Finally- after 6 years

[amritochates]

Yes, after 6 years of endless wait, we finally get the attack ground option. This is something we all have wanted since the orignal MTW.

Though with unlimited ammo and not that great AI won't artillery be overpowered??
I am thinking in terms of infantry advancing behind a rolling barrage, i.e WWI tactics. The only counter to that wiil be counter battery fire microed to a great extent- something that I don't expect the AI to pull off.

Infact my opinion of the AI is that is better than that of RTW and M2Tw but still not par with MTW-VI. Though it might surprise me at times in one-off anecdoctal instances as in the previous two titles.

[Greyblades]

The problem with the Creeping barrage is that the artillery at the time fired so slow and so innaccurately that you wont get the same effect as in the early 20th century wars and theres a very real chance you will hit your own men.

[IlDuce]

The problem with the Creeping barrage is that the artillery at the time fired so slow and so innaccurately that you wont get the same effect as in the early 20th century wars and theres a very real chance you will hit your own men.

Your point being?

[Greyblades]

:thinking:
Its a daft tactic? No-one should ever fight under a commander that is stupid enough to kill his own men

[IlDuce]

:thinking:
Its a daft tactic? No-one should ever fight under a commander that is stupid enough to kill his own men

You overestimate my men good sir! I'll probably use the good old tactic of pinning a stronger unit in place with one of my weak ones then raining them with shell. Who cares if my own troops die in the process.

[Sir Beane]

You can certainly try that tactic, but I doubt it will work. Artillery doesn't have the range, accuracy or speed of fire to properly pull something like that off. And they wouldn't just be susecptible to counter-battery fire, but also to swift attacks by cavalry.

Also bare in mind that most artillery peices can't fire in a high enough arc and might just end up putting cannon balls through the back of your forces.

[Vlad Tzepes]

In the demo the American artilery acted quite sniper-like. I couldn't move my battery anywhere in US arty range without getting blasted into pieces - several times while still on the move, usually without even getting the opportunity to un-limber. This was somewhat puzzling, IMHO.

If it's going to have the same uber-accuracy in the real game, I foresee many grunts.

[CBR]

I see very little point in such an option except for destroying certain pieces of terrain/cover. Apart from that it is anachronistic as it is something that belongs in the 20th century.


CBR

[Vlad Tzepes]

I see very little point in such an option...

CBR

Maybe shooting at a presumably hidden unit?

[CBR]

Maybe shooting at a presumably hidden unit?
That is reconnaissance by fire which is also a modern day thing. Artillery firing at redoubts or houses is one thing, blasting whole woods or cornfields is not very 18th century.


CBR

[A Very Super Market]

It is pointless, because the artillery fires so slow and so inaccurately that the use for using attack gound would be inefficient to say the least.

[amritochates]

I see very little point in such an option

Really! the reason why this was important to a lot of us was because we can calculate the fall of shot a lot better than the AI. For example when targetting moving targets one has to aim at that point where one assumes the target is going to be, something the AI failed to do at least in the earlier titles.

With this option available we no longer have to target units and wait for the AI to do its calculations, instead we can now adjust aim manually using the attack ground option. Additionally as we now have unlimited ammo for arty there is no limit to the time that we need to do so.

artillery at the time fired so slow and so innaccurately

I was refering to that which is available to us ingame which doesnot necessarily conform to reality.

Also bare in mind that most artillery peices can't fire in a high enough arc and might just end up putting cannon balls through the back of your forces.

Mortars, Rocketlaunchers, Howitzers need I say more??

In the demo the American artilery acted quite sniper-like. I couldn't move my battery anywhere in US arty range without getting blasted into pieces - several times while still on the move, usually without even getting the opportunity to un-limber. This was somewhat puzzling, IMHO

You were attempting to get into an artillery duel with horse drawn 6-pounders against 24-pounders, what do you expect??

[A Very Super Market]

The artillery in the demo wasn't accurate at all, so I don't know where you got your second argument.

[CBR]

I see very little point in such an option

Really! the reason why this was important to a lot of us was because we can calculate the fall of shot a lot better than the AI. For example when targetting moving targets one has to aim at that point where one assumes the target is going to be, something the AI failed to do at least in the earlier titles.

That goes for the AI firing at you too. Players don't need more advantages over the AI. Maybe it is just part of the gameplay, intended or not. After all moving units should be more difficult to hit and it is not like missile weapons were useless in earlier titles.

It also means more micromanagement which is less fun and players are already busy controlling lots of other stuff.


CBR

[amritochates]

The artillery in the demo wasn't accurate at all, so I don't know where you got your second argument.

