Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Calibration distance CA please reduce it on range units.

saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660
Right now we have low accuracy units acting just like sniper in this game. Root cause of imo. Is all of them have high calibration distance.

So if you reduce it most range weapons accuracy modifers on high accuracy units will be more useful.

We don't need a gobbo or human archer as good as elf or a dwarf.
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc

Comments

  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 940
    Wait I don't fully track. Would elf archers also have their Cal distance reduced?
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660
    User_Clue said:

    Wait I don't fully track. Would elf archers also have their Cal distance reduced?

    that's one thing i am not sure on honestly because that's the one race that depend on archers to that degree,

    but i think with lower calibration distance we can finally start balancing units that have higher accuracy with either more accuracy bonus or lower calibration area rather than units ignoring those to the most part in a battle
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,981
    Most cheap archers are pretty accurate even the ones with the tag "poor accuracy" like orcs. I'm not sure if it would be counted as poor accuracy when you constantly land your arrows at worst 2 meters near your target from 140 meters, that is even when you have no LoS on target. Likewise Peasant Archers are a pretty bad nightmare for them elves, dropping them like flies from 160 meters. Now imagine if they were professional soldiers and not potato farmers..

    Combined with recklessly being able to fire into engagements with friendly troops - which you couldn't even do in TT, or got big penalties even in systems like DnD if you did - and non-gunpowder projectiles being able effectively and unrealistically adjust their trajectory to any angle (example below) as if they were all trueflight arrows certainly creates an umgak situation.



    Moreover most bolts & arrows are pretty slow which also makes dodging pretty easy. I'd wish their trajectories were more realistic so positioning was more important, but they also flew faster.

    Gunpowder units work pretty good though. But you might say they are a bit too accurate too for the price.
  • Baron_RobbaneBaron_Robbane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 479

    Gunpowder units work pretty good though. But you might say they are a bit too accurate too for the price.

    Guns should loose accuracy the futher away the target is as barrels would be crude and the bullet would Curve away.
    So maybe shooting a flying lord at max range maybe realisticly 25 procent should hit. Currently majority will hit.

    Team Wood Elves
  • KN_GarsKN_Gars Registered Users Posts: 1,520
    Firing into a melee from behind your own line of melee troops is way too effective, older Total Wars like Medieval 2 correctly reduced it to being borderline ineffective which made you value good elevated terrain a lot as a missile heavy faction. IRL it is quite hard to direct effective fire over your own troops, even with a few ranks in front of you it becomes a lot harder to aim properly and firing into a melee is a surefire way to end up with friendly fire. Forget about getting effective shots by arcing fire the way TWW units do it, the trajectory simply is not that adjustable.

    The most effective way to shoot from behind a line of your own troops is to have an integrated formation with a rank of shield bearers in front, with possibly a man with polearm behind supported by a deep formation of missile troops firing a rank at a time before falling back to let the next rank fire.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,825
    KN_Gars said:

    Firing into a melee from behind your own line of melee troops is way too effective, older Total Wars like Medieval 2 correctly reduced it to being borderline ineffective which made you value good elevated terrain a lot as a missile heavy faction. IRL it is quite hard to direct effective fire over your own troops, even with a few ranks in front of you it becomes a lot harder to aim properly and firing into a melee is a surefire way to end up with friendly fire. Forget about getting effective shots by arcing fire the way TWW units do it, the trajectory simply is not that adjustable.

    The most effective way to shoot from behind a line of your own troops is to have an integrated formation with a rank of shield bearers in front, with possibly a man with polearm behind supported by a deep formation of missile troops firing a rank at a time before falling back to let the next rank fire.

    Firing to engaged melee troops is already almost useless. If they are in line formation you will probably deal almost the same amount of friendly fire than damage you do to the enemy.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,411
    I totally support reducing calibration distance on models that in TT had low Ballistic Skill.

