) (Green short less distance)


Moving on this would not change the range of bombers since they are traveling over the boob, buy some plastic army men and hire a plus sized woman of the night for some practical experience but if you in Australia hit up http://www.darwinescorts.com.au (Ph 8981 5252) and ask for 'Shelly' and give them my ref code 305-123 so I get a discount next time, cheers.



But in short you would know by looking at the map and thinking 'hey shit that is a mountain my troops couldn't cross that so easily if at all, but they could get some mad defence bonus'


Yes walling mountains or other terrain for various bonuses would be cool although I don't think it can happen anytime soon.
Although this entire terrain thing is bs and I hate it

作者： NoOne, 11.02.2014 at 16:29

I understand the idea, but how would that be represented in game? How do you know when you're heading toward a terrain that will slow you down?

It can be labeled.

In Crusader Kings II they have a map view button where you can change from political landscape, to geographical, and then to religion, what if we had that? We already have buttons for sight/stealth detection range, why not a button which shades in areas of the map via terrain.

Ex: clicking the Terrain button would color in a country like France green as 'Plains' giving +1 movement speed for example. if you put you mouse over it, you will see the description of the terrain bonus. It doesn't even have to be colors, it could be stripes or polka dots.