Overlapping Terrain Types

[LPhillips]

So there's something that has been bugging me for a bit. Since Beta3, actually. There are always bigger fish to fry, but it seems like things are getting to the point where bringing this idea up can be productive.

So, the big reveal, the grraaannd idea is... oh, it's in the title, nevermind!
You already have this, with bridges. They are Open terrain mixed with Water terrain, and it works brilliantly. It's very nice. Punish your enemies for leaving units on bridges using your swimmers, but beware their pikemen! Anyway, even back in Beta3 I was wishing for things like "wooded hills" and "Snowy forest". It would require some discussion of what would work, and it would mean some things would get (welcome?) rebalances.
No more multiple terrain bonuses for units. For example: cavalry would only get their native bonus in "Desert Plains", and none in "Deep Desert" (Dunes/true desert) or "Sandy Hills" (or "Rocky Desert" if you prefer). All movement attributes should be fully preserved in overlapping types, but I would suggest that individual combat bonuses be 50%.

Everything would operate just as it does now with Bridges. Units would move across these locations using the best available movement option, just as now. They would give terrain bonuses in movement and combat just as now. I would suggest only that units gain only 50% of their individual bonus in overlapping terrain. This should probably be implemented on bridges anyway, as a Pikeman shouldn't get a full bonus trying to fight a Kraken from atop a bridge, and neither should a Sea Serpent get full bonus trying to snatch soldiers from bridges. You could even have "Snowy wooded hills" if you want to go that far, and it shouldn't disturb anything. It's not as cut-and-dry as the current system, but it's still easy to comprehend and it's far more organic in mapmaking and in the strategy portion of the game.

So, this would be expensive to implement. But I'm ready to support it with funds! (When the current run is over, which I'm sure you are all participating in as well!)

[KGB]

Agree 100%. DLR had overlapping types. Movement cost was the highest of the 2 types (so on snowy hills it would be 6 from hills but if you had a Dwarf it would be reduced to 4 due to the snow but a Dwarf+Mammoth would reduce down to 2).

At the same time we also need the ability to place cities on hills/snow/forest etc so that the city also gets the terrain bonus so an Elf in a forest city gets his +10 forest bonus.

KGB

[magian]

This sounds pretty good to me. My idea of ice (snow/water) could work with a system like this. Still lots of graphics, so some more ways to spend limited funds :/

[LichKing]

If this will happen, I'd like that units get only half of their terrain bonus on a mixed terrain (unless a unit has a bonus on both terrains, like HvCav on plains/desert). But it would require a lot of work on graphics I think..

I don't like the idea of cities using also the terrain bonus. Unless it's some kind of special town (like an elven city among the trees), a city is a city. If a city is on grassland, should cavalry or pikemen get a bonus? I don't think so. Units with city bonus would become less effective, and I don't think they're overly used right now. This could be (at most) an option in the map creation (to allow also terrain bonus for a certain town).

[KGB]

Graphics wise the easiest way to start is with the DLR model. What DLR did was make forest and snow overlapping terrain and all the others (swamp, hills, desert, plains, mountains, water, lava) base terrain.

So you first placed base terrain as you do now. Then you could add the overlapping terrain on top to make combined terrain. The editor prevented silly stuff like snowy lava. But then you'd be able to add forest to hills, plains, desert (a small oasis) etc or snow to plains, hills, water or even make a super combo of snowy, forested, hills.

I can show a couple of screen shots of Snotling is interested in seeing how it works.

Definitely a fair bit of work though as it would require a lot of new graphics and a complete editor overhaul. So I am guessing it would be in a far future Beta.

KGB

[Moonknight]

Great idea, sounds like a moderate amount of work but would greatly enhance the game visually.

[strach]

I don't like this idea att all. way too complicated.

[LPhillips]

Strach, please be specific. I know KGB's explanation of the mapmaking sounded a bit complicated but the truth is that for the player (opposed to the map creator) it's all rather simple. I don't particularly like the idea of taking the highest terrain cost, which would indeed make it more complicated. I think it would be up to the mapmaker to control the speed of movement by varying the underlying terrain so that you wouldn't be crossing snowy wastelands at lightning speed by using a dwarf.

KGB, just as Lichking said the game isn't balanced for cities with extra terrain. It would be neat to have an option for limited application of that in scenarios, but otherwise it's not something I'm in favor of.

[magian]

I agree with Lphillips (and it scares me a bit).

On the other hand, this isn't much of a priority to me. I think it would be an improvement, but a fairly minor one.