Classic Total War is so intuitive. I remember as a KID hovering my mouse over my units in RTW, noticing they had "tired" or "exhausted" and realizing I shouldn't run them up hills or it will tire them out. And then learning to conserve my troops energy.
One interesting characterstic I found in Shogun 2 is that archers can often do better if they are on lower terrain rather than higher one. Because arrows go in a parabolic arc, the flight path of an arrow attacking someone uphill has a chance to hit a soldier behind it if missing it's initial target, increasing the amount of units it passes through and is more likely to score a kill. One firing downhill on the other hand, is more likely to hit the ground rather than carrying on to another potential target because of the steeper decline. It's the only time I've ever found it to be more beneficial NOT to be on a the higher ground. Of course, this only works on hills and does not apply to forts. Archers have to aim way up to go over the walls, so any benefit is lost there as the archer usually comes down at quite a steep angle, making it unlikely to pass through more than one potential target.
I remeber back in Shgoun 1, Medieval 1, Rome 1 and Medieval 2 missile units gain a bonus to their firing distance if they fire downhill so it made sense to have your missile units on higher terrain. However even since Empire total war the firing distance for units on hills is exactly the same as if they were on flat lowlands
@@egm01egm it’s dumb, but can’t really expect better from ca despite an amazing game. Misunderstanding of Simulating terminal ballistics? Also how far do you actually gain in those games - I have Rome 1 og and don’t notice anything. When I face archers of equal range they loose the exact same time more or less… when they get in range of my archers and I have auto fire on the ai stops to draw theoretically when they can’t get me yet
Holy, that music feels perfect for this. I like it bro. Your videos feels like something any normal person would watch. As in, a pro channel. Good job dude. My only recommendation is to lighten up the thumbnail as it's a bit dark. But, me likes!
If your men stand at the top of the hill, you might not get the biggest advantage. Also, it'll be very difficult for your archers to shoot over your troops into the enemy.
So true for the last part. Be nice to add that hopefully the ai would attempt the same by rng switching seats with youSo true for the last part. Be nice to add that hopefully the ai would attempt the same by rng switching seats with you
I still don't understand the part with not getting biggest advantage. With ashigaru and katana samurai example you gave (my armies mostly consist of ashigaru units) doesn't it mean in my case that I should hold top of the hill instead the slope? Also what are the advantages of this and disadvantages of holding the slope instead of top of the hill? This part sounds very complicated and gets me confused a lot
The 3 main reasons that a slope is preferable to the top of a hill are 1. At the top op of the hill, your troops are on flat ground. Meaning that if they wish to charge, they first must run to the edge of the hill on flat ground, then downhill. This costs precious time and takes the unit longer to accelerate when it begins moving downhill. 2. If you need to reposition or move your army back slightly, there is no more slope behind you to utilize. If you give even a small amount of ground to the enemy or if they are able to break through a section of your line, now you are fighting on flat ground. If you hold the slope at approx. 70% of it's total height, you have that 70% the enemy must cross to reach you and another 30% to the rear should you need it. 3. Archer accuracy is greatly improved if the archers don't have to fire over the crest of a hill. The trajectory of the arrows is flatter, meaning the arrows are more likely to hit their targets. With a flatter trajectory the arrows are more likely to kill even if they miss their intended targets because the angle will allow them to hit men in the next few ranks rather than just landing point down in the ground.
If you have men stationed on a wall, does that count as having higher terrain since you have your full unit on a high point and their average elevation is significantly lower than yours?
I don't think you get any height advantage bonuses, but it will still be easier to rout a unit which is climbing, since they lose a few men on the climb and are tired/very tired when they reach the top. Also, it takes a while for the climbing unit to reinforce the first few men.
It's over, I have the high ground!
It do be like that :P
You underestimate my power!
Classic Total War is so intuitive. I remember as a KID hovering my mouse over my units in RTW, noticing they had "tired" or "exhausted" and realizing I shouldn't run them up hills or it will tire them out. And then learning to conserve my troops energy.
One interesting characterstic I found in Shogun 2 is that archers can often do better if they are on lower terrain rather than higher one. Because arrows go in a parabolic arc, the flight path of an arrow attacking someone uphill has a chance to hit a soldier behind it if missing it's initial target, increasing the amount of units it passes through and is more likely to score a kill. One firing downhill on the other hand, is more likely to hit the ground rather than carrying on to another potential target because of the steeper decline. It's the only time I've ever found it to be more beneficial NOT to be on a the higher ground. Of course, this only works on hills and does not apply to forts. Archers have to aim way up to go over the walls, so any benefit is lost there as the archer usually comes down at quite a steep angle, making it unlikely to pass through more than one potential target.
