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

[Totalheadache]

I found playing (VH) even when defending enemy archers will cause massive casualties if you are defending. Even placing them against the walls your forces will get hit. I end up playing cat and mouse a bit. I feel walls should have given more protection...

And I agree with OP. Archers should get a range bonus on hills...

[Aykis16]

Height absolutely should matter and I've also been disappointed that this feature is now gone from the games. On a hill, you can get a farther distance firing at the same angle as the enemy because your arrow will keep traveling past the point when it would have hit the ground if you were on flat ground, while the enemy's arrows will come up a little shorter if they fire at the same angle because they'll hit the ground sooner in their arc. If they adjust the angle higher to reach you that shortens the range as well. There definitely should be a range advantage.

Here's a physics calculator I found online. Obviously it doesn't take into account wind or anything (but neither does TW, something I thought would be interesting if they put in land battles because that would have an impact on arrows as well) but it makes the point well.

Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 0 meters, we get 500 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 5 meters, we get 505 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 10 meters, we get 510 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 20 meters, we get 519 m range.
Inputing 70 meter/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 30 meters, we get 528 m range.

Now at some of those distances the range difference looks negligible right? Wrong. What we also FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, was that the opposing archers are not firing at a height of 0 meters. The bloody hill is in the way! The calculations for 0 meter assume that they fire from flat ground and it hits flat ground, but the hill is going to stop the arc. So we have to calculate from NEGATIVE height for them.

So lets take the height in negatives and find the range now:

Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of -5 meters, we get 495 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of -10 meters, we get 490 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of -20 meters, we get 480 m range.
Inputing 70 meters/sec as the initial velocity of the arrow at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of -30 meters, we get 468 m range.

So now lets see the difference in range at certain heights if velocity (70 m/s) and angle (45 degrees) are the same:

At 0 meters the range for both archers is 500 m, a difference of 0 m.
At 5 meters the range for hill archers is 505 m, the range for ground archers is 495 m, a difference of 10 m.
At 10 meters the range for hill archers is 510 m, the range for ground archers is 490 m, a difference of 30 m.
At 20 meters the range for hill archers is 519 m, the range for ground archers is 480 m, a difference of 39 m.
At 30 meters, the range for hill archers is 528 m, the range for ground archers is 468 m, a difference of 60 m.

These are SIGNIFICANT differences.

In conclusion: CA definitely should give Archers a range advantage on hills, like they did in every other Total War game ever.

[Floy]

Here's a physics calculator I found online. Obviously it doesn't take into account wind or anything (but neither does TW, something I thought would be interesting if they put in land battles because that would have an impact on arrows as well) but it makes the point well.

Hi

I've been a lurker for a while, but this post interested me, since I, too, has been somewhat annoyed that arrows do not gain extra range from elevation.

Then I read a post in this thread, claiming that elevation did not have such a big impact on range, after all. The problem is that all posts I've seen on this here, are extremely simplistic in that they do not take air drag into account.

So I sat down and made a small simulation.

Source code:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

 
 
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
int main(void)
{
  double angle, theta, elevation, x,y,v,v_x,v_y,x_max, angle_max;
  const double pi = 3.14;
  const double g = 9.81;
  const double v_init = 100;     /* Initial velocity */
  const double k = 0.00375;      /* Drag coefficient */
  const double dt = 0.001;       /* Time delta */
  for(elevation=-50;elevation <= 50;elevation += 5) {
    x_max = 0;
    for(angle=0; angle < pi/2; angle += pi/180){
      x=0;
      y=elevation;
      v=v_init;
      v_y = 1;
      theta = angle;
      while (y>=0 || v_y > 0 ) {
        v_x = v*cos(theta);
        v_y = v*sin(theta);
        x += dt*v_x;
        y += dt*v_y;
        v_y -= dt * g;
        v = sqrt(v_x*v_x + v_y*v_y);
        theta = atan(v_y/v_x);
        v -= v*v*k*dt; 
      }
      if (x>x_max) {
        x_max = x;
        angle_max = angle;
      }
    }
    printf("Elevation: %2.0f Optimal angle: %2.0f degrees Max range: %5.1f \n", elevation, angle_max * 180/pi,x_max);
  }
  return 0;
}

For arrow drag, i used the following link: http://freespace.virgin.net/billy.la.../docs/drag.pdf

Drag is assumed to be opposite to the direction of motion, which is somewhat simplistic, as arrows would really also gain some lift from a drag component perpendicular to the direction of motion. This would slightly increase range, at the cost of additional loss of energy.

