Archery in Shogun 2 - do you like it?

[SonOfCrusader76]

Specifically, I'm referring to whether you like the archers not having a range bonus when elevated. Overall I think you've done a superb job on Shogun 2, CA - I wasn't expecting to like it this much as the setting isn't really my scene, but I do.

However, this idea of archers not having a range bonus when elevated is daft and ruins archery for me. Some people think you might have done it that way to stop hilltop camping in MP. Well, I don't give a damn about MP. TW is a singleplayer game - that's what the meat of the game is aimed at! Also, what's with the archers lining up before shooting? They're not musketeers!! In any case, if you want to keep it in MP, wouldn't it be possible to keep it in MP without ruining it for the (majority) of singleplayers?

So guys - do you want archery to work properly in the next TW game, or are you happy with it the way it is now? We all know what the next TW game will be and I will be severely pissed off if archery works this way in that game after waiting for it all this time.

@CraigTW - I would be interested to hear your view on this matter.

Edit: I would've added a third option, but that would've lost all the votes we've got so far. So, MP guys - if the only reason you'd vote against this is because it would somehow spoil your online games, please say so.

[Lord Baal]

Who's the one that voted nope(to the idea of having them the range bonus) !!! We should make the TWC private FBI track him and put him under arrest under the charge of heresy!

-voice in the background: "Gegorge it's time for your medicine..."

[raest]

whoever voted "yes" should be barred from ever playing (and especially buying) a TW game ever again. archers not having a range bonus when on elevated terrain is removing one fundamental thing from the tactical landscape and makes fighting for higher ground entirely pointless.

[SonOfCrusader76]

whoever voted "yes" should be barred from ever playing (and especially buying) a TW game ever again. archers not having a range bonus when on elevated terrain is removing one fundamental thing from the tactical landscape and makes fighting for higher ground entirely pointless.

That's what's annoying me - there's no point fighting for high ground - which of course, was a fundamental of this type of warfare!

Hmmm, I should've made the voting public - can that be changed, mods?

[SonOfOdin]

That's what's annoying me - there's no point fighting for high ground - which of course, was a fundamental of this type of warfare!

Soldiers still fight better fighting downhill than fighting uphill, so hills and high terrain is still important. But yeah, archers need to get range bonuses when firing from high areas.

[Kabeloko]

whoever voted "yes" should be barred from ever playing (and especially buying) a TW game ever again. archers not having a range bonus when on elevated terrain is removing one fundamental thing from the tactical landscape and makes fighting for higher ground entirely pointless.

totally disagree with u mate...
if u run some tests, u will see that fighting hand to hand in high ground gives u better results, and probly shooting will too, as the archers get a better angle at the enemy over their friends heads, avoiding friendly fire and hiting harder and more centered, and somehow the high ground helps them do more damage against enemy archers too...
and we are talking about small hills, not mountains, the range wouldnt vary much significantly...

about the first post complaining they line up, its pretty logical, the guy behind everyone wouldnt be able to aim and calculate his shots, and those would be less effective too, as they would have to be fired in a baloon angle, to fall on the enemy...

[SonOfCrusader76]

totally disagree with u mate...
if u run some tests, u will see that fighting hand to hand in high ground gives u better results, and probly shooting will too, as the archers get a better angle at the enemy over their friends heads, avoiding friendly fire and hiting harder and more centered, and somehow the high ground helps them do more damage against enemy archers too...
and we are talking about small hills, not mountains, the range wouldnt vary much significantly...

about the first post complaining they line up, its pretty logical, the guy behind everyone wouldnt be able to aim and calculate his shots, and those would be less effective too, as they would have to be fired in a baloon angle, to fall on the enemy...

True, the hills in Shogun 2 aren't very high - but the point of this thread is to get it changed for future TW games - Rome TW had very high hills; if Rome 2's map is made like that, then a range bonus for elevated archers is essential.

Or maybe CA will just 'even out' the hills to please the MP crowd who don't like 'hill camping'.

I don't want what happened in MTW2, when armies deployed up the side of a mountain, but I do want some battles like in Rome where you're high up and able to pour death on an enemy trying to get up to where you were. If the battlefields are as samey in Rome 2 as they are in Shogun 2, it will go a long way towards ruining the game for me. That's the main purpose of this poll.

