Trying Terrain & Home Advantage in Battle

[Zegangani]

I always found it odd that all land Units can move freely in Desert and Tundra/Snow Tiles, and that without suffering any Consequences. I mean, Desert and Tundra/Snow are really trying Terrains if you're not used to that Climate. And same thing counts also for Jungle/Rainforest.

So we can't expect that Units, that have spend their whole life in a Desert region, move freely in Tundra/Snow Terrain without suffering any consequences. They would have acclimated to the Hot Desert Climate, but entering Tundra/Snow Tiles would get a F* Freeze out of them.

A great example of this is non other than Hitler's defeat when his armies advanced across Soviet Russia in the Summer of 1941 (the beginning if his end). His Armies weren't prepared for the brutal and freezing Climate. Eventhough they "technically" had the superior hand, and could have taken Moscow very easily. "A blow the Russians may never recover from" - as stated in the attached article. I won't go further in details here, but you can read more about that here if you want: How -40° temperatures stopped Nazi Germany.

I think Units that aren't used to certain "tough" Terrains should suffer from two consequences:
- Damage when entering those Terrains (-5 Damage for every Turn they spend on a tough Terrain + another -5 for every tough Terrain passed, so if a unit, in one turn, enters the first time a tough terrain and moves to another one in the same turn, it will get -10 Damage in that same turn, and if it stays in that tile, till the next Turn, it will saffer another -5 Damage (the Effect will trigger the next turn). This will continue every turn till it moves to another "neutral Tile", or dies).
- and a Combat Strength Penalty (-5 ~ -10) when Fighting on those Terrains. (Depends on UnitType and Era, so i.e. Tanks won't get a Strength Penalty upon Fighting on Desert or Tundra/Snow Tiles, but, perhaps, in Rainforest).

Basically, Civs that are historically used to a certain climate won't suffer from its Consequences (i.e. Arabia and Egypt won't suffer any consequences from moving/fighting on Desert Tiles, and Aztec and Kongo won't suffer any consequences from moving/fighting on Rainforest Tiles). And if a City of a Civ has a certain tough Terrain in it's Territory (the Civ is historically not used to that Terrain), Units in that City's Territory won't suffer from any consequences upon entering that terrain. Because that Terrain would have been part of the Civ's Territory, therefore, Units in that City would have adapted to that Climate. But this only applies in one's own Territory (or should it be that if a Civ that has settled on tundra Tiles, would not suffer the consequences of Tundra Tiles, neither outside it's Territory nor in an Enemy's Territory (Tundra Territory)?).

And last but not least, The Home Advantage.
Units should have a Combat Advantage in form of combat Strength when fighting in one's own Territory. So Units should get a +3 ~ +5 Combat Strenghth when fighting in their Home Territory (or adjacent to it). (Perhaps not against Civs known for colonization? i.e. Spain, England, France...)

Combined with the Terrain Combat Penalties, we could have the following Situations:

• If Civ A (i.e. not used to Tundra) is attacking a City of Civ B (i.e. used to Tundra and/or has it in it's Territory), Civ A will suffer a -5 in combat Strength and Civ B would get +5 Combat Strength (that's a +10 difference in CS. Too much? or realistic?).
• If Civ A (i.e. used to Tundra) is attacking a City of Civ B (i.e. used to Tundra and/or has it in it's Territory), Civ B would get +5 Combat Strenghth (that's just the +5 CS difference).
• If Civ A (i.e. used to Tundra) is fighting against Civ B (i.e. not used to Tundra) in neutral Territory on Tundra Tiles, Civ B would suffer a -5 in Combat Strength.

I'm currently working on a Mod that does exactly this, but I wanted to know your opinion about it first, before I release it on the Steam Workshop (So I can change it if neccessary). So what do you think of this? How much do you think the Penalties (Terrain and Combat) should be? And if you have other suggestions for this, then feel free to tell me your Ideas.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Perhaps if we lower the Combat Strength to - and +3? Also, attrition could be a thing. Units could eventually lose Combat Strength and Health if not adjacent to a supply wagon (a Civilian Unit that I have made up for this purpose) or have spent too long in Enemy Territory.