    It might only make a marginal difference in Unit vs Unit combat but it would make all the difference in Units Vs. Single Entity Monsters.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,847
    Pocman said:

    KN_Gars said:

    Firing into a melee from behind your own line of melee troops is way too effective, older Total Wars like Medieval 2 correctly reduced it to being borderline ineffective which made you value good elevated terrain a lot as a missile heavy faction. IRL it is quite hard to direct effective fire over your own troops, even with a few ranks in front of you it becomes a lot harder to aim properly and firing into a melee is a surefire way to end up with friendly fire. Forget about getting effective shots by arcing fire the way TWW units do it, the trajectory simply is not that adjustable.

    The most effective way to shoot from behind a line of your own troops is to have an integrated formation with a rank of shield bearers in front, with possibly a man with polearm behind supported by a deep formation of missile troops firing a rank at a time before falling back to let the next rank fire.

    Firing to engaged melee troops is already almost useless. If they are in line formation you will probably deal almost the same amount of friendly fire than damage you do to the enemy.
    Completely wrong. It's super-effective, especially because you apply LD debuffs on the enemy for "getting attacked by ranged troops" which of course are not applied if you hit your own troops because CA dumbed the game down that way.

    And poison archers are of course massively OP because of that very same dumbing down.


  • ThisIsREMThisIsREM Registered Users Posts: 244
    edited May 4

    Gunpowder units work pretty good though. But you might say they are a bit too accurate too for the price.

    Guns should loose accuracy the futher away the target is as barrels would be crude and the bullet would Curve away.
    So maybe shooting a flying lord at max range maybe realisticly 25 procent should hit. Currently majority will hit.

    Sure, in "real life" guns would not hit as accurately, but then one hit would kill the enemy instead of requiring hundreds of shots to kill what is literally a flying horse with wings.

    People seem to not be able to get one simple fact: realistic ranged weapons kill with 1 hit, especially gunpowder weapons. To make the game engaging, CA had to reduce 100 fold the damage that ranged units deal, and naturally in return they got monumental accuracy buff to compensate.

    So instead of one hand rifle or crossbow unit killing 50+ chosen GW with one volley, they will take many volleys to kill but hit more accurately.
  • Baron_RobbaneBaron_Robbane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 479
    ThisIsREM said:

    Gunpowder units work pretty good though. But you might say they are a bit too accurate too for the price.

    Guns should loose accuracy the futher away the target is as barrels would be crude and the bullet would Curve away.
    So maybe shooting a flying lord at max range maybe realisticly 25 procent should hit. Currently majority will hit.

    Sure, in "real life" guns would not hit as accurately, but then one hit would kill the enemy instead of requiring hundreds of shots to kill what is literally a flying horse with wings.

    People seem to not be able to get one simple fact: realistic ranged weapons kill with 1 hit, especially gunpowder weapons. To make the game engaging, CA had to reduce 100 fold the damage that ranged units deal, and naturally in return they got monumental accuracy buff to compensate.

    So instead of one hand rifle or crossbow unit killing 50+ chosen GW with one volley, they will take many volleys to kill but hit more accurately.
    Dps should gradually increase the closer you get. But currently its great dps at any range.

    Team Wood Elves
  • JustSurpriseMeJustSurpriseMe Registered Users Posts: 36
    ThisIsREM said:

    Gunpowder units work pretty good though. But you might say they are a bit too accurate too for the price.

    Guns should loose accuracy the futher away the target is as barrels would be crude and the bullet would Curve away.
    So maybe shooting a flying lord at max range maybe realisticly 25 procent should hit. Currently majority will hit.

    Sure, in "real life" guns would not hit as accurately, but then one hit would kill the enemy instead of requiring hundreds of shots to kill what is literally a flying horse with wings.

    People seem to not be able to get one simple fact: realistic ranged weapons kill with 1 hit, especially gunpowder weapons. To make the game engaging, CA had to reduce 100 fold the damage that ranged units deal, and naturally in return they got monumental accuracy buff to compensate.

