Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

We Want Mud!

serrathserrath Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 256
edited March 2013 in General Discussion
Mud plays a huge role in mobility and effectiveness of units in a battle. Armored units suffer in mud, soldiers slip and fall, siege equipment is difficult to push through mud, etc. The technology is definitely there to place mud on maps and implement its effects, and I expect it wouldn't be too hard to have units create mud as thousands of feet tear up grass in the rain during battle. Don't overdo it or anything, but this sort of dynamic terrain is as important to war as any other!

Any other ideas for dynamic terrain, or feedback on mud? I want to know what you all think! Why would mud mess up the Total War dynamic? Why would it be a fantastic addition?
Post edited by serrath on
«1

Comments

  • SashimigSashimig Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,834
    edited March 2013
    I agree, in a perfect world but I think CA won't make it in this game nor the following. It seems to require a total rewriting of the battle engine and it would need a pretty good configuration to handle these effects.
    "Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head"

    Euripides
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    I'm not overly optimistic about it making it into this iteration or the next one, but it's definitely something to look into further down the line. The mechanic for it is actually already established (partly) as early as Napoleon, where soldiers were knocked down by cannonballs, and had to get back up to their feet before they could continue fighting.

    It's certainly a big task, however, and it's unlikely it'd make it in at this stage. I'm really just feeling out the community, seeing what the consensus is; maybe it'll show up in the future if there's interest. I certainly hope to have mud by the next Medieval, so such battles as Agincourt gain a new level of strategic depth.
  • gunner38gunner38 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 521
    edited March 2013
    So you want the animations or the effects?

    The effects were implemented long ago, the types of terrain have movement modifiers for the different unit types. And in some cases likecav in forest it also affects to combat capabilities. Animations are not, units simply they fight worse and move at a slower pace.
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    I'd like both the effects and the animations, since RTW2 and forward could definitely pull it off. Mud would fit right alongside cavalry being less effective in forested areas, slower reload for gunpowder units in the rain, etc. Units running uphill will tire more quickly (as of Shogun 2?), and that was a great feature; this sort of fits in there.

    The difference with mud is that it's not something that has to exist in the beginning to occur. On a dry day, units fighting on the grass might tear it up and create dirt and dust, and maybe that's going to affect their performance. On a wet day, those same units fighting on that same patch of grass are going to turn it into mud, and that'd have a much more serious impact. The Confirmed Rome 2 features thread says that the terrain will be persistent, so it'd be really cool to see that mud or dirt stick around until the land heals after a few weeks.

    Certainly they've got effects like this, but I think it's time (or nearly time) to push things a little further.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,317
    edited July 21
    Its good... I want it.
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,317
    edited July 21
    I also like night mode and rainy season. I think it will be exciting...
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • AmunRaAmunRa Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 134
    edited March 2013
    I want dirt. And shut up do not talk about how it would be hard to do. You are not all experts. Let CA be thinking how. I also want to make a moat around the city and fill it with water.
    A descendant of the Scythians and Alans
    My Albums for Rome 2
    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/106346158396884588970/albums
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    Dirt and dust would be great, too. I really wanna see terrain become more dynamic. (I wouldn't necessarily go so far as forest fires, but dirt, dust, and mud.)
  • joecardiffjoecardiff Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 257
    edited March 2013
    AmunRa wrote: »
    I want dirt. And shut up do not talk about how it would be hard to do. You are not all experts. Let CA be thinking how. I also want to make a moat around the city and fill it with water.
    Well actually we do have a numebr of experts on the forum.

    I'd like to see this, though, and I'd like it to be noticeable. I love the idea of setting up in a defensive position on a hilltop (single player, don't worry ;) ) and knowing that one side of my position is defended by boggy ground. The enemy can still cross it but will be pelted by arrows and javelins the whole time, giving them a strategic decision to make as to whether or not they really want to climb that side.
  • NuahsNuahs Senior Member Users Awaiting Email Confirmation - NO EMAIL Posts: 206
    edited March 2013
    The resources to have "dynamic mud" (Mud created by units marching, fighting etc) would be overly taxing I believe.

    Having mud as part of a randomly generated battle map, or large amounts of mud if its raining etc, would be achievable, as-well as the animations showing the effects to troops which are already in the game (such as penalties to fighting, marching etc).

    We have to consider the implications of this on the game however. If it's raining and the entire field is mud, it would be a fair fight but we must consider whether this kind of battle would still be fun. Cavalry would be be a liability in this kind of battle and ranged troops would become more powerful - most would also include a hard fought infantry battle with the advantages of light infantry being more prominent.

    Attacking a city would become more difficult while its raining, but during the campaign you have had the option to wait for better weather, so this should bring some kind of risk/reward element, (perhaps the reward being that some defenses are less effective, or something).

