Damaging terrain

[Trifna]

Just thinking to the possibility of damaging terrain... Like destroying a forest and its wild inhabitants with some weapons. I guess people wouldn't like it alot but, it is a war reality and is realistic.

So, you could, with militaristic ways, destroy a forest and its ressources. It IS something use these days. Just think at USA that destroyed petroleum ressources in the Irak-Koweit war. War, since a long time, sometimes had many influences on natural ressources.

[The Andy-Man]

and dont forget the vietnamese forests that were bombed to ashes.

i like it, and it is a side effect of heavy bombardment that some fertile terrain will be turned into a muddy swamp (WW1)

[red_jon]

This is a good idea, like cold, icy terrain would be damaging, like the German losses when they tried invading Russia (many froze).

[Christantine The Great]

That's not what they're saying. The idea was that you damage terrain, not the other way around. If any terrain even scratches a hoplite's sandial...

[Inverse Icarus]

lol, there seems to be two threads here

yes, i think harsh terrain should hurt units.

and also, yes i think if you bombard a hill long enough, it could cave in and coal would be unreachable.

[Urban Ranger]

You are talking about a square that's 200 miles to one side, making it 40,000 square miles? Do you know how big that area is? You want to damage this square with a few foot soldiers? I don't think anybody pocess the means before Modern Age.


Andy-Man,

No those forests were not bombed to ashes. Heard of Agent Orange?


red_jon,

Good idea. Realistic, even.

[red_jon]

Oops, I misread it

[Earthling7]

Ancient battles rarely had environmental impact. But since the times of the 30 years war (1618-1648), people have burned plantations, destroying whole countries. Since Napoleon, and especially since WWI, environmental disasters have been a side effect of war.

[Dauphin]

Thread #1

How long are these side effects though. With the exception of the "weapons of mass destruction" there is a pretty quick recovery rate.

Whilst smaller weapons have an effect they will only be short term. To use the examples so far given

if you bombard a hill long enough, it could cave in and coal would be unreachable.

This would be a short term effect, equivalent to pillaging a mine. Give it a few years and you build a new one.

Just think at USA that destroyed petroleum ressources in the Irak-Koweit war

The resources destroyed were those that had been extracted, the tanks that stored the oil, not the terrain that still possessed the resource. Kuwait still has oil in ground that it can use.

But since the times of the 30 years war (1618-1648), people have burned plantations, destroying whole countries. Since Napoleon, and especially since WWI, environmental disasters have been a side effect of war

Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements?

and dont forget the vietnamese forests that were bombed to ashes.

What percentage of forest was destroyed by herbicide? I doubt that it was that high a percentage. I agree with UR on this issue, the tiles are very big and only major impacts will have a lasting effect.

Thread #2

I do like the idea of units being damaged by terrain, and the length of supply routes across a terrain type.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements?

No, it's a case of pillaging the tile. As this would only happen in modern times, I would imagine the tile being black for, say, 5-10 years?

I understand that the impact of a rifleman attacking another rifleman would be limited, but if units are stacked it would be different. A battle of at least 15 (mechanised) units (combined) would be considered a major one and would produce a black tile.

[Sliparac]

Originally posted by Earthling7


No, it's a case of pillaging the tile. As this would only happen in modern times, I would imagine the tile being black for, say, 5-10 years?

I understand that the impact of a rifleman attacking another rifleman would be limited, but if units are stacked it would be different. A battle of at least 15 (mechanised) units (combined) would be considered a major one and would produce a black tile.

A black tile
Isn't that a bit... extreme?
I like the idea of being able to damage terrain but I think it should just cause the terrain to give less resources for a number of years.

[Earthling7]

Sliparac, true enough. The point is simply, the damage of war goes further than destroy a farm and leave a green meadow, filled with birds and butterflies.

[crmeyer]

I believe that Big Crunch has this right. Damage should be to tile improvements ... not to the actual terrain in the tile.

[jdd2007]

thread one- sounds ok, but make it clear that no archer-phalanx conflict should do anything. just lots of tanks, artillery and bombardment.

thread two- NO NO NO. the effect of icy terrain is already taken into account by the defensive bonus.

[Dauphin]

thread two- NO NO NO. the effect of icy terrain is already taken into account by the defensive bonus.

What about if an elephant unit passes through the himilayas, or a rifleman unit passes through the Sahara?

Surely there will be damage to the unit?!?