forest stealth, <terrain> stealth?

[Mithrus]

A semi-random thought just occured to me. Shouldn't dwarves has the ability to stealth in hills similar to forest stealth? This could extend to non-dwarves also, just as with forest stealth.

Extraloplating a bit further, practically all terrains could allow for stealth, so if there ever is an expansion of the stealth capabities, I could see a stealth type for each terrain type. This would also imply a terrain bonus promotion for each terrain type as well, which I think is appropriate.

This would allow for some nice speciallization by civs as well. Doviello taking tundra/ice stealth, clan of embers taking jungle stealth, etc. It would sorta of even out the playing field a touch when a civ is on their home turf.

 

[GeeJo]

I'm not sure, I think it would run into the same problems as Guerilla's attack into hills bonus - that is, forests are different because theyre a *feature* rather than a *terrain*.

 

[Aeon221]

Argle Bargle Glop Glyp?!

Please for the love of all that is holy never ever ever implement this idea!

Invisible hordes of enemies charging into my turf sounds about as awesome as having a full body cavity search.

 

[loki1232]

Argle Bargle Glop Glyp?!

Please for the love of all that is holy never ever ever implement this idea!

Invisible hordes of enemies charging into my turf sounds about as awesome as having a full body cavity search.

Don't worry dude. And remember that unless you're the Khazad, you can use sand lion or marksmen or floating eyes to reveal and kill stealth units.

 

[GeeJo]

Well, Khazad still have the Floating Eye option, if they can tear themselves away from Kilmorph.

 

[Sureshot]

might be good to give khazad a UU for prophets that can see invisible units

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yeah, the Grigori got a UU to solve a serious gameplay weakness, I think the Khazad should, too.

 

[loki1232]

Yeah, the Grigori got a UU to solve a serious gameplay weakness, I think the Khazad should, too.

A very good point.

 

[Gamestation]

Maybe tremor should be changed to also reveal invisible units in addition to pushing units back. I hate how useless the dwarven druid is compared to the regular druid because he's stuck with that spell.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

might be good to give khazad a UU for prophets that can see invisible units

Maybe tremor should be changed to also reveal invisible units in addition to pushing units back. I hate how useless the dwarven druid is compared to the regular druid because he's stuck with that spell.

Both good ideas.
Invisible units are fun, but when you realize mid-game that to see them you have to either switch religions or start down a long research path that you haven't been specializing in, they get frustrating, more so than just gettin' yer behind whipped.

 

[MrManNo1]

A semi-random thought just occured to me. Shouldn't dwarves has the ability to stealth in hills similar to forest stealth? This could extend to non-dwarves also, just as with forest stealth.

Extraloplating a bit further, practically all terrains could allow for stealth, so if there ever is an expansion of the stealth capabities, I could see a stealth type for each terrain type. This would also imply a terrain bonus promotion for each terrain type as well, which I think is appropriate.

This would allow for some nice speciallization by civs as well. Doviello taking tundra/ice stealth, clan of embers taking jungle stealth, etc. It would sorta of even out the playing field a touch when a civ is on their home turf.

WORST. IDEA. EVAR.

Sorry, but I think that this is a really bad idea. It makes sense to have stealth in forests (jungles make sense, too), but I can't possibly imagine someone trying to sneak up on me in a land completely devoid of any hiding places (i.e. a tundra). Plus, the only way that it would be logical for someone to be stealthy in hill terrain would be to go under the hill. Having some kind of "digging" unit might be interesting. But then, it should give ANY units on that tile stealth instead of just a particular race.

 

[cvlowe]

Nope- I kind of agree with the people who say no more stealth anything- theres already plenty for people who like that thing to use it as a strategy

Drat- I thought the ranger/eagle combo could see stealth. Guess I'll have to leave the Sidar alone for now! Good thing I saw this before I declared war!

 

[loki1232]

Drat- I thought the ranger/eagle combo could see stealth. Guess I'll have to leave the Sidar alone for now! Good thing I saw this before I declared war!

HEY!!!
Great idea. Hawks should see stealth. This will save the Khazad and gie people a reason to use hawks.

 

[cvlowe]

HEY!!!
Great idea. Hawks should see stealth. This will save the Khazad and gie people a reason to use hawks.

Wasn't really an idea per say- its the way I thought it did work. But that would make a great solution. Gamewise, the hawks are generally more annoying than useful. Flavorwise, most "stealth" isn't invisibility, but using optical illusions so that a person looking at you won't see you. A hawk's vision is much better than any humanoid, and their prey uses similar tricks to try and hide. So this would make a decent solution.

 

[Maniac]

I think that would cause the opposite problem of making Shadow stealth too weak. A solution I suggested earlier was to make Shadows visible for a turn after attacking a unit. That way you could still pick off lone units, but attacking large stacks would not be such a good idea...

That's at least what I've done for the Hidden trait in RoM.
So, cvlowe, in case you're playing against the Sidar in RoM, I'd suggest to move in large stacks on defendable terrain inside their territory, so you can retaliate after they have struck at you from the dark.

 

[loki1232]

I think that would cause the opposite problem of making Shadow stealth too weak.

Well maybe, but first you hve to remember that the probability of the ai actually using hawks to catch shadows would be low.
And that shadows really shouldn't be sent into enemy territory and expected to kill many enemies without retribution. And this way they will still be useable for defense since they can attack and then retreat to a fortified locale.
And who would complain if shadows were nefred like this?

A solution I suggested earlier was to make Shadows visible for a turn after attacking a unit. That way you could still pick off lone units, but attacking large stacks would not be such a good idea...

That's at least what I've done for the Hidden trait in RoM.
So, cvlowe, in case you're playing against the Sidar in RoM, I'd suggest to move in large stacks on defendable terrain inside their territory, so you can retaliate after they have struck at you from the dark.

You RoM isn't a bad idea, but I don't really see why its better than the hawks seeing invisible. Still nerfs them as single unit avengers, and is less interesting (IMO)

Although I do like your 1 turn of visibility as a function of the hidden trait.

 

[Maniac]

Well maybe, but first you hve to remember that the probability of the ai actually using hawks to catch shadows would be low.

I always try to be balance stuff for multiplayer. And a 240 cost unit losing its special ability because of a cost 20 unit doesn't seem a good weigh-off to me. You might as well remove the stealth ability then.

And that shadows really shouldn't be sent into enemy territory and expected to kill many enemies without retribution. And this way they will still be useable for defense since they can attack and then retreat to a fortified locale.

But then what makes them special compared to any other unit with high moves?

 

[Bad Player]

I agree that the hawks would nerf stealth too much. Some kind of compromise might work however (e.g. if hawks had to be paired with e.g. rangers or higher).

 

[cvlowe]

I always try to be balance stuff for multiplayer. And a 240 cost unit losing its special ability because of a cost 20 unit doesn't seem a good weigh-off to me. You might as well remove the stealth ability then.

Good point about the costs, but it does fit thematically. There should be a way to make it work though- maybe raising the cost of hawks- to represent the fact they should be fairly uncommon and/or difficult to train? Though not too much-- look at it another way, Hawks by themselves are useless. They need to be equipped on a hunter/ranger and are just technically an upgrade to that unit as opposed to a unit in themselves. So what would be an appropriate hammer cost to add the ability to see stealth to a unit?

 

[Sureshot]

hawks probably already see invisible animals, no? in which case, like the ranger, they can only see one type of invisible units.