    It's possible that mud as a terrain that's randomly placed during battles and prominent in rainy battles could have a place, even if the only thing being added in is the animations, since the effects are already there. But dynamic mud and the implications of this on mechanics and resources would not, in my opinion, be justified.
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    Dynamic mud wouldn't be too bad; they basically just give patches of land 'health' and let footsteps (and especially battle) eat away at it. It's hardly any overhead. Again, it'd be up to CA to see if that's feasible; it's our job to say what we want or don't want, theirs to decide if they want to add it.

    As far as the gameplay implications are concerned, that's why I say don't overdo: I'd rather see no mud at all than have it overblown and completely suck up the gameplay into a giant mud management issue.
  • wilo1066wilo1066 Senior Member portsmouth ukRegistered Users Posts: 2,176
    edited March 2013
    Dirt dust mud rain wind snow sun setting fire to things that would burn in real worlds.All these types of effects adds realism to the game but at what cost i dont want to buy my next computer from nasa.I was saying in napoleon when troops cross rivers i wanted to see splashing and swirls around there feet all little touches like these make the game setting more real and live like.So we will have to wait and see how many
    wilo1066
  • doinwork34doinwork34 Technical Moderator Colorado, USRegistered Users, Moderators, Tech Moderators Posts: 2,893
    edited March 2013
    I would like all terrain to have some simple animations and sound(which they already have).

    So, it would be neat to actually have soldiers have to wade through ankle or knee deep snow(wouldnt be hard, since they already have the animation for water and streams, as long as it doesnt look to silly), and after a while of fighting the ground turns brown, and mud gets everywhere which could have adverse affects on the soldiers. Same thing with rain, and swampy terrain.
    I just hope that it will be easy to SEE what type of terrain your on (rocky, muddy, forest undergrowth, sand, swamp/wetlands, dry etc.) And hopefully we will be able to HEAR the type of terrain theyre on. And also instead of just walking and runing animations that are slowed down like it has been in the past, it would be neat to see a special animation that shows soldiers stumbling, and struggling to take steps if they are in terrain that will impair their ability to march.

    I know this is alot to ask, and I dont expect to it be in game, but I think its something CA should work towards.
    Good to go for Rome II! CPU: i5 3570k @ 4.0ghz GPU: GTX 760 4gb @1215MHz-RAM: 8GB1600 Ballistix TracerPSU: Corsair HX750w
  • golangolan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,392
    edited March 2013
    Frankly, all the things asked for in this thread are already in the game. are you even playing it? Sand? Really? wasn't it even in Rome1? We have that for a few titles now.

    How about getting a decent video card and see how the game looks like, Rome2 - from screenshots - look like the best strategy game in terms of graphics available until this date. sure, a lot of game have flashy things going on, but they look very gamy.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for realistic graphics. But the GPU handles the interactions and collisions of all the soldiers and weapons + the extra graphics. I wish for bigger units. I'd sacrifice most of the graphics to a minimal acceptable level just to get larger battles - if it would be needed. Maybe I over-simplify and the problem is more complex, but the main idea remains the same.
    Remember! Rome Wasn't Patched In a Day... Uhm, that's the way the saying goes, right?

    TW Track:
    • SP/MP ratio = 95/5.
    • Preferred campaign difficulty: Normal/Hard (Very Hard in Rome2).
    • Preferred vanilla battle difficulty: Very Hard (Normal in Shogun2).
    • Vanilla/Mods ratio = 40/60 (Rome2 track = 90% mods).
    • Mods: EB, RTR, R1DM, SSteel, M2DM, DME, S2DM, Radious R2, DeI, Constantine
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    @Golan: It's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay. I want grass in arid climates to get turned to dirt as soldiers battle in it, kicking up dust. I want soliders to kick up dust, and I want that to choke them and make their breathing labored, wearing down their stamina. I want mud they can slip and get stuck in so heavily armored units struggle in the rain, as famously demonstrated in the Battle of Agincourt.
  • SertoriusSertorius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 938
    edited March 2013
    I think it should be more than just 'graphics' but rather in game dynamics. The mud, marsh, swamp, tall grass, rocky crevices, small brooks etc. would be great dynamic terrain to traverse, it'd be super cool. It would add depth and tactics (eg would slow cavalry charge, dry grass would add incendiary damage to flaming arrows)

    But I also see the concern with time and graphic overhaul.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,477
    edited March 2013
    Sertorius wrote: »
    I think it should be more than just 'graphics' but rather in game dynamics. The mud, marsh, swamp, tall grass, rocky crevices, small brooks etc. would be great dynamic terrain to traverse, it'd be super cool. It would add depth and tactics (eg would slow cavalry charge, dry grass would add incendiary damage to flaming arrows)

    But I also see the concern with time and graphic overhaul.

