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:
Billman
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 04:23 PM EDT (US)     26 / 53       
My only real gripe against the game so far. Combat bonuses for soldiers on elevations should have been a rule woven into every RTS game by now.

It seems really quite silly when you see that this game has ragdoll physics, large realistic ships, great projectile physics, beautiful, lush graphics, interesting Home City feature, Native Americans to ally with............


.....Then you find out they have forgotten the simplest and most logical thing!


Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

[This message has been edited by Billman (edited 05-29-2005 @ 04:24 PM).]

king of ages
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 04:29 PM EDT (US)     27 / 53       
I have to agree with this thread. Why isn't there bonuses for elevation?? Even with muskets, it should make atleast a SMALL difference.

Hopefully ES can explain or reconsider...


XpLoDe_Zeus
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 04:30 PM EDT (US)     28 / 53       
With so much agreeing going around I'll have to "agree." You guys pretty much explained why we should have this feature.

It might not be in the game because game it is was not completed. IT should be in the game period.

[This message has been edited by XpLoDe_Zeus (edited 05-30-2005 @ 01:39 AM).]

schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 04:52 PM EDT (US)     29 / 53       
it shouldnt be an attack bonus. the difference in speed is very small
TheGoodEvil
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 05:19 PM EDT (US)     30 / 53       
It's easier to shoot up than it is to shoot down, especially if you use a musket that has a ROUND projectile that GRAVITY pulls down on forcing many to simply ROLL out of the barrels before firing.

then there is the elevation that cripples musket fire because they are so inaccurate... you can't aim correctly so you will usually always overshoot at anything more than 50 yards away. simply put the higher you are with a musket the less likely chance you have to survive, that's why the british would always look for the most level open field they could find so their troops could lay down accurate volleys without having to try to adjust their aim and risk overshooting.

anyone that shot a smooth bore black powder musket will tell you that you can barely hit anything from more than 50-100 yards depending on wind and caliber, and trying to aim up or down is basically pointless from 100 yards or more, you'd be lucky to hit a house from a 75 yard elevated possition. now rifles are a different story but even with rifles you NEED to know elevation levels to fire your weapon accurately, which would go against giving an advantage in combat and is actually a disadvantage to the mostly uneducated inlisted men of the day.

TGE

DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 06:18 PM EDT (US)     31 / 53       

Quote:

It's easier to shoot up than it is to shoot down,

I think you are wrong because of gravity, when you shot down you have gravity on your side, especialy if tou have a primitive gun on your hands.

The reason you may want a flat ground is that the enemy is in front of you and is easy for the formation to aim an make volleys, but a formation in high ground will aim as good as flat ground, the same not apply to low ground, where you have to fire up against gravity and in an bad position.

The formation in high ground have better view of the enemy forces and their movements and have better angle if they try to cover or duck.

Lets get real, high was and is better then low ground, and its esier to shoot down, have you ever used a gun?

[This message has been edited by DARK_JOAO (edited 05-29-2005 @ 06:32 PM).]

Ajs77311
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 06:38 PM EDT (US)     32 / 53       
It has nothing to do with diffuculty, just effectiveness.

I honestly don't care either way, but it should affect LOS.


October 25th: 298th day of the year, coincidence, conspiracy? You Decide.

I am still waiting for Name change to Armed Rebel.

DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 06:48 PM EDT (US)     33 / 53       

Quote:

Do not attack an enemy that has the high ground;

Sun Tzu

http://bearmaster.netfirms.com/art_of_war.htm


Quote:

History and experience have shown that control of the high ground gives a military force a decided advantage. This maxim has been repeatedly emphasized by Sun Tzu in his martial classic "The Art of War". This is further echoed in contemporary battle tactics with the war cry, "Get the High Ground"

http://www.paf.mil.ph/digest/d43/d43_6.htm

Quote:

Depicted here is the Battle at Cemetary Ridge led by John Buford. Brigadier General John Buford and his willingness to risk deploying his Cavalry division to slow the advance of a much larger force of Confederate soldiers. Despite Southern success on Day 1, Buford's quick thinking and strategic placement of his Cavalry, now fighting on foot, allowed the approaching Federals to gain the strategic advantage of high ground by days end

http://www.artbyrhondawatson.com/uncivilwar.html

lief ericson
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 07:46 PM EDT (US)     34 / 53       
Well, that pwnt the naysayers.