 

[Zegangani]

Perhaps if we lower the Combat Strength to - and +3? Also, attrition could be a thing. Units could eventually lose Combat Strength and Health if not adjacent to a supply wagon (a Civilian Unit that I have made up for this purpose) or have spent too long in Enemy Territory.

That's a Good Idea, though. Unfortunately, as the AI behaving really Dumb in Combat/Handling it's Units, I think that would be too much of a Handicap for it.

 

[Zegangani]

Perhaps if we lower the Combat Strength to - and +3?

That's more reasonabe.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

What's your Steam Account name so that people can find your mod?

 

[Zegangani]

What's your Steam Account name so that people can find your mod?

It's the same as in this Forum: Zegangani. But I haven't yet uploaded the Mod. I still need to test it one more time before I can release it.

And I also wanted to make it affect Modded Units too, such as in the "Warfare Expanded" Mods and "Steel & Thunder UU"...etc.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It's the same as in this Forum: Zegangani. But I haven't yet uploaded the Mod. I still need to test it one more time before I can release it.

And I also wanted to make it affect Modded Units too, such as in the "Warfare Expanded" Mods and "Steel & Thunder UU"...etc.

Good to know!

 

[PiR]

Shouldn't a unit get used to a new kind of terrain? For example, Spanish explorers discovering American jungles should suffer, but then get used to it after a while (not sure what the trigger should be though). Maybe once you have a prosperous city near that kind of terrain, your units are immune to it?
Examples:

• Spain colonizes a city with 3 jungle tiles (Mexico). After 5 turns, the units are immune to the penalties.
• England colonizes a city with 3 snow tiles (Canada), same.
  
• France colonizes African territory with desert tiles

etc.

We could also say the units are immune to the effect only on the continent where the civ has a city like this. If Spain goes to Asia (the jungles are different there, different dangers), or England to Russia, then the penalty occurs again.

 

[Zegangani]

Shouldn't a unit get used to a new kind of terrain? For example, Spanish explorers discovering American jungles should suffer, but then get used to it after a while (not sure what the trigger should be though). Maybe once you have a prosperous city near that kind of terrain, your units are immune to it?
Examples:

• Spain colonizes a city with 3 jungle tiles (Mexico). After 5 turns, the units are immune to the penalties.
• England colonizes a city with 3 snow tiles (Canada), same.
  
• France colonizes African territory with desert tiles

etc.

We could also say the units are immune to the effect only on the continent where the civ has a city like this. If Spain goes to Asia (the jungles are different there, different dangers), or England to Russia, then the penalty occurs again.

Actually, Yes. But as you said, it has to be only on Territory where the units got used to it's Terrain. Because, for example, the Jungle in south America is not the same one as the one in south Asia. But I don't think that this is moddable right now, unfortunately.
And that's why I suggested that Civs that are not (historically) used to a certain Terrain, shouldn't suffer from that Terrain if it's in their Territotory, either in their Settled Cities or in conquered ones (colonialized). And also, that Civs won't have a Home Advantage, in terms of additional Combat Strength, against Civs that are known for colonialization.

But on the other Hand we have an example who say the opposite: Alexander The Great. When his Troops entered India it was an uncomfortable Climate to them, eventough they defeated the Indian King Poros, they refused to allow their king to march on the Hyphasis due to general exhaustion caused by the continuous monsoon rains; then Alexander was forced to break off his campaign of conquest and then moved further downstream of the Indus.

 

[PiR]

But on the other Hand we have an example who say the opposite: Alexander The Great. When his Troops entered India it was an uncomfortable Climate to them, eventough they defeated the Indian King Poros, they refused to allow their king to march on the Hyphasis due to general exhaustion caused by the continuous monsoon rains; then Alexander was forced to break off his campaign of conquest and then moved further downstream of the Indus.

Then you may consider Alexander as a GP, a General that cancels the tile negative effect on the units around him.

 

[Zegangani]

Then you may consider Alexander as a GP, a General that cancels the tile negative effect on the units around him.

Maybe as a Hero, so you can revive him each era? But, honestly, I would prefer giving Civs Traits for that, because with a GP or Hero we would have only limited controle of that Effect, where it should be Civilization wide (See the Roman Empire). And this should cancel the negative effects of Combatt Strength Only, not of the Terrain.

