Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Strategical Advantage Related to Terrain


Recommended Posts

There is one thing that surprises me in case of most RPGs. You shot an arrow from a distance. It flies. It almost hits an enemy. Right before the collision, your arrow disappears in the texture. I understand that fireball won't be affected by gravity, but what about this arrow?
 
I think it would be both better for players and more realistic when you make physic affect also projectiles. Naturally and realistically, you got a bigger range when you stay upward, above your rivals. And so is the arrowstorm more decisive for the rivals, because an arrow coming from smbd above you gains power thanks to gravity. The similar effect can be experienced when you charge onto your enemy with a sword / spear. Charge dmg will be just bigger when you are on the hill and your enemy is below it.
 
So what exactly I suggest: Make slightly bigger damage for people staying higher and increase their range. Charge bonus even from spell like Champions jump is could be also a bit bigger.
 
Why I think it should be approved: This mechanism would make game more realistical. A new strategy possibilities will require us to be cunning which is fun. A tactical advantage will become an important part of the battle. While we will fight for any item or Castle for example, we will also fight for the secondary target which may be a hill. Archers will be more fun to be played and I really thing that this nature belongs to 2017 games (especially so great ones). However, it should not be too complicated.
 
Cons: The server may have a harder day tracking and calculating both our characters and our projectiles.
 
Thank you for reading and have a great time,
Chosen of Castle

 

I have forgotten to give it a poll to vote yes / no. Can anybody fix it please?

Edited by ChosenOfCastle

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we could.

 

But Arrows don't do more damage from elevation, terminal velocity isn't as fast as the launch force of an arrow within the first few meters, particularly with war bows, and war arrows tend to be stocky in order to withstand the acceleration force and collision force without shattering.

 

So fat heavy arrows launched from muscle man bows hit hardest close up, shooting flight arrows might have more speed and distance, but less impact, and at their max distance, have a fraction o if the punch.

 

I'd love for terrain to matter, but I'm not seeing it. Theoretically arrows would go a but faster momentarily when fired downward and from moving bows, like horse archers.

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we could.

 

But Arrows don't do more damage from elevation, terminal velocity isn't as fast as the launch force of an arrow within the first few meters...

Thank you for your reply, but that what you say is not fully right. Even small difference matters. The greatest strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his book The Art of War 'never fight an enemy on the hill'. And I don't know any battle which broke this rule and gained advantage. Even with modern guns... One of the last battles of the war North x South in the US was more massacre like, because zealous general ordered his troops to fight a fortified enemy and on the hill. Another good example is Treuteburg Forest, where Ancient Romans got kicked their ass as they were ambushed and attack from the hill as well. Can you name a battle in which being downhill became an advantage?

 

It is not only arrows which gets more dangerous when uphill. Skirmishers throwing javelins got even bigger bonuses when uphill. Swordsmen had better charge. But so did arrows. And even that small advantage was and is always deadly when used wisely. Its when ones archers were already dead before they reached a range from which they could shoot an enemy.

 

So literally, this advantage is minor, but when multiplied by numbers it grows. And Crowfall is going to be about great battles, right?

 

And that book of Sun Tzu is useful to nowadays, by the way. Even US air force have to read it.

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a bad idea, rather it's one that is just hard to implement.  The conditions of fighting on a hill make it hard to capture a hill.  Rain, blood or other elements make the attackers at a disadvantage in their footing; but in CF running up a hill doesn't inherently slow down a character.  Hills gave a vision difference in what could be seen; but in CF, the 3rd person camera angle already allows us to see beyond what our normal human vision could.

 

If anything they could code in a +5-10% bonus to buildings built on designated hilly areas, essentially just giving those buildings extra hp.  Coding arrows with physics for different height levels is not a hard server computation, but I would say it is the coding of the actual game mechanic that would be hard to get right.

 

To me it comes down to fun vs realism; and in this case there isn't enough fun in your proposal to warrant the extra effort towards realism.

lUvvzPy.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply, but that what you say is not fully right. Even small difference matters. The greatest strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his book The Art of War 'never fight an enemy on the hill'. And I don't know any battle which broke this rule and gained advantage. Even with modern guns... One of the last battles of the war North x South in the US was more massacre like, because zealous general ordered his troops to fight a fortified enemy and on the hill. Another good example is Treuteburg Forest, where Ancient Romans got kicked their ass as they were ambushed and attack from the hill as well. Can you name a battle in which being downhill became an advantage?

