Terrain and climate impact on figthing on the battle map

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 12, 2017, 04:44 AM

A question which popped to my mind when I read about Lithuanian style of fighting.

What are the real penalties and bonuses of fighting in the woods ?

I know there're modificators for combat in the EDU, and their higher values pop up in-game in the description of the units. But how do they really impact the figthing?
To my mind, heavy knights should be extremely ineffective while fighting in the woods. The same goes for the missiles. This would give some advantages for the factions like Lithuania and Norway: they historically didn't have heavy cavalry and their missiles were not so developed like elsewhere becaused they didn't need to (and yes, they were both rather poor so armour was too expensive / not available). But if we want to stick to history on their equipment, we should be also historical about conditions they fought in. My experience with fighting tells me that in SS you still win with heavy knights and missiles in the woods.

What is your experience? What do you think about other terrain and climate issues, like fighting in armour in the hot climates (I know there're modifiers but do they impose significant constraints on the play-style, or they're negligible?

**Lifthrasir** · January 12, 2017, 05:20 AM

Well, I can't say for sure about Lithuania but you're wrong about Norway with missiles and armour. Bows were commonly used. There's even an royal edit from the 13th century (if my memory serves me) mentionning that Hirdsmen must be equipped with bows. Crossbows then like for the rest of Europe became also more and more in use.
Regarding armors, people tend to forget that Norses were very good traders beside their fighting skills. During the 12th century, it was common to have a mail armour. With their relations with Eastern Europe, it was also quite common to get lamellar armours. Later on, Norwegian Nobles had partial and full plate armors (like the rest of Western Europe). It just took more time compare to Denmark for instance.
This being said and to go back on topic, it is true that horses weren't used a lot in Norway due to the terrain's nature. Having horses is 1 point, being able to feed them is another. They relied mostly on naval support and raiding. They also used to make some kind of barriers (with wood and stones) to not be flanked and to oblige the enemy to focuse on their shieldwall formation. Basically, Norses used to fight in line, holding and pushing forward against the enemy formation until it broke (or until their own formation broke). These points aren't correctly represented in game for now.
Regarding fights in the woods, I have no idea how the trees can influence the cavalry and projectiles (if there's any influence). The ITWE team might have that kind of info

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 12, 2017, 07:01 AM

I fully agree on the historical use of bows. Also in the woods in Eastern Europe they're very widespread. They're equally useful for fighting and for getting food.

But I have something different in mind: in the clash of troops in the middle ages (and earlier as well) in the northern Europe bows were much less useful than in the open spaces in the Near East. This is why (I believe) in Syria or Persia (or Causaus) archers were much more important for fighting. The terrain was also better for using horses. The extreme case are the steppes - here the horse archers rule the battlefields.

This should impact on the fighting styles of the armies. In the context of my question the important thing is: in the north the bows should be much less useful in fighting than in the east. The special situation should be in the woods - here bows (and armoured knights) should be much less useful. I don't think this is reflected in the M2TW engine.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I feel I don't have much knowledge of how terrains and climate influences the fighiting style of different armies. And I don't know if anything can be done with it.

**Lifthrasir** · January 12, 2017, 07:15 AM

I guess that it depends on how the engine consider the trees in game. If it's like grass, they aren't considered as "objects" and anything can go through. But that's not the case obviously as units go around the trees and not through them. I guess that cavalry is slowed down somehow but I might be wrong. Also, cavalry seems to not keep formation while in forest. Again, I might be wrong.
For arrows and projectiles in general, that's different and I'm not sure that the engine makes them stopped, deviated and/or slowed down by trees. It might be interesting to ask in the ITWE tool forum

These guys have a very good knowledge about these kind of stuff (trees, grass, etc...).

**Navajo Joe** · January 12, 2017, 08:22 AM

JOC and Lifth

If SSHIP uses RR/RC that is in 6.4, then Point Blank made built this into his sub mod. I found this thread in RR/RC, which might help:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...hp?608546-Heat!

As for the trees and how they affect, I remember a conversation on this many years ago, cannot remember what the answer is and don't have a clue where to start.

