[Poll-Debate Area-feedback] Arrow flight trajectories

[Terco_Viejo]

I open this thread with a double intention; debate and feedback.

First I would like to share with you (both forumites and devs) a video test. In it I have compared the landing arrows trajectory working under the default parameters effect with a couple of modified parameters effect. I would also like to measure the general interest in the topic by voting.

But first I would like you to check those two videos out:

Here you can see a launch of a bunch of arrows using long bows. Pay attention to how it falls and with what speed.	Here you can see a historical recreation of enthusiastic and amateur people shooting blunt head arrows (not to hurt anyone).
​	​

I'm not going to talk about trajectories, gravity effect and other archery topics; I think everybody has a small idea of how the bow and arrow works. There are millions of videos in youtube to document yourself.

Well, now watch the video test:

On the left we have the Native's bots. The arrows fly at a devilish speed, so fast that they look like tracer bullets. Also the angle of shot does not correspond to the impact distances that are achieved.	On the other hand, on the right we have the bots under the effect of the modified parameters. Here you can see that the arrow moves much slower by drawing a parabolic bow. The effect that it achieves at these distances and it is here that I want to emphasize, is in the suppression fire effect.

​

Basically we are managing to make the AI carry out a much more pronounced parabolic shot at a greater distance, with a much more natural fall of the projectile (imo). All this affects long distance shots; at short distances (± <50m) the vertical rectification (for both the bot and the player) would be practically the same as in the Native. A very similar effect is found in the mod Realistic Battle Mod.

This is an idea in the form of a video test to be added to the feedback pool. I honestly think that something like this would work very well in Bannerlord. Also, this type of parabolic shot would fit like a glove with the volley fire and focus fire mechanics. And of course, both the bot and the player should be able to cover their heads; therefore the shields are supposed to have the same manoeuvrability as the round sturgian (something that will sound familiar to more than one of you if you read it around the forum and that is materialized in Hybrid Blocking mod)

So, what do you think? Do you find these modifications useful?

-------
EDIT

after a more intensive test: when having more friction, the projectile loses speed and for some reason it loses effectiveness of the damage caused (too much within a plausible scenario). Without doubt these changes affect negatively in damage system and the damage is less and therefore if this type of change occurs, undoubtedly the damage values of each arrow/projectile should be buffered.

 

[chepox2004]

this is a great idea

 

[Rycon Caldestan]

Yes , it would be much more immersive to see the shots adjusted into better arcs for ranged shots.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I remember the Realistic Battle Mod essentially does this to arrows. And people complained. Can't help but think the same would happen if TW actually took this advice on lol.

Not that I hate it. If anything, it looks quite great.

 

[Ling*]

I'm actually surprised at how much I like this change. Big +1 from me.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I remember the Realistic Battle Mod essentially does this to arrows. And people complained. Can't help but think the same would happen if TW actually took this advice on lol.

Not that I hate it. If anything, it looks quite great.

Wow, believe me I've tried (to test armor and behaviour) RB practically since it came out and until today I didn't notice that feature (I haven't played intensely any campaign - more like testing). Certainly my application does not affect the damage values of the projectiles (*after more intensive testing: it does affect, the damage is less) but rather the friction of the projectile and the detection range. However, to my surprise, the effect is very similar in both cases (perhaps in my test it is a bit more cinematic... more 300 film arrow rain effect), but yes; I must admit that the idea is essentially the same.

I've read over the first two pages of comments (there are hundreds) on the mod section and I've seen comments from you; I imagine you've followed the development of the mod. Could you share with us, why people are complaining about this issue (parabolic shot)?

* Edit

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Wow, believe me I've tried (to test armor and behaviour) RB practically since it came out and until today I didn't notice that feature (I haven't played intensely any campaign - more like testing). Certainly my application does not affect the damage values of the projectiles (*after more intensive testing: it does affect, the damage is less) but rather the friction of the projectile and the detection range. However, to my surprise, the effect is very similar in both cases (perhaps in my test it is a bit more cinematic... more 300 film arrow rain effect), but yes; I must admit that the idea is essentially the same.

I've read over the first two pages of comments (there are hundreds) on the mod section and I've seen comments from you; I imagine you've followed the development of the mod. Could you share with us, why people are complaining about this issue (parabolic shot)?

