[Vote] (2-28) Swap The Names Of Accuracy and Barrage

[Captain Carrot]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 28
Currently Accuracy gives more RCS against units above 50%HP, while Barrage increases it against units at or below 50%HP. There may have been legitimate reasons for this naming, but the way I understand it, when there are less people to shoot at (<=50%HP), you'd want to be more accurate, while a massed barrage would be more effective with a larger number of targets (>50%HP). So maybe these names should be swapped?

 

[Delvemor]

I still remember the first time I saw that and it bothered me. I eventually forgot about it but that's so true.

 

[Captain Carrot]

I still remember the first time I saw that and it bothered me. I eventually forgot about it but that's so true.

Yeah, so did I, but a friend brought it up when we were testing a modpack.

 

[Stalker0]

You are absolutely right but to me this ship has sailed, it’s been this way for years. Changing it now would create more confusion than it solves

 

[Delvemor]

Something I've just though about is how currently Accuracy making the way to Range and Barrage leading to Logistics makes sense. You would need accuracy to reliably hit targets farther away and you need more logistic support to shoot twice as more.

 

[CppMaster]

Something I've just though about is how currently Accuracy making the way to Range and Barrage leading to Logistics makes sense. You would need accuracy to reliably hit targets farther away and you need more logistic support to shoot twice as more.

True, connection of accuracy and range make totally sense. Hovever effect of accuracy and barrage could be swapped for the reason in proposal. Then, someone who specializes in precise targeting would learn to fie with more range.

 

[Rekk]

Alternatively, a unit that is used to loosing arrows in an arc en masse (ie not aiming) doesn't need to worry about accuracy when working to extend their range.

 

[CppMaster]

Alternatively, a unit that is used to loosing arrows in an arc en masse (ie not aiming) doesn't need to worry about accuracy when working to extend their range.

How? The longer the distance to the target, the better accuracy you need.

 

[Rekk]

How? The longer the distance to the target, the better accuracy you need.

With archery, at long ranges, you don't rely on accuracy at all. You rely on a mass of arrows. This mass of arrows is also most effective when there are large numbers of grouped opponents.

Similarly with bullets: If you don't care about what you're hitting and instead just want to fill the air with bullets so that some of them will occupy the same space as a body, you don't need accuracy, you just need a lot of bullets. Range is then determined mostly by the specific weapon being used and the force it can exert on the projectile.

You only need accuracy at long ranges if you're trying to pick out an individual. As such, there is an argument to be made that Range fits for either. Arguably, Range could be on both branches, and Indirect Fire limited to Barrage. Unfortunately, Indirect Fire isn't nearly as strong as Logistics or Range, so any branch that has both of the latter will be the defacto pick.

 

[CppMaster]

A sniper rifle is way better than AK47 for hitting targets at 2km, because it's more accurate, while AK47 is better for hitting targets at 50m, because it's fast. At close ranges, accuracy matters much less; More bullets are better in both situations anyway.

 

[Rekk]

A sniper rifle can target at long distances because it puts more force on the bullet, allowing it to travel further distances, but fair enough. If you had a weapon that fired a large volume of projectiles that could reach at range (similar to a group of bowmen loosing volleys) against a large group of targets, then accuracy becomes much less important. You can get similar effects with anti-personnel RPGs.

The point here is that accuracy means less when your target is large (whether it's because your target is close, or because you have a large number of targets such that you don't need to care which one you hit).

At some point, you can't extend the range of a bow by being more accurate; you need to arc it. Once you approach your maximum range, accuracy means very little, and you completely rely on the mass of projectiles to be able to hit enough targets.

 

[CppMaster]

yeah and it makes firing much more accurate than from AK47

 

[Captain Carrot]

You are absolutely right but to me this ship has sailed, it’s been this way for years. Changing it now would create more confusion than it solves

I see your point, but for me personally the icons are so similar that I have to mouse over them and then I'm reading the description anyway, not the name. I suppose it's a matter of removing confusion for less experienced players vs adding it for more experienced ones and so probably best resolved with a vote, which is what the Congress is all about.

Something I've just though about is how currently Accuracy making the way to Range and Barrage leading to Logistics makes sense. You would need accuracy to reliably hit targets farther away and you need more logistic support to shoot twice as more.

That does make sense, but, as later posts show, new justifications aren't hard to think of. Barrage->Range was already provided, and Accuracy... makes the men waste less arrows, lessening the logistical burden and allowing them to use the extra ammunition in a second volley?
Alternatively, we could swap the effects of the promotions, but I didn't want to propose that because then it would be a gameplay change for purely aesthetic reasons.

 

[CppMaster]

Alternatively, we could swap the effects of the promotions, but I didn't want to propose that because then it would be a gameplay change for purely aesthetic reasons.

That would make sense, though. Changing gameplay for flavor is not inherently a bad thing.

 

[Captain Carrot]

That would make sense, though. Changing gameplay for flavor is not inherently a bad thing.

I guess not, but I'm just not attuned to the balance at all and didn't want to risk somehow making one branch of the promotion tree way stronger than the other.

 

[Recursive]

I sponsor this.

Proposal sponsored by Recursive.

 

[ma_kuh]

I'm going to hate getting used to these icons being swapped. I do wish the effect had been swapped rather than the name, to be honest. :/

 

[Rekk]

The effect is associated with the icon the same way
Now:
straight line = +50%, curved line = -50%
proposal:
straight line = +50%, curved line = -50%

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.