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

[adiuvat]

@Floy: I agree with almost everything in your post- except that that 12 meter differential isn't worth modeling. *It lets your archers get the first salvo in unopposed, while the enemy are still marching in to set up.* Maybe even the first *two* salvoes.

That's huge given how much damage initial salvoes do.

Granted, granted, it's not a big effect. It should be moddable by parameter, so the community can play with it and come up different ideas.

To not have it modeled at all is inexcusable in such a generally badass title.

[Floy]

@Floy: I agree with almost everything in your post- except that that 12 meter differential isn't worth modeling. *It lets your archers get the first salvo in unopposed, while the enemy are still marching in to set up.* Maybe even the first *two* salvoes.

Well, I also think it's worth modelling, but not more important than modelling things such as wind, reduced deadliness (and accuracy) at range or the range increase that should be given the slightly better trained samurai as compared to ashigaru archers.

I think part of the reason whe put such emphasis on this issue, is that currently long range volleys are way too effective. If effectiveness at range were reduced to a realistic level, the whole issue would be far less important.

Still, if we can increase the realism by modifying the game's tables, I would surely be interested.

[adiuvat]

I think part of the reason whe put such emphasis on this issue, is that currently long range volleys are way too effective. If effectiveness at range were reduced to a realistic level, the whole issue would be far less important.

True as far as this: we put this emphasis on the modeling of archery because it's extremely effective. I don't think it is *too* effective though, as the both humans and AI are generally very successful in wiping out opposing archers.

Modeling wind would be a really good idea. It would require the AI to be intelligent about attacking from upwind though. Fort battles would totally change their character.

[SonOfCrusader76]

So no evidence of a range bonus for elevation post patch then?

[adiuvat]

Nope.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Sorry for the necro, but has this issue even been acknowledged by CA in the meantime?

[Kopimi]

would really kill MP if there was range increase for hill campers

[Piobmhor]

would really kill MP if there was range increase for hill campers

Why do I care if I don't play MP? I don't understand why every friggin game has to sacrifice realism and playability on the altar of MP balance. Why can't developers create two kinds of rule sets when it comes to balancing? I play SP only, so why should I be affected by some peoples' hill top camping?

[Humble Warrior]

Why do I care if I don't play MP? I don't understand why every friggin game has to sacrifice realism and playability on the altar of MP balance. Why can't developers create two kinds of rule sets when it comes to balancing? I play SP only, so why should I be affected by some peoples' hill top camping?

In this case I agree.

It`s amazing watching how most of the MP players start sweating rivers as anyone mentions even slightly increasing range for anyone on a hill. the fear is so great and their ability to cope and figure ways around it so low that they don`t even realise that the advantage wouldn`t actually be that big. You`d probably get one extra volley off only.

[Gralachthule]

In this case I agree.

It`s amazing watching how most of the MP players start sweating rivers as anyone mentions even slightly increasing range for anyone on a hill. the fear is so great and their ability to cope and figure ways around it so low that they don`t even realise that the advantage wouldn`t actually be that big. You`d probably get one extra volley off only.

Do you even play mutliplayer? Because you mention things like "ability to cope and figure ways around it is so low" without actually offering simple solutions (because as we all know, there are no drawbacks to getting increased range) that makes me think you have no real idea what we're actually talking about, nor do you understand the issue with it.

So unless you're really high up in the ladder and you win most of your games online you really shouldn't talk about such things as if the other Players are clueless idiots. Chances are high that they aren't and know better how to play the game at a competitive level than you do. If the answer to hill camping was easy you wouldn't see so many people complain about it.

[Gralachthule]

double post

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Why do I care if I don't play MP? I don't understand why every friggin game has to sacrifice realism and playability on the altar of MP balance. Why can't developers create two kinds of rule sets when it comes to balancing? I play SP only, so why should I be affected by some peoples' hill top camping?

Err the mathematically proven fact is that the effect is not that big, so the game got it right?

[daniu]

The extended range wouldn't even help campers in MP much, because it's not like the non-camper is going to approach exactly into the area where their opponent can shoot and he can't.
One volley more? Big deal at max range.

Err the mathematically proven fact is that the effect is not that big, so the game got it right?

I said it before, some people get their idea of reality from Medieval 2.

What should be implemented for high ground is limited line of sight, which gets improved for elevated positions; up to the extreme of not seeing enemy units in castles at all so you would have to fire over the wall blindly.

[daniu]

Realism too.

[Point_Man]

Well I'm glad there is no increase to the range or else the hill camping tree huggers will just have an ever increasing edge over me.

[spicykorean]

I was agreeing with Gralachtule until he said, "So unless you're really high up in the ladder and you win most of your games online you..."

He lost me at that point.

[Gralachthule]

I was agreeing with Gralachtule until he said, "So unless you're really high up in the ladder and you win most of your games online you..."

He lost me at that point.

If he was in the Top 10 there would be no discussion about his knowledge of gameplay and tactics in MP; someone who is up there has undoubtly fought and won most of his games even against hill campers. As he basically says that people that play Multiplayer are just way too stupid to figure out how to deal with hills, he must certainly know how to deal with hills himself in an extremely efficient manner. Hence he must be very high in the ladder if he wins all the time against people who have no clue about the game ...

Alas, I don't think he has played online at all, so It does not matter anyway .

[Point_Man]

If he was in the Top 10 there would be no discussion about his knowledge of gameplay and tactics in MP; someone who is up there has undoubtly fought and won most of his games even against hill campers. As he basically says that people that play Multiplayer are just way too stupid to figure out how to deal with hills, he must certainly know how to deal with hills himself in an extremely efficient manner. Hence he must be very high in the ladder if he wins all the time against people who have no clue about the game ...

Alas, I don't think he has played online at all, so It does not matter anyway .

I'm Uesugi and my opponent is Chosokabe. I try to slow a match down so my opponent will focus on a part of my army I'm not really moving around and then I strike indirectly at the hill.

This video recording is from my opponent's perspective.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Greve Af Göteborg]

How about using wind as a feature? Rip the feature from the naval battles and put it in the land battles. The archers that have the wind in their favour will receive further range, but the wind is dynamic so it will switch all the time, making it oh so much more important to time your attacks correctly.

If you don't like this, Flame on!