I remeber back in Shgoun 1, Medieval 1, Rome 1 and Medieval 2 missile units gain a bonus to their firing distance if they fire downhill so it made sense to have your missile units on higher terrain. However even since Empire total war the firing distance for units on hills is exactly the same as if they were on flat lowlands
Cool, I knew that in some games the high ground gave you a range advantage, but I wasn't sure which ones. Thank your for sharing!
That is contradicting physics
@@egm01egm it’s dumb, but can’t really expect better from ca despite an amazing game. Misunderstanding of Simulating terminal ballistics?
Also how far do you actually gain in those games - I have Rome 1 og and don’t notice anything. When I face archers of equal range they loose the exact same time more or less… when they get in range of my archers and I have auto fire on the ai stops to draw theoretically when they can’t get me yet
High ground should still give you accuracy bonus in Shogun 2
Could we please have more generalized tactic guides like this? For example, tutorials for tactics in attack and in defence? Thank you in advance!
I'm planning to do a generic attack and defense video both for field battles and sieges. But I'm not sure when they get made.
Something to note during the campaign near mountains you can increase your chances of having in passable terrain. Held of an army twice my size.
Yup, the battlemaps sort of align with the terrain on the strategic overview. Bridge battles are also one of those good places to hold of big armies.
Good shit, been playing rome 2 for a solid +1300 hours and shogun 2 is giving me enormous problems, these are helpful
Glad to be of service!
Incorporating terrain into battles was best done in shogun 2
Holy, that music feels perfect for this. I like it bro. Your videos feels like something any normal person would watch. As in, a pro channel. Good job dude. My only recommendation is to lighten up the thumbnail as it's a bit dark. But, me likes!
Thank you for the kind words! Yeah, I'm still struggling with my thumbnails, but I'll keep working on it. And the rest ofcourse!
Thank you for all these guides, they are fantastic
Glad you like them!
Your comment about taking the slope instead of the top was very interesting.
Does elevation affect ranged fire ?
It may effect their firing arc and whether or not they can fire over units, but not the actual stats themselves like with melee.
why on the slope but not on the top of the hill? im new. your guides are very helpful to me
If your men stand at the top of the hill, you might not get the biggest advantage. Also, it'll be very difficult for your archers to shoot over your troops into the enemy.
So true for the last part. Be nice to add that hopefully the ai would attempt the same by rng switching seats with youSo true for the last part. Be nice to add that hopefully the ai would attempt the same by rng switching seats with you
One thing I don't like about this game is that the general cannot be hidden even when in the forest.
I guess it has something to do with coding for the AI. In newer Total War games it can really screw up AI sometimes.
@@TheVikingGeneral oh. So that explains it.
Agreed, bcoz that i often use him to bait enemy into location that i set up with
These videos are awesome!
Could you do something like this for Fall and Rise of Samurai too? :p
Thank you! I'm not sure if I'll cover those to DLC's, since I'll first focus on other basegames. But who knows, maybe some time in the far future? ;)
I still don't understand the part with not getting biggest advantage. With ashigaru and katana samurai example you gave (my armies mostly consist of ashigaru units) doesn't it mean in my case that I should hold top of the hill instead the slope? Also what are the advantages of this and disadvantages of holding the slope instead of top of the hill? This part sounds very complicated and gets me confused a lot
The 3 main reasons that a slope is preferable to the top of a hill are
1. At the top op of the hill, your troops are on flat ground. Meaning that if they wish to charge, they first must run to the edge of the hill on flat ground, then downhill. This costs precious time and takes the unit longer to accelerate when it begins moving downhill.
2. If you need to reposition or move your army back slightly, there is no more slope behind you to utilize. If you give even a small amount of ground to the enemy or if they are able to break through a section of your line, now you are fighting on flat ground. If you hold the slope at approx. 70% of it's total height, you have that 70% the enemy must cross to reach you and another 30% to the rear should you need it.
3. Archer accuracy is greatly improved if the archers don't have to fire over the crest of a hill. The trajectory of the arrows is flatter, meaning the arrows are more likely to hit their targets. With a flatter trajectory the arrows are more likely to kill even if they miss their intended targets because the angle will allow them to hit men in the next few ranks rather than just landing point down in the ground.
Lovely vid but there's also low shrub terrain you missed :D
If you have men stationed on a wall, does that count as having higher terrain since you have your full unit on a high point and their average elevation is significantly lower than yours?
I don't think you get any height advantage bonuses, but it will still be easier to rout a unit which is climbing, since they lose a few men on the climb and are tired/very tired when they reach the top. Also, it takes a while for the climbing unit to reinforce the first few men.
I have most CA games, feel like shogun 2 was peak of their development, rome 2 has superior graphics but for me was much less attractive
Shogun 2 is very polished, but I do also enjoy the spectacle from Warhammer 2 and the diplomacy in RTK.