You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.53 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » "There is no combat bonus to troops on elevations"
Bottom
Topic Subject:"There is no combat bonus to troops on elevations"
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 06:15 AM EDT (US)         

http://www.heavengames.com/previews/aoe3/page3.shtml

Well, i realy dont like the fact that elevations have no importance in battle.

AuthorReplies:
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 06:22 AM EDT (US)     1 / 53       
Me neither. Is this an RPG or an RTS?
Knight of Ni
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 10:15 AM EDT (US)     2 / 53       
It actually makes sense when it comes to ranged weapons. In previous age games, it made sense that an arrow fired from a higher elevation would do more damage (and should have longer range) since the altitude is translated into speed for any falling object. Very simple. However, when gunpowder weapons are brought in, the already high velocity of the bullet makes the benefit of higher elevation insignificant, just like the lack of armor for most units. I know that there are also bows in the game, but I think that it would be too much programming and consideration to have different attributes for them.
However, when it comes to melee fighting, elevations should play a significant role. For example it is very hard to charge uphill.
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 10:36 AM EDT (US)     3 / 53       
However, units on higher ground can aim downwards, with better aim, at units below. That should be translated into a benefit in the game. Besides that, arrows are in the game as well.
schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 10:41 AM EDT (US)     4 / 53       
1. musketeers wont aim
2. it is easier to spot someone above you
Canadian_Bro
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 10:55 AM EDT (US)     5 / 53       
I really think there should be combat bonuses for troops on elevations. It makes it more realistic, and more strategic. The other problem that this brings is that troops on flat land can fire at troops on high land, and the troop on highland could loose, which is certainly not realistic
My opinion - There should be combat bonuses for troops on elevations
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 10:57 AM EDT (US)     6 / 53       
Musketeers do aim lol.
BloTo
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 11:10 AM EDT (US)     7 / 53       
for god sakes give comabt bonuses on elevations! please es!

this is the only bad thing i know about AoE3 so far.


Eso: scuzz
MoNo Ager
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 11:16 AM EDT (US)     8 / 53       
^^i agree
lief ericson
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 11:47 AM EDT (US)     9 / 53       
First of all, to anyone who says that musketmen on a hill should not have a bonus against units below them, please, read a history book. Any history book. Or a book about tactics. Or something. Ever heard of the battle of Bunker Hill? An American victory in the Revolution? Where they were out-numbered and outgunned by the British? But the Americans stood on a hill and were able to repulse the British a number of times, and the British took heavy casualties before eventually taking the hill? That's why our units should have elevation bonuses. And cavalry charging down a hill should go faster and have a stronger attack.

Also, ES, PLEASE, PLEASE give units on a higher elevation an advantage. When I heard you guys were adding formations, I was ecstatic! I thought for once we'd have some real tactics in an RTS. But now it looks like the only decision I'll be making in a battle is what formation I want my units to be in. Since by the end ages most of our resource procurement will be automated (with infinite farms, and infinite plantations), I want the person who wins in the last age to be the one who can most effectively fight a battle. The one who picks out the best spot for the battle. The one that arrays his forces correctly and plans the engagement out beforehand.


SEXITUP.
Former Leader of the FPH Clan
Acting-President of AoMH
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 11:52 AM EDT (US)     10 / 53       
^ Exactly.
Shusky
Skirmisher
(id: Silver Husky)
posted 05-29-05 12:26 PM EDT (US)     11 / 53       

Quote:

^ Exactly .

Blitzer_231
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 12:44 PM EDT (US)     12 / 53       
Troops that are aiming down at enemies, besides having better aim, also get the bonus of cover. When a person aims down the only target avalible to their oponnent is their head, while they get a shot at their opponents entire body.

Click HERE if you need a spam blocker!! Click HERE if you love kittens and puppies!!
Click HERE if you believe in logic!! Click HERE if you plan to go outside!!
Anti-Climatic winner of LPW 17
Elpea needs your brain creativity
schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 01:15 PM EDT (US)     13 / 53       
but a target on a hill is easier to spot then a target near a hill. also there shouldnt be an attack bonus, but an aim bonus.
Blitzer_231
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 01:17 PM EDT (US)     14 / 53       
From a distance yes, but once your up close it is hard to see a person who is using the hill as cover, while you are completely vulnerable.

Click HERE if you need a spam blocker!! Click HERE if you love kittens and puppies!!
Click HERE if you believe in logic!! Click HERE if you plan to go outside!!
Anti-Climatic winner of LPW 17
Elpea needs your brain creativity
fhertlein
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 01:33 PM EDT (US)     15 / 53       
If I recall there are bonuses for flanking or attacking from the rear.

Perhaps ES' goal is to stop players from playing King of the Hill. Instead of sitting tight on a hill, I need to think about the enemy position and how best to get around and flank them.

achilleas
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 01:45 PM EDT (US)     16 / 53       
i dont like elevation bonuses, it's so boring needing to go onto a hill to begin an attack...
just like wh40k:dow with those cratters where u get protection..

