Artillery trajectory

I mentioned this briefly in another thread.

Pelters (and Holkins and possibly Shellers, I forget if they ever used a lower elevation) used to use a much lower elevation for targeting units, and at some point this was changed to the way they currently work. This elevation they use now (at least to me) is visually jarring, because normally you would not use such a high elevation to target anything that was in direct line of sight.

The higher elevation is usually associated with mortars and is used when the target is in cover or behind a hill,
or to hit something that is inside the effective range of larger guns.


Not only that but the travel time of the projectile is greatly increased which makes these structures much less effective against any sort of mobile army. I can kind of understand that for something like the Holkins which is often used more offensively, though I still think a lower elevation would look better. However, does it really make sense for pelters which arguably should be used as a medium range base defense (similar to the Punisher or Guardian from Total Annihilation). I'm not trying to argue for more powerful base defense here, I will admit the laser turrets are already very effective, but I think that's a seperate issue. Why should one pelter suffer just because the laser towers are powerful.

In fact it would be nice if these units could adjust the trajectory of their shots based on what they were aiming at. If we ever see more varied terrain where hills and such can block shots artillery type units could switch to a high elevation to hit targets that are not in direct line of sight, and then switch to a low elevation when they have direct line of sight.

Edit: I should have made this a poll, but I don't think I can change it now, ah well.

I have to agree with you, the high arcs are pretty visually jarring. I like that idea of changing the trajectory based on where it is shooting though.

I'm pretty sure pelters and holkins both have constant projectile velocity. This means that they have a maximum range when firing at a ~45 degree angle ( it's lower if gravity is truly radial), and that range decreases with a lower elevation or with a higher elevation. Now, their role is to be artillery, so it makes sense not to go with a lower firing angle, otherwise they can be used effectively against mobile unit blobs, which is not their role as far as I can tell (their role being to take out static point defenses and structures). So instead they have a higher firing angle, which makes them worse against moving targets. It also means that the projectile is fired even higher when a target is closer, and so it takes even longer for the projectile to hit the closer the target is.

Really, the only problem I have with that is the visual. The only thing I could suggest instead is to give the pelter variable muzzle velocity which depends on target distance, so that the round always reaches the same vertical height (and therefore takes the same amount of time to hit any target). That might be too complicated to bother with though, and it really isn't necessary.

While I did play in the build where pelters were very powerful. ... I do feel associating that firing angle with the energy network could be a good balance metric.


Additionally, the solution did not fix the fundamental problem - that there is no long range solution available at T1.

I disagree here, it depends on what kind of artillery they are supposed to be. There are many types. Some are indirect fire, some are direct fire, some are both. Mortars are usually limited to high angle fire, howitzers can do both higher and lower angles, guns can only do lower angles.

I also find it strange that a pelter's role would be to take out static defenses, why would that not fall under some sort of mobile unit. Right now we have the Sheller, and I think an argument could be made for some sort of T1 unit as well (something like the Thud / Hammer from TA) but it seems very odd that you'd built a static defense to assault an enemy base.

I also think they should be effective against blobs of mobile units, that's pretty much the point of artillery. I also want to make clear I don't think just pelters and holkins should do this, it would be nice if shellers were capable of a more direct fire when engaging a mobile army. That way you can mass your shellers behind your levelers and use them to punch holes in the opposing force. I'm not saying that they don't do that now, but on an open battlefield it doesn't make much sense to use indirect fire.

There was a patch at one point where they fired in a high arc for long range and used direct-fire for closer targets. It looked really cool but it was pretty overpowered. Although, they also had a much higher ROF so that could've also been part of the problem.

I think it would be nice if they used both fire modes and had a slightly higher ROF but less dmg and more inaccuracy. That way it acts like annoying attrition damage at long range, but charging the gun head on would be a challenge.

You're probably right, I'm just going by what I understand its role is supposed to be. I honestly think there should be multiple kinds of arching projectile units and defenses. They're really fun, and there's a lot of things that can be done with them. Constant velocity, high angle is most effective at max range. Variable velocity & angle, constant height works just as well as artillery at all distances. Constant velocity, low angle works well as direct-fire up close and artillery from afar. There are others as well, like a constant angle with variable velocity.