 

It is not only arrows which gets more dangerous when uphill. Skirmishers throwing javelins got even bigger bonuses when uphill. Swordsmen had better charge. But so did arrows. And even that small advantage was and is always deadly when used wisely. Its when ones archers were already dead before they reached a range from which they could shoot an enemy.

 

So literally, this advantage is minor, but when multiplied by numbers it grows. And Crowfall is going to be about great battles, right?

 

And that book of Sun Tzu is useful to nowadays, by the way. Even US air force have to read it.

Nobodies arguing the advantage of elevation otherwise, arrow fire from elevation contributes a trivial amount of force though.

 

You'll be stuck on this subject a long time if you argue straw men every time someone corrects you.

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrain should matter, definitely.

 

As for arrows and any advantage from height, it's not just a question of more damage - firing from an elevated position in a group combat context will increase the effectiveness of your arrows; this is a fact which 5 minutes of practical experience will demonstrate. Having this reality manifest in game through the damage variable is a perfectly reasonable way to translate real-world performance, even if the specific element is not actually superior in practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobodies arguing the advantage of elevation otherwise, arrow fire from elevation contributes a trivial amount of force though.

 

You'll be stuck on this subject a long time if you argue straw men every time someone corrects you.

I don't think a discussion is arguing. Your post was just spreading a misinformation that this advantage is so minor that it is not worth using. So the historical examples may be a proof for you. Even with guns, the extra range of vision makes hills still worth fighting for.

 

I am coming from strategic genre, by the way, disappointed with the behaviour of some greedy publishers.

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, a contradictory response is an arguement. Beside that, I didn't argue any other aspects of projectiles from elevation except damage, having better depth, visibility, maybe an insignificant amount of damage, those are fine additions, but if we're being practical, bows should do far more damage up close rather than because your elevated. Even mounted shots should deal more damage than elevated shots.

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a discussion is arguing. Your post was just spreading a misinformation that this advantage is so minor that it is not worth using. So the historical examples may be a proof for you. Even with guns, the extra range of vision makes hills still worth fighting for.

 

I am coming from strategic genre, by the way, disappointed with the behaviour of some greedy publishers.

 

Yes but elevation is an advantage because you can more easily fire over the heads of your allies into the back line of the enemy not because your arrows do more damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Staying on the hill has multiple advantages. Enemy going upward will tire himself, while you can charge him with greater power. Range of ranged weapons, vision range... It all stacks.

 

When it comes to  firing over the heads, look at the image. Grey and blue teams can not hit each other over the heads, because they are too close to hit with curved line trajectory. Hitting straight can Grey Team absorb better, but advantage is minor and both teams are within range of each other. There will be meele warriors in the reality. Blue team in heavy armor will tire itself and these with some kind of leather amor will be killed by the archers on top of the hill or javelineers, while Grey team will charge with greater power and can use javelins. Javelins simply would not fly upward at all.

 

There is similar angle when archers around red line fire at each other. Both have to fire upward. Only their arrows fly differently. But if Grey Team shots, they have significantly better range, hence they can shoot at approaching enemies on the beginning of the hill and have better vision. There they can fire better and even over the heads of their meele warriors. Blue Teams arrows would mostly fall before they reach Greys in the end of yellow line. Range advantage and firing over the heads go hand in hand with each other in this case.

Silbury_Hill4_high.jpgimage hosting no registration

I hope I expressed it well. Poor part of the army that can not aford strong armor will be easily removed by the archers from the top. They also can use javelins that are better at piercing armor, thus remove even some heavily armored knight. The only disadvantage of the Grey Team is that they could not use slingers, who would overfire even Blue archers or will hit each other. Advantages are many.

 

Let's probably return the discussion on how (if) to implement this in the game, because fantasy world doesn't have to use same rules like our. I got also an idea that it will be easier to make this just for castle defenders in some form of 'range aura' on the top of the walls.

