Age of Strategy Forums

Some units like riders celts and nordics should be able to hide in forest to make ambush attacks.

Agreed. Was about to post up something myself about an Ambush ability for certain units that used those tactics in real life - glad I saw this first so I avoid the wrath of Endru for double-posting

My thoughts were with the Celtic units, but obviously goes for primitive units too, (I don't know how much the Norse guys were into ambushing)

Anyway, the logistics of...
In wooded terrain, units with Ambush ability have the option to convert into stealth mode. (normal rules apply, visible to spies, light cav etc).
Any enemy unit that moves adjacent to the Ambush unit gets automatically attacked at full power with no counter (is this possible @Endru1241?)
Obviously this then reconverts the ambushing unit back to visible mode.
Any unit that goes from Ambush mode to directly attack a nearby (but not adjacent) enemy gets the standard morale boost to reflect surprise attack. (what is standard morale boost, is it just +1 attack, or are there other boni?)

Kern, atl atl thrower & gaelic fighter could be the ones that could hide in forests, bushes etc.
Viking ship however could be only seen when 5 tiles nearby? That could be essential. The vikings were masters at the sea ofcourse.

To have stealth unit stop the movement of enemy is already there (AoW submarines), to additionally attack was planned, but not sure if it's implemented (I only know of exploding on step, like traps).
But surely it's not possible to have any stances/states/modes. It can only be done by effects (wears of after attack) or transformation (don't know if can be anyhow triggered). It cannot be then terrain dependand.
Terrain dependand effects can affect category of units, but there is no way of wearing it off (effect would be placed again while on this terrain).
But I disagree with culture dependand terrain effect with such great utility.

OK, perhaps a bit too ambitious and over-powered from me (as usual )

Since ambushing was an important strategy for various cultures, particularly when fighting against superior or better-equipped forces, could this be represented by boni for certain suitable units when in wooded terrain (similar to the +1 pierce armour)?
So rather than anything complicated just a flat stat boost for as long as the unit is in their favoured terrain.

Yeah. Simple terrain related bonus could be good.
It would also create the precedent to future bonuses.
Unfortunately it cannot be added by tech - needs to be defined from the start.
And it would require some kind of display sooner or later (the more complicated terrain bonuses are).

Yeah I was thinking only for certain units that were more hit-and-run or harassing types, eg a proud Highlander or Gallowglass, more suited to open battle, would not have this trait.

is this still not possible? i would really apreciate an explanation of how this should work (i tried it in aod but didnt work)

1. Create an effect (best to copy from e.g. terrain forests effect)
2. Create effect affect (again can be copied) and in trnSpecUnitActions give proper stealth one (eg. the one blocking movement like AoWW submarines)
3. Assign effectAffect to be applied by effect
4. Assign in consts json terrainEffect newly created effect to be applied on specific unit categories (or all if it'salready specified in effectAffects) , give tech requirement if needed (now it can be done from some time).

Bumping this.

Several units (velites, guerilla, ranger, saethwr) mention ambush/hiding/stealth in their descriptions, and various other units could reasonably be expected to benefit from playing hide-and-seek for reasons of flavour. I appreciate this is not a high priority, but it would be cool to make use of terrain in such ways as suggested if it was possible.

Roman velite description is wrong from my knowledge.

They weren't really used to ambush, rather as light troops meant to cover the advance of their main infantry.

I also don't think they were used during the Roman Empire but in the game's case. You will really have to use skirmishers to cover the advance the legion or else they would get decimated by anti-infantry troops.

or else they would get decimated

I'm so sorry man, but I cannot ignore this - it is a horrible example of a word that is so often used incorrectly that it's real meaning gets hijacked. We have a problem in English with the official dictionaries accepting incorrect words because so many people use them that way - just because a million people get it wrong it doesn't make it right.

Decimate means to reduce by a tenth (see the old Roman punishment). It does not mean (as most people use it) to wipe out , annihilate, devastate, cripple, merk, ruinate or destroy.

Again, I'm sorry - I appreciate English might not be your first language, but that word is so often misused that it hurts me - I cannot help but put the record straight.

No fault.

I just used an official dictionary meaning.

And I disagree with you regarding the official dictionary accepting incorrect words. Word changes its meaning, that's just how it is. And words and languages are one of, if not the most affected by this logic and in which it holds more truth.

Though from reading an article, it seems that there are contentions of its origin.

phoenixffyrnig wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:13 am

or else they would get decimated

I'm so sorry man, but I cannot ignore this - it is a horrible example of a word that is so often used incorrectly that it's real meaning gets hijacked. We have a problem in English with the official dictionaries accepting incorrect words because so many people use them that way - just because a million people get it wrong it doesn't make it right.

Decimate means to reduce by a tenth (see the old Roman punishment). It does not mean (as most people use it) to wipe out , annihilate, devastate, cripple, merk, ruinate or destroy.

Again, I'm sorry - I appreciate English might not be your first language, but that word is so often misused that it hurts me - I cannot help but put the record straight.

Well, I agree with DreJaDe here that words change their meaning over the time, so their current (or in this case previous) meaning shouldn't be assumed static over a big enough period of time, since the way a lot of words are used change across generations.

Also in Portuguese we have two similar words that have meanings similar to annihilate, devastate, etc., "dizimar" and "decimar", and when searching about the latter (because it's more similar to "decimate"), I found a similar latin word that might explain where that new meaning might have gained traction (emphasis on might, I'm not very good when it comes to history, and this was the result of a 20minute search):

(Oh wait, I think this might be related to the old Roman punishment that you mentioned)
So I guess one possibility is that maybe at some point "taking every tenth man for punishment" could have gotten hyperbolically changed to its current usage. Something like "taking every tenth man for punishment" -> "taking a lot of people for punishment" -> "killing a lot of people" -> annihilating/etc.

...Though I still get a little pissed off when "literally" is used for non-literal things, because separating what is literal and what isn't is LITERALLY the most useful part of that very useful word XD



As for the thread itself, yeah, I agree, having different terrain give more impacful effects would create a lot more tactical opportunities (and also give a reason not to clear all forests possible, because roads and structures in general are waaay more useful than +1 p. armor (and possibly reduced movement) in almost all cases XD)