Petition: Range modifier for Terrain

i made this same topic in Technical, but will make it here as a petition.
Why?
Terrain is SO very important for RTS games. As its in the name: Real Time Strategy.
Especially in a game that plays in medieval times, this feature is KEY. Look at all the forts and castles in those times, there were made for a reason on top of hills and cliffs.

so why this petition?
because in the current state of the game, the height of the terrain is not taken into account.

So have i tested this? do i have proof of this statement?
YES!

as posted in technical i will copy paste it here:
the Range modifier for terrain is BUGGED!

height has now NO modification for RANGE

so, here is the test map:

(click image for full size)

Here ingame:

(click image for full size)

still the archers can not hit!?
this is really insane!
please for the love of god, fix this, make it realistic.

the test map can be downloaded trough THIS link. (Mirror)
(all can test yourself by putting the map file into: ..\Documents\Stronghold 3\Maps\ )


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT:
Added a second (better) test map.
screenshots:

(click image for full size)

&


(click image for full size)

download test map 2: here (Mirror)



So please Sign this Petition, this is something that really needs to be in top 3 priority for the next patch!
if not added... why not make all maps just flat...

you have my vote

Signed..........

Walls dont give an height advantage either do they?
Add 2 more things to the ever growing bug list.

Signed - could be a nice thing to add, makes it more real and an important strategic advantage.

i agree. lots of patches need to be done but this is top 5 at least

Signed. This should be priority number one, as far as I'm concerned. Well, number two. Number one should be getting your ranged troops to attack enemies on high ground with their ranged weapons instead of trying to find a way up there, presumably to punch them with their fists. X(

+1

are you sure about that? that is the basic in RTS since about more than 10 years now... Hill, cliffs better range....

geekoo wrote:

QUOTE:
+1

are you sure about that? that is the basic in RTS since about more than 10 years now... Hill, cliffs better range....

yea im sure,
just download the test map and see for yourself :/

I too will agree that terrain should have an impact on range. However, there are limits.

In your test map, your platform seems incredibly high. Have you tried to lower it?

What I mean to say is: If I shoot an arrow at you from the top of Mt. Everest, while you're at the bottom, would you get hit? and can you shoot me back?

No, and No.

But If I was on a 100 foot high cliff, then yes, my range should be extended - to a point.

The issue is called "diminishing returns" until such a point it becomes a negative value.

If the archer can shoot 100 feet, and you put them on a 10 foot high wall, how much is the increase? Let's assume 10 feet high gets you 110 feet distance. So at 100 feet high do you expect 200 feet of range? I think not. It would be more like a 10 foot height gives you 110, but a 50 foot height only grants something like 144 and eventually diminishing return nets you negative value, where 90 feet of height actually shoots LESS far than 70 feet height.

So while I will vote to add terrain values to range, the amount of range needs to be calculated

RevBiskit wrote:

QUOTE:
I too will agree that terrain should have an impact on range. However, there are limits.

In your test map, your platform seems incredibly high. Have you tried to lower it?

What I mean to say is: If I shoot an arrow at you from the top of Mt. Everest, while you're at the bottom, would you get hit? and can you shoot me back?

No, and No.

But If I was on a 100 foot high cliff, then yes, my range should be extended - to a point.

The issue is called "diminishing returns" until such a point it becomes a negative value.

If the archer can shoot 100 feet, and you put them on a 10 foot high wall, how much is the increase? Let's assume 10 feet high gets you 110 feet distance. So at 100 feet high do you expect 200 feet of range? I think not. It would be more like a 10 foot height gives you 110, but a 50 foot height only grants something like 144 and eventually diminishing return nets you negative value, where 90 feet of height actually shoots LESS far than 70 feet height.

So while I will vote to add terrain values to range, the amount of range needs to be calculated

added a new part in the first post od this topic, adding a SECOND test map.
result are very clear

- - - - - - - - - -

Added a second (better) test map.
screenshots:

(click image for full size)

&


(click image for full size)

download test map 2: here (Mirror