[KittySN]

Not a big fan of players camping on hills with a morale and range advantage, so I'm fine they cheat science some.

As for "fighting for the hill" in campaign... LOL. I've never had an experience where the AI wasn't easy to slay.

[Point_Man]

Not a big fan of players camping on hills with a morale and range advantage, so I'm fine they cheat science some.

As for "fighting for the hill" in campaign... LOL. I've never had an experience where the AI wasn't easy to slay.

How come I don't see you playing online much? Wouldn't mind playing a few matches

[SonOfCrusader76]

Ah - so it's the online people voting no then. It should be possible to have it in SP and not in MP, but if it can only be one way, then it should be the SP way because that's what most people play in TW! This isn't Fifa!

Edit: If voting no because you're mainly an online player, please say so.

[Lord Baal]

I corrected my first post! I realized it was as ambiguous as the artists formerly know as Prince

[SonOfCrusader76]

Come on! 85 views and only 20 odd votes?

[Lord Baal]

I think nobody cares of this kind of stuff anymore then? Only 20 of us! Too bad... Well Son of Crusader, give this a little more time, perahps the forum is on a slow hour?

[SonOfCrusader76]

Maybe.

I know there are other things that need looking at as well, but this is my primary annoyance with the game that still hasn't been mentioned by CA.

[Lord Baal]

Well, we are still pending on an answer for Craig... If he fails to deliver one then it could be two possibilities:
1) The engine do not allow this kind of calculations, this is not likely, and is rather odd, but could be. If this is the reason he might not be allowed to say so under the current Warscape hate, this will only give a chance to everyone to say: "You see! That engine is worthless!". This is even more important if they have some contract stating they shall be forced to use this engine for X amount of years or games.

2) They cut the corner on this one, or it was somewhat difficult to implement, or simply forgot/underestimated this. For obvious reasons Craig won't say so either!

[raest]

Well, we are still pending on an answer for Craig... If he fails to deliver one then it could be two possibilities:
1) The engine do not allow this kind of calculations, this is not likely, and is rather odd, but could be. If this is the reason he might not be allowed to say so under the current Warscape hate, this will only give a chance to everyone to say: "You see! That engine is worthless!". This is even more important if they have some contract stating they shall be forced to use this engine for X amount of years or games.

2) They cut the corner on this one, or it was somewhat difficult to implement, or simply forgot/underestimated this. For obvious reasons Craig won't say so either!

i highly doubt that the engine cannot support it and/or that it's difficult to implement since these are relatively simple calculations

I get your point... but I think is sad. This game should not be really that influenced by multiplayer

this. the TW series has always been about SP first and MP later. also, if it annoys MP people so much that they have one more variable in their tactical decision-making (come on guys, seriously?!), i see no reason why it cannot be at least an option to turn on in SP (it's not like there are no differences between MP and SP anyway). also, i don't believe that most of us that want to see the range bonus added want also the current lethality+accuracy bonus (i know i don't. or at least it should be really really small)

and another question for the MP guys: do you also complain about those zones of control (or whatever they're called) that give bonuses to ammo etc? do you ragequit when somebody takes one of those or do you avoid completely maps that feature them? because the principle is the same...

[Thorn777]

I think there is a range bonus but its allot smaller than in previous TW games. Whenever the enemy is waiting on me on a hilltop and I try to skirmish around with my archers, those of the enemy can shoot first and I need to get closer than usual. Then I notice that arrows are allot less effective when shooting at them opponents on the hilltop.

To me archery in STW2 is awesome.

[SonOfCrusader76]

I haven't noticed that at all - not on hills, and not on castle walls. In fact, I'm sure there have been some times where the soldiers on the ground were able to shoot the ones on the hill, without the ones on the hill being able to hit them back!!

[Knowing Crow]

Range bonus when on high ground? Hell yeah! They should rename the series to Total Camping while they are at it!

I voted that they are fine, by the way. Though I'm part of the MP crowd and are looking at it from a gameplay perspective. Right now there is a bonus to accuracy and lethality from arrows due to elevation and I feel that is enough for multiplayer. For Singleplayer it would be fine, however.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Yep.

This poll needs another option, maybe a mod could do that? Only one way to find out...