Archery in Shogun 2 - do you like it?

[SonOfCrusader76]

Remove high ground from MP maps then. Problem solved.

[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...

[Patrician]

Were I allowed to vote I would have voted for Creative Assembly to re-implement range advantage on high ground. It's simply a key component in the art of war that's sorely lacking.

[SonOfCrusader76]

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



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...

Good question - what is your view on that, MP guys? And can't you find a way to deal with a force that's up on a hill? After all, what would an army do if it took the high ground historically speaking? That's right - 'camp' on it - and the enemy would have to figure out a way to get them down - or kill them while up there. And there are ways - many ways.

Yeah, and there's no way this engine can't do it: Rome's could do it and that's a little older than this one.

Were I allowed to vote I would have voted for Creative Assembly to re-implement range advantage on high ground. It's simply a key component in the art of war that's sorely lacking.

Yep, I think you have too few posts so far - I'm not sure how many you need to participate in votes.

[Lord Baal]

I think 25 are needed. And that's what I'm saying... the high ground is for the ones that can obtain it! If you can't destroy someone uphill then you must accept that he has either outmaneuver you or your force and/or tactics are not up to the task.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Exactly. If you're fast enough, you'll have a chance to take the high ground yourself, or at least intercept the other lot on their way there.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

In MP denying your opponent the higher ground in key to success. If he's able to acquire and get a hold of it then he deserve it and you deserve to loose!

although i don't disagree for the change in multiplayer as well, putting that in the game has to also change the maps.

there are some maps where both players have a hill next to them, so there isn't a "good" hill say in the middle of the map, so whoever gets there 1st is in a better position.

both players having a hill will mean 2 players camping on their hill waiting for the enemy to come to them making it even worse than it already is

[walrus2517]

I've played little MP thus would prefer the range bonus for realism purposes, but something else to consider is the random placement of your army in open field battles, which has always been an issue in TW games for me.

As you say SonofCrusader76, in real war, the defending army will always take the high ground pre-battle and try to hold it, but that is because the defender usually has the opportunity to choose their positioning when they know an attacking army is coming. In TW games, even if you intentionally setup your armies so that you should be on the high ground if someone attacks, you may still get positioned on the lower ground on the battle map. And if the strategy for MP is simply to haul butt to the hill and sit there, I can understand their frustration.

If CA can develop a way to ensure a defending stack, if on higher ground on the campaign map, is guaranteed the higher ground if attacked (I know it is supposed to work like this in RTW and M2 but it isn't 100% or even close), it should solve the MP crowd's problems with what they see as an already unfair advantage for someone on high ground. While I could see this being an unfixable issue for the random maps of early TW games, I would think it could be solved fairly easily with the low number of fixed maps in S2.

If this is a sacrifice CA is making to the SP game for the benefit of MP, that is incredibly discouraging when considering the future of the franchise. Purely conjecture at this point, so let's hope not.

[KittySN]

Skill is hill camping? Historically if someone camped on a hill, refusing to budge, they'd end up dying. On hills, there's a lack of food and water. Not so in video games, and the best part is that there's a handy magic line to protect your flanks. That's the kind of hill camping MP players are talking about, and we don't want to give someone who crams their army on a hill next to the red a range advantage too. Yeah, people did it in Rome. We flamed them because they were noobs.

[bombadier]

I just want archers to fire where they are told and not just keep pumping arrows at a "down to the last few soldier units",Fire where there are plenty targets please,that would be nice.

[crzyrndm]

In MP definetely not, Bow/matchlock monks in boxes on hills are bad enough already.
In SP, maybe make it an option/linked to difficulty for the player, but permanent for the AI.

Hill camping in MP is already bad enough without the range bonus, the person on top of the hill already has all the advantages.
If you attack uphill your troops don't charge or fight as effectively while your oppoents get a bonus. Your archers already suffer the same problem, why make it more pronounced.

[raest]

i hope that you MP people realise that the "problem" with hills is due to bad/unbalanced map design thanks to CA, not the mechanic itself. and none of you answered this question(s) yet:

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?

also, "camping" can be done in any corner of the map (where your flanks are protected). had the people at CA even bothered to make proper MP maps suited for competitive "ladder" play, they'd have put hills in strategic locations that overlook said corners and are far enough from them so that anyone wanting to "camp" on the hill and be protected by the corners should have his (full-stack) line spread so thin that an ashigaru charge could break through, but also close enough so that anyone camping in the corner below the hill should be at a severe (range) disadvantage. and this is only one possible scenario

[Humble Warrior]

NO. There should be a realistic range bonus. If someone camps on a hill he is using a perfectly correct and valid tactic. If this makes it too hard for an opponent then he leaves, quits surrender. But for the love of God don`t mess uip the laws of physics just to suit multiplayers or even single players.

Believe or not there are ways around this, but that`s why we have TACTICS and strategy. The bad ones fail the good ones figure it out, not whine it away.

This is supposed to be a game about historical warfare, once you start pratting about with these basics you are going from realistic tactics to gaming the game which, contrary to popualr opinion, is not actually more fun.

I was really glad when Shogun 2 went back to adding ammo limits to everything and possible restricted views with STW2 as that added tactics to the battlefield. Empire lost a lot of realism and strategy especially for MP games because you never ran out of artillery ammo and had no restricted view.