* Edit

Basically because people don't seem to enjoy having to adjust their aim to account for distance, and they feel that archery is way too weak because of it.

I don't remember much of what I've said there now, apart from asking for deets on how they designed stats for armour lol.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Basically because people don't seem to enjoy having to adjust their aim to account for distance, and they feel that archery is way too weak because of it.

I don't remember much of what I've said there now, apart from asking for deets on how they designed stats for armour lol.

I understand...people prefer AS50 .50 BMG rifles than bows...
Thank you for commenting. In the initial comment I've already edited it, referring to RB mod and also to the fact that with those modified parameters the projectile damage is less (eventually we would have to modify the damage values of each one of the items/arrow-projectile).

 

[relam10]

Well... Realistic is always +1, atleast when things dont make gameplay unnecessarily tedious.

For sure I prefer a realistic shoot over no sense arrows working as a minigun.

 

[TechnoSarge]

As a horse archer in the game I love the need to cancel my mount's motion by sweeping my aim. That feels good. I feel extra good when I nail someone who is running in the opposite direction, as I have two motions to account for. For my poor brain, that's enough without loading in a natural trajectory.

On the other hand, on foot in a siege, my ability to pinpoint enemy heads repeatably is appreciated, as it helps my team to personally take down 30 enemy. But it's hardly like archery, or even a minigun. The target hardly ever shifts position after receiving his first serious wound, much less taking cover, and my ability to make very fine adjustments between shots is more akin to firing a rifle from a bench rest, rather than physically expending muscular force to draw and aim a bow for each shot.

Here's another angle (heh!) to the trajectory question. Right now, archery in woods is do-able. You lose some shots into tree trunks if you or your target are moving, but not many, and against static troops you can still be effective. If arrows had to fly through tree canopy so you couldn't follow their flight, it would really mess up accuracy. In real life, firing through canopy would probably totally render archery useless, as arrows would be deflected or absorbed.

So as a developer, you would have to ask yourself if you wanted to nerf archery severely in woods. I suspect that the trajectories we have in the game are an answer to that question.

 

[Rycon Caldestan]

Techno makes a fair point in regards to woods’ effect on shot difficulties. Having gone hunting and target shooting in the woods with bow and arrow, it is a very realistic pain to deal with; firing any great distance through heavily wooded areas is an absolute pain. That is true both with archery as well as the relatively flat trajectory of a rifle. I know this goes right into the debate of realism vs “fun factor”, as you were mentioning.

On a different note:
It’s frankly been a while since I’ve played Warband, but I recall dealing with Parabolic shots more in WB compared to bannerlord. Am I remembering that nostalgically? Also, I haven’t played around with archery in a couple of beta patches, did the recent archery changes add more parabolic arc to any of the bow trajectories or are they all still relatively flat?
I’d love BL have an archery trajectory similar to Kingdom Come Deliverance, even if we had to keep/add back in crosshairs

 

[Terco_Viejo]

[...]
So as a developer, you would have to ask yourself if you wanted to nerf archery severely in woods. I suspect that the trajectories we have in the game are an answer to that question.

Techno makes a fair point in regards to woods’ effect on shot difficulties. Having gone hunting and target shooting in the woods with bow and arrow, it is a very realistic pain to deal with; firing any great distance through heavily wooded areas is an absolute pain. That is true both with archery as well as the relatively flat trajectory of a rifle. I know this goes right into the debate of realism vs “fun factor”, as you were mentioning.
[...]

As I said in first comment
:

All this affects long distance shots; at short distances (± <50m) the vertical rectification (for both the bot and the player) would be practically the same as in the Native.

Evidently the massive throwing of arrows in a forest was not a common practice in warfare; rather, open spaces were sought. As with bow hunting, you will get as close as possible without being detected by the animal. Remember that in the period that bannerlord was inspired, the pulley bow (wrongly called compound bow) would not have been invented yet
In the game it's exactly the same, both allied and enemy units have to get closer to each other to get accurate shots in high density forest.

 

[hieronymos2]

I'd really like parabolic (realistic) arrow flight in BL; but the current dumbed-down version is no doubt more practical for TW to market and actually implement in game. As technoSarge referred to above, there actually is parabolic flight--but only horizontally, as a result of rapid lateral movement.