The same place you are getting yours- it is not possible to judge artillery accuracy based merely on the 2-3 units shown in the demo, when I could name at least two dozen different types from this period. So I choose to base my estimates on the optimistic side.

Also are you factoring in the xp accuracy bonus??

[Fisherking]

In the game we will have mortars and howitzers which will do a better job at this I hope.

They can fire over troops and over hills. Whether a creeping barrage will work with short range pieces is another matter. But all should make use of indirect fire weapons. They have some strong advantages over other artillery and a battery or two will be a good addition to most armies.

[crazyviking03]

Im just excited to use it to destroy buildings and fences and other structures. I pooped myself when we got to burn down buildings in VI, and I loved obliterating cities in RTW and M2 with siege weapons. This way, unlike in previous titles where you could only target a building if it was a structure of use (barracks, econ, etc)we can DESTROY EVERYTHING :brakelamp:

[peacemaker]

One of the main spots I would use this, is both bridge battles or if I need to have one spot pinned down because if it wasn't the enemy could flood through that side and get to my flank...or something of the sort

[ratbarf]

That will make bridge battles a veritable night mare. Though I don't know if concentrated roundshot wouldn't be worse as they could possibly go through all of the ranks on the bridge. Wiping out an entire file is quite devastating, if that formation is in coloumn.

[A Very Super Market]

Ummm, don't fight on bridges?

[ratbarf]

Don't want to get me powder wet!

[pdoyle007]

I was thinking about using cannon fire to herd the enemy into a nastier surprise, would be a good way of lowering morale to force them elsewhere.

Or use it to demolish any traps (stakes, fences etc.) the enemy has for you, opening up a gap where they thought they were secure?

[PBI]

That goes for the AI firing at you too. Players don't need more advantages over the AI. Maybe it is just part of the gameplay, intended or not. After all moving units should be more difficult to hit and it is not like missile weapons were useless in earlier titles.

It also means more micromanagement which is less fun and players are already busy controlling lots of other stuff.


CBR

Handicapping the player with a needlessly rigid and unresponsive interface is not IMHO an acceptable way of increasing the challenge. If I lose battles because I underestimated enemy strength or made some tactical blunder, then fine, but if I lose battles because my artillery kept turning to track the enemy cavalry as they bore down on my lines and dumbly fired a volley of grapeshot into the back of my own line infantry I feel like the game has cheated. Similarly, I will be very annoyed if I want my artillery to simply keep up a constant harassing barrage on the enemy line, but in fact they never get around to firing because they are too busy constantly turning to track the specific enemy unit that was at the center of the line when I targeted it but has now moved to the end. I found the latter problem particularly prevalent in RTW, where my artillery would never actually get to the end of their loading animations and fire due the AI's unfortunate habit of completely reshuffling its entire infantry line every few seconds, a behaviour I have observed in the ETW demo.

For that matter, it would be nice if you could give your line the command "advance in formation and engage the enemy unit opposite you" rather than having to carefully micromanage who is charging whom to prevent the AI being able to mess up my line every time it reshuffles.

Attack area is actually a pretty simple improvement which I suspect will greatly reduce the micromanagement needed to use artillery, not increase it; I can just set them to fire at the area in which the most enemy troops are concentrated, and forget about them; no need to worry about them tracking the specific enemy soldier they've been ordered to destroy all the way to my lines. Bridge battles are a good example; I don't see what would be so unrealistic about being able to tell your artillery crews, "just keeping firing grapeshot at the midpoint of the bridge until I tell you to stop", rather than having them never fire or fire into your own men because they have to be ordered to target a specific unit as it charges across. If anything this increases realism since it is no longer necessary for artillery to be balanced by dealing ludicrous amounts of damage when it occasionally does hit (flaming catapults?), instead taking out only a few men in the direct path of the cannonball on each hit. Neither do I see why this would be unfair to the AI; AFAIK it never loses track of what its guns are doing and will give them new orders if they are in danger of hitting their own men.

For the more exotic suggested uses of artillery like creeping barrages, these seem to me to be ruled out at least according to my experience from the demo. The idea of the creeping barrage was to amass so much artillery of such destructive power as to create a zone where nothing could survive above ground; from what I've seen Empire artillery will have nothing like either the numbers or firepower to do this, no matter how accurate the artillery. It will not be possible to wipe out whole units in seconds with artillery, enabling your infantry to advance into the space created unopposed. I strongly suspect artillery will be best used in the role occupied by archers in earlier games, a means of demoralizing and disrupting enemy formations at range and gradually wearing down an overly defensive enemy, but not as a rule capable of breaking whole units by itself.