TATW Archery Guide and Stats (3.1)

[delra]

CA broke it betwen RTW and M2TW.

[Withwnar]

Ah, there we go. Thanks delra.

[Olvie]

So it was the case in Rome and not in Medieval II? Jeez, all those years flanking from only one side... Gotta be kidding me.

[delra]

I'd have to look up my old conversation with Point Blank from Stainless Steel forum like 2 years ago to make sure. I might not remember it that good. But yea, at the moment my impression if memory serves is that shield protects both sides in m2tw while it protected only one in rtw.

[brandybarrel]

CA changed shield defence from RTW to M2TW.

100% front
50% left and right flank
0% rear

[Withwnar]

Thanks brandybarrel. Yours is one of the sources I was referring to.

I wonder why they changed it. I've seen it said that the shield is always on the left arm but I would have thought that this was up to the model and animation.

[brandybarrel]

I had specifically asked about shield defence to CAOZ when I was preparing the FAUST unit guide. To the best of my recollection, the system was changed to provide a fair and balanced defence for shield bearing units.

Edit: I would like to add that changes to Skill were also realized in M2TW. A unit’s Skill is now applied to the front and both flanks equally. Formerly in RTW, Skill was applied to the front and right flank (sword arm) only and Shield was applied to the front and left flank (shield arm) only.

[Withwnar]

the system was changed to provide a fair and balanced defence for shield bearing units

At first this seemed to me to be less realistic. But otherwise you would always flank to the enemy's right. In reality the enemy would position the shield to that side if they saw a bunch of archers about to open fire from there. Not while they're actually fighting, but at least while they're standing behind the guys fighting, waiting for their turn.

[brandybarrel]

When I first heard about the changes I was a bit disappointed regarding the realism but then I could see the practicality of it. They balanced the defence for units and not only for shield bearers. Just to reiterate, Skill too has been applied to both flanks and not only the right.

[delra]

They fixed some, they broke some...

[3MKA]

Are arrows affected by trees near the target or by those near the archer? or both?

[Withwnar]

I have been wondering this myself. I did see a passing comment recently that mentioned it. A quick web search yielded another passing comment. Whether it is fact or not is another matter; it might be just a myth.

Do arrows hit trees and bounce off uselessly like they do with walls? I don't recall seeing this but I haven't specifically looked for it.

Unless arrows can pass through trees and their trunks then it must have an impact. There might also be a hardcoded modifier that affects (e.g.) accuracy when either party is in forest. Similar to the "bonus fighting in forest" attribute but a negative one. This is mere speculation though.

The 'transparency' of trees could be tested by watching arrow flights in slow motion, to see what happens when an arrow and a tree collide.

Formal tests could be done with custom battles, comparing non-forest battles with forest ones. Everything else would need to be the same in order to get comparable results: same terrain (e.g. flat ground in both), weather, etc. Finding a custom battle that provided trees for you but not the enemy, and vice versa, could be tricky. Especially if the tests are to be repeated (identically) to get averages.

[zax]

easy to playtest with Gondor campaign, hide nearby Cair Andros, wait till some army siege it and then sally forth, whole area is basicly dense forest.

From my observations it seem that arrow and bolts travel through the trees, each salvo killed similar amount of troops hidden in forrest and whilemoving in the open field. Zooming during this battle is absolute must (A LOT of trees, A LOT), and i didn't notice arrow "bouncing" from trees. On the other hand it looked like some arrows disappeared if they hit exactly a tree trunk, but it was very rare and i may be mistaken.

I'll try few more battles in this area, maybe some patern can be noticed.

[Withwnar]

Thanks zax. Some of the custom battles are foresty; that might be simpler.

Arrows disappearing into trunks may very well be the way of things.

[zax]

well, i just run 8 testing custom battles.

Ithilien and Fangorn maps.
Situation 1: mirror match 2 of each High elven archers squads. Player vs attacking AI and Player vs defensive AI
Situation 2: mirror match 2 of each Isengard skirmish squads(javelins, crossbows). Player vs attacking AI and Player vs defensive AI
All situations: fire arrows ON for easier observation, no units upgrades.
Weather: summer, morning, sunny.
Game speed: 0.1-0.5-1.0 for easier observation (hella cool effect: rain of fire in slow-mo )

Observations: Tree branches have ABSOLUTELY no Impact on ranged combat: arrows, bolts etc pass through them. Why? tree branches are only bitmaps, not exact 3D models (tree trunk is of course 3D). You can see that when you set Vegetation detail on lowest in graphic options. Trees change into simple sprites and all bolts go through them with no effect. There is no collision detection. If trees where ment to be obstacles for ranged combat they would keep its abilities despite graphic settings.
Also arrows hitting EXACTLY tree trunk pass through them, they don't vanish, they just go through. I was mistaken previously.

Conclusions: All squads suffered simillar casualites while standing in the open and hiding in the forrest. Tree areas had absolutely no effect on ranged combat output. On the other hand, think: how big stress load should be put on your CPU to calculate all collision of hundreds arrows between trees and branches beeing fired almost every second. IMHO MED 2 engine cannot do it.

One more thing i just came around, how accuracy is calculated if anyhow? maybe archery unit attacking something in the forrest has lower acc against it? anyone knows? is it visible in the files?

[Withwnar]

Nice one. Thanks for doing those tests. +rep sir.

how accuracy is calculated if anyhow? maybe archery unit attacking something in the forrest has lower acc against it? anyone knows? is it visible in the files?

Accuracy is an attribute/stat in descr_projectiles.txt. It's a property of the projectile type, not the unit. The stat tables in this thread show them.

That's the base accuracy. Then there are modifiers for different weather conditions which are built into the engine (not defined in files). i.e. Accuracy is reduced according to the weather. It's possible that such a modifier/penalty also exists for forests but I don't know.

[ELB27]

i think you should add those tests to the 1st post, this is a very useful information!

[Withwnar]

Post 4 updated with TATW 3.1 stats.

Thanks, whoever that was who repped me for the 2.0 stats. It reminded me that this thread was out of date.

[Macilrille]

I compiled some advice for RTW here, it and the debate it sparked should be useful.

[muller227]

Arrow fire into the right flank stills seems much more effective than the left though in MED 2, I play mainly TATW so that may or not mean something, but Elven Light archers rape the right side and are much weaker on the left vs a shield unit. I generally work slightly to the rear for my angles, is the defensive circle somewhat limited on the right if so that would make more sense.