Greater Missile Impact on Higher Grounds

[Sir_Hawkwood]

From experience, rather than carefull custom battle testing, I'd say, yes...

I had half a weak stack(English), very high up on a slope, Vs half a stack of strong of French.

I only had 2 units of peasant archers (hands up who forgot the Longbows?) who resisted every attempt of the French to climb the mount.
Every unit that reached the top was wavering ("Give them fire") and easily routed.
Best bit was seeing the French General's unit routed by 30 odd spearmen...

Great fight, and certainly what I'll do next time theres a steep hill (and the AI chooses to ignore the passivity bug)...

Wish I'd been able to record it... I would have forced the Wench to watch it...

Many thanks
SJH

[Doug-Thompson]

My Mamaluk archers who are uphill, however slightly, routinely get twice or more as many kills on units as Mamaluks of the same unit size and quality who are downhill and firing at the enemy from an equal range and angle of attack.

[BeeSting]

I can think of couple of factors why we get the impression that real physics (things being thrown down will hit things harder) are involved:

1. Missile units on lower grounds have to run up while under fire to get in range to shoot at those above them. Consequently they will have fewer men to shoot back when they are in range/position to shoot.
2. While running uphill to get in range to shoot they are tired out and become less affective.

[wzup]

The answer is yes,, i remember that the rtw advisor covered this