 

[The Civs 6]

Shouldn't a unit get used to a new kind of terrain? For example, Spanish explorers discovering American jungles should suffer, but then get used to it after a while (not sure what the trigger should be though). Maybe once you have a prosperous city near that kind of terrain, your units are immune to it?
Examples:

• Spain colonizes a city with 3 jungle tiles (Mexico). After 5 turns, the units are immune to the penalties.
• England colonizes a city with 3 snow tiles (Canada), same.
  
• France colonizes African territory with desert tiles

etc.

We could also say the units are immune to the effect only on the continent where the civ has a city like this. If Spain goes to Asia (the jungles are different there, different dangers), or England to Russia, then the penalty occurs again.

It's not really an issue of being acclimated or not acclimated to weather. Take the Arab desert for example. Both the Romans and Persians, who occupied the Middle East for centuries (and were no strangers to hot weather), never were able to move their armies around the desert effectively during summer. Certainly lack of familiarity with foreign climates is a factor that has mattered (see Alexander in India). But I think the more Civ-relevant factor is simply the fact that a) deserts don't have lots of water; b) for most of history armies have needed to find water where they traveled; c) therefore, armies couldn't travel for very long or far in deserts.

The other side of the coin is that certain peoples were not just acclimated to the weather, but adept at using the environment. The Arab tribes who ended up founding the Caliphate were able to find oases in the desert, utilized camels that are resilient to the challenges posed by deserts, and were able to navigate through deserts despite the general lack of POI's and other notable things that help people find their way.

It's ultimately odd that in Civ, a flat desert is basically like the easiest place to traverse with an army - when in reality, deserts were probably the largest obstacles to movement for the reasons stated above.

 

[Zegangani]

It's not really an issue of being acclimated or not acclimated to weather. Take the Arab desert for example. Both the Romans and Persians, who occupied the Middle East for centuries (and were no strangers to hot weather), never were able to move their armies around the desert effectively during summer. Certainly lack of familiarity with foreign climates is a factor that has mattered (see Alexander in India). But I think the more Civ-relevant factor is simply the fact that a) deserts don't have lots of water; b) for most of history armies have needed to find water where they traveled; c) therefore, armies couldn't travel for very long or far in deserts.

The other side of the coin is that certain peoples were not just acclimated to the weather, but adept at using the environment. The Arab tribes who ended up founding the Caliphate were able to find oases in the desert, utilized camels that are resilient to the challenges posed by deserts, and were able to navigate through deserts despite the general lack of POI's and other notable things that help people find their way.

It's ultimately odd that in Civ, a flat desert is basically like the easiest place to traverse with an army - when in reality, deserts were probably the largest obstacles to movement for the reasons stated above.

Exactly! and same thing counts for Tundra/Snow Terrain too. Looking at Hannibal who has lost a huge amount of his Troops while crossing the Alps. His loss of soldiers as a result of enemy action, river crossings, and the entire expedition in general had been very serious (Elephants and Horses even more). Of course That's not all due to the Wheather, but the Alpine Mountains themselves threatened mortal danger, just like the path who was too narrow for the Elephants and Horses to pass. And not to forget the Mountain Tribes, knowing the territory, that attacked them.

Considering all of that, I think Civs that are adapted to Tundra/Snow Terrain should not suffer from It's Penalties, even not outside of one's Territory, except a smaller Penalty of Combat Strength (unknown Foreign Territory). But Civs unfamiliar to that Climate, will suffer major consequences when crossing Hills, and less in flat Terrain.

Civs that are adapted to Desert Terrain should also not suffer from It's Penalties, even not outside of one's Territory, but only if there is a Oases adjacent to the Unit (ignored If in own Territory), except a smaller Penalty of Combat Strength (unknown Foreign Territory). But Civs unfamiliar to that Climate, will suffer major consequences when crossing both, Desert Hills (Dunes) and flat Desert.

And Civs that are adapted to Rainforest should not suffer from It's Penalties, even not outside of one's Territory, except a smaller Penalty of Combat Strength (unknown Foreign Territory). But Civs unfamiliar to Rainforest, will suffer major consequences when passing through both, Rainforests on Hills and on flat Terrain.

