Then I can say reloading and crew actions are also essential parts of the attack animation, and even give you a better estimation of the time it takes for the next attack.
On the contrary, units raising their bows and crossbows before shooting is not necessary as well, and did not provide much information either. But still you cannot make projectiles directly flying out from the heads of the units.
A horse and its rider at least stick to each other, move and do things as a whole. When the horse turns, of course its rider turns accordingly, it cannot be compared with a man sliding on the ground when his cannon turns (on itself). It’s also much more normal to look at a horse and its rider dying together than to look at a man standing a few meters away from his trebuchet suddenly gets heart attack and die when his trebuchet is burnt down.
Reloading yes, a crew no.
There are plenty of ways to indicate that a unit is about to fire without having to add additional models with animations; particularly with anything like a trebuchet that has to draw back again.
Units raising before shooting is less needed in AoE4 since you can’t dodge projectiles, but the animation still serves the role of showing that the unit is attacking.
As for the shooting out of their heads, that’s not the same thing. If the siege weapons were just shooting projectiles out of the middle rather than from their appropriate location everyone would expect it to be fixed as that’s clearly a bug, not a preference.
this…
nice man, pick and choose what looks unrealistic and what doesnt…
i like how you think an unmanned siege weapon looks less silly than a manned one… slow clap
I like how you think people sliding magically around looks less silly than a vehicle designed to move and shoot moving and shooting… slow clap
If the rider wants to turn a horse, he does not simply think of it in his head and make the horse move like his limb. In the game however they turn together and instantly (AND THEY SLIDE ON THE GROUND WHEN TURNING)
Horse and rider dying together is not normal. Most of the time either the rider dies or the horse dies. In games like later total wars (which are indeed a little more realistic), a large of proportion of horses simply ran away when the rider gets killed.
Operators can stand very close to the trebuchet (because you do not need to make it super realistic). One loads the stone and the other two turn the lever. If the trebuchet is burned then they also get burned to death because they are standing close to it. That is not a problem.
AOE4 also had cannons. What are other ways to show a cannon is reloading?
Okay let me phrase this differently: because projectiles cannot be dodged, aiming animation is redundant, so the archers are raising their bows all the time, and the projectiles fly out of their bows whenever needed.
And because the ammunition is unlimited, you do not need to have a quiver on the archer models.
Because no unit ever blocks arrows, the shield is not needed either.
Mills do not really turn wheat into flour, so they do not need animations as well.
All the roads and aesthetic assets surrounding a building (including the immobile chicken) do not serve special purposes so they can all be removed.
EDIT: I found myself misled into the argument of “more dumb or not”. Can’t the crew just make one aesthetic addition to the siege weapons just like the quivers or the shields which never got used?
You can easily add a sparkling/smoking effect to indicate that the cannon has been “lit” that plays for a moment before firing; no crew needed.
With artists who’s jobs are actually to come up with stuff like that you could probably get even more ideas.
What are you even trying to say here? Seriously, the comment is not clear to me.
It looks like you’re trying to compare bugged animations (shooting a projectile from a clearly wrong place) with a visual preference (extra models being added to the unit for flavor).
That is not going to tell you how long it is going to reload, and I don’t think we have that in AOE4.
With artists who’s jobs are actually to come up with stuff like that you could probably even make the crew animations “less janky”.
No it’s not bugged animation. Because arrows cannot be dodged, according to your logic that aiming animation is NOT NECESSARY AT ALL. So it’s okay if the archers are raising their bows all the time.
BTW that should have been my point from the very beginning.
It’s just like the quivers or shields that never got used, or regional-specific unit skins that serve no special purpose. Just add them for aesthetics and there is no need for justification.
You’re right, they could be. They could also never release the game and just keep adding animations, this is completely meaningless.
You’re also continuing to make a completely invalid comparison to try to add support to your claim, but it just weakens it.
You can’t compare not putting in an animation you wanted with not animating things are all. Siege is animation just like all the things you mentioned, it just doesn’t have the animation you wanted. That’s not the same as not animating a unit at all.
Not everyone likes the aesthetic, that’s the point. Just because you like it doesn’t mean other people do, nor does it mean they “should” be there.
You absolutely need more justification than “because ArrivedLeader22 likes it that way”.
The people who made the model clearly didn’t feel it was needed and a ton of us agree. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, that’s just how it is.
Not adding extra guys is not the same as not animating the unit at all no matter how badly you want to equate the two.
I see, so it is you who drew the perfect line of “how much a unit should be animated”.
Aiming with bows is not necessary if dodging is not possible, you said it, so projectiles flying from a bow that is always raised is already an animation and that serves all the functional purpose.
You said all animations in the game should have a functional purpose and we have all these stuff that serve no functional purpose at all.
OP did you hear this?
Why writing an assay defending something that is not right or wrong?
You absolutely need more justification than “because AntiComet626189 does not like it that way”.
I wrote 3 bullet points. /flex
And I wrote more than 3 posts XD.
Why is arrow flying out of an archer’s head or raising bow not an animation? It’s an animation and serve all the purpose you ask for no matter how badly you want to negate it.
The quiver is not animated. The shield is not animated. The horse is barely animated (it serves more like the leg of the rider without its identity). They are all in the game.
But a crew HAS TO GET A VERY REALISTIC ANIMATION
And I guess you accidentally forgot the whole argument started with “the game is not realism simulator so you should not add anything if you cannot make it super realistic”.
Well yeah, but only as replies. XD
Not animating the archers shooting at all would be the same as the siege unit just sliding around with balls coming out the middle.
Not having side units is more akin to knights not having to get new lances from a squire.
Nope, my point was never that something shouldn’t be added unless it’s super realistic.
It should be added if it adds to the game. Basic attack and movement animations tend to universally add to or remove from the game while extra detail animations like this are much more varied.
I don’t have strong feelings either way and would almost certainly be one of the people I mentioned in my first post that wouldn’t even notice if the crews were added at first (I read patch notes so if it was noted there I’d know about it).
I think there is no dilemma. The men at arms should torch the weapons while the operators frantically try to do their best to use it one last time…
Then the weapon should explode and kill the operators. Or in case of a trebuchet, it should fall on the crew and kill them.
Not explode into a puff of smoke as it was in the stress test.
Look man, if you want to, you can make crew and have it make sense.
It’s hard yes. But just because you like what it is right now doesn’t mean it’s the only way to do things.
That’s why this topic continues to be pointless; there is nothing objective about it.
Some people like the crews and some don’t and since it doesn’t actually impact gameplay it just comes down to what version the people in charge liked more.
In AoE2 the operator never does anything. He’s essentially just part of the cannon.
I also actually don’t think AoE3 nailed siege operators like some people think. They really don’t look great when turning while moving around. This is less of an issue with smaller ones than large ones.
And you still failed to respond to most of them and you’re now pushing me to respond to one out of the three points that I ignored XD.
I don’t see how projectiles flying out of a raising bow is not an animation. The bow needs to be released anyway and that’s still animation.
And it’s YOU who said all animations should have a functional purpose. I’m giving you an animation that does not have any functional purpose, and you agree it does not have any functional purpose. I don’t know why you keep pushing me to prove what you said.
I don’t see how crews have to be considered as “side units” not some aesthetic assets like the quivers and shields I mentioned a million times which you accidentally failed to see.
Just like the AOE2 cannon operator. If that is done perfectly why AOE4 cannons had no crew?