Age of Strategy Forums

I think that this feature should be implemented.
I know that we already discussed about that but i think that this would really add more strategy to the game and would make different units useful based on the ground shape.
Also this is strongly needed to give balance to AoF and to make fortifications count more.

I think that only mega buildings, towers, walls and mountains should stop an archer/shooter line of sight (other buildings like factories shouldn't.

For example if there are hills they have a greater range or in a ditch less range?

I think what Alexander is saying is that large objects should black range.

So you cannot shoot over walls and such. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this... Although I am curious what others think.

DoomCarrot wrote:I think what Alexander is saying is that large objects should black range.

Exactly

But that wouldn't necessarily exclude worker concept, but i assume it might be treated separately.

k

I think it's an essential consept. But I doubt it will be in game any time soon, as I think this would probably cause a massive amount of bugs early on.

Walls shouldnt block arrows. They can reduce range,but not block (there can be high walls or somethink,whitch can block it. Forteress and other high towers,not guard,can block it too. Same like moutains.

Midonik, I agree that they should not block arrows-makes no sense. Blocking sight would be much better.

However, we cannot implement 2 range pikes/spears unless we somehow make them unable to attack through walls/towers.

It is the same for archers. If i stand right behind a wall there is no way a enemy archer can see me and shoot at me.

Nah, you can hit things even if it is out of your range of sight.

Alexander82 wrote:It is the same for archers. If i stand right behind a wall there is no way a enemy archer can see me and shoot at me.

actually they can, that times arhers were hundreds of bow and arrows showering enemy lines or even fortresses (arrows from the sky, because arrows were shot upwards), so the only safe place was being under cover and covering not the sideways but from the top.

but yes, if you were standing very close to the wall than you might be in a safe place, but the third or fourth men (3-4 men far from the wall) were not in that safe position, also it is unlikely to constantly hide behind walls in a battle, you need to walk up to the wall to get a fight against the laddering enemy.

That is what i was saying. Staying very close to a wall made it sure for you to avoid arrows because those projectiles needed a parabolic trajectory to hit. Also a great amount of archer were shooting without seeing the target (it was a matter of probability, so it should be a matter of hit chance not an accurate shot).

Alexander82 wrote:That is what i was saying. Staying very close to a wall made it sure for you to avoid arrows because those projectiles needed a parabolic trajectory to hit. Also a great amount of archer were shooting without seeing the target (it was a matter of probability, so it should be a matter of hit chance not an accurate shot).

I agree.

THat is true, we should mabye work on something of line of sight

DoomCarrot wrote:Ok, kind of confusing and I know archers have more than 5 sight, but this is a diagram of what a unit with 5 sight could see with some walls (or fortresses) in his way

DoomCarrot wrote:

Daniel (the dev) wrote:i do not plan such "sight", however it will be weird having a non-line-of-sight sight. (turning at the corner)

Maybe it could be lit up like you can see it, and you can attack targets there, but you cannot see opponents units?

Like it is lit up, but you still cannot see the actual people behind the wall? Idk, just an idea. If you think this is not a good direction to go, I get it, your vision (get it?! I'm sorry ) for the game has been very good so far

Daniel (the dev) wrote:Yes. I suggest not changing this.

This discussion we are getting into was already adressed a while ago....

I know Doom. This one is mostly for AoF because it can strongly affect balance between races.

Ranged is stronger than melee for some reasons:

1) you can hit without receiving counterattack
2) you can hit before your target can even reach you and you can still move so you hit and escape from melee range
3) with many ranged you can hit strong melee targets without a strict limit of "how many attackers can hit him in this turn", while melee units cannot attack in a higher number than the free squares around the target (and that's why range 2 for polearms users is tactically very important)
4) It is anti-air, so you have always ready an army against dragons and other flying units (melee units deal a mere 1 damage against flying)
5) you can hit around geographic limits (even tough there are sea, walls, mountains and such, making non ranged unit (or even just units with a shorter range) useless against them.
6) It is the best way to deal with spellcasters avoiding the risk of even being hit by a damage spell or a debuff
7) Ranged units from ranged races cost very few so you can have a whole army of low cost archers and you have no real need to make different units
8) Archers are generally fast as melee if not faster (like for elves) and they are the best option for both attacking and defending (you can make swift attacks at the start of the game and you can hit attackers before they can even reach your tcs)

So i believe that is mandatory to limit ranged units rules for this game to reach a good balance.
The only way to win for a non ranged race is to resist enough by making a big amount of big units that can resist many ranged attacks and can kill more units at once (it is true that you can buff weaker units but the spellcasters are the main target of the archers for a player that knows how to play).
Considering the current trend of making smaller maps this is often not possible (in a 20x20 maps in the time i can consider to make a ettin i have a swarm of elven archers in range of my tc).

So i think this feature can't be underestimated if we plan to make a game where any race is viable to play.

Good points. I always felt that AoF is incredibly unbalanced right now in terms of ranged units. Now I know why.

You changed your appearance Doom!


And Yes I agree that the ranged units in AOS and AOF are unbalanced. Should we make where if a ranged unit moves it can't attack. or maybe make it where it has a chance to miss its shot.

I proposed that some time ago but Daniel told that is the game engine that doesn't allow that.

To be honest i generally assume that melee units should almost always be faster than ranged, at least if they don't attack. For example a melee unit can charge toward a enemy to attack him (running and attacking), while a ranged unit can't run and attack at the same time (it also wouldn't be able to aim at the target acurately).

If we'll start considering a move as a action we might give 2 actions to all melee and 1 action to all ranged. A melee generally have always to move in his turn and would move and attack (or double move, like running) while a ranged unit should move OR attack (unless fast archer that has 2 actions, but it would lose an attack action)

Now that i'm thinking on that... we might find a way around that. An archer might have a speed set to 0 and could move through a "special ability" that would consume its action.

The downside is that probably there would be no way to make an archer affected with spells like slow and such.

The problem is that making all archers have accuracy issues, giving them all a high speed/no attack when moving or something, totally changes the game dynamic in terms of strategy--but maybe for the better, although it's a big change. That is probably why Daniel did not approve of that.

Also, I did change my avatar slightly, worker.

That's why a line of sight limit would be better.