Defense bonus on rocky/savanna
- Thread starter mart777
- Start date
Feature combat bonus usually override terrain combat bonus.
Not really intended; but I think it makes for some interesting rules nonteless.
Savanna gives 10% combat bonus.
Hills are are an exception in that they are both a feature and a terrain so feature on hill is a simple addition, but if you have hill/forest/rocky the bonus from rocky is ignored and forest used instead.
Not really intended; but I think it makes for some interesting rules nonteless.
Savanna gives 10% combat bonus.
Hills are are an exception in that they are both a feature and a terrain so feature on hill is a simple addition, but if you have hill/forest/rocky the bonus from rocky is ignored and forest used instead.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Probably should be the higher of both but it goes back to vanilla rules it seems. Wasn't aware of this.
Correct
Features trumps terrain but hills are always counted.
All modifiers should be counted in a perfect world, so someone should look into it at one point.
This one has a big impact on terrains that have negative defense modifiers as a forest might turn a plot from -25% to 50% defense bonus
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Forest plus hills would be overpowered if they were added to each other. So it would have to be a Max of the two. That's actually doable pretty easily I'd suspect.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
A tar pit is a feature so no. Not without the multiple feature mod being re-installed.
We presently have forest and hills together, this is +75% bonus. As I remember, it has been for very long time like this, maybe even from vanilla civ4 or BTS. It does not feel overpowered, but yes, this is large bonus. Worth looking for in field, when a unit needs a more "quiet" place to recover from damages.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ah... given the bit about hills (they aren't a terrain or a feature actually but a 3d possibility) and how that's adding to forests already... perhaps it should be the sum total of the feature and terrain. I'm actually surprised to learn its not already. I'll have to go looking to see why at some point here. Remind me if I forget.
I can only think of rocky/hill/forest which would sum to 100%.
@TB: If we were to make it a proper summation; we should lower hill and forest bonus by a little:
hill: 25→20%
Forest: 50→40%
Rocky 25→15%
Caves: 50→30% (caves have always had too much in my opinion)
Hill/forest/rocky would then be 75%
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Have you ever seen this in a game? I have not. Or is this a proposal to make it so?
JosEPh
This does not happen in-game currently as features (savanna, tall grass, caves, forest, crater, etc) nullify the combat bonus from terrain.
It has been proposed here to properly sum all combat bonuses from both terrain and features and this would result in having 100% defense bonus if we were not to reduce some of them.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Hmm... I would like to hear the opinions of others on these adjustments. Not sure where I stand on it all though I don't feel caves have had too much when you compare to forests. I often wonder why forests would provide so much defensive bonus as it would tend to foul up the defenders as well as the attackers. Hills have always seemed a little understated as getting upper ground can actually be a really large advantage to defenders (though archer bonuses on hills is pretty OP imo). And Peaks should have a much stronger defense, no?
Wouldn't mind the breakdown total of Hill/forest/rocky as you suggest.
What do others think though?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
"IF" this leads towards what AND has done then No I not for it.
JosEPh
JosEPh
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
What has AND done?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Hill plus Forest only gives 50% Defense, Forest alone gives 50%, in fact no terrain/feature gives more than 50% and most are 25% or lower. I hope we don't go in that direction. But then we do have many more terrains types than they do.
JosEPh
This will not be done; this discussion is more about the opposite, to make all factors be counted in all situations.
We were discussing to decrease some terrain bonuses so that we don't get 100% defense bonus from any of our current plots when all factors are counted. I agree that the 50% hard max limit AND enforce is a bit too harsh.
P.S. If we someday get caves and forest to coexist in one plot on a hill I would not be against a higher than 75% bonus, as this combination would be a very good defensive position indeed.
TB mentioned something earlier here about forest being as much a hindrance for defenders as attackers; but here I disagree. Approaching enemies would be at an intelligence disadvantage as it is hard to know what kind of enemy they face in the forest while those in the forest should have an easier time scouting/gathering intelligence on the encroaching enemy and hence create a more effective battle plan.
I think this argument holds even when both sides of an upcoming battle is stationed in a forest as both sides would have too bad intel. to make an effective attack on each other but both would be capable to set up surprising defensive plans regardless of the details of what they are facing.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Just saying that what a forest would provide in terms of defense is minor in comparison to what a hill would provide. Just sayin'.
Taxman66
King
Actually, that would depend upon the type of unit as well. Closed formation (i.e. anything using shield walls) melee units actually perform rather badly in forest (defending or attacking).
Similar threads
- Locked
