I can't wait to try out the terrain bonuses tomorrow. 

Same here.

It is a bit sad that we have to wait so long between the betas. I have a feeling half of what we have lately discussed on these forums aren't relevant to beta 2. Or at least it seems it has gotten some pretty nice changes already.

I do understand that releasing betas more often is just not feasible. From developer standpoint the current schedule must be the sane choice (if not even slower pace of releases). From gamer standpoint we get multiple small "new game released" moments which are kind of nice, so I guess this works pretty well for all parties after all.

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there would be room for whole army affecting terrain elements. Control this hill and your whole army gets +10% defense. That might be nice...

As other people have pointed out most archers in real life can't run around and shoot. I support removing moving and shooting in the same turn. Horse archers could still run around infantry but not other cavalry that way.

LoS is unlikely to get in due to the amount of work it would take, if it is even possible. However you could easily add tiles that boost the ranged dodge of people who stand on them. However as others have pointed out this wouldn't actually help out much because you could still never catch the archers. That said I 100% support more types of tactical terrain. It would add so much to the game.

Control points would be such a huge change I doubt they could be implemented.

Of course all this misses the main point which is heroes kiting monsters. Mainly champions need to grow much slower when it comes to initiative and movement. To many skills, spells, and items effect movement and initiative. Half them should be removed and the others toned down. Even then the overall effect of initiative should be reduced. It should not be possible to move 3 times before your opponent moves once. As I said earlier monsters also just need to be able to tie down, chase, and attack at a range better then they currently do.

I hope it's real "Terrain" bonuses, and not the already existing "Territory" bonus (that you get when you fight in your Territory).

That doesn't affect kiting in any way, and that's the topic here.

Actually it does affect kiting, as you can get further away *and* release a shot in the same turn.  More shots for the same number of turns.

If you don't get hit, the number of turns is irrelevant.

Whether you shoot once every one or three turns... same result.

I believe it is. Before it was called Territory bonus in .77. This bonus is called Terrain Bonus. If not, this is a cruel joke by Frogboy. 

Of course it would be irrelevant in that case.  But why would you be trying to prevent kiting from archers that can't do any damage?  There will always be some archer stacks that *can* do damage, and obviously more shots means higher overall damage.  But it looks like in 0.85 that they are going to try limited quivers.  Not sure what I think about that.

That is only a cosmetic change. There is no limit on arrows.

This is what I always thought defense should do. Rather than just an ability that comes with shields, Defense should be purchased abiltiy for all infantry squads. Giving a counter instead of an attack and a defense bonus (greater with shields).

Thanks for info seanw3, was worried about those quivers

I would have to wonder why it was listed in the features section and not in the cosmetic section if that were the case.

Could vary well be that the large near unlimited ammo quivers reduce movement.. and small limited quivers allow kiting.. giving you the choice. This would prevent Built units from kiting indefinately but still allow a well built up hero to do so.

Trust me, if there were a limit to the number of archer shots, it would be explained in the post. There are other features listed that are cosmetic changes. The change log has been written over the past month. 

What wrong with limiting Shots depending on the type of quiver?

More shots = more movement penalty

Since this is on topic, from a game perspective it's wrong because it creates new problems. Limited ammo means that an archer group becomes potentially useless during a battle. If that units is also fast enough to avoid the enemy, a stalemate is formed. The best solution to kiting will not create more problems to be fixed. 

From a intuitive realism perspective it would be ridiculous to have a limit of anything less than 50 arrows for each unit, which is longer than any battle will last. And then arrows are resupplied somehow for the next battle?

From an AI perspective it would make archers too complicated. Humans can easily decide army composition and how to effectively use archers with limited arrows. It would take alot of time to teach this to the AI and even then it can be gamed by the player rather easily. 

I don't like it either. I think a movement penalty for longbows is the best solution. 

It's like putting paint over a crack in a support column

Champions high initiative growth was the main problem (there are others). It allowed them to kite anything once they reached like lv 10.

Fix the stat mechanics that create the problem not just add an artificial limit

So in your opinion kiting should never be a viable tactic?

Which would be no different from putting a movement penalty on an unlimited quiver. Using quivers gives the option of a small limited quiver .. you could still kite  if your willing to accept that your units are going to run out of ammo. Or go with the unlimited quiver which comes with a movement penalty. Or maybe small large then later you can access an unlimited quiver via the magic tree.

The AI already has to look at what kind of weapon it has to decide what its going to do.. would adding quiver type really be that much of a change? I think not.

Meh whatever.. I stand by my quiver Idea

I had to comment because I don't want to see tactical combat ruined by "gamey" mechanisms. The initiative system is already pushing that boundary as it is. Combat should "make sense" and work, not be an arbitrary system of balances which are constantly modified when people complain that a certain unit is overpowered.

I completely and utterly agree with a previous post: the hard counter to kiting is light cavalry. Run those archers down! This is historical and realistic. A slow melee unit's only defense against an archer is heavy armor, or else having faster units in one's army. But let me list all counters I see to kiting archers:

1. Light cavalry - close the gap instantly. The archer's only chance is getting a shot in before the horse reaches him, then he's dead. Horseman vs. archer in melee = no contest.
2. Your own archers, and better. You no longer need to close the gap! Magic also fits in here.
3. Heavy cavalry. Will take longer to arrive than light cavalry, but should have heavy armor, in order to take less damage. Also can carry heavier weapons, which might kill off the archers even faster.
4. Very fast, light infantry. This infantry must be so light that they can run faster than archers, who must both shoot and run, while light infantry only must run. Will take losses, but then wipe out the archers on arriving, due to both better melee weapons and melee training.

