Defending archers do not do enough damage in siege.

[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.

[Forward Observer]

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

This is a little off the topic of the thread, but I had to comment on this.

To each his own I guess and no offense intended, but I never understand statements like this. I know a lot of people distain the use of purchased seige equipment because they don't like hauling them around, and have had bad experiences with them in field battles, but why waste a 1000 florin's worth of men when a single 360 florin ballista will take down any gate of any of any size castle or city while your troops have a coffee break in relative safety.

Add to this the fact that many times after the gate is down the enemy will park one of its best units right behind the portal, so you can continue to make valuable kills because of the low trajectory of the weapon. I have actually taken out the enemy commander this way on more than one occasion.

I play with the timer off, so I have time to do this---besides sieges were not timed events in real life. (I am not taking the official siege association's sanctioned competion events into consideration here--their membership dues are just too damn high)

I also alway put a spy in a settlement that I am about to attack, but not so much as to open the gate, but for the intelligence of knowing what kind of troops are behind the walls. This helps me decide if I assault immediately, or waste a turn while I build towers. If it is made up of a few fluff troops, I barge ahead, but if the defending force is more substantial I am going to plan accordingly. If one is not in the Pope's good favor, waiting a turn while you build towers and rams can cause one to have to call off the assault when the Pope gives you a warning to stop between turns.

Even if I get the message that my spy has opened the gate, I blow them down anyway for the reason stated above plus having them permanently open is less of an impedance to my troops. Of course I always bring along the heavy stuff to take out towers and wall if they are a problem, but then I have alway thought it advantageous to bring a gun to a knife fight.

Cheers