    So instead of one hand rifle or crossbow unit killing 50+ chosen GW with one volley, they will take many volleys to kill but hit more accurately.
    Yes and no. Some "realistic" armor piercing ranged weapons would be one hit kills, but against heavily armored and shielded opponents most arrows would be very ineffective.
  • UrbansPolarneUrbansPolarne Registered Users Posts: 40
    edited May 4
    Completely wrong. It's super-effective, especially because you apply LD debuffs on the enemy for "getting attacked by ranged troops" which of course are not applied if you hit your own troops because CA dumbed the game down that way.

    And poison archers are of course massively OP because of that very same dumbing down.

    You still have to remember that firing over your own units into the attacking enemy still can be very "non-optimal" depending on the opponent unit, compared to firing into it from the side. This due to the shields still being able to block the projectiles while the units are in melee with each other.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,981

    This due to the shields still being able to block the projectiles while the units are in melee with each other.
    Shields don't function if the unit is already engaged in melee afaik. Happy to be wrong, but empirical evidence says it's somewhat effective no matter from which angle you shoot.
  • UrbansPolarneUrbansPolarne Registered Users Posts: 40
    edited May 5
    Shields don't function if the unit is already engaged in melee afaik. Happy to be wrong, but empirical evidence says it's somewhat effective no matter from which angle you shoot.


    Well what I did was to crank up the goblin shields to 100% block chance and then engage them in melee against zombies. Based on the extreme small amount of value that crossbowmen got they definitely seemed to still block missiles.

    What made it hard to tell was the fact that models rotate constantly while waiting to get to the front line so that might be an explanation for why they took damage at all. Shields seem to work entirely on an entity basis, since I noticed that goblins with 100% shields could still take damage from the front in some cases, which seemed to be when one model triggered a "stagger" animation after blocking an arrow, and thus rotating its model, making that model susceptible to missile fire.

    I think that the fact that units have shield animations when under fire out of melee could be deceiving, since if i recall correctly, you can add shield values to any unit without problem and it will still work, no matter whether the units has actual shields or not. (Edit: I tried this with goblin archers and they blocked it, so it is how it works)
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,292
    edited May 5
    Resistance (including missile resistance) cannot go above 92% can it?

    Not sure if this is unpopular or not, but I would personally prefer shield animations dictate whether you get a shield deflection. It's immersing.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,894
    Firing without line of sight should give missile infantry an increased calibration area in order to represent the reduced accuracy. Would impact firing at close range from behind the frontline with higher risk of friendly fire.

    Giving archer/crossbow units two firing mods would make things more demanding, arch fire with a large calibration area, minimum range and reduced damage but it allows firing from behind units. And straight fire which needs LoS, has shorter range but allows for better accuracy and full damage.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660
    Uagrim said:

    Firing without line of sight should give missile infantry an increased calibration area in order to represent the reduced accuracy. Would impact firing at close range from behind the frontline with higher risk of friendly fire.

    Giving archer/crossbow units two firing mods would make things more demanding, arch fire with a large calibration area, minimum range and reduced damage but it allows firing from behind units. And straight fire which needs LoS, has shorter range but allows for better accuracy and full damage.

    Agreed but part of why they are so accurate is also calibration distance since most such battles happen with it.

    If it was drastically reduced than cthe change you propse will make will become awesome
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 940
    saweendra said:

    Uagrim said:

    Firing without line of sight should give missile infantry an increased calibration area in order to represent the reduced accuracy. Would impact firing at close range from behind the frontline with higher risk of friendly fire.

    Giving archer/crossbow units two firing mods would make things more demanding, arch fire with a large calibration area, minimum range and reduced damage but it allows firing from behind units. And straight fire which needs LoS, has shorter range but allows for better accuracy and full damage.

    Agreed but part of why they are so accurate is also calibration distance since most such battles happen with it.

    If it was drastically reduced than cthe change you propse will make will become awesome
    Where exactly do you see calibration distance being to be better balanced? It's currently 75% of max range but line engagements can happen well within 50% or even closer.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660
    User_Clue said:

    saweendra said:

    Uagrim said:

    Firing without line of sight should give missile infantry an increased calibration area in order to represent the reduced accuracy. Would impact firing at close range from behind the frontline with higher risk of friendly fire.

