Tracks

[sIg3b]

They feature rather prominently on many maps. My question:
Do tracks and the trees lining them actually give a bonus to movement or defense to anything? Or are they just a distrack-tion?

[Rodia]

Roads seem to be purely cosmetic. I've just made a test with LC and LI and they moved the same on road and without it.

And FOG2 manual only mentions roads in the context of the Scenario editor.

distrack-tion

[rbodleyscott]

They only really have an effect when they pass through woods or other non-open terrain. The track squares are treated as open terrain.

[sIg3b]

They only really have an effect when they pass through woods or other non-open terrain. The track squares are treated as open terrain.

For movement only I hope? They do not negate any defensive benefits of terrain?

Could the alley trees in the open be made to stand out a little less? They tend to mislead me to think of the square as light woods.

[SpeedyCM]

The entire square is considered open for both movement and combat.

[Morbio]

The entire square is considered open for both movement and combat.

[sIg3b]

The entire square is considered open for both movement and combat.

Sure? This is a bit weird.

They seem to mostly run through open terrain, though. I actually can´t remember ever having seen a track run through marsh or woods.

[Paul59]

The entire square is considered open for both movement and combat.

Sure? This is a bit weird.

They seem to mostly run through open terrain, though. I actually can´t remember ever having seen a track run through marsh or woods.

I don't recall seeing them in marsh, but then marsh is quite rare. I see them in Woods all the time, and you sometimes get them in Rough or crossing Irrigation ditches.

I have a feeling that they only negate combat modifiers if the attack is across a square side that is also crossed by the track, but I might be wrong about that one, maybe I am thinking of another game.

[rbodleyscott]

The entire square is considered open for both movement and combat.

Sure? This is a bit weird.

They seem to mostly run through open terrain, though. I actually can´t remember ever having seen a track run through marsh or woods.

I don't recall seeing them in marsh, but then marsh is quite rare. I see them in Woods all the time, and you sometimes get them in Rough or crossing Irrigation ditches.

I have a feeling that they only negate combat modifiers if the attack is across a square side that is also crossed by the track, but I might be wrong about that one, maybe I am thinking of another game.

It is just the way the engine works - the tracks negate the terrain effect completely. When you mouse over the square you will see that the tooltip reports "Tracks" rather than whatever else might be on the square.

[vakarr]

Isn't it the case that tracks don't cause any terrain disadvantages but don't count as open terrain so cavalry in particular don't get their usual advantages for charging in open terrain if they cross a track?

[rbodleyscott]

Isn't it the case that tracks don't cause any terrain disadvantages but don't count as open terrain so cavalry in particular don't get their usual advantages for charging in open terrain if they cross a track?

No, tracks are treated as Open

[sIg3b]

If that is so, I´d prefer getting rid of the tracks altogether. Imagine Varus being quite safe in the German woods as long as all his men are staying on tracks…

[rbodleyscott]

If that is so, I´d prefer getting rid of the tracks altogether. Imagine Varus being quite safe in the German woods as long as all his men are staying on tracks…

Even if the enemy attack from both flanks?

[sIg3b]

Good point. Still believe HI should be disordered and LI be able to melee in woods, tracks or no tracks...

[MVP7]

Wouldn't it make more sense for forest paths to be 'not open' rather than open?

[melm]

Is ut possible to treat charge along the track as open, but orthogonal as not open?

[rbodleyscott]

Is ut possible to treat charge along the track as open, but orthogonal as not open?

It could probably be done, at the cost of some processing overhead, because the only way it could be done is to look at all the surrounding squares to see if they are woods.

However, we are currently not convinced there is a need.

[MVP7]

Even when following a forest path I think it's pretty much as 'not-open' as it gets. Heavy infantry and cavalry that usually benefit from 'open' wouldn't be able to use their formations properly on some wagon trail flanked by trees while medium and light units wouldn't be inconvenienced so much.

[sIg3b]

Even when following a forest path I think it's pretty much as 'not-open' as it gets. Heavy infantry and cavalry that usually benefit from 'open' wouldn't be able to use their formations properly on some wagon trail flanked by trees while medium and light units wouldn't be inconvenienced so much.

+1

[Froz]

Assuming this is not going to be changed after all, perhaps changing the tooltip would be helpful. Currently it just says "Tracks." I would make it either "Tracks. Open ground." or "Open ground (Tracks).", similar to how stream and hill are presented.

On the other hand, I would agree that perhaps Non open would be better for tracks going through forests, because they indeed do not seem to be open.