Is it just me, or do archers no longer gain a range bonus on a hill?

[DarkArk]

Funny, I thought that post was earlier in this thread. I will have to go hunt for it now.

[Thefallenhun]

well math probably says no range bonus, but damage bonus to be sure. If you fire an object in a parabola, it is moving at exactly the same speed it was when it was fired at the exact same elevation it was fired from, so if a unit is on a hill, the arrows drops farther than its original elevation, giving it more energy.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Newton and his figs aside, there should be some kind of bonus for all units for being situated on higher ground. It's a cardinal rule of classic and feudal warfare.
That, and don't pee upstream.

[Thefallenhun]

From my experience in both multi and single, there are definate bonuses associated with being uphill.

[Furious Mental]

Contemporary documents show that the Japanese were conscious of the bonus in terms of range that came from an elevated position, at least with respect to bombarding a fortress. As to archers, no idea.

[Gaidin]

I can't remember the thread it was in, but the bottom line is that an elevation of 20+ feet gives a negligible range boost so they didn't waste processing power on it.

[Gaizokubanou]

Maybe the arrow loses too much power to be bothered with at such "extra" range from hills, because I remember in older TW games I was able to shoot half way across some maps from some steep hill and that was just awful.

[billydilly]

Sure but 20 feet is almost 6 metres, which means an archer on high ground would have time to fire a volley before the attacking archer. As it should be.

[Gaidin]

Sure but 20 feet is almost 6 metres, which means an archer on high ground would have time to fire a volley before the attacking archer. As it should be.

Neglibly so. It's a calculation they bothered with in previous games because between a few of the mountainside battle maps and some of the higher level castles you're looking at a height difference of 60+ feet, where it makes a real difference. But when you get down to it, 6 meters from a hillside or castle tier(higher level tiers are out of range, demonstrated by 3rd tutorial) while the enemy is already moving toward you at programmed speed isn't going to make a difference.

[Kraxis]

But isn't that point? Generally we tend to seek out the highest hill around. Sometimes that hill is a paltry bump, but mostly it is considerably higher than 6 meters. I mean, that is slightly more than the length of the yari the ashis carry around. Take a look at them when they stand still and then compare to the various topographical features.

The archers in TW games have a range of around 100 meters, so a 6 meter increase is a mere 6 degree incline. It is an unpleasant walk if you do it over a few kilometers, but in a tactical sense, it is negliable. What we would more likely find are hills of 15-20 degrees (the hill Ishida Mitsunari is placed on in Sekigahara is slightly less than this), which is where the difference in range becomes utterly devastating. Not to speak of the fact that lower places archers would suffer a significant reduction in range.

In any case, even if most elevated ground merely gave a few meters of advantage, that would still be significant in an archery duel. You might not think it, but getting the first volley off is paramount. The losses incurred before the enemy can respond are going to pay heavy dividends after 10 volleys, as your advantage in numbers grows comparably. This is denied without the even most limited bonus, other than the time it take the enemy unit to stop and shoot.

[Modestus]

Height use to make a big difference in MTW even a slight elevation would give your archers an advantage, what that advantage was I don't remember but it was enough to swing a battle.

[Ragss]

Interesting. Glad to see I was right in doubting the claim that it makes no difference. That really didn't make sense to me. Perhaps 29 feet is paltry to that poster, but it would have made a distinct tactical difference in the battle that was the impetus for this thread, not to mention it looks like that poster neglected to calculate the penalty that would be faced by an archer firing up hill.

[TW Junkie]

Didnt they claim this game was based on Sun Tzu tactics? Have any of you doubting an advantage in higher ground ever read Sun Tzu? He talked constantly about taking higher ground, obviously there was a reason for it.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Didnt they claim this game was based on Sun Tzu tactics? Have any of you doubting an advantage in higher ground ever read Sun Tzu? He talked constantly about taking higher ground, obviously there was a reason for it.

The guy who has the height controls the battle. It applies in air combat, in ground combat, in any combat.

[sillyfrenchman]

Same here. I spent time maneuvering my archers up a hill, must have been 30 feet of elevation. As soon as they got into range, the enemy archers shot mine.

This shouldn't have been possible, not at this steep an elevation. Patch please.

[Crazyeyesreaper]

eitherway its annoying to not have the bonus there are many battles ive fought where ive had huge height advantages but its wasted, 60-70 feet above the enemy army. due to the BS i now just use bow monks as they have the longest range of any archers

[Ragerancher]

Games don't use painfully detailed physics models. Fact of life. Once you accept and understand this, things will be a lot easier for you to grasp. Things like why the simple model he used is legit, as well as why it justifies not using height as a factor.

They don't need to. They simply need to recognise that height is an advantage. Also, I'd like to question his 45 degrees for optimum range. When firing to a target at equal height it is, but I'm pretty sure that when firing at a target at lower range, a slightly lower angle is actually better, due to there being a greater horizontal component of velocity when the arrow reaches the same height, and thus travelling further horizontally afterwards than the 45 degrees arrow. I can't be bothered to do all the maths for it though. Add that to what the other guy said about there also being a disadvantage for the archer lower down, I guess the total range difference could be 4% or so.

[CenTen]

I think this sums it upp pretty good. If you imagine moving the line d up to where the θ sign is you get an idea of how much range is lost.

Here's another example I made up, though it might be slightly less telling:

[darkfng]

I would also like this back. As one poster said on the last page, I only need a small advantage from the higher ground to be able to position my archers behind my infantry. Exactly where they want to be, the cowards.

CA programmed it before, they can program it again. If worthless computations are the problem they can leave AA out permanently and add back in one of the key elements of battle strategy game.

[Gaidin]

Leaving out AA wouldn't free up any processing for the arrow physics you want.