Why can bombards sometimes only shoot one tile away?

[Sherlock]

Sometimes two, sometimes one. Not over a river or a marsh or mountains or anything else.

Anyone else notice this?

 

[MrRadar]

Sometimes two, sometimes one. Not over a river or a marsh or mountains or anything else.

Anyone else notice this?

Do you have some screenshots of this to share? And are you sure, you're not missing a forest or a hill, or a forested hill, that blocks the line of sight? And neither rivers, nor marshes prevent bombards to shoot two tiles.

 

[steveg700]

Sometimes two, sometimes one. Not over a river or a marsh or mountains or anything else.

Anyone else notice this?

Not over a mountain is pretty normal. In general, you need line-of-sight to the target. Even if you have indirect fire capability, you need indirect line-of-sight (i.e. another friendly unit can act as a spotter).

 

[zhivik]

Or you need to have an Observation Balloon with that unit, which I believe allows bombing over mountains (though probably only for Artillery, rather than Bombards).

 

[Victoria]

I have never had a situation where I could not work out why
Typically the issue has been some jungle luxuries I am trying to shoot over. The tile looks like you can shoot over it but when you hover on it, it says jungle.
The only odd one I have seen is an elevation one with hill1 hill2 grassland. An archer on Hill1 can shoot the grassland archer but the grassland archer cannot shoot the hill1 archer

 

[zhivik]

I guess the additional hill is what counts here, though it isn't very logical. I've noticed something like that, too, but with two tiles of forests - if the enemy stands on a forest tile and there is another forest tile between him and the archer, the archer cannot shoot, unless he is on elevated terrain. I suppose the rationale is that you need to have a clear line of sight between the archer and the enemy, i.e. no hills or forests (I think the same applies to jungles). Normally, it wouldn't be so irritating, as long as it was clearly explained somewhere (and it isn't).

 

[TomKQT]

I guess the additional hill is what counts here, though it isn't very logical. I've noticed something like that, too, but with two tiles of forests - if the enemy stands on a forest tile and there is another forest tile between him and the archer, the archer cannot shoot, unless he is on elevated terrain. I suppose the rationale is that you need to have a clear line of sight between the archer and the enemy, i.e. no hills or forests (I think the same applies to jungles). Normally, it wouldn't be so irritating, as long as it was clearly explained somewhere (and it isn't).

I would say it's logical. Forest (jungle) blocks view, to be able to see over it you need to be on a hill. Hill also blocks view, to be able to view over it you need to be on another hill (the games assumes all hills the same height). Forest on a hill blocks view even more and you will never be able to see over it.
Forest/jungle on the tile you want to see has no effect. I'm talking only about obstacles BETWEEN the viewer and the target.