Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I am not talking about hill plots. Archers can hit people behind the wall by shooting arrows up so that come down on the heads of the defender whereas rifles can't even when there is only the wall between the two sides of the combat.
They're no better at hitting defenders with roofs over their heads though. Should we thus be making a tag to differentiate city bombard defenses to having potentially more defense against a direct shot rather than an arched shot?
Or can the difference be considered fairly negligible considering that a rifle will also often puncture THROUGH the barrier you've put between you and your foes unless said barrier is very strong. Can we presume that the cover that is found can be equally sufficient/insufficient for differing reasons?
As people run for cover they can be struck by direct fire. Anyone manning a wall can still be hit when they turn to fire back. If the bullets are coming from a distance you might not realize the shot is coming or that there's really as much threat as there is and may not be taking cover in an effective manner. And bullets don't give a lot of time to react so are you to spend the whole day huddled behind the battlements?
My point being that if you know arrows are coming in, you'll seek cover under something whereas if you know a round of bullets are being fired at you you'll dive to put something solid in front of you. I consider both scenarios pretty equivalent. Arrows give you time to react BECAUSE of the arching - you can see them coming before they arrive. And nobody in the arching unit is really taking any effort to aim either so it's got to rely entirely on covering a particular area targeted (hopefully WELL targeted) by the captain.
There's strengths and weaknesses to both approaches but one does not preclude the capability of the other to take place.