I'm lazy so I'm not going to scroll back to his first post (before everyone's tone started going really downhill) so I'm going to paraphrase, and likely paraphrase wrongly. I believe some of the cons (which means downside to your plan - not "your plan is wrong" -- every plan has its pros and cons, its how you weigh decisions in life) he may have observed are (in my words): 1) Removing the open terrain penalties could run the risk of homoginizating the different tiles and remove percieved benefits of highly defensible terrains. I.E., is it worth looking for hills and forests if the penalties for fighting in clear terrain aren't sufficiently bad enough to go look for them? 2) Removing the open terrain penalties runs the risk of unbalancing other parts of the game in some manner of another (again, I don't know or care, what the exact words are). 3) etc. I am sure there are more, and I am sure Ahriman will return and point them out and correct my own wording. It's fine. Please note that I pointed out that he observed the "cons". That does not translate into meaning that I agree (or disagree) with him. I percieve you as now being very defensive of your views and also borderline hostile, and in jeopardy of misinterpreting anyone's criticism as an attack. This of course, is understandable, given the tone of some of the criticisms to your ideas. They could have been phrased more constructively - doing so certainly would make the topic feel less hostile than it needs be. Thanks to Krikkitone, I've gotten some useful ideas from this topic, and will toy with the 0% open terrain defense modifiers (I'm intrigued enough to try it), but I'll withdraw from posting further here -- there's too much bitterness and hostility around these halls nowadays for this lurker. Carry on.