44 replies to this topic

[Pasidon]

We have defencive, agreesive, and normal stances that units can use, but why not have stealth mode along with them? Rangers and stuff can only stealth when standing still, but couldn't they have a mode where their speed & other stats are reduced or something and they can remain invisible while walking and attacking? I think EA didn't give stealth a big enough role in the game when some units have only that to rely on. The trees would provide better cover though still.

Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Insanely bad with a chance of being good? ... Already did this?

[{IP} Aridor]

Realistic which is always better. There just isn't enough realism in the game. High ground doesn't effect the battle as much as it should. Surprise isn't as devastating as in the real world, and flanking and position aren't even close to what real battle is. It real battle the biggest factor to winning is recon. In the game how often have you scouted the land before you went in? Rarely? I don't because ambushes really don't have that much power. Units should get a large bonus to their attack if the launch a surprise attack. This is especially true for archers.

[Dalf32]

agreed. larger flanking bonuses would help this a bit i think.
i would say no to having them attack while stealthed as i think that can get very op very quickly, but while walking/running im all for it. perhaps they could fire while stealthed only when in trees? that would be limiting enough, but still very powerful.
id like to see ambushes play a much larger role so that stealthy archers serve a better purpose than just ones with more range/damage than the basics.

[{IP} Aridor]

Yes of course all their stealth would be forest based. This again makes it more realistic and dynamic. The land would play a larger role in your planning and tactics. On top of that burning down forests would be useful. Combe Valley would be able to work like I wanted it to. Plus Cav should also suffer a large speed cut in forests b/c it is exceptionally hard to ride in order through a forest. Forests would play the role they do in the real world. You don't just send your forces crashing into a forest b/c they will get shredded and you will never know where the attackers are. For anybody that thinks it would be OP well guess what your wrong. Just don't attack a freaking forest without recon-ing it first. That's the way real war works intel and recon are everything. If your enemy is all rangers hiding in the woods well either by-pass the forest or burn it to the ground.

[Devon]

We'd have to go back and paint flammability on every single EA map...

[Dalf32]

i would think they are at least partially flammable... iirc from my last romp through worldbuilder (a long time ago) the amount of flammability is variable so my guess would be that ea's maps are simply not fully flammable but only partially. i say this because i think i remember burning up parts of ea's maps.

[{IP} Aridor]

There are two levels of flammability, high and grass. Grass doesn't spread and is the most common. High spreads from one point all the way across till it stops. This is rarer and is only in some forest maps. To see how they work Combe Valley uses both.

[Vithar-133]

A very good point, IP'er. In this case, stealth and fire play a larger role. As they should.

[Pasidon]

If the stealth mode makes some units way to powerful, we could drasticly weaken their stats to balence it out.

[{IP} Aridor]

Or people could just avoid fighting them on their ground. Maybe draw them out of the forest and trample them. War isn't fair so why would we want the game to be equal fighting ground everywhere some places will be better for some kinds of troops. Don't want to deal with that challenge then don't fight them on advantageous ground.

[Devon]

War may not be fair, but games are supposed to be. Anyway, most of the stealthed units don't even need to be in trees to be stealthed atm..

[dojob]

Ha, like Bard

I definitely agree that stealth and stealth detection need to play bigger roles in the game and to keep stealth units from being OP, u can simply add more detectors to the game. A stealth stance that gave rangers (and elves and stuff) speed and stealth but left them unable to attack would certainly be interesting and would lead to some nice guerrilla tactics which are always fun.

Edited by dojob, 24 October 2008 - 07:33 PM.

[{IP} Aridor]

Really the only place you should be able to stealth is forests. Then is is simply a matter of as soon as they leave their stealth they are normal units, and if they are stealthy they can't have heavy armor so they would loose. Plus I don't think that games should always be fair, if by fair you mean even. Those games are so boring. At one stage it could be unfair but there should be a way to turn a disadvantage to an advantage. That Gettysburg game did it brilliantly. You often had no chance of winning,way outnumbered and outmaneuvered. With quick thought and action you could turn around certain defeat for a victory. By using the land and terrain to your advantage you could defeat a better force. This is the essence of war. In every game since such stunning victories like Agincourt and Crecy are not possible. There is no thrill to victory. It is to standard, to set, to even. I have yet to play any game of any kind where the outcome was certain and then pulled out an underdog upset. Imagine how much more replayable a game would be if you were faced with certain loss and then they enemy leaves their flank open. There is a hole in their defense. You have only one group of knights left. You move them around beyond your enemies range and then suddenly you charge. The enemy forces break and flee in terror because they think reinforcements have come. The commander screams and yells at his forces to stop, but they are crazed with terror and flee into the trees. To bad for them your last rangers are there behind the lines. They couldn't survive on the open field but now the orcs are filling the forest. Zing! An arrow tears through the heart of an orc. The orc next to him is confused as to where it came from. He turns his head and sees only another shaft heading into his brain. The rangers slaughter the orcs. The orcs never see their enemy, but the Evil commander on knows his orcs went into the forest and none came out. The forces of Gondor may have won a stunning victory in battle but they haven't won the war. Coming over the hill just now is his second wave. They are armed with fire and he knows that forest is filled with rangers. He lights it on fire and his trolls start to move in. Mistake, the rangers pull out of the forest as it burns but they use their superior range and accuracy to take down the trolls that have come beyond the range of their archer support. This will be a harder battle than expected for the forces of evil to win this fight. The Gondorian commander is smart but his forces are weak. He is holding on but if he doesn't improve his supply line his forces will not be able to maintain this fight. The outcome is up in the air, will the Gondorian commander get his economy under control and be able to take the offensive, or will the Mordor General stop blundering and use his greater numbers to smash his enemy?

[Vithar-133]

I hate cliffhanger endings....

Puts a whole new light on the phrases: "Numbers don't always win the battle." and "When they're in range, you're in range."

[{IP} Aridor]

Unless you have longbows and the have crossbows or shortbows.

[Vithar-133]

True. But that would apply to the enemy still. Even though they may have been within range for well over 100 yds.

[Devon]

If you have no chance of winning, and you pull out a victory, isn't that sort of hypocrytical?

Besides, most wars aren't upsets, just sheer weight of numbers. Some of the most famous battles are upsets, but they're only famous because of that. The majority of battles that occur are just good troops against more good troops, and guess who wins?


No one would want to competetivly play an unbalanced game for an extended period of time. Besides, it's unbalanced anyway. The terrain and armie strengths are equal, but one general, or player, may be better than another. If you want upsets, try to play a person or ai better than you and win. Don't unbalance the game for it.

[dojob]

If the only place u should have stealth in trees, then u basically already have it that way, but imo it would better if sneak attacks could come from anywhere, forcing people to send scouts allover the place and be more aware of what's going on. How wouldn't a stealth mode be awesome, assuming u have enough detectors to balance it?

[{IRS}Athos]

I agree that you should be able to turn battles around... but not that much.

[Elvenlord]

I'm leaning towards ambushes, flanking, and higher ground playing a bigger role in the battles.

Besides, most wars aren't upsets, just sheer weight of numbers. Some of the most famous battles are upsets, but they're only famous because of that. The majority of battles that occur are just good troops against more good troops, and guess who wins?

We don't want to play every other battle. We want to be the one that makes history. And besides, this is LOTR we're talking about. By the War of the Ring, every battle Good won was an upset. We want to relive that. For example, that's what Gondor's rangers are entirely about. In the books and movies, they were vastly out-numbered, but yet through surperior planning, skill, ambushes, and better knowlege of the terrian, they devesated enemy columns.