Defending archers do not do enough damage in siege.

[Shahed]

Particularly elite archers such as Retinue Longbowmen, do not do enough damage in sieges.

It looks to me as the targetting mechanics is fuzzy on this one. The archers don't shoot what's RIGHT IN FRONT fo them but aim high and the massive arc makes the projectile impact much less devastating, it seems. I've been playing England, defensive at Antwerp, as everyone wants that town and it's a great place to slaughter HRE, Danes, French. Retinues do about 30 kills at maximum per siege battle. They also seem to have a hard time targetting units approaching the walls and gate, even though all they have to do is shoot straight. When they do actually shoot straight they obviously get more kills.

Of course I've been deploying them one rank deep etc, so no n00b tactics as far as I can see.

Imagine them being up there on the wall with a clear shot for 150 meters, a longbowman's dream.

IMO this needs official tweaking. I'm still trying to figure out how I can change it myself.

[Daveybaby]

It seems like they cant get a direct line of fire - i.e. the wall itself is blocking them, and thus they fire in a 'parabolic' trajectory rather than a direct one - thus missing a lot more and doing less damage when they do actually hit.

People have documented archers on walls firing nearly straight up in order to hit enemy units close to the wall.

[Miracle]

This is a fairly well known bug.

It is caused by the merlons of the battlements preventing a clear line of sight for many missile users on the walls. As a result they are forced to shoot either over them or through the tiny crenels.

The obvious solution is simply to shorten the height of the parapet to about waist-height.

Terminology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlement

[Lusted]

Well with 1.2 missile units work much better on walls, with them actually shooting though the crenels, but archers still favour the high shot. But if you reduce the max angle for arrows to 45, most will shoot through the crenels whilst those behind fire at the max angle which still allows them to do a lot of damage.

[FactionHeir]

Actually I found that they shoot better if you put them max ranks deep on the wall and clustered against one of the towers.

[Shahed]

Thanks for the replies all. That explains everything. Where can I change the max angle to 45 ? Is it possible to mod the battlements so they no longer obstruct the archers' line of fire ?

FH when you deployed them that deep, were they shooting up or straight. When I deployed them 2 ranks deep, as a test, I found they did even less damage. I was assuming if I deployed them deeper still the damage would reduce porportionately.

It would be better if 2-3 groups of elite missile troops could do more damage in this defensive situation. They are protected by the battlements, supported by the towers, have nowhere to run to, they are elite marksmen.

BTW Sherwoods do better in siege.

Does anyone know how the unit's projectile accuracy is determined.

Thanks for the help.

Salute !

[Lusted]

Where can I change the max angle to 45 ?

descr_projectiles.txt

Is it possible to mod the battlements so they no longer obstruct the archers' line of fire ?

Nope.

[Shahed]

Thanks. blaaaaaaaaaarg!!!!! Official fix is required for this.

[Lusted]

Well all it really needs is the projectile max angles bieng reduced, then missile units work like they should on walls. Only being able to shoot through crenels, but with archers and crossbows back ranks being able to fire over the battlements if they do not have a clear line of fire.

[Shahed]

How does it affect battle performance ?

[Lusted]

Well in field battles it just prevents the parabolic arc shot, in sieges it seems to improve things a bit.

[Shahed]

I'm asking coz I don't want to mess up the archers in battles. they do just fine there. Does it have any negative impact on battles ? It does'nt I suppose ?

[Lusted]

Well it just means archers wont fire at as high an angle, and will sometimes lead to the front rank of archers not firing if they are too close to the rear ranks of some of your units.

[Didz]

I suspect the developers were presented with a 'hobson's choice' over wall archers.

In theory, the battlements should not block the line of sight of missile troops on the walls, but if the battlements were dropped so that the wall archers could avoid using a 'parabolic' trajectory then I suspect that the archers of the assaulting army would also be able to target them using direct fire.

What is needed is some sort of recognition that the battlements are not an obstacle blocking vision but a shield protecting those behind it.

Incidently, I don't think crossbowmen are so badly affected by this problem. Certainly those in the rear ranks resort to 'parabolic fire' but I'm sure the ones in the front fire direct. That might be true of archers too but I just haven't noticed. I also trend to do the same as FactionHier and mass my archers in deep blocks on the walls so my results may be better anyway.

[Shahed]

Hmm ok thanks. Will need to do some testing.

[Miracle]

Perhaps a more sophisticated and permanent way CA can fix this is to have the archers load behind the merlons and then move in front of the crenels to shoot, moving back behind the merlons to reload.

Soldiers within a unit can alternate shooting and reloading a la musketeers.

It's extremely realistic and increases both firepower and survivability.

[Husar]

A solution from CA may be enabling shooting through the battlements from the inside but not from the outside. Might not be the best solution graphically, but if you want the best graphical solution, they'd have to get special animations for shhoting down from the top etc, which would be more work than anyone would put into a patch.