The main objection I've had to parabolic flight in games (Skyrim? Prophecy of Pendor? Viking Conquest?..I can't specifically remember) is being able to actually visually track the arrow's flight; instead of merely seeing the hit or miss, and not knowing with a miss whether I'd over- or under-shot.

 

[geala]

skip

-------
EDIT

after a more intensive test: when having more friction, the projectile loses speed and for some reason it loses effectiveness of the damage caused. Without doubt these changes affect negatively in damage system and the damage is less and therefore if this type of change occurs, undoubtedly the damage values of each arrow/projectile should be buffered.

Why? It should be exactly like this, arrows and bolts should lose damage at distance, as they do in the real world.

To your main topic, I absolutely concur. Projectiles in this game, wether shot or thrown, behave in a really strange way. Bows and crossbows are low energy weapons with relatively heavy low speed projectiles and as such with very curved trajectories. In the game they act like rifles however.

A big problem (and fun) with ranged weapons is aim adjustment. The slower the projectile goes, the more problems you have with the trajectory. That's the reason for adjustable iron sights on rifles. Or the reason for zeroing to a certain distance. With javelins, bows and crossbows without a sight one has to adjust from experience.

I usually play with javelins, and without the rectangle enabled. It's difficult and I'm happy if I hit. But the most weird thing is the difference between the expected trajectory (curved) and the ingame one (rather straight).

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Why? It should be exactly like this, arrows and bolts should lose damage at distance, as they do in the real world.

To your main topic, I absolutely concur. Projectiles in this game, wether shot or thrown, behave in a really strange way. Bows and crossbows are low energy weapons with relatively heavy low speed projectiles and as such with very curved trajectories. In the game they act like rifles however.

A big problem (and fun) with ranged weapons is aim adjustment. The slower the projectile goes, the more problems you have with the trajectory. That's the reason for adjustable iron sights on rifles. Or the reason for zeroing to a certain distance. With javelins, bows and crossbows without a sight one has to adjust from experience.

I usually play with javelins, and without the rectangle enabled. It's difficult and I'm happy if I hit. But the most weird thing is the difference between the expected trajectory (curved) and the ingame one (rather straight).

Yeah, and that's the way it should be.

What I mean is that this test change (by altering these two parameters. However, through an alteration of the C# code it would be totally feasible) causes a very noticeable decrease of the damage caused by the projectile; some damage which can be caused by some popcorn falling on you (you see what I mean ).

What I wanted to share is "the idea" of mechanics and open this enriching debate we are having.

 

[Rycon Caldestan]

Evidently the massive throwing of arrows in a forest was not a common practice

This did make me chuckle.

I did not make myself clear in that I completely agree with your op, and also the need for archers to get closer to be effective in wooded areas 50-75m max. Realistic effective range.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

This did make me chuckle.

I did not make myself clear in that I completely agree with your op, and also the need for archers to get closer to be effective in wooded areas 50-75m max. Realistic effective range.

Let there never be any lack of humour

 

[echoco]

I think this should be implemented as an optin in the menu like Vertical Aiming Correction, so there would be no complaints later.

 

[Anushtegin]

wasn't this "realistic" shootign myth disspelled by mike loades in his books?

 

[Terco_Viejo]

wasn't this "realistic" shootign myth disspelled by mark loades in his books?

I consider it likely that shooting in a parabolic arc limited the odds
of success. Although it offered depth to the salvo, the exposed target zone
of each man was greatly limited by the physical presence of the ranks in
front and shields were an effective means of ensuring that where gaps
occurred, they were well defended. Certainly there would be casualties,
but shooting in an arc did not offer a good percentage chance of success
for those husbanding precious resources.
In contrast, shooting with a trajectory nearer to the horizontal would
have allowed more targeted and more robust hits, causing great disruption
as enemy men and horses fell in the path of those behind. When archers
were used to shoot from the flanks, they could bring about significant
problems of crowd chaos by targeting those on the edges of the attacking
army, forcing a concentration of men towards the centre. Shooting into
the centre with arcing volleys would have the opposite effect.

His interpretation is fully interpreted in this thread . Close horizontal shots with a slight tilt are much more effective than one at long distance