    This exactly- enough terrain affect to demonstrate why some regions focused on a certain type of fighting style vs other regions. In RTW and really all TW games so far cavalry has about the same balance on all terrain. Charge is a bit slower in forest and suffers in melee after but it seems the charge hits almost as hard in forest as on grass.

    Having terrain affect trying to use heavy cavalry in forest makes the cavalry move at a walk and get 0 charge bonus (but light cavalry can still get some bonus). Some areas where light infantry can pass are impassable to heavy cavalry.

    Terrain such as a stream with muddy banks which slows heavy infantry hugely as many slip back down the bank trying to climb out but has much less affect on light infantry. A bog which is impassable to all cavalry but infantry can slowly move through. So that even a small stream can partially secure 1 flank in a battle or heavy forest that force cavalry to remain in the small glades and road traveling through the forest. Sand which slows down infantry but camels move full speed and cavalry only see a small reduction.

    Such different environments that make carrying any single style of warfare to all corners of the map extremely difficult and using mercenaries, AOR troops, and vassals units almost a requirement.

    Combined especially with reduced sieges where more important battles occur outside of siege (where heavy infantry are especially important) it would give factions with much different fighting styles in their native terrain an advantage but force to get very creative or use vassals when fighting in terrain hostile to their style.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • golangolan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,392
    edited March 2013
    Yeah, except for the fact that we do have terrain that affects fatigue. I just played a winter battle and it is more exhausting. Take a unit from Russia into the deserts and it fatigues just by WALKING. Oh wait, that's not just ETW, it was in RTW too. If there is one problem with it, is that is uniform and the disadvantages apply to both players... but you still take advantage of the terrain if you're the defending army.

    What dis-balance this creates is in terms of battle LIMIT. Some guy places its army on top of the hill. And the terrain is unfairly rougher with a suggestion like this. My troops reached the top of the hill exhausted anyway before, now it would take them an hour just to get on top. Why would you want that? The battlefield, unless ambushed, is chosen by the general in the skirmish phase in a place his army can fight! If the terrain doesn't allow for an assault he doesn't move troops in, he isolates the enemy. When they move again, you pick a battle then. But, if for some reason, the AI presents me as an attacker would bad terrain, I would like to also do that. What happens now instead? If you drop out of a battle you loose troops, even if you outnumber the enemy significantly...

    Really guys, "I want grass in arid climates to get turned to dirt as soldiers battle in it" - this isn't a game mechanic - this is just that, graphics. And the terrain didn't look like today back then. What you think, grass in Europe was 20 cm? Where it was rough and wild, it was impenetrable. Even in the plains of Europe, vegetation grew unhindered - because there was no one to turn it into agricultural fields. "Grass", the weeds got up to 2m high. It was full of stuff that clings to your clothes or cuts the skin. No one walks in it, let alone fight in it. They set up battles were animals are taken to herd so the job was already done for the soldiers, the battlefield would look very similar to terrains in TW series.

    We're already getting a feature that will allow us to decide how terrain affects our battles: we can repick battlefields in the campaign map. So if you know a good place to set up an ambush, you can set it and take advantage of the terrain. We'll finally have the home advantage. And with this I think terrain will greatly improve on the battle experience. That will gives terrain dynamics in the game.

    I'm more interested in having bigger cities and realistic sieges, the barbarian towns in Rome1 have 3 houses in them apart from utility buildings. And barbarian towns were made to never have stone walls. Which obviously wasn't true, for Dacians i.e they used both forts and had the capital surrounded by walls in the Trajan wars. Getting crazy terrains into battles for the sake of realism will only cause battles to take unnecessary longer period of times.
    Remember! Rome Wasn't Patched In a Day... Uhm, that's the way the saying goes, right?

    TW Track:
    • SP/MP ratio = 95/5.
    • Preferred campaign difficulty: Normal/Hard (Very Hard in Rome2).
    • Preferred vanilla battle difficulty: Very Hard (Normal in Shogun2).
    • Vanilla/Mods ratio = 40/60 (Rome2 track = 90% mods).
    • Mods: EB, RTR, R1DM, SSteel, M2DM, DME, S2DM, Radious R2, DeI, Constantine
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,477
    edited March 2013
    Why are people so focused on hill camping? Archers haven't gotten a bonus on hill in warscape while there is only a small charge bonus going downhill. The initiative is better kept as attacker vs some army in static defense anyway. Battles aren't meant to be perfectly balanced in every way- sometimes one side or another should have a disadvantage other than numbers or unit qualities.

    The whole point of this discussion is to make terrain modifiers more specific to actual terrain- not the climate of a battle map where in the snow all soldiers tire more quickly or in the desert non native troops fatigue earlier than native troops. That is nice that CA has included but fairly basic and honestly in my opinion the affects of fatigue are fairly small, noticeable but don't change the battle outcome, just make the final result messier.