    Giving archer/crossbow units two firing mods would make things more demanding, arch fire with a large calibration area, minimum range and reduced damage but it allows firing from behind units. And straight fire which needs LoS, has shorter range but allows for better accuracy and full damage.

    Agreed but part of why they are so accurate is also calibration distance since most such battles happen with it.

    If it was drastically reduced than cthe change you propse will make will become awesome
    Where exactly do you see calibration distance being to be better balanced? It's currently 75% of max range but line engagements can happen well within 50% or even closer.
    yes thats why it need to be much less, with it being lower accuracy becomes more important stat
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,854
    Does anyone actually know exactly how calibration area factors in with calibration area?

    If it's linear, then calibration distance has no meaning other then directly affecting calibration area, which means that you could just change calibration area instead for the same outcome. If its a more exponential relationship then it matters, but I have not seen any such explanation published. I have only seen one explanation from non-official source that cal area corresponds to a circular plane that shots will pass through at the distance cal distance from the shooter. If that is correct, then it's linear and you wouldn't need both cal area and cal distance... So maybe it's not, but does anyone actually know?

    Likewise accuracy just reduces the cal area, the only need for accuracy afaic then is that accuracy can be affected by skills and environment.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660

    Does anyone actually know exactly how calibration area factors in with calibration area?

    If it's linear, then calibration distance has no meaning other then directly affecting calibration area, which means that you could just change calibration area instead for the same outcome. If its a more exponential relationship then it matters, but I have not seen any such explanation published. I have only seen one explanation from non-official source that cal area corresponds to a circular plane that shots will pass through at the distance cal distance from the shooter. If that is correct, then it's linear and you wouldn't need both cal area and cal distance... So maybe it's not, but does anyone actually know?

    Likewise accuracy just reduces the cal area, the only need for accuracy afaic then is that accuracy can be affected by skills and environment.

    From what i understand if its withing rhe calibration distance than lowest possible calibration area aka the highest accuracy for unit is applied. Out side of it calibration area values and accuracy values change calibration area.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,854
    saweendra said:

    Does anyone actually know exactly how calibration area factors in with calibration area?

    If it's linear, then calibration distance has no meaning other then directly affecting calibration area, which means that you could just change calibration area instead for the same outcome. If its a more exponential relationship then it matters, but I have not seen any such explanation published. I have only seen one explanation from non-official source that cal area corresponds to a circular plane that shots will pass through at the distance cal distance from the shooter. If that is correct, then it's linear and you wouldn't need both cal area and cal distance... So maybe it's not, but does anyone actually know?

    Likewise accuracy just reduces the cal area, the only need for accuracy afaic then is that accuracy can be affected by skills and environment.

    From what i understand if its withing rhe calibration distance than lowest possible calibration area aka the highest accuracy for unit is applied. Out side of it calibration area values and accuracy values change calibration area.
    I am almost certain it goes from 0 up to cal area gradually as you take much more damage when you are in hot pursuit of skirmishers in skirmish mode. You might think you'd take less from worse accuracy for shooting while running but instead you take more just because you're closer....

    So at least it seems linear up til cal distance, question is if it declines faster after than or if it just keeps getting worse at the same pace. It would make sense if it did but I never read a proper explaination of it from ca.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,854
    PS i mean intuitively you might think you'd take less damage because of worse accuracy for running and shooting but there is no such penalty. 😉
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660

    saweendra said:

    Does anyone actually know exactly how calibration area factors in with calibration area?

    If it's linear, then calibration distance has no meaning other then directly affecting calibration area, which means that you could just change calibration area instead for the same outcome. If its a more exponential relationship then it matters, but I have not seen any such explanation published. I have only seen one explanation from non-official source that cal area corresponds to a circular plane that shots will pass through at the distance cal distance from the shooter. If that is correct, then it's linear and you wouldn't need both cal area and cal distance... So maybe it's not, but does anyone actually know?

    Likewise accuracy just reduces the cal area, the only need for accuracy afaic then is that accuracy can be affected by skills and environment.