[Obadiah]

This thread, together with other bits I've read about the animation timing issue (bug?) brings up an interesting question for me: what is the relationship between the computer-modelled outcome of each combat volley (arrow volley, swing of the sword, etc.), and the graphic representation of the battle? I'd always assumed that the graphics were kind of eye-candy more-or-less illustrating the outcome of what the computer has already determined to be the mathematically calculated outcome of each combat interaction. These discussions make it appear as if the combat outcome is in fact determined (at least in part) by the graphic presentation. Comments?

[econ21]

These discussions make it appear as if the combat outcome is in fact determined (at least in part) by the graphic presentation.

It's true. I believe it partly explains the 2H bug (which, IIRC, some people fixed by using alternate animations). I was surprised a while ago when Qwerty of the EB team said animations have a huge influence over combats in RTW. The stats alone don't tell the whole story.

I suspect the same was not true of melee combat in STW or MTW, perhaps because the animations were cruder or more uniform. (Not sure about missile combat).

[Shahed]

I would say the two are related, and do not exclude each other, agreeing with you that both determine the result. Although I have no hard evidence on this. I'm sure others who know more about the mechanics do.

[Daveybaby]

I read an interview with a CA bod somewhere that stated that they didnt do collision detections on models in order to determine hits and misses, but its pretty clear that the rates of attacks are determined by the model animations.

I'm guessing the code structure looks something like this:

loop
    perform calculations to determine attack/defend hit/miss result (effectively instantaneous)
    play appropriate result animation (takes some time)
until (its time to do something else)

[Obadiah]

Davey- That makes a lot of sense.

But then I'm confused about the archer-on-battlement situation. Does the computer make adjustments to archer hit rates based on such graphical issues as battlement wall height, and required angle of trajectory??? This obviously COULD be done, but it seems a pretty fine-tooth approach, especially considering other calcs, like giving spears depth of rank bonuses, have apparently been removed from the game.

I'd imagine that the computer does something for archers like (base unit type probability) +(adjustments for: topographical height differential, target armor, forests, nighttime)= probability. This would work for 95% of all situations, and avoids complications from attempting excessive situational precision. I thought the game would obviously include such "zero" factors as no shooting through castle walls, and would adjust animations to be internally consistent, but otherwise that's that.

Given the original poster's comments, this doesn't seem to be the situation. Rather, there's another adjustment for "angle of fire", which sounds simple enough on the face, but this would require the game to do a lot of fundamental geometry based on elevations, intervening obstacles (battlements) and maintain a much more sophisticated 3D locational database than I'd have ever imagined. Wow.

I should note that: (1) I agree that archers should in general do more damage to troops approaching the walls (or in the courtyard directly beneath them) than they do; and (2) I'm not a modder, and clearly don't really know how the game calculates anything!

cheers!

[Shahed]

I'm of the view that the engine is considering most obstacles in the archer's line of fire.

I'm not 100% sure if this applies to smaller objects such as trees, but I've done some tests with Sherwood Forresters in ... a forest (remarkably), and outside in a less dense but still wooded area. I think it does apply to smaller objects too, like a big rock, a person etc.

The archers in the trees who had vegetation obstacles fired at a different angle than if they were out in the clearing. They got the most kills if they had a clean straight line of fire or when the trajectory was less than 25-30 degrees and hence they got more kills when there was no object (trees included) in front of them. Again I don't know for sure if they consider the tree to be there oir not. But it's clear that they do consider the embattlement to be there.

The game is doing the type of geometry you are talking about, whether it's graphical only or computational and graphical, someone else will have to answer that.

It's definetly an issue though.

Currently an archer will do more damage (i.e kills) on a flat field, than atop a wall, protected and with a brilliant clear shot directly in front of him, from equal distance. This kind of defeats the whole point of siege defence.

Cheers ! :)

[FactionHeir]

IMO the siege defences are perfect for the attacker only. Once you capture the battlements you can have a free view at the defenders :)

[Shahed]

True ! I always try to get the walls even though it can cost more manpower, but once you do. Killing range for the Longbows, specially those inner walls of fortresses overlooking the square.

[Omisan]

The problem is that archers should move and rotate to get clear shots from the crenelles, not stand behind the merlons and shoot in the air.

Thanks for the wikipedia link!

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

I am happy since i never use siege equipment/spies, I just send 5 rams at the same time to the gate and usually one makes it. The losses are horrible even tho i use crappy units on the rams. If the enemy archers/xbows were any better i'd never make it past all 3 rings of a citadell

[Moral55]

I am happy since i never use siege equipment/spies, I just send 5 rams at the same time to the gate and usually one makes it. The losses are horrible even tho i use crappy units on the rams. If the enemy archers/xbows were any better i'd never make it past all 3 rings of a citadell

build at least one or two siege towers when possible, the tower and archer AI has a fetish for firing at them, and it makes it much more likely you rams will make it.

[nikolai1962]

build at least one or two siege towers when possible, the tower and archer AI has a fetish for firing at them, and it makes it much more likely you rams will make it

using siege towers as decoys for your rams works well

[Ciaran]

Exactly. Besides, the most important thing is to take the outer wall, you can reach the inner ones from it.

And besides, a castle assault should be a risky and bloody venture. I´m certainly no expert, but I suppose the whole point to build a castle in the first place is to hold off a large number of enemies with rather few men.