Ranged Bombard Rework Project

[Yudishtira]

EDIT: Perhaps we need a No Small Arms Ranged Bombardment option for those who don't want archers, crossbowmen, rifles or lasers to have the ability.

I would take that option although I think archers (but not crossbowmen) should keep the ability.

I think it's a bit too much of a stretch to have this represent/overlap sniping. For me, this bombard is about an attritional attack where the probability (however slim) that some individual shots will hit a target (EDIT: or reduce morale) is good enough to outweigh any scarcity of ammunition. Bows can be used for such attacks, but I don't believe crossbows or rifles (or lasers) can. Ie./C'est-a-dire, individually-targeted attacks don't fit the profile.

ETA: As an aside, it strikes me on reflection that V1/Scud/Katyusha attacks also fit the bill.../ETA

It has more in common with suppressive fire than sniping imo. Sniping is already represented elsewhere in the game. Or is this mechanic replacing it as well?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I would take that option although I think archers (but not crossbowmen) should keep the ability.

I think it's a bit too much of a stretch to have this represent/overlap sniping. For me, this bombard is about an attritional attack where the probability (however slim) that some individual shots will hit a target (EDIT: or reduce morale) is good enough to outweigh any scarcity of ammunition. Bows can be used for such attacks, but I don't believe crossbows or rifles (or lasers) can. Ie./C'est-a-dire, individually-targeted attacks don't fit the profile.

ETA: As an aside, it strikes me on reflection that V1/Scud/Katyusha attacks also fit the bill.../ETA

It has more in common with suppressive fire than sniping imo. Sniping is already represented elsewhere in the game. Or is this mechanic replacing it as well?

No... not intended to replace sniping. I'll have to take a look at how the two vary in approach, and yes, suppressive fire is considered, in this view, to BE a form of ranged bombardment in this arrangement which is exactly why rifles, semi-auto, fully auto and lasers can do so.

Also, I'm not 100% sure how ammunition will play into the picture BUT I do figure at some point it will be something to account for if optionally enabled.

I'm having trouble understanding how if an archer could rbombard, a rifle could not... what logic really captures that? (Not bashing or arguing but if we're to make an option for no small arms bombard why would a bow be exempt?) Of course KEEPING Archery bombard as an option makes it valid in view of such an option if the standard rbombard mechanism kept archers out of its use.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Yudishtira, I think we have a language difference with Thunderbrd here. To us bombard means throwing stuff so that it comes down on the heads of those you are aiming at. Clout Shooting in archery for example, where you can hit people behind that spinny (small copse - apparently the word is only used where I come from and also means confused) even though you can't see them. You can't do that for things that travel in straight lines or near straight lines like rifle bullets.

 

[Yudishtira]

I'm having trouble understanding how if an archer could rbombard, a rifle could not... what logic really captures that?

I was probably mistaken, but I've always believed that arrows fired in the air still wound people when they come back down. I've never heard of bolts/quarrels or bullets being used that way, and of course gravity does not apply to lasers.

Even if I am wrong, flaming and poison-tipped arrows can certainly be used in this way, so the bow would need to get the ability back with those promos...

Yudishtira, I think we have a language difference with Thunderbrd here. To us bombard means throwing stuff so that it comes down on the heads of those you are aiming at. Clout Shooting in archery for example, where you can hit people behind that spinny (small copse - apparently the word is only used where I come from and also means confused) even though you can't see them. You can't do that for things that travel in straight lines or near straight lines like rifle bullets.

Yes thanks DH that was pretty much what I meant. (And yeah I know the word 'spinney' although obviously I spell it with an 'e'...)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

(And yeah I know the word 'spinney' although obviously I spell it with an 'e'...)

As you should and me too. However I checked my spelling in google and it came back with a definition that comes from South West England which is where I originate, along with most of my ancestors back to the Civil War (not the US Civil War!) at least.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The tag bRBombardDirect indicates the combat classes that fire straight at long range at their foes during a ranged bombardment attack. Therefore, Ranged Bombardment covers both types of attack forms, the long distance lobbing fire and the long distance direct shot. I did not realize that the term bombardment had such a specific connotation for y'all.