Oh, and should you find any bugs in my code, please let me know

Output:

Elevation: -50 Optimal angle: 42 degrees Max range: 285.4 
Elevation: -45 Optimal angle: 41 degrees Max range: 289.0 
Elevation: -40 Optimal angle: 41 degrees Max range: 292.5 
Elevation: -35 Optimal angle: 40 degrees Max range: 296.0 
Elevation: -30 Optimal angle: 39 degrees Max range: 299.3 
Elevation: -25 Optimal angle: 39 degrees Max range: 302.6 
Elevation: -20 Optimal angle: 38 degrees Max range: 305.8 
Elevation: -15 Optimal angle: 38 degrees Max range: 308.9 
Elevation: -10 Optimal angle: 37 degrees Max range: 312.0 
Elevation: -5 Optimal angle: 37 degrees Max range: 315.0 
Elevation:  0 Optimal angle: 36 degrees Max range: 317.9 
Elevation:  5 Optimal angle: 36 degrees Max range: 320.8 
Elevation: 10 Optimal angle: 35 degrees Max range: 323.6 
Elevation: 15 Optimal angle: 35 degrees Max range: 326.3 
Elevation: 20 Optimal angle: 35 degrees Max range: 329.0 
Elevation: 25 Optimal angle: 34 degrees Max range: 331.6 
Elevation: 30 Optimal angle: 34 degrees Max range: 334.2 
Elevation: 35 Optimal angle: 33 degrees Max range: 336.7 
Elevation: 40 Optimal angle: 33 degrees Max range: 339.2 
Elevation: 45 Optimal angle: 33 degrees Max range: 341.5 
Elevation: 50 Optimal angle: 32 degrees Max range: 343.9

Units used are SI (meters), and initial velocity is set to 100 m/s. This lead to ranges that seem realistic to me, for a yumi.

As can be seen, it is always optimal to choose a lower than a 45 degree angle, since the arrow will lose too much energy from the longer arc, due to drag.

Ranges are also shorter than what was obtained by the physics calculator, dispite having a 25 m/s greater starting velocity.

From my calculations, standing on top of a 10meter tall castle wall, would give a range advantage of about 12 meters. (Comparing elevation of 10 to an elevation of -10.) While this is not completely insignificant, it is probably less than the effect would be of a slight breeze.

For larger differences in elevation, the effect is a bit larger, but they stay within what you could compensate for with a moderate downwind. Assuming that whoever is assaulting a hill can choose from which direction they attack, I guess that the range gained from elevation is not a primary concern.

Btw, these ranges are maximum ranges. If the game makes a mistake with respect to arrows, it is that it doesn't properly take into account the reduction in lethality that occurs when an arrow loses energy at long range. At maximum range, an arrow would have no chance at penetrating armor. And because of the very high drag at high velocities, initial energy loss would primarily be caused by distance travelled, and not so much by a small difference in elevation. In other words, small differences in elevation would not play a big role in the ability of arrows to penetrate armor.

My conclusion is that, even if not perfect, the range in S2 is closer to the truth that the grossly exaggerated range advantages gained in earlier titles.

[Floy]

Oh and welcome to the forums sir.. are you sure your not Sim? or a CA employee?

I am me, thank you. Neither Sim nor CA.

rise over the run?
m = (4 - 2) ÷ (5 - 1)
m = 2 / 4
m = .5

Not quite sure what you mean to calculate here.

[Righteous Fury]

I was bound and determined to stay out of this one, but seeing Aykis16's info, I agree...
PUT IT BACK IN!

[Thefallenhun]

I think we all have to take into account that this is a REGIMENT of bowmen, not one single bowman, and so the fire arc sort of takes an average of the varying skills of the individual bowpeoples. I think its valid to say that the CA people could have easily included this, because it was a feature of older games, but perhaps they didn't want to, either because they felt it wouldn't affect gameplay terribly, or it caused some sort of imbalance. Your melee troops and cavalry definately get a height bonus, so capping that terrain matters. It also gives your archers a better view of the battlefield and more protection from melee troops.