    It seems as if the battle objectives will deal with camping at least half the time anyway but I sure hope that enemy armies can camp atop hills at least sometimes.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    Another thought: If you could see the weather near a certain army when deciding to attack, it'd give you the option to make a strategic decision such as not laying siege in the rain because you don't want to get the siege equipment stuck in the mud, etc. (The same way they show day/night battles, just show the weather as well.)
  • dorphindorphin Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 364
    edited March 2013
    grass turning into mud altough realistic it will just be too much for newbies and complete noobs to understand and in the end heavy inf could get "useless" unless you fight on a road or something (mud slows units fatigue increases etc.)

    i'm perfectly happy with how it is in s2 i would like to see some "mud pools" spread over the map more in forest and swamps then on farm land.

    For the rest maybe make the effects a bit more noticable not just -1 fatigue but realy a decrease the longer you are in and also heavier decrease
    Soooo i write something here right?
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    I'd really rather they under-do the mud than over-do it. I'd hate to see the whole thing turn into a mud-war. I mean, Agincourt was a pretty extreme example of how mud turns the tide of battle, but I'd rather not have that be the entire game every time it rains.
  • mulebobmulebob Member Registered Users Posts: 59
    edited March 2013
    it would depend on the terrain, and thats the whole point of choosing the day to give battle as an attacker, most of the time you probably wouldn't want to do battle in the mud. i kinda wish they also had the mechanic back in napoleon, at least to show its effect in the battle of Waterloo. in the end mud would make the army with more missile units have an advantage because more volly's could be released before the lines meet.
  • nickolideiesnickolideies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 113
    edited March 2013
    i know what im about to say isnt realy about mud, more to do with terrain. I dont think ca have taken the home advantage quite far enough, because you have had to have had a battle there before. What im thinking is that the player has a choice of 3 or 4 battle maps to chose from. This doesnt mean that i want them to produce 1000's of maps, just use the same ones and hav a choice over which one you use.
    So if you were the iceni and had a roman invasion in britian, then i dont want it to be random just because iv defend well enough no one has got here before. And using this you could then pick the map with the most wood in it, if you have a large amount of archers ect.
  • serrathserrath Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    edited March 2013
    I think the terrain is going to be decided by the actual terrain on the main map; if you want more trees, stick your army in 'ambush' mode and place them in the forest. Strategically positioning your armies on the world map will be more important now that we have persistent terrain.

    What I meant about telling you the weather (when you're deciding to attack or not) wasn't to let you pick the weather; it's so that you can see, "Oh. It's raining. I should withdraw, and attack next turn instead; I have many heavily armored units which will suffer in the rain."
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited March 2013
    Its already in the game albeit crudely, after all running in the rain tires units out faster, while there isn't a specific graphic for it.
  • MabuyaQMabuyaQ Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 797
    edited March 2013
    I do think that terrain and weather especially when combined should play a more significant role in a total war game. I for one would love to be able to see in advance on what ground (if previously visited by my faction) and with what weather I have to fight a battle in which I am the attacking faction. Based on that I can see if I may have an strategic advantage even though I could expect my opponent to have an 'superior' army.

    On certain terrain and with bad weather light troops would have much less (if any) of an disadvantages against heavier troops. For those whom think archers would get to much of an advantage, think again. Bows are 'advanced' weaponry and only operate optimally under the right conditions. Bowstring was made of animal sinew, rawhide or intestines, and as an archer myself I know that all of those should be kept dry for a bow to work properly. Once wet they become soft/elastic and after some time a bow turns into a fancy stick.

    So if my army marched on wet grounds through the rain and I have the option to wait besides a warm campfire and dry off or have to face an enemy on wet terrain with rainy weather I know what I would do if I had plenty of archers and heavy infantry and heavy cavalry units. I am certain Varus would have done the same if he hadn't been ambushed.
    The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy. (Friedrich Nietsche)
    The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. (Sun Tzu)
  • AmunRaAmunRa Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 134
    edited March 2013
    I want a storm. In the storm of my men will be not noticeable. They wade unnoticeably to the gate and eliminate the guards. And the path is open. I hope you understand a new idea, I want to open the door unnoticeably, before starting capture of the city. I know that the spy can open doors, but it happens on the strategic map. And I want to go to the battlefield.
    A descendant of the Scythians and Alans
    My Albums for Rome 2
    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/106346158396884588970/albums
  • crash3crash3 Member Registered Users Posts: 64
    edited March 2013
    Sounds great but I was only able to afford Intel core I3, I can only have so many features included in my graphics settings
  • AmunRaAmunRa Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 134
    edited March 2013
    So the weather is of strategic importance. This means we need to know the weather forecast for cities. Have to be in every city in rain or sun, and temperature. When it is very hot or cold, it can also play a strategic importance.
    A descendant of the Scythians and Alans
    My Albums for Rome 2
    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/106346158396884588970/albums
This discussion has been closed.