Altough realistic it's stupid. I don't like complex battle micro.

AoMPlayer000
Banned
posted 05-29-05 02:02 PM EDT (US)     17 / 53       

Quote:

Altough realistic it's stupid. I don't like complex battle micro.


I actually agree. The micromanaging (and loss of fun IMO) wouldn't be worth the realism.
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 02:04 PM EDT (US)     18 / 53       
Where's the microing in taking some units, putting them on a hill for advantage? Is this a real-time strategy game or an RPG- seriously, do you want to just right click on the enemy or do you want to execute lots of cool tactics to take him out?

Elevation advantage was in AoM and in AoK:TC as well (I think)..

RiderOfEternity
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 02:12 PM EDT (US)     19 / 53       
Please please please... have combat bonus on elevation
It makes for good scenario tactics! I mean have you played the fan made Agincourt campaign for aok?

Leader of Liquid Fire. Animator Seb C.

One does not simply leave HG
DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 02:34 PM EDT (US)     20 / 53       

Quote:

Altough realistic it's stupid. I don't like complex battle micro.

I think auto-battle would be fine for you.

The battleground should be important in gameplay, and i am not talking only of water/land.

Its FUN to use terrain to win (or lose)battles in a RTS, even if we dont get an attack bonus we should get more range.

[This message has been edited by DARK_JOAO (edited 05-29-2005 @ 02:45 PM).]

Raptor the Good
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 02:41 PM EDT (US)     21 / 53       
*waits for a blue guy to show up*

/// (, (\ ( ) () ),
\\\ ==============
/// AoKH Forumer

CaptainPoncho
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 03:10 PM EDT (US)     22 / 53       
I'm going to have to agree with the need for elevation bonuses here. In a game so focused on military, I really can't understand why the elevation bonuses wouldn't play a part. I'm not speaking a giant difference here, like 5 muskets on a hill can take out 20, but a small, subtle difference than can change a close battle, like maybe +5% attack. Also, I would like to see units going down a hill to go faster (obvious? Just making sure) and have a larger LOS than those on the ground.

Also, nobody is going to just sit on a hill. You want to sit on a hill? I'll go ruin your base and your trade posts. Sitting your army in one spot in an age game, especially with the new trade posts, has and never will be a viable strategy.

Historically, hills have provided advantages for troops on them. Even though gameplay is more important than realism, there's no reason to lack realism when it helps gameplay.

Just my opinion... I'm sure ES has some good reasoning for this, I'd like to hear it.

[This message has been edited by CaptainPoncho (edited 05-29-2005 @ 03:12 PM).]

deduijk
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 03:10 PM EDT (US)     23 / 53       
I haven't read where this information is coming from?

Depending on the hill it could provide more cover. It could also mean u r the most visible....
it could give u an advantage for shooting down at your enemies, it could also mean your enemies have cover (maybe a large hill.., u cannot see the bottom because of the elevation.., try holding a ball in front of your eye and seeying the other side | having much forrest as a cover and a hill with nothing on it.. => sitting ducks.).

It could provide u with more LOS, it could also hinder ur LOS because u cannot see what's below the trees (in a dense forrest).

So there are a lot of possibilities. To code this depening on the terrain, slope, vegitation, place of army, units present, techs chosen etc. It would be difficult and to have the game perform well with all these extra code nearly impossible i'd say. Even if u could code it, the players would have to be very carefull and precise in knowing which do and don't give the advantage. And with the terrain and map diversity etc., this could prove quite difficult.

Also there seems to be a lot of strategy in it alrdy. I love that u have to micromanage ur battles now. I hate just spamming units the fastest and win.

1note: indeed cavalry running down a mountain would have more attack, but would also have worse accuracy/killing time (thus maybe: damage more units, but give less damage to the units).

CU,
deduijk

petard_rusher
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 03:21 PM EDT (US)     24 / 53       
*if* its true that there are no elevaton bonuses then id say its probably to stop the 'ring around the rosie' you see in AOK skirmisher wars, its just not fun or realalistic to run around in circles just trying to get the high ground. Microing in RTS games is onyl fun to a point, and i think having to watch your troops all the time to make sure htey stay on high grounds is jsut a little too much of a distraction from the rest of the game to be worth including it for historical accuracy.
DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 03:34 PM EDT (US)     25 / 53       

Quote:

i think having to watch your troops all the time to make sure htey stay on high grounds is jsut a little too much of a distraction from the rest of the game

I dont agree. Controle trops its the most impotant thing in RTS games and the best "General" should win.

Controling trops is far more important then the rest of the game, because this is a wargame.

Why have all the physics and then dont apply them to elevations.

without that we will have to watch the army all the time anyway to have the best formation position, but the place where you have your army should matter.

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames