Defending archers do not do enough damage in siege.

[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!