 

[Sostratus]

I would suggest possibly recycling the mechanism used by the swedish Open Air Museum to determine the application of modifiers for this purpose. (It tests whether the player owns a city settled in a certain kind of terrain.)
One thing to keep in mind is that combat strengths may be compared in a linear way ~ Strength A - Strength B = number that goes into formula, but the formula itself is an exponential one. Each point of strength difference modifies the multiplier on damage dealt by 1.04 or 1.05. While this means a +15% boost is always +15%, it also means that stacking modifiers is extremely efficient.
Anyways, +3 is a lot better than +5 for an inherent and free homeland defense buff. Keep in mind defenders already have the advantage of cities to help them out.

As for an appropriate value of chip damage, consider two things: the typical length of a siege or invasion into enemy territory, and how healing comes into play. Standard heal rate varies, and you need to choose in what kind of terrain should units be able to heal through the damage, have healing canceled, or be damaged through healing (friendly/neutral/enemy terrains having the 3 different heal rates.) That may imply a good value is somewhere around -5 to -10 per turn. Something low enough that it's not going to cripple any efforts at all, but high enough that you might not be able to camp in the snow forever.

 

[Zegangani]

I would suggest possibly recycling the mechanism used by the swedish Open Air Museum to determine the application of modifiers for this purpose. (It tests whether the player owns a city settled in a certain kind of terrain.)

I'm using lua for the Damage effect, because the Database modifier for it isn't reliable, but it's possible with lua too. Although, The Combat Strength will be adjusted with modifiers.

One thing to keep in mind is that combat strengths may be compared in a linear way ~ Strength A - Strength B = number that goes into formula, but the formula itself is an exponential one. Each point of strength difference modifies the multiplier on damage dealt by 1.04 or 1.05. While this means a +15% boost is always +15%, it also means that stacking modifiers is extremely efficient.
Anyways, +3 is a lot better than +5 for an inherent and free homeland defense buff. Keep in mind defenders already have the advantage of cities to help them out.

Yes, I've decided for the +3 Combat Strength for Homeland defense, giving that Oponent Units unfamiliar to the Terrain will suffer a -2~3 in Combat Strength anyway.

As for an appropriate value of chip damage, consider two things: the typical length of a siege or invasion into enemy territory, and how healing comes into play. Standard heal rate varies, and you need to choose in what kind of terrain should units be able to heal through the damage, have healing canceled, or be damaged through healing (friendly/neutral/enemy terrains having the 3 different heal rates.) That may imply a good value is somewhere around -5 to -10 per turn. Something low enough that it's not going to cripple any efforts at all, but high enough that you might not be able to camp in the snow forever.

That makes sense. Tbh, I haven't thought much about Healing. I will definitely consider this for the damage Effects of the Terrains/Features. Concidering that a Turn in Civ VI can represend from a number of 1 to x0 Years, the damages shouldn't be lower than -5 (even in a 1 Year turn it would take 20 turns for the Unit to die).

And I hope that I can find a way to make the AI resign its Units from tough Terrains if they have taken too much damage.

Thanks for the reply Sustratos! That was really helpful.

 

[PiR]

And I hope that I can find a way to make the AI resign its Units from tough Terrains if they have taken too much damage.

Good point! Without that, it might make the game too easy: attract them there and let them rot?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Good point! Without that, it might make the game too easy: attract them there and let them rot?

Or General Winter them... without the winter and snow of course.

 

[PiR]

What about the promotions like "I walk twice as fast on the type of terrain"? Do you plan to use them to make the units acclimated to those terrains?

 

[Zegangani]

What about the promotions like "I walk twice as fast on the type of terrain"? Do you plan to use them to make the units acclimated to those terrains?

Tbh I thought of the Opposite. Those type of Promotions should only be obtained If a Unit has acclimated to a certain terrain. Therefore, I will have to replace them for other Promotion effects, so that the acclimatization to the Terrains will get a Unit the effect automatically (without a Promotion). But I'm not sure of what alternative Promotion Types that could replace them, or if it's even a good Idea.

 

[PiR]

I think it's a good idea.
You could keep the promotion for Hills and change the one for Forest/Jungle into just Forest.