C
@Zaroph said in Warcraft: Lordaeron Wars - Official Thread:
The following terrain types are those that will be present in the test map (a couple more like snow will be present elsewhere)
Open
Hillside
Forest
Settlement
Mountain
My initial draft with how they interact with each other is below. (Attack/Defense)
No default terrain? I guess so since it seems those terrains are omnicomprensive. If so, I don't think there is much of a point not having a non default terrain. For easy of use, the most common type of terrain may be taken as default. You can still define it as a terrain, if you want, leaving it without any actual impact (in this case, it would be better if it is not offered in the battlecalculator).
Also, forest or woodland? Woodland would be technically the better term from traditional British usage, where forest just means wildland, and may be not wooded at all. Theorically, deserts are forests, but I'm under the impression this is not the current usage. I personally like forest better than woodland as a term, if they would be currently synonym (are they?). This is what wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest
Uses of the word "forest" in English to denote any uninhabited area of non-enclosure are now considered archaic.[16] The word was introduced by the Norman rulers of England as a legal term (appearing in Latin texts like the Magna Carta) denoting an uncultivated area legally set aside for hunting by feudal nobility (see Royal Forest).[16][17]
These hunting forests were not necessarily wooded much, if at all. However, as hunting forests did often include considerable areas of woodland, the word "forest" eventually came to mean wooded land more generally.[citation needed] By the start of the 14th century, the word appeared in English texts, indicating all three senses: the most common one, the legal term and the archaic usage.[16] Other terms used to mean "an area with a high density of trees" are wood, woodland, wold, weald, holt, frith and firth. Unlike forest, these are all derived from Old English and were not borrowed from another language. Some classifications now reserve the term woodland for an area with more open space between trees and distinguish among woodlands, open forests, and closed forests based on crown cover.
Units
Their are 7 base units and 3 (or 4 if made by another unit) extra units per player.
The base units will mostly be the same with some differences.
The extra units will be player specific and they will differeniate each player from one another. I have conceptualised them but not properly drafted them yet.
The die value is going to be 10.
The base unit statline that all players will have is below: (I dont know how to convey this any better so I apologise if its hard to follow)
As a text example:
Heavy Infantry - 9 PU / 5 attack / 4 defense / Front battle support / Infantry terrain effect
Support 1 is Retaliation / rolls 0 attacking and 3 defending against retaliation targets/
Support 2 is Leadership / gives 1 support to 1 unit when attacking/defending
For different players, I intend for their to be 3 stats that are weaker (red on the graphs) and 7 that are boosted (green on the graph)
Base units for the Scourge:
As a text example for whats different for the Scourge:
Light infantry- 5 PU -> 4
Heavy infantry- 4 defense -> 5
Ranger- 2 Anti air defense -> 3
Cavarly- 3 attack -> 2 / 3 charge attack -> 2 / have curse support for 1 when attacking/defending
Caster- instead of leadership, curse support for 1 to 2 units when attacking/defending
Air- 3 attack -> 2
Base units for the Scarlet Crusade
Looking at these it can be seen that Scourge Cavarly and Caster units work abit different, and Scarlet Heavy infantry and Casters are stronger then their counterparts.
I expected the base values to chance as I test them since this is only a first draft.
That was abit long winded but I think that sets the tone for the direction I want to take units and battles on the map.
This doesn't seem an easy system to understand, and playing with anything is always much harder than understanding it, so I would suggest to try to do what feasible to simplify it, but it is totally your choice, and I'm not against complexity, in principle, if it serves the purpose of being truer to the setting (if I would actually play a map that I feel I cannot even try to optimize strategically that is a totally different matter, but we do have a few people that are undaunted by complexity and may gladly take all the complexity you are willingly to throw at them).