You`ve got to keep to the basics of reality or you lose believability and more importantly, realistic tactical strategy.

[KittySN]

If you want a realistic hill advantage, add in attrition for camping on them. Ancient armies couldn't survive on hills.

There's some more realism for you.

[Humble Warrior]

If you want a realistic hill advantage, add in attrition for camping on them. Ancient armies couldn't survive on hills.

There's some more realism for you.

You`d be talking about the campaign map then? Cos that wouldn`t apply to the battle map at all.


edit:

And no response. Guess she was being flippant. I see many more arguments in the future between you and I, M`Lady.

[KittySN]

Sorry, I don't usually lurk the forums waiting for instantaneous replies. No, it should be in the battle because that's where it's relevant, particularly in MP. Players can just camp on a hill with all benefits and no penalties. If you want to capture a hill, that's fine, but if you want to camp there, you should have a penalty. Even a tiny loss of stamina every 5 minutes would be great. Realistic? Maybe not so much over such a short period of time, but one shouldn't just be able to camp on a hill expecting their opponent to attack them as a strategy because in reality it was flawed: you needed to forage and obtain water, something which would hobble an army after a couple days (not seasons). If you don't want to suffer attrition, much like a siege, get off your hill and win in combat.

[Humble Warrior]

Sorry, I don't usually lurk the forums waiting for instantaneous replies. No, it should be in the battle because that's where it's relevant, particularly in MP. Players can just camp on a hill with all benefits and no penalties. If you want to capture a hill, that's fine, but if you want to camp there, you should have a penalty. Even a tiny loss of stamina every 5 minutes would be great. Realistic? Maybe not so much over such a short period of time, but one shouldn't just be able to camp on a hill expecting their opponent to attack them as a strategy because in reality it was flawed: you needed to forage and obtain water, something which would hobble an army after a couple days (not seasons).

Can`t agree. as you no doubt guessed.
There`s no need for any penalty at all for anyone defending on a hill unless there`s a realistic reason for one. He`s found a good spot and now the attacker must find a way to deal with it.

Some options:

1. Bring a bigger army.
2. Bring siege weapons and pound him from afar.
3. Bring a tougher and bigger army that can take the withering arrows.
4. Bring a combination army of siege weapons, archers, melee troops.
5. Get to hill FIRST.
6. Bait him off the hill (need to be really smart for this one).
7. Stay where you are and wait in the hope he gets impatient.
8. Leave, choose a new scenario that suits you. Basically choose YOUR ground next time.
9. Approach via woods if any near.
10. Surrender, go home.

It only takes a little knowledge of realistic warfare (and reading the odd book) to see how the real guys dealt with it.

[KittySN]

If you can see the realism behind the necessity for food and water, this discussion is already over.

Good day to you sir. See? Shorter argument than you had designed.

[alexjs]

Skill is hill camping? Historically if someone camped on a hill, refusing to budge, they'd end up dying. On hills, there's a lack of food and water. Not so in video games, and the best part is that there's a handy magic line to protect your flanks. That's the kind of hill camping MP players are talking about, and we don't want to give someone who crams their army on a hill next to the red a range advantage too. Yeah, people did it in Rome. We flamed them because they were noobs.

That's true. Really, the TW engine is only as realistic as the player imagines it is, since it's not real, if that makes sense. If it was totally realistic, we'd probably not want to play; we'd have blood all over our hands and face. Like a face palm of gore and the tedium that is war at times. Our troops would lay around and need to be fed and given water. Worse, they'd need real motivation, or they'd have no choice, like dogs of war, enslaved by the collar of the authoritative regime of the time. Instead of a little food icon indicating the global food supply, there could be an individual army food bar to micromanage. (Oh joy!) Not to mention wounded legs and post traumatic stress syndrome, squiggly stress lines, and desertion. (Therapy agents? Sake vendors?) Lets not forget all the back stabbing and futility of holding empires up from within and without in such a period of male power rituals; pissing contests between the tigers of the clan. Old blood feuds would rage on as the sake is poured and the harvest is reaped; with new young soldiers to do that which their father and his father did not accomplish or understand: Enlightenment through the Chi and the Bushido without the pride. Total War is a paradoxical name as it is not sustainable and in such, will never be realistic or portray war properly or give any of the fallen true justice - we will never feel that cold hard steel pulsating through our body as it strikes a mortal wound lasting an eternity. We may or may not see our empire flourish or crumble; like a lowly rice farmer we won't know for sure what the season will hold. We can only hope for the best, petition for something, and be free to experience some temporal happiness. In this way, we're lucky it is just a game, but if it were real we might think twice and hope for the next title to be "Total Peace."

[Humble Warrior]

I`ve been trying to be nice so as not to upset delicate personalities, but clearly it`s not going to happen.

But frankly the idea of suffering a penalty of `food and water` because you`re on a hill is stupid.

In battles this just doesn`t happen unless you`re intending to stay on that hill for weeks, that`s why I seriously thought she meant on the Campaign map. Men eat over night ready for the morning then wait the oncoming battle...

They do not suffer from lack of water or food unless they`d already been suffering from this during the Campaign itself and have no access to foraging at all. In that case it would then be reasonable to have the men suffer from a starvation\dehydration penalty, but for all battles not specifically because they`re on a hill.

But creating arificial penalties because people don't like it would just start turning the TW war series into an even greater silly made up fantasy.