I think the math shows it gives a small range bonus sure.
But complaining will not make the code appear.
So either mod it.
Or change your gameplay to accomodate it.

[Aykis16]

I think we all have to take into account that this is a REGIMENT of bowmen, not one single bowman, and so the fire arc sort of takes an average of the varying skills of the individual bowpeoples.

We're not talking about real life. In real life there are a whole bunch of other factors, including the arrows hitting each other in mid-air, wind, etc. This is computer code with physics enabled. And as I demonstrated above, hills give a significant range bonus. Now something else that should be affected by range is accuracy. Bowman who are on a hill will be able to hit opposing forces farther, but accuracy will be decreased.

And as for "Change your gameplay" I'm still going to take hills because its still effective, but its also something I think CA should look into adding for future patches, a slight-medium range increase for archers on hill, as well as an accuracy decrease at those extended ranges. We'll be able to fire sooner, but these volleys won't hit as much as when they're within normal ranges.

[CenTen]

Great now, we only need to get someone from CA to notice this thread. Good luck with that.

[Deathstar]

Am I the only one who is not bothered at all by hills not making archers OP?

[Ferdiad]

Yes you are ALONE.HAHAHHAHA.

[Auditor]

Vote for sticky. This thread should be noticed by CA and the issue should be patched.

[Maizel]

I'm pretty sure they don't gain any range bonuses.

I can pull a straight line through some hills, flatlands and some other hills, and the range cones, still end neatly next to eachother.

Vote for sticky. This thread should be noticed by CA and the issue should be patched.

Seeing that this feature was in pretty much every TW game before it, I doubt it's a bug, but rather a technical limitation or a design choice.

[CenTen]

Archers are way too strong anyway. A single volley kills like a quarter of a Yari Ashigarus strenght when in tight formation. Now THAT is unrealistic.

[Aykis16]

Archers are way too strong anyway. A single volley kills like a quarter of a Yari Ashigarus strenght when in tight formation. Now THAT is unrealistic.

You mean if 120 men fire arrows at 120 lightly armored men with no shields tightly packed together, they shouldn't kill/wound a bunch of them?

[SonOfOdin]

Archers are way too strong anyway. A single volley kills like a quarter of a Yari Ashigarus strenght when in tight formation. Now THAT is unrealistic.

You mean if 120 men fire arrows at 120 lightly armored men with no shields tightly packed together, they shouldn't kill/wound a bunch of them?

[lesterthenerd]

actually if any1 is saying you dont get more range they are wrong cause i just played a battle where i did notice my archers could fire further away.

[Blackthorne]

actually if any1 is saying you dont get more range they are wrong cause i just played a battle where i did notice my archers could fire further away.

I've done some tests on this and it seems like archers don't get a range bonus from higher up. The tests I did were as follows.

1. The control test, one unit of bow Ashigaru per side on the rice fields custom battle map (since it's flat), me as defender against the AI. The AI walks right to the edge of my range and opens fire.

2. Two bow ashigaru for the AI against me with one, me as defender again. I positioned my unit on top of a cliff, so a big height advantage, once again the AI walked right to the edge of my range and openned fire. Note that I gave the AI two units because with equal forces they would charge into melee every time, presumably the AI decided it was at a disavantage in a shooting war.

3. I took two bow ashigaru into one of the castle seige maps, I put at a wall and the other at the base directly below it. The one at ground level had a range that extended further, the difference was about how much further forward they were than the archers above them due to the slope of the wall.

Obviously these tests are far from definitive, nothing short of confirmation from CA would be, but it does look like there's no range bonus due to height. I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature but it isn't right. It does seem like a strange thing to change on purpose though.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I had my bow units on a hill and they could fire farther than the radius showed. Dunno if it was a bug, but I'd assume its intended.

[Gaidin]

I had my bow units on a hill and they could fire farther than the radius showed. Dunno if it was a bug, but I'd assume its intended.

It's probably not a matter of whether they can fire farther but a matter of if they will. If they're not programmed to register an enemy as in range until a certain point it wont matter if they are or not.

[Commander Keen]

I don't think it's as bad as it's been in Medieval 2 or Rome. In those, if you fired on guys just at the range, and then they started running away, the arrows would start flying halfway across the map to land on them.