Alamaze & Fall of Rome Forum
New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Printable Version

+- Alamaze & Fall of Rome Forum (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Third Cycle (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=28)
+--- Forum: Third Cycle Player Input (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)
+--- Thread: New Terrain Type for 3rd? (/showthread.php?tid=9056)



New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Ry Vor - 04-19-2014

Some may have heard the intention is to recast sea power, and feature a new map with perhaps a large central sea, sort of Mediterranean like.

On my spare minutes, I created a clay draft of a world of this type. It did not make it to the oven as of yet, let alone have populations spring upon it.

What occurred, both aesthetically and strategically, was adding a terrain type called "islands". An island area would be an area accessible by both land and sea movement. It would still have the terrain costs of the land terrain it is comprised of when traversed by land.

It might be hard to see the implications without seeing a map, but it would be an important change. The only example I can give at this point is it would be something like the Horn Bridge in Resurgent.


RE: New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Lord Diamond - 04-20-2014

Islands are great, but I think they should be like Avalon. Once you get there, you are safe. I may not be getting your intent, but I hope they wouldn't make fleets unnecessary to travel across the sea.

Love the idea of a new map!


RE: New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Ry Vor - 04-20-2014

Fleets will have a much bigger role in the first scenario of 3rd Cycle - Sea Power rules will be enhanced.

Islands would serve mainly as a kind of bridge between land areas separated by only a single sea area, in certain cases. But deep seas still require sea power. There might be something like the Hawaiian Islands, or Philippines, so that the map may represent a contiguous area of say 6 areas, without having to have a block of land, so actually amplifying seapower in that navies can be in any island area as well as sea areas. Yes, I believe navies (the total of fleets in any one sea) will be deployed to areas as are armies.


RE: New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Hawk_ - 04-20-2014

(04-20-2014, 10:20 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Fleets will have a much bigger role in the first scenario of 3rd Cycle - Sea Power rules will be enhanced.

Islands would serve mainly as a kind of bridge between land areas separated by only a single sea area, in certain cases. But deep seas still require sea power. There might be something like the Hawaiian Islands, or Philippines, so that the map may represent a contiguous area of say 6 areas, without having to have a block of land, so actually amplifying seapower in that navies can be in any island area as well as sea areas. Yes, I believe navies (the total of fleets in any one sea) will be deployed to areas as are armies.

There is another strategy game with terrain type of bridge. In that game bridges can be built, guarded, and destroyed by agents or armies.

You can station an army on a bridge intercepting any troops that cross that square.

This is something you might consider to help some kingdoms guard their borders. There could also be mountain passes that could be guarded this way. Just a thought. I am completely happy with the way the current Alamaze map system works.


RE: New Terrain Type for 3rd? - Lord Diamond - 04-21-2014

(04-20-2014, 10:20 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Fleets will have a much bigger role in the first scenario of 3rd Cycle - Sea Power rules will be enhanced.

Islands would serve mainly as a kind of bridge between land areas separated by only a single sea area, in certain cases. But deep seas still require sea power. There might be something like the Hawaiian Islands, or Philippines, so that the map may represent a contiguous area of say 6 areas, without having to have a block of land, so actually amplifying seapower in that navies can be in any island area as well as sea areas. Yes, I believe navies (the total of fleets in any one sea) will be deployed to areas as are armies.

This might be cool. If used, I think it should require the army to stop on the 'island' and not be able to continue across in the same turn unless using fleets. This will have nearly the same effect that Hawk suggests, allowing the island to become strategically important. Imagine hostile kingdoms constantly fighting for control of the area regardless of whether or not it has a pc.

I am now enthusiastic about the idea.