SEXITUP.
Former Leader of the FPH Clan
Acting-President of AoMH
Nart_Saga
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 09:44 PM EDT (US)     35 / 53       
Either a range or LOS bonus would be nice...

How about archer units? They should get a damage bonus too.

OldGrex
Skirmisher
posted 05-29-05 10:17 PM EDT (US)     36 / 53       
The more I hear about the combat model, the more concerned I am becoming that the game may have really been "dumbed down" tactically, in the name of "Gameplay>Realism." Elevation offers no tactical advantage. Cavalry does no trample damage. Small arms fire penetrates palisade walls. Artillery has no minimum range. You cannot interdict the enemy's line of supply - on land or at sea.

With the exception of infantry formations & tactics - which sound fairly realistic and demonstrate a tendency towards R/P/S balance - it sounds as if the game is designed to focus on and simplify levelling up your HC by gaining XP, rather than to facilitate a military/economic balance of forces that can be exploited by the superior strategist or tactician. It sounds more and more like an RPG, and less and less like an RTS game (especially an "Age" game).

I sure do hope I'm wrong.


Strive For Ataraxia
Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-29-05 11:04 PM EDT (US)     37 / 53       

Quote:

It's easier to shoot up than it is to shoot down, especially if you use a musket that has a ROUND projectile that GRAVITY pulls down on forcing many to simply ROLL out of the barrels before firing.
then there is the elevation that cripples musket fire because they are so inaccurate... you can't aim correctly so you will usually always overshoot at anything more than 50 yards away. simply put the higher you are with a musket the less likely chance you have to survive, that's why the british would always look for the most level open field they could find so their troops could lay down accurate volleys without having to try to adjust their aim and risk overshooting.

anyone that shot a smooth bore black powder musket will tell you that you can barely hit anything from more than 50-100 yards depending on wind and caliber, and trying to aim up or down is basically pointless from 100 yards or more, you'd be lucky to hit a house from a 75 yard elevated possition. now rifles are a different story but even with rifles you NEED to know elevation levels to fire your weapon accurately, which would go against giving an advantage in combat and is actually a disadvantage to the mostly uneducated inlisted men of the day.

^ I guess that's why the Colonial Age was filled with battles for this or that hill. Armies on the elevation had a distinct advantage over those that didn't. Infact, that's still applicable even today.

[This message has been edited by Gaurdian_112 (edited 05-29-2005 @ 11:05 PM).]

lachlan
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 01:39 AM EDT (US)     38 / 53       
Cannons should lose range firing uphill and that's pretty damn obvious. I might add it looks kind of dorky when ten musket men are clustered around a cannon and the thing is still blowing them a way. Idon't get why they'd take it out when its been in their previous games. I mean longbow men on a hill was great fun in AoK and the longbow men are still there.
Ironclad
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 01:48 AM EDT (US)     39 / 53       
I think that cannon will create SOME elevation advantage, since the cannonballs will bounce and roll.

But, what's so great about using HAVOK physics if it doesn't add many new tactical challenges and affect the best aspect of the game, which is of course COMBAT?

And a quote from STAR WARS should inpsire ES to create combat bonuses to troops on elevations, "I've got the high ground.... don't try it Anakin."

Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 05-30-05 02:41 AM EDT (US)     40 / 53       
And what about the fact that cannons can shoot at any range? What's with that- even in AoK, trebuchets and cannons and onagers couldn't shoot when the enemy was too close.
Ironclad
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 03:36 AM EDT (US)     41 / 53       
I don't think range problem is too bad.. i mean it's not like everyones immune to a cannon at point blank... but mortars are another story.

[This message has been edited by Ironclad (edited 05-30-2005 @ 03:38 AM).]

achilleas
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 04:40 AM EDT (US)     42 / 53       
well, i was talking about ATTACK bonuses, speed bonus should exist of course.

What i hate is needing to move up and down my army every 3 seconds instead of fighting.

DARK_JOAO
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 04:44 AM EDT (US)     43 / 53       
You prefer to fight without moving your army?
Tytoba
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 05:39 AM EDT (US)     44 / 53       
There should be no damage bonus for being higher. I'd say a slight range bonus would be reasonable though. Either way, I don't really care. I mean, be realistic guys, how many times throughout your Age careers have you ever fought someone with a difference in elevation. It doesn't happen that often. I could see a bonus being useful in the single player where the maps could be specifically designed for it. It'd be next to useless in random map (since I doubt they're going to generate a buttload of cliffs).

[This message has been edited by Tytoba (edited 05-30-2005 @ 05:42 AM).]

