TheGrayMouser wrote:guillaume wrote:but to be able to defend you need some defense. on a flat terrain forget it.
uhh, RBS is currently defending the crap out me on a pretty flat map....
I was going to say, who needs terrain to defend in the era of pike and shot? I can't think of any other period when infantry was better able to defend itself on open ground.
One side wants to be able to choose close terrain to defend. The other side wants open terrain for his cavalry. Obviously both sides can't have exactly what they want. So what they get is a compromise that sometimes favours one or the other more.
But in truth, it is up to the general to use the available terrain to his advantage or minimise his disadvantage, and historical generals (mad or otherwise) certainly couldn't always choose the nature of the ground on which they fought. And when they could it was more likely to be the "challengee" (defender) rather than the "challenger" (invader) that got to choose.
Also, with wider maps (which will be default after the next update), the "battlefield" isn't the whole map, it is the part of the map on which the clash of arms actually takes place after the initial manoeuvres. This gives plenty of scope for each side to take advantage of the prevailing terrain in a way that best suits the capabilities of their army.
Having said that, the next update will allow the general terrain type of the territory to be set, producing different maps in Agricultural, Hilly, Wooded, and Mountainous regions.