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

[gromda]

Oh, yeah. archers!! It annoys me that my unit of archers behind castles walls and above the enemy archers get wiped out and they lose only a few. Plus my archers deplete their arrows in the first five minuts of battle and the enemy just keeps on keeping on. Archers out in the open and below their opponents should get annihilated.

[SonOfCrusader76]

The things that bug me about archers in this game are:

No noticeable bonus for height.
There's not enough of an advantage for defending archers in a siege.
Even though there's no way they can see you, a load of archers on the outside can drop arrows right down on your heads. When firing at a target that's so far out of the line of sight, they should miss more than they hit - right now it's the other way round.

[rob-a-dogg]

There's not enough of an advantage for defending archers in a siege.

Ive had 3 bow ashugaru slaughter the balls off 6 bow samurai

seems pretty good to me.

[SonOfCrusader76]

The archers in a castle die far too easily - they should be able to duck when the enemy loose their arrows.

[DeMolay]

This thread should be a sticky , it is important that CA see this serious flaw and fix it in their next patch ASAP

[dowdpride]

so let me get this straight. i am standing on a large escarpment. my enemy is in the plains below me. i dont have a longer range then him?

[Solar]

so let me get this straight. i am standing on a large escarpment. my enemy is in the plains below me. i dont have a longer range then him?

straight as an arrow, if you pardon the pun.

[priam11]

This has to be addressed. There are times where the AI took up good defensive positions on a hill and I said to myself as I attacked "Good thing there are no height advantages for bowmen".

[dowdpride]

straight as an arrow, if you pardon the pun.

that is quite honestly the most absurd piece of garbage i have ever heard. if i have an advantage of 100 feet over my enemy, i can shoot further, and i know because i have done it before

[Mighty_Rome]

that is quite honestly the most absurd piece of garbage i have ever heard. if i have an advantage of 100 feet over my enemy, i can shoot further, and i know because i have done it before

I completely agree. It is absolutely unfathomable how anyone ever thought that this was a good choice.

I don't want to hear any excuses from CA about how much more processing power would be needed, or if this would have been somehow "difficult" to accomplish, because that just isn't true... and you don't have to be a programmer to know that (for the record, I am), because even in MTW2 this was modeled a lot better than it is now. It was just an idiotic decision, plain and simple.

One of the things I enjoy most is using terrain advantages to maximize my archers effectiveness, and now it's gone. Good thing I never got tired of Stainless Steel or EB...

[Perilix]

I've noticed this too, it is quite absurd when as soon as you launch a volley of arrows from your heightened position of a castle wall, the enemy can immediately return fire from the same distance. Even if they only got one extra volley off from the castle wall before the enemy archers got in range, it would be sufficent enough for me. It just seems odd that they haven't implemented this in Shogun where, from what I can recall, it was implemented in Rome and M2 to some extent.

[Puzzlemaker]

The visible range doesn't change, but does it change the actual range?

[BunnyPoopCereal]

hm.. i don't think they do but why would u want to make archers stronger? They are already extremely effective when properly used.

[Chees3]

I tested and confirmed this. the visual and actual range are the same .Only advantage of being on a hill now is increased arrow damage due to gravity.

[Ragss]

I've also been noticing that arrows just generally seem to fly very slowly. Is this accurate? Does the speed of an arrow degrade that much by the time it reaches its target?

[SonOfCrusader76]

I've also been noticing that arrows just generally seem to fly very slowly. Is this accurate? Does the speed of an arrow degrade that much by the time it reaches its target?

I don't think so - I saw a documentary about this and I'm sure it said that the arrow accelerates on the way back down - makes sense; gravity and all that.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Noticed something odd just now - my lot were on a hill and were being hit by the enemy, who were below us. Same thing happened in a siege - a bunch on the outside seemed able to easily hit a bunch on the inside who couldn't hit them - it appears to me that the range bonus is for those on the lower ground - and that's just plain wrong. CA, please sort this out, it's ruining one of the key tactics of archer warfare.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Noticed something odd just now - my lot were on a hill and were being hit by the enemy, who were below us. Same thing happened in a siege - a bunch on the outside seemed able to easily hit a bunch on the inside who couldn't hit them - it appears to me that the range bonus is for those on the lower ground - and that's just plain wrong. CA, please sort this out, it's ruining one of the key tactics of archer warfare.

Has anyone else noticed that? Not having a bonus for height is bad enough - but a bonus for being lower?

[Fijgum]

I guess it's not as much as a problem of increased range but DEcreased range for the attacker.
For visualization I just drew a picture. Both archers are the same, just copied and mirrored. I know the arc is not perfect, it's just an estimated 45° angle to show the problem of shooting upwards. You have to increase the angle which decreases the range.

[Blom89]

Range bonus.

Its whats for breakfast.