Perhaps it should be changed, in game, to state that it is simply a Ranged Attack (not to be confused with sniping.) And keep in mind that 'sniping' is more considered to be a very selective and carefully aimed shot at a far off target. The difference is that Snipers pick their targets and use a great deal of patience when firing to make sure they hit dead on. This form of ranged attack would be a line of guns just firing at the enemy positions in the hopes that the rain of bullets will wear down a significant number of those foes.

 

[BlueGenie]

Use "Volley" instead of Bombard then?
Volley can both be a straight line shooting of many projectiles as well as a lobbing of many projectiles. The key to Volley is rather many projectiles than how those projectiles arrive at their destination.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ranged Volley huh? hmm...

 

[Faustmouse]

Ranged Volley huh? hmm...

As a non-native english speaker:

never heard volley and would be totally confused. Bambardment for me is only when you use explosives like from artillery. Maybe Cannons. but not Arrows or Rifles.

Can't we just name it "Long Range(d) Attack"?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Long Range Attack sounds good to me. I like it better than volley and bombard should be kept clearly as the action that breaks down city defenses. I'm not sure what the sniping action is called though - may be Ranged Attack. At which point that should be changed to 'Snipe Attack'.

 

[Yudishtira]

"A rose by any other name...". Isn't it obvious that it's not the name that I'm arguing for a change of?! We have always had 'Archer Bombard' and 'Ranged Bombard'. There is no benefit in changing that.

As for the overlap with suppressive fire, does it replace the suppressive fire promo(s) or supplement it/them?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Suppressive fire is a strategy of shooting very slowly to get your opponent to stay down where they are and to intimidate them into not raising up to take shots themselves (like at the guy you're covering for as he moves forward into an advanced position.)

What's the big deal difference between an arced shot and any other distance shot other than what they're likely to hit? Both are simply distance attacks.

 

[BlueGenie]

I'd say straight shots are within a plot, attack and defence, while arched shots are aimed at a more distant target, a plot over for instance, and aimed more to distrupt and injure than suppress.
Sniping is seperate, as is bombarding defenses.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

I see an attack as moving in to take that position and a ranged attack as holding your position and firing at a distant enemy without intent to try to move into that position. Whether an arced shot or a straight shot makes a difference only in the dynamic of the ranged attack, not the action itself.

No reason that my archers should be able to make a non-committal shot at a plot one over while my riflemen can't.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

No reason that my archers should be able to make a non-committal shot at a plot one over while my riflemen can't.

The hill in the way would stop rifle but not archers.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The hill in the way would stop rifle but not archers.

True that direct distance attacks should probably be interrupted if the range is greater than one by any taller features such as hills or mountains that may be in the way. I'll have to take a look into doing that somehow. One tile to an adjacent one wouldn't have any interruptions though.

 

[Faustmouse]

True that direct distance attacks should probably be interrupted if the range is greater than one by any taller features such as hills or mountains that may be in the way. I'll have to take a look into doing that somehow. One tile to an adjacent one wouldn't have any interruptions though.

show me the archer that can shoot over a mountain.... On the other hand, to heavy wind can make it hard for archers.

 

[BlueGenie]

True that direct distance attacks should probably be interrupted if the range is greater than one by any taller features such as hills or mountains that may be in the way. I'll have to take a look into doing that somehow. One tile to an adjacent one wouldn't have any interruptions though.

Doesn't that depend on where in both tiles they are standing, target and shooter?

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

show me the archer that can shoot over a mountain.... On the other hand, to heavy wind can make it hard for archers.

True... but Archers can never develop farther than a single space range so that shouldn't be an issue. The only one that COULD in that era would be a Ballista (after much dedicated development) and I've been debating on that one anyhow. But it's a straight shot weapon too so would be equally effected by a peak or hill in the way.

Doesn't that depend on where in both tiles they are standing, target and shooter?

Cheers

I suppose but I'd think it reasonable to assume that this is represented well enough by the chance to hit. We haven't input any kind of terrain modifiers and this is making it apparent that perhaps there should be - target terrain could make a big difference in whether the enemy has ground to take cover or not. And perhaps direct fire weaponry would incur twice the penalties from terrain since it WOULD be easier to take cover against shots coming in at a fairly straight trajectory.

That wouldn't be all that difficult to implement really - easier than it's going to be to get peaks and hills to interrupt targeting on direct fire (though I do feel that should be a factor.)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

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.