Ace
Skirmisher
(id: Ace of Diamonds)
posted 05-30-05 05:44 AM EDT (US)     45 / 53       
There already will be one if the army on the lowere ground charges. Going up the hill will make it slower, meaning that the opposing army (on the hill) will have an advantage because they have more time to kill the people.

♥-0
ES_DeathShrimp
VIP
posted 05-30-05 10:35 AM EDT (US)     46 / 53       
I'm not sure what the origin of the "no bonus from high ground" discussion is. Remember that we were only focused on showing off the high level features at E3. That wasn't the build we are going to ship.

The programmers actually provided a parameter to apply an elevation bonus. We've just been to busy to mess with it much lately. We wanted to make sure the unit balance and new formation stuff worked the way we wanted before we started complicating things even more. (Otherwise, while testing, it's hard to tell if you won the fight because of a better formation or HC bonus, or if it was a Bunker Hill situation.) We might very well turn the bonus on before we ship if the other stuff comes together fast enough.

MoNo Ager
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 10:44 AM EDT (US)     47 / 53       
ahhh *relaxes*
deduijk
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 02:40 PM EDT (US)     48 / 53       

Quote:


quoted from deduijk

I haven't read where this information is coming from?

Woohoo was right

But i do hope that it won't be just a higher ground bonus.., i do hope some of the other things i mentioned earlier do have some influence.

CU,
deduijk

AnC_Ivo17
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 02:50 PM EDT (US)     49 / 53       
Archers SHOULD get elevation bonuses cuz their arrows fly parabolically, while musketmen shoot almost in a straight direction. The bullet of a musket is going with such a high speed when it hits its target (if it is within its range!) that an elevation advantage/disadvantage would change the speed with a little bit. Actually i ,myself, havent played many games in AOC where the elvation hadnt given me a decisive adbantage. I think that this is a minor thing compared to the eyecandy stuff in the game.

In hoc signo vinces!
- Spiritum Sancti
lachlan
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 06:12 PM EDT (US)     50 / 53       
Excellent, Heavengames was really on the ball there s/c.

Quote:

I don't think range problem is too bad.. i mean it's not like everyones immune to a cannon at point blank.

If ten musketmen were to close to point blank on a cannon as seen on the videos, the cannon is going to be done immediately. It sure isn't going to reload three times and kill eight of the ten attackers. Hopefully this aspect isn't finished because it just doesn't look realistic at all. Cannons had to be moved manually and the things in A3 spin around on melee units and leave five cents change.

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:26 PM EDT (US)     51 / 53       
I believe bonuses should come in the form of machanics, rather than an arbitrary attack multiplier. Lemme 'splain...

One of the reasons cavalry was so good vs. skirms and onagers in AOK was because both skirms and onagers had minimum range requirements to attack... so they ran away trying to reach minimum attack distance. Unit interaction is giving the cavalry the advantage (or "bonus" if you will) in this situation. The same thing should apply to units on hills in AOE3. The "bonus" for your musketeers gaining the high ground should come from greater LOS and attack range, but also for mechanics reasons like greater accuracy and the enemy moving slower going up-hill to reach you (thus giving you more chances to hit them with your greater accuracy).

enemy sighted
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:38 PM EDT (US)     52 / 53       
there should be a combat bonus on elavated unit...

for if someone shoots from a top a mountian the bullet has more time to accelerate(with the help of gravity) thus have a greater damage...

but if a musketeers shoots from the bottom of a hill the forces of gravity(and resistance) will have a greater effect trying to bring closer to the ground thus creating less damage...anyone agree???


[--o--]Enemy Sighted[--o--]

Ruler of the Dry Seas of North Africa and provinces of Spain

Long live The TurksEygptians And Almohonds For Eternity
Rogueagle
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 09:23 PM EDT (US)     53 / 53       
Yes, i think that there should be a sort of bonus for elevation, for a variety of reasons, most prevalent of which is historical precedent.

And i would love it if the bonuses came about in combat mechanics, such as mythos ruler described, rather than a arbitrary multiplier. *Especially* when it comes to artillery fire, rather than fire from musketeers. For example, artillery not only has a huge bonus in targetting and range from being fired from an elevated position, it becomes extremely difficult to target accurately by enemy artillery (yes the enemy knows exactly where they are, but they are also hampered by the hill itself). Note: i am referring to artillery with a line of fire less than 45degrees from the horizontal, such as cannons - not artillery such as mortars.

« 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