Chandrasekhar
Determined
Not to mention workers! 
forest stealth, <terrain> stealth?
- Thread starter Mithrus
- Start date
loki1232
Loki
Until you get that eagle graphic!
You can always take a page from Kael's book and use a spitfire as a bird.
Having read all the posts, I still think adding additional terrain based stealth units not only makes sense, but adds a lot more potential twists (and fun/frustration depending on which side you are on). For every terrain, it would be relatively easy as a civ to develop an outfit to give camouflage in any of the terrains. All white for tundra/snow, light browns for desert, etc. As for diminishing the uniqueness of forest stealth, to what purpose is it unique?? How would allowing all terrain-centric civs to be on a similar footing be a bad thing?
The point I am trying to make is that forests are not so unique for providing camouflage! It boggles my mind to think that not having trees means you must not be able to hide at all (unless you're an assassin, then it doesn't matter what your terrain is...erg? now THATS the silly notion if you ask me)!?
Perhaps allow all recon units (and maybe only them) to pick the terrain they are stealthed in, and only allow one at a time? Limit the terrains based on tech. If it costs the unit a promotion, that's quite the sacrifice to provide for balance.
The point I am trying to make is that forests are not so unique for providing camouflage! It boggles my mind to think that not having trees means you must not be able to hide at all (unless you're an assassin, then it doesn't matter what your terrain is...erg? now THATS the silly notion if you ask me)!?
Perhaps allow all recon units (and maybe only them) to pick the terrain they are stealthed in, and only allow one at a time? Limit the terrains based on tech. If it costs the unit a promotion, that's quite the sacrifice to provide for balance.
the problem and the biggest reason that only forest stealth is in is the same reason that the hill defense bonus is not used for attack. until they can change hills to be regarded as an improvement the same way forests are it probably wont or cant be implemented. currently the stealth is linked to an improvement not to a base terrain type. so currently desert , hill , tundra and such stealth is not yet feasable.
as far as dwarfs with hill stealth goes though your are looking at a sum total of 2 units that could possible get the promotion. the scout and the druid (if the druid is upgraded and not built)
as far as dwarfs with hill stealth goes though your are looking at a sum total of 2 units that could possible get the promotion. the scout and the druid (if the druid is upgraded and not built)
Silverkiss
NekoChan
You said that forests are trated as improvments, but you probably meant that they are trated as features. Like flood plains, for example.
Sureshot
Goddess
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,771
actually, the whole thing is done in python, and its quite easy to reproduce for any terrain, feature, plot type, improvement, resource, or anything else you can identify as present through python.
added: could even do situational Enraged (like orcs become enraged whenever they enter a tile with an animal [they eat it and go crazy with the bloodlust! lol]) or situational Immortal (like units gain immortal promotion anytime they visit a life node)
lots of crazy stuff can be done with not too much effort since the template exists for situational promotion gains (forest stealth is situational invisibility promotion, the unit gains it if its on a forest tile).
added: could even do situational Enraged (like orcs become enraged whenever they enter a tile with an animal [they eat it and go crazy with the bloodlust! lol]) or situational Immortal (like units gain immortal promotion anytime they visit a life node)
lots of crazy stuff can be done with not too much effort since the template exists for situational promotion gains (forest stealth is situational invisibility promotion, the unit gains it if its on a forest tile).
I'm fairly sure Hawks are unable to see invisible animals. Even after scouting a region with a Hawk I've often been surpried by Spiders.
Having a bird specialize in spotting invisible units would be a good addition to the game. I'd suggest that the new bird not have the abilioty to scout, forcing you to choose between carrying a Hawk or an Eagle (or whatever).
Heck, we could eventually even have 4 or 5 birds to choose from.
Of course, this would be a huge boost to the Scout class, so maybe the ability to carry birds would become a promotion instead of coming for free.
Having a bird specialize in spotting invisible units would be a good addition to the game. I'd suggest that the new bird not have the abilioty to scout, forcing you to choose between carrying a Hawk or an Eagle (or whatever).
Heck, we could eventually even have 4 or 5 birds to choose from.
Of course, this would be a huge boost to the Scout class, so maybe the ability to carry birds would become a promotion instead of coming for free.
loki1232
Loki
I'd favor this idea.
Just birds as a limited expansion of flying units.
Ideally-
1. Scout (hawk)
2. Invisible finer (eagle)
3. Air superiority (Falcon)
Just birds as a limited expansion of flying units.
Ideally-
1. Scout (hawk)
2. Invisible finer (eagle)
3. Air superiority (Falcon)
cvlowe
King
But even if they could see invisible- you still have to guess the tile, get the bird there, get troops there, etc. Would be a massive logistical challenge that used strategically would open up more options but would not be all that much of an advantage.
katika
Warlord
If you lose a unit you should see an indicator as to where the battle was fought. So, after you lose a unit to an invisible unit, you have a bird scout out the area and even if you're slightly off, the bird's line of sight (I think it's 2 squares) would most likely catch it (unless you were way off). Granted, if the bird could only spot invisible units in the single square it scanned, it would be a nuisance.
Similar threads
