next »

I do not mean trees as a resource, but a tactical advantage. However for some of this I will assume that lumber is a harvestable resource. Here’s my ideas, in 3 categories:

Sparse: Can easily travel through it. You have to zig zag through a little bit but does not hinder your vision, and does not add any bonuses. Mostly just a harvestable resource. Can burn, but slowly and easily escapable. Flames can be put out with a sprinkle.

Normal: Siege cannot travel through it. Units, especially cavalry, is slowed going through it. Burns well, but is still escapable. Difficult to stop a forest fire. Vision is limited. Adds an ambush ability when standing still.

Dense: Cavalry cannot travel through it, only foot units, very slowly. Vision is very hindered.  Burns like Napalmed. Flames move very quickly and destroy buildings that come in contact with it in seconds. Nearly impossible to put out, even in a downpour with magic. Easiest way to stop the flames is to cut down trees in its path. An ambush party can move in the forest without being spotted, but must move very slowly.

Forests can be grown with foresters. Takes a long time, but has some big tactical advantages.

First, building a base in the middle of a forest clearing increases your defensive ability immensely. Slows enemy units, can set up ambush points for an extra level of security, and denser forests can prevent siege and Cavalry. The only way for units such as this to get through dense forests is to, well, burn it down! That, or cut through it. Which leads to…

Secondly, burnable forests can benefit and hinder a defense. First, the pros:

Creates an impenetrable defense for awhile. If used correctly, it can give you a boost of time that could turn the tide of not only the upcoming battle, but the game as a whole.

It kills any units in the forest (depending on the density of it).

Cons:

You just destroyed your outer defenses! And it’ll take a long time for you to grow them back. When the fire is all said and done, the enemy can roll through with cavalry and siege equipment. Burning a surrounding forest is a last-ditch effort for defense. And can very easily be used against you. Be careful to make the clearing wide enough or the enemy will just set fire to the forest and burn your entire castle down with it.

Thirdly, trees can be cut down to be made into traps such as pitfalls and deadfalls (I don’t know how any unit would be dumb enough to walk under a large rock being help up by a stick and grab food, but it could be used somehow.)
They could be made into swinging logs and tripwires, successfully turning any forest into a minefield and making all travels through a forest a deadly stand-still. It could be made into rams offensively, and even ballista’s, with a highly experienced carpenter.

Thoughts? (I’ll probably add more to this implementation soon)

While I have no problems with abstractly qualifying forests, I don't believe we should manually define "thick" and "light" forests.  They will be what they are due to the actual forest density.

Wood will be a harvestable resource for all factions ("building supplies" can be achieved from lumber mills, rock quarries, or brick makers [the former two non-renewable resources, the latter expensive on your economy]), but some factions will have special synergies with forests.  I'm not sure how to implement it yet, but some sort of synthesis of the natural forest with your base should be possible.

In terms of combat, forests will force units to break from their formations.  We will definitely need formation breaking as part of the strategy of the game.  Some units function better in a wild melee, others in a tight ordered one.  Forests will also affect cavalry charges and hopefully render them less effective.  They should also improve stealth and hinder line of sight (in a natural way, but blotting out what is behind trees).

Fire would be awesome, but definitely hard to do... worthwhile if done properly, though.

Yeah, when I talk density that's what I mean. But I meant that as categorization. Think of a three color gradient.

I'd also like to add that, unless we have some special magic available to a faction, forests should be non-renewable.  Once destroyed, they're gone.  I really want a definite difference between the early game and late game battlescape.  I want the environment to really reflect the constant battles being fought and the history of the match.

Fire would be awesome, but definitely hard to do... worthwhile if done properly, though.

i don't see fire being much harder than a multiplayer protocol or  ai & pathfinding

i like the idea of forests not only acting as a resource but also as a terrain of considerable strategic importance. Imagine you force an enemy's cavalry to travel through the forest, slowed down, they are very vulnerable and with some fire arrows they could get caught in a forest fire. Mmmmm crispy...

Forests are nice and usefull for ambushes, but I doubt it will do any good as an outer defense, unless the enemy doesn't know where your castle is. If they know, they would simply light the fire themselves.

On second thought, if the forest is set to burn for quite some time, it takes away the element of surprise, and gives the defending party time to arange the defense better, call in reinforcements, or retreat.

Not being able to regrow forests leaves us the issue of resources. It could become troublesome to attain resources after the first battle. Also, if one player decides that he has enough wood, he could set fire to all forests or even before, it would be an effective strategy to set all forests, save the ones you use, to fire early on.

It would be nice to see the history of the battle you fight, but perhaps it could be done in another manner? Like burned ground can't be used to plant trees on for xx game time minutes. And even when planted, the ground will remain blackish for quite some time.

Other ideas for this issue are welcome, as I understand it isn't the perfect solution.

Edit:
Almost forgot, the density of trees should not be put in categories, but be handled with the exact treecount. The more trees within a given area, the slower the movement, etc

Solinx

Yes, I see your point... It would shorten up matches considerably, and give a serious balance problem to factions that don't require a lot of lumber.

I'm sure there is a way around this problem though... I just don't know what it is.

Being able to burn down forests and cut their resources is ultra realistic, although not fun. The most "realistic" (I believe that's what we're going for here, other than the whole Dwarves, Elves and magic part) option is trade. Trading with an internal or external source.

How about, you can fence in a section of trees that can't burn? Or only some trees are harvestable, and the ones that are can't burn?

Neither are too realistic, but just ideas.

you could also allow lumber gathering through a seperate building which could use a sort of 'influence area'. The more trees in its influence circle, the higher resource gathering would be. Less (or none) would cause a considerably slower gathering of lumber, but it would still produce it. That way, you could implement the added risk of placing your building close to the trees, which would make it vulnerable to fire (it could get burnt to ashes) but gathers wood a lot faster.

I know there are some downsides to this idea, but what if you would use an experience system similar to the BFME's resource buildings (which wasn't bad at all if you ask me) and give the lumber mill a higher level ability that keeps its forests safe (immune) to fire. The higher the level, the larger the range of this ability would be.

 

what about experience for workers, who can have experience in lumbering, gathering, mining, farming, etc...

That's a nice idea, but doesn't really help the forest from burning down

Solinx

i know, but it avoids a faction from running out of lumber or forests to get it from...

what about experience for workers, who can have experience in lumbering, gathering, mining, farming, etc...

Yeah but it'd be weird to give seperate workers an fire immunity influence... that's why i was thinking more towards structures.

i know, but it avoids a faction from running out of lumber or forests to get it from...

I was actually commenting on 2play's post

Still thinking about your idea and would like to know what others think of it

Solinx

Firstly, movement reductions shouldn't take place by the number of trees in a given area, either.  Instead, movement penalties should be based on obstruction, where it is the lack of clear area to run at full speed (cavalry) or march in regular formation (infantry & cavalry) that is the problem.  Forests would be just one (albiet one of the more common) situations where this would occur.

As for burning forests, we can be realistic here: forest fires don't spread all that quickly.  Forests hold a large sum of water, and with the exception of dry summer months a fire is likely to stop fairly quickly after starting without doing too much damage.  Spreading fires actually takes quite a long time, and as such in order to burn down the entire map's forests you'd need to light fires to every fourth or fifth tree; not very practical.

For the most part, unless there's oil/pitch on the ground or we're talking about a tinder-dry environment, fires are going to be fairly stable things that are more likely to put themselves out then grow.

ok, I can live with that

Solinx

Edit: 100th post