I'd much rather see a shot that has a good chance of hitting but does less damage than a shot that usually missed but can only hit gigantic clumps on accident.

For something like the Holkins I would think a very low rate of fire, plus smaller splash and reasonable accuracy and precision would be nice. Nothing was cooler than a battery of Intimdators / Berthas in TA (Jump to 1:33 in the TA Intro for an example: ) firing at an approaching army and punching holes in it.

Pelters could fire a bit faster, but do far less damage, I'm not arguing for something overpowered but I think the way to fix it would be to find a damage / splash radius / rate of fire that works rather than force them to use an indirect fire method when a more direct shot would be appropriate and only hit by luck.

This would be neat, not only would it enhance terran having an effect on combat. But not mountains gives you a defensive advantage, and if you make cannon on the mountain you can now shoot further, than their cannons can on the ground.

Its actually kinda cool. Instead of static defence just always having the same range.

For constant velocity, like you said 45 would be the most range but not something like 60+ the higher angle you go, the less distance you'll get.

But yeah having more units would always be better, I'd love to see separate low velocity mortar with high angles, medium velocity howitzer with adjustable low / high angles and high velocity low angle gun style artillery that way you can use the right unit for the role you need. I'm just saying if we stick with one kind, it seems a more direct fire would be more helpful.

All units and structures need a weakness; the pelter's weakness is running up next to the thing. Back when it had a low firing angle, it was considered OP (but maybe it could have been balanced in some other way, so who knows).

This could also be solved with minimum ranges, rate of fire adjustments, and damage adjustments. I'm not saying make a perfect base defensive unit, believe me my porcing days pretty much ended years ago, but I know from playing TA you can have medium range lower angle artillery (mobile and static) that isn't unstoppable (Guardian / Punishers)

It was OP because there was no way of dealing with it short of going T2.

Bumblebees for whatever reason were not considered a solution.

We now have Infernos to absorb incoming damage of course.

Yeah we could also use some sort of T1 arty bot / tank as well.

For a rough overview it would be something like

Single / Double Laser Towers to hold off Normal T1 units
T1 Arty to attack Single / Double Laser Towers
Infernos to soak up Laser Damage
Direct Fire T1 Arty (whether that's the pelter, or a new unit, who knows) to punch holes in unit blobs / attack T1 Arty

Obviously that's rough overview of balance. Since the T1 Arty defensive units would be static you could still overwhelm it with T1 mobile arty, which should have similar range (though maybe less damage or less precision), or by attacking from multiple vectors (arty should have a slow turret turn rate, heck a limited firing arc would be interesting, though setup would be kind of micro heavy)

The high arcs were added in to nerf the Pelter because it used to be that 3 pelters were better than 5 laser defense towers and 6 pelters could repel any T1 invasion force of any size.

The arc was made really high so Pelters had a hard time hitting moving targets.

Mission accomplished.

I still think the arc should be real high and/or the projectile be real slow for these reasons.

But at the same time, the arc could still be lowered a little.

I understand why the change was made, I just disagree with the way it was dealt with. Why not tweak damage / rate of fire / splash instead? What is the point of a base defense that can't hit units?

Because Laser Defense Towers are supposed to hit units, not artillery.

The artillery is to prevent enemy camping units and take out buildings from afar and whatnot.

Pelters are also really good at hitting large blobs of units.

Long range artillery shouldn't be able to hit moving units. They could be spammed out to exploit levels.

Unfortunately, that can't happen. Not without giving the pelter variable projectile velocity or reducing its maximum range proportionally.

Yep, hmm if they did have variable projectile velocity, they could do a unit that does Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#MRSI) that would be pretty cool.

Also your graph shows a pretty good example of why I think using the very high angles of attack looks so strange. Note how much shorter the range is for the projectile fired at 75 deg.

...That's because it's firing at something relatively close compared to its maximum range. The only alternative without firing at a lower velocity is 15 degrees, and then it clearly isn't performing the role of artillery. The pelter can fire at any angle above 45 degrees, and will fire at the required angle to hit its target. That could mean firing straight up, or it could mean firing at 45.1 degrees, depending on how far away the target is.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that this is generalizing for a flat plane, and doesn't translate perfectly to small moons, etc. The math for determining the correct firing angle there is surely more complicated, but probably quite similar.