Horse archers? They were considered dishonorable in the Middle Ages in Europe, hence their limited use. But the unit was successful when used by the Huns, Mongols, etc. The counters are a bit harder, but still exist.

1. Your own archers! They must be trained to hit faster-moving units, however. But it's harder to shoot a bow accurately while on a horse, versus standing still. A longbow also has more range than a bow used on a horse. Bows on horses are worse than regular bows! Magic also applies here.
2. Better horse archers! Obvious.
3. Light cavalry. These horsemen must dodge the arrows, having the great mobility of a horse to do so. You need to spread your unit of horsemen out, such that they can surround the unit of horse archers, not allowing them to escape. But a good unit of light cavalry, with fast horses, should be able to dodge the arrows of horse archers, and take out the cavalry in melee. A spear would help here, as a sword will make it harder to land a hit on that horse archer.

Make sure all of these types of units actually work  as a counter, and there will be no need to resort to gamey mechanisms. And if your army simply has none of these units, and is up against a group of archers, you should die. You, as a general, failed to adequately defend against an effective counter to your army, and must suffer the consequences. A slow melee unit cannot defeat a mobile archer. This is a fact of life, and a legitimate tactic. Guerrilla warfare IS kiting.

A few concepts listed above that require new game mechanics:

1. Different kinds of horses: speed of the horse, versus strength, power and size.
2. Different types of bows, and limited effectiveness of traditional bows when used on a horse.
3. Armor and weapons carried having a real effect on movement speed. Initiative seems a little contrived, but you could make it work with this system as well.

But what I don't understand about initiative: why do I get a whole turn extra just due to higher initiative? It doesn't make physical sense. I should get more actions than you. I can move faster due to my faster horse. If I'm an archer, I move slower than a fast melee unit, because I have to shoot and run, while he just runs. So why can't you make both shooting and running take up actions, and an archer simply has less time to take a shooting action, if he also wants to run?

Limited arrows? I agree with what was said earlier: it's silly. You can limit my arrows I can shoot to 6 by killing me before I can manage to shoot off the 7th, not by declaring that a quiver can only carry 6 arrows, and than I can only carry one quiver, etc.

That's all for now.

I have to tie in my post about the theory of kiting with the AI in the game. But first, a 1-line summary of kiting:

I have a faster unit than you, that can also shoot from range. I win, due to my superior technology and army composition.

Now, on to the AI. First of all, if the AI has kiting, the AI should use it! If I'm a general, I'm stupid to allow my enemy's melee units to engage with my weak archers. Therefore, I should avoid it at all costs. AI archers should run from approaching melee units. They're going to die if they don't!  meanwhile, the AI should use heavy cavalry to run down melee units charging at its archers, and use melee units to block them from reaching them. This is called military tactics.

If I only have slow melee units, and the AI has fast archers, I should die. If I don't die, the AI is inadequate and should be fixed.

Now, on to another part of the AI: Boss monsters. The problem with a boss monster unit is that it's almost always slow and powerful. This makes it incredible against a melee unit, but very vulnerable to kiting, or basically any ranged unit. There are some ways to counter this, however.

1. Have thick armor resistant to ranged weapons.
2. Have the monster be more mobile, or even just have minions who are, so that the archer can be defeated.
3. Give the monster a ranged attack that can take out your archers.

However, a slow monster should die to a fast, mobile archer, assuming the archer can do enough damage. The solution to this is to have more monsters that act like light cavalry or better archers, and thus destroy the archer advantage.

Let's keep away from convoluted game mechanics, and keep tactical combat simple and logical.

I guess the fear is that you could have 1 (slow) melee unit of 200 defense facing a kiting archer of only 1 attack ... and thus you get a battle that never ends.

(or rather, a battle that takes 50 turns to win, assuming the melee unit has 50 HP ... and assuming attacks cause at least 1 damage if they hit)

Well, that's taking it to the logical extreme, but in that situation, the archer should win. The commander of the single slow melee unit failed to send along some allies to defend against his unit's obvious weakness.

Several other ways to stop this:

1. An arrow does zero damage against strong enough armor, meaning that while the slow melee unit can't kill the archer, it least he won't die.
2. Battles have a limited number of turns, after which the battle ends in a draw, and another battle must be initiated.
3. Auto-combat gets reliable, such that I don't have to click off the turns myself.

Did you just go on about realism and then at the end suggest that archers can carry an unlimited amount of arrows?

Funny how systems are only "gamey" when you don't like them...but infinite arrows seems pretty gamey to me.

New Beta!

No, simply that setting an artificially low limit is unrealistic.

50 arrows to battle is reasonable, is it not? Arrow capacity could be limited by strength and storage requirements, and perhaps be influenced by arrow size and type. But arrow capacity should not be an issue in any normal battle.

I think that battles are going to end before 50 shots so why even add the feature? Sometimes simplicity makes more sense.