You might want to pm Point Blank with your questions, I don't know if he visits SSHIP

NJ

**Lifthrasir** · January 13, 2017, 12:41 AM

Thanks NJ. An useful input as usual

**Socrates1984** · January 13, 2017, 03:01 AM

I think the terrain bonuses in EDU are related to either attack or defence bonuses. If it is the latter, then giving a very high bonus to Lithuania or Norway troops could prove to be a equalising factor when fighting Knights in the woods. By the same token Knights could be given a high enough penalty to somewhat simulate the fighting conditions in the forests.
As for arrows, I have never seen an arrow be visibly affected by trees. There is supposedly a change in their effectiveness, and I hope to discover it. Both this question and the one about EDU bonuses I hope to answer in my Battle Tests project linked in my sig.

This message was sent by my mobile phone.

**bigdaddy1204** · January 23, 2017, 05:38 AM

A separate but related issue is that the battle maps of some tiles don't match the scenery they are in. E.g. Baghdad city is transplanted to the middle of a desert, when it should be surrounded by some of the most fertile irrigated farmland in the world.

There should also be a river through the city (the Tigris). Although Medieval 2 engine doesn't allow it inside the walls, perhaps the river could be modelled nearby.

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 25, 2017, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Socrates1984

I think the terrain bonuses in EDU are related to either attack or defence bonuses. If it is the latter, then giving a very high bonus to Lithuania or Norway troops could prove to be a equalising factor when fighting Knights in the woods. By the same token Knights could be given a high enough penalty to somewhat simulate the fighting conditions in the forests.
As for arrows, I have never seen an arrow be visibly affected by trees. There is supposedly a change in their effectiveness, and I hope to discover it. Both this question and the one about EDU bonuses I hope to answer in my Battle Tests project linked in my sig.

I usually have two questions in such situations. They're all related to the age of the engine of the game - more-or-less 10 years (with RTW even more). It means that there's enormous experience gathered by the modders. The impact of the terrain/climate must have been studied thoroughly. Many ingenious and able modders were involved. So:
- what were their conclusions? what do the previous tests say about the climate/terrain impacts on fighting?
- what were the reasons why the SS creators didn't introduce such simple changes (bonuses/penalties), if they're so easy. What are the side-effects? How do the change the balance?
- what do the current leading modders - I mean especially EB2 and TATW - think about the issues?
Have you collected the info from different threads? This would be very useful to have it gathered and being able to read quickly.
JoC

**Socrates1984** · January 25, 2017, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

I usually have two questions in such situations. They're all related to the age of the engine of the game - more-or-less 10 years (with RTW even more). It means that there's enormous experience gathered by the modders. The impact of the terrain/climate must have been studied thoroughly. Many ingenious and able modders were involved. So:
- what were their conclusions? what do the previous tests say about the climate/terrain impacts on fighting?
- what were the reasons why the SS creators didn't introduce such simple changes (bonuses/penalties), if they're so easy. What are the side-effects? How do the change the balance?
- what do the current leading modders - I mean especially EB2 and TATW - think about the issues?
Have you collected the info from different threads? This would be very useful to have it gathered and being able to read quickly.
JoC

Very good questions indeed.
Of course I don't pretend to be an ingenious and able modder, in fact I'm no modder at all (an aspiring one, yes), but I have spent many hours trying to figure out the answers to these question. These answers are just small bits of information, not exactly conclusive to the discussion, but they do offer some insights.

1) The question about the impact of terrain in terms of both higher and lower ground is answered in Experiment 2.1.
The question about the impact of weather, seasons and time of day is answered in Experiments 1.1 - 1.6.
The question about the impact of woods on arrows has been updated recently. See Exp. 3.3 - 3.5.

2) You are right, these changes are simple and I'm curious too as to why they weren't implemented. The matter must be more intricate than I think, especially as far as the side effects go.

3) Well, as I have stated in my Battle Tests thread, I will be happy to include any tests others have done so far. In the See Also section there are two links to tests done by Withwnar. His tests and mine generally have the same results. Other tests or threads or discussions I have not found, but then again my search skills aren't that good.

Generally, starting from scratch has its pros and cons. It's possible that developing a mod is such a daunting and time-consuming task, and from my very little experience it is, that fine matters such as these are left to dealt with later or are solved through gameplay experience. If you happen to stumble upon any such tests though, please do share and I will happily update my Battle Tests.