Archers...

**c.ryo** · March 21, 2011, 12:16 PM

This is simply annoying and unrealistic. I had a smaller army ambushing slightly bigger army of enemy forces. Terrain consists of hills and forests so i put my archers near a small mountain where they are far above the ground and in bushes. Rest of the units are far below. Battle starts and after couple of seconds i notice that my archer unit that has superb defense position has sustained more then 60% casualties. I pause the game and take a look at what is happening. Ashigaru unit of archers standing far below is shooting up the mountain and is annihilating my units up the hill. This ridiculous. When a unit stands above the ground it does not give him line of sight bonus, so he is equal to a unit that sands far below. I cant imagine what a unit of samurai archers can do in that situation then. Who was balancing the game in CA? A clown?

**Dileos** · March 21, 2011, 12:18 PM

This, among other things is why I cringe every time the map has features larger than a molehill.

**Thoragoros** · March 21, 2011, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dileos

This, among other things is why I cringe every time the map has features larger than a molehill.

Agreed.

That the fact that hilly terrain really botches up the AI armies.

**Dileos** · March 21, 2011, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Agreed.

That the fact that hilly terrain really botches up the AI armies.

I especially love the hill camping AI.

**Thefallenhun** · March 22, 2011, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dileos

I especially love the hill camping AI.

Its even more fun in multiplayer to face hill campers, at least in SP, you can say the AI has the defensive perrogative if you are the attacker, so you have to be aggressive.

**dutch81** · March 21, 2011, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by c.ryo

A clown?

I don't think that needed to be said.

But, I do agree that there should be a greater advantage to holding the high ground besides the morale bonus and the fatigue factor. It used to be a feature in previous titles hopefully it is something they can patch in.

**johnhughthom** · March 21, 2011, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by c.ryo

Who was balancing the game in CA? A clown?

Originally Posted by dutch81

I don't think that needed to be said.

I think it did, height not effecting range of archers is an absolute joke. I spent ages in my first battle positioning my troops to give my archers an advantage, then I found out I had wasted my time.

**romanlegion13th** · March 21, 2011, 12:43 PM

i do agree to really anoying

**The_Fan** · March 21, 2011, 02:17 PM

This game is a classic case of one step forward and two steps back. I do like the new and improved features but it is pathetic how they seem to have broken features that worked fine in previous games. Hopefully mods will fix these issues as I have very little faith in CA's willingness to patch them.

**Googoo24** · March 21, 2011, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by The_Fan

This game is a classic case of one step forward and two steps back. I do like the new and improved features but it is pathetic how they seem to have broken features that worked fine in previous games. Hopefully mods will fix these issues as I have very little faith in CA's willingness to patch them.

Two steps back? In comparison to what? Definitely not Empire or MTW2.

**pulpnonfiction** · March 21, 2011, 02:19 PM

The worst thing is when you are in a fort and the enemy arches can't see your units AT ALL, but they are still able to pinpoint individual units, like your genereal (even while he is moving) and completely rape them.

**Daneboy** · March 21, 2011, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by pulpnonfiction

The worst thing is when you are in a fort and the enemy arches can't see your units AT ALL, but they are still able to pinpoint individual units, like your genereal (even while he is moving) and completely rape them.

Without the need for patches, CA would be out of jobs between releases.

**GaMMwl** · March 21, 2011, 02:51 PM

I'm defending a hill right now. OMFG! Agree with OP.

**Grimstoned** · March 21, 2011, 03:00 PM

I would like the "High ground bonus" patched in also. Please (in case CA is reading).

**Relativista** · March 21, 2011, 07:15 PM

I think there should be a bonus for lifting the ground -- '

**fishcop444** · March 21, 2011, 07:35 PM

I totally agree with OP's basic idea. There seems to be little or no advantage to holding the high ground for missile units. For me, the worst thing that never gets fixed in TW games is the ridiculous "friendly fire" atrocities that your missile units commit.

**Aykis16** · March 21, 2011, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by fishcop444

I totally agree with OP's basic idea. There seems to be little or no advantage to holding the high ground for missile units. For me, the worst thing that never gets fixed in TW games is the ridiculous "friendly fire" atrocities that your missile units commit.

What do you mean? That your units should not kill your own men if they hit them? Or that they keep firing at a target that is engaged with your own men even though they are doing just as much damage to you as to the enemy?

If you mean the second one, then yes, I'd like that fixed a little. Units shouldn't target units that are engaged with your own melee units unless specifically ordered.

**bushranger** · March 21, 2011, 08:14 PM

I think forest are far more annoying,archers nearly become invincible against arrows but can shoot back out of the forest without any problem.The reason archers dont get big advantage on hills is because it would destroy MP battles,but it should be in SP.

**magman** · March 22, 2011, 09:32 AM

I think controlling friendly fire is a fundamental part of commanding a battlefield. Arrows should gain damage and armor penetration from altitude, to be sure. I also find it a bit weird that my samurai archers can decimate people they can't even see with indirect fire.