Edited by ChosenOfCastle

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in most battle (especialy the English longbows) arrows were used in point blank range. If you fire in arch you lose a huge amount of power and simple shield can protect enemy completly and plate armor won't even notise them. You want powerfull salvo with little to no arching to bring full power on the enemy. (even in plate such hit could easily stun you if nothing else) 

 

Arching shots were ussualy used to provoke enemy to charge. Strait shots were used to kill. 

 

Don't use movies as your historical guide they never are.

 

Also archer were never peasants incapable in melee, most of the time archers were actualy the elite troops because bows are difficult to use and carried swords and shield when enemy gets too close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in most battle (especialy the English longbows) arrows were used in point blank range. If you fire in arch you lose a huge amount of power and simple shield can protect enemy completly and plate armor won't even notise them. You want powerfull salvo with little to no arching to bring full power on the enemy. (even in plate such hit could easily stun you if nothing else) 

 

Arching shots were ussualy used to provoke enemy to charge. Strait shots were used to kill. 

 

Don't use movies as your historical guide they never are.

 

Also archer were never peasants incapable in melee, most of the time archers were actualy the elite troops because bows are difficult to use and carried swords and shield when enemy gets too close.

Ouch, you replied before I finished my post :D

 

Well, we are talking about very different times. When you arm whole army with good armor like medieval knights, than it can be hardly penetrated. Even javelineers were already not in use and so were not slingers. Some especially Celtic tribes didn't use ranged weapons much, because they believed there is no honour in it. But using arrows against their naked ones flags was more than rewarding (some Celts fought naked armed with shield and sword only, they believed gods are protecting them).

 

When we leave antiquity and go to medieval, then you are right that range advantage is disappeared. There is still some range of vision advantage, the attacker will be tired from climbing up the hill in their heavy armor, and when you running down the hill delivers more power for meele charge.

 

Even there were some packs of poor people that could be killed from a range, but it wasn't worth it, except for crusades.

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately realistic physics has been declared "not fun" by Blair. So, there will be no range increases for elevation.

Hopefully cover will provide concealment and shielding, but I see little evidence supporting that yet.

Water, structures, and steep terrain will provide movement restrictions until Blair declares them similarly unfun.

Thank you for considering CF.

 

PS: Strategical is not a word. (strategic and strategy are)

Edited by chancellor

I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: Strategical is not a word. (strategic and strategy are)

Concealment and covering will be cool. I didn't note it here but it is true that person in black standing in the middle of just mowed grass field is easier to pick up than inside the forest. Weather plays its role as well.

 

I appreciate that correction, by the way. I remember doing a different mistake for years. It sometimes takes time until smbd says it. And it helps us whose mother tongue isn't English.

Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't see arching shots working in game anyway. This kind of archery is inaccurate and requires a huge numbers to be useful. By huge numbers I don't mean dozens I mean several hundreds so unless you have your whole army build from rangers and stalkers it would't work very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a longbow would punch plate at any distance, they never do these "tests" with authentic armor, or authentic longbow honestly. Historically speaking, there are thousands of accounts of knights surviving thousands of shots.

 

As for visibility, it doesn't matter with arrow fire, shots were fired in volleys at formations by formations, they could easily arch shots over a hill, and at unseen targets. But these are still straw men, they don't pertain to the response.

 

Armor worked, even cloth armor blocked most arrows, that's why arrows weren't adequate, their primary value is hoping for a lucky shot at a safer distance.

 

As for aiming arched shots in game, there are plenty of working methods for it, ppl just fail to acknowledge options outside of bullet fire and cross hairs.

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a longbow would punch plate at any distance, they never do these "tests" with authentic armor, or authentic longbow honestly. Historically speaking, there are thousands of accounts of knights surviving thousands of shots.

 

As for visibility, it doesn't matter with arrow fire, shots were fired in volleys at formations by formations, they could easily arch shots over a hill, and at unseen targets. But these are still straw men, they don't pertain to the response.

 

Armor worked, even cloth armor blocked most arrows, that's why arrows weren't adequate, their primary value is hoping for a lucky shot at a safer distance.

 

As for aiming arched shots in game, there are plenty of working methods for it, ppl just fail to acknowledge options outside of bullet fire and cross hairs.

 

They don't have to. You have gaps in armor that can be hit and also having and arrow in top speed hit you i a head is like strike from a mace. You don't have to kill your oponent to win. Cripling or stuning in battle was much more common and it is more than enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...