Defending archers do not do enough damage in siege.

[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.