    From what i understand if its withing rhe calibration distance than lowest possible calibration area aka the highest accuracy for unit is applied. Out side of it calibration area values and accuracy values change calibration area.
    I am almost certain it goes from 0 up to cal area gradually as you take much more damage when you are in hot pursuit of skirmishers in skirmish mode. You might think you'd take less from worse accuracy for shooting while running but instead you take more just because you're closer....

    So at least it seems linear up til cal distance, question is if it declines faster after than or if it just keeps getting worse at the same pace. It would make sense if it did but I never read a proper explaination of it from ca.
    could be never really thought about skirmish scenario , i was more thinking of stationary range and how accurate they are when with in calibration distance.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,411

    Does anyone actually know exactly how calibration area factors in with calibration area?

    Someone described it once in more detail but my basic understanding is that your shots are highly accurate until you hit the calibration distance and than accuracy starts to drop off significantly from there.

    So Imagine accuracy as a cone, currently calibration range is at 75% of Range.



    Min Range
    15 % Range |
    30 % Range | |
    45 % Range | |
    60 % Range | |
    75 % Range | |
    80 % Range | |
    95 % Range | |

    But if the Calibration Range was lower like in this example at 45%

    Min Range
    15 % Range |
    30 % Range | |
    45 % Range | |
    60 % Range | |
    75 % Range | |
    80 % Range | |
    95 % Range | |


    I'm not sure if this is the best analogy because I don't understand the nuance of how Accuracy and Calibration Range interact but...

    Remember in Game 1 in Melee Base Chance to Hit was 40% + MA - MD
    Then in Game 2 the changed it to Base Chance to Hit at 20% + MA - MD
    After that MA and MD started to have a grater impact on the game than other stats like Damage for instance.

    Basically we are asking for the ranged equivalent of reducing the "Base Chance to Hit" 40% to 20% so that the accuracy stat matters more. Maybe depending on how exactly Accuracy and Calibration Range interact.

    It would be nice if maybe @CA_Duck could clarify any misunderstandings on our part if we are getting anything wrong.

    Also as a caveat we are specifically talking about Ranged Infantry Units in general and not Artillery which require a high calibration distance to function properly.
  • WarpDriverWarpDriver Registered Users Posts: 71
    Don't reduce calibration distance, unless it is adequately compensated for, this is regards VP specifically. This race does not need more nerfs surely :]
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,660

    Don't reduce calibration distance, unless it is adequately compensated for, this is regards VP specifically. This race does not need more nerfs surely :]

    The thing is vampire coast is one of the few race that can increase accuracy stats of their units in mp. Specially with with enhanced balistics and sptie full shot..

    But the accuracy buffs are not great on their gun units as nearly everything in this game because of high calibration distance.

    With it reduced you can take full advantage of these buffs as coast.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • WarpDriverWarpDriver Registered Users Posts: 71
    @Saweendra Let's see if CA explains calibration so it makes sense, so far it seems like we all don't know for sure eh!

    If I understand you correctly, you're saying to nerf ranged so that the various buffs stand out more, is this correct? The buffs would stay as powerful as they are now but be comparatively better?

    Any overall nerfs to Coast right now are a very bad idea, unfortunately. Extra powder is nice, but is vital in combination with the current state of firepower effectiveness. Spiteful Shot and Enhanced ballistics are really good, but very limited, e.g. by gold, duration, frequency, and when to use.

    If I've got your message wrong, and you're seeking to improve VPs general non-buffed ranged units, then it's a good move for Vampire Coast :]
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,292
    @OdTengri seems to have the jist of it. I find that units don't miss hardly at all if the mark is within the calibration distance. This is also why units with really high accuracy miss a lot when they have hardly any calibration distance.

    Other factors include the size of your mark/target, whether they are moving, whether the animation bobs the unit, etc.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,411

    Don't reduce calibration distance, unless it is adequately compensated for, this is regards VP specifically. This race does not need more nerfs surely :]

    No it needs buffs.... so much the buffs... mostly to Zombie Health Pools.
Sign In or Register to comment.