Field usage

Hey Guys,

So now that we know that battles can be done on the field with a rather good success because by virtues that last battle was thrilling. So if possible at some times can we be outside the forest for battles. Plus can we do more fort attacks

mike

I thought the wood’s had more atmosphere compared to the field, plus attacking a fort every event would soon get tiresome and boring.

I imagine they’ll mix it up a bit. We can probably expect forest battles to be the norm, with the occasional field battle or fortress assault thrown in to keep us on our toes.

I did enjoy the field battle, though; it was a lot of fun.

At the point when I’d been on two quests and a battle, I did notice a certain… theme emerging among their locations. :wink:

And a battle could involve both the woods and open field.

And if the weather was very, very dry for setup (and possibly required that it be very likely to remain that way for takedown too), we might even see the fort in the woods… I think the main trail is clear enough to let the hook truck in… Whether there is enough room to deploy the two gate units might be another matter…

Personally, I found the battles this event rather more dull than at previous ones. I realise people’s mileage has varied, and it’s partially down to the monster briefs on Saturday. But in general, I much prefer the tactical environment (and higher proportion of sheer terror) that the woods bring to a battlefield, and would consequently be sad to see a large shift to field battles.

Perosnally I would be very reticent to try and get the hook loader with gates on top into the woods. I dont think it would fit height wise.

Also I dont expect PD to use the fort everytime either. ITs a lot of work to put up and take down and IF it is up then it needs ot be used to be worth it and then things would get very samey as stated above.

As an occasional thing then it may get used. How often we would have to see.

I liked the woods better - as a player, way more atmospheric; as a monster, felt way less rubbish when I could actually get out of eyeline of the players quickly once dead! Assaulting the fort was fun, and I have no objection at all to the battles becoming mixed in style, but I just prefer the woods.

For me the best battle of the year was in the fields, as for me the field battles seemed a lot more cohesive, organised and fun.
I disliked the lack of communication and general confusion in the woods.

I like the mixture of venues, Some variety is good, I imagine attacking a fort on an Icy tundra would be a thrilling battle

I like the field quite a lot. It gave some of the nations with disciplined front lines the chance to show them off, which is a lot more difficult to do in the woods. 100 yards of shield wall, looks really cool and advancing on it is quite an experience.
For the first time last event, i actually really felt was it was like to be part of a Rout, which was definitely an experience.

You just don’t get the same experience in the woods. Although there are upsides to the woods as well.
A good mix of the two going forward methinks.

I would guess that in the long run PD want to make the players decide on the terrain they are fighting on. i.e. the missions given to the generals have obvious objectives, threat levels and terrain types. They then choose which scenario to face. I may be wrong but thats the impression I have got.

It will also be really nice to have part of the fight in the woods, and part of the battle in the field.

Variety is good.

It’d be nice if we have to hold a fortification as well. That can be astounding fun. Set up a large fort in the field, and then defend it.
A well designed fort, with one or two killing zones, can be very satisfying to defend indeed… :smiling_imp:

Oddly enough I found the field more enjoyable from a battle-standpoint when I was a player (but I’m in Highguard and line fighting is kind of our thing which seems to be much better suited to a battlefield style than almost getting run over in trees). However, when I was monstering I enjoyed being in the woods more because you could appear from any direction and no one would quite know where you were coming from.

However chatting to some friends in Navaar, they found it the opposite way round due to their fighting style. So maybe battles would take more into account of a Nation’s battle style in the future which would determine where people end up fighting?

As I understand it, the generals get told pertinent information about battle opportunities, which I’d guess includes “this is mostly open field fighting” or “the bulk of the fighting will be in forests”. The use of nations in areas where their fighting style is appropriate is thus just another factor in the great equation of “how do we allocate people to battles sensibly?” that the military council have to consider.

Skimming this thread, the impression I come away with is:
a) People like different things
b) Variety is good
c) Variety is actually intended

TL;DR - Hooray!

[quote=“DanielW”]
TL;DR - Hooray![/quote]

Huzzah!

I am sure this being stated explicitly may in future become a thing - but in practice ‘assault a fort’ was definitely a field battle only insofar as they could surmise PD had likely not built a fort in the woods, and previously things were definitely in forests because PD had said they weren’t looking at field battles. That sort of detail currently isn’t in the briefings! :slight_smile:

Just a historical note on Battles.
Most of the time Battles “in a field” or “in a forest” never happened.

That’s not to say we should not have BOTH!
But watch this little video from somebody who knows his stuff :slight_smile:
youtube.com/watch?v=7IO-CooA4_Y

Note he has many many interesting short video clips on many different topics, I love his dry sense of humour and the way he dispels myths and hollywood style weapon & armour ideas :slight_smile: very informative and fun.

D.