Artillery vs the mongols

[oz_wwjd]

I wondered if anyone has had any success using artillery against the Mongols,as I experimented with a unit of merc Serpentine's set up in such a way that I thought they could fire on the mongols as they crossed the bridge in question,as I have had success using archers and arbalests in this role,but the results were disappointing to say the least. Was I just using the wrong artillery for the job?

[LordK9]

I wondered if anyone has had any success using artillery against the Mongols,as I experimented with a unit of merc Serpentine's set up in such a way that I thought they could fire on the mongols as they crossed the bridge in question,as I have had success using archers and arbalests in this role,but the results were disappointing to say the least. Was I just using the wrong artillery for the job?

I use trees :)

[oz_wwjd]

If I could figure out how to throw trees at them I'd do that as well,but that seems uneffective at dealing with them as a whole..

[Stazi]

Atrillery is ineffective mainly because it's highly inaccurate. They need a little babysitting until it gets at least 3-4 points of valour. I mean it's own valour not form a general. Valour increase accuracy significantly. It maybe still hard to hit a unit on bridge but in the open field (especially on Huge unit setting) artillery becomes quite useful and can kill similar number of soldiers as archers. Ohh... and artillery can one hit enemy general if you're lucky. :yes:

[LordK9]

I've never really noticed a problem with bridges other then my archers run out of arrows and firing while on bridges (only some three archers or so actually fire). The enemy always takes substantial losses (if you watch the loss bar, every volley adds a goodly chunk of green). I thought you were more concerned with open land battles and trees are indeed the way to go there. You're losses are minimal while their very vulnerable horse archers are in the open and the Mongol army is horse based so is ineffective in woods.

[Stazi]

We are talking about artillery vs Mongols not archers vs Mongols. The problem with artillery is that if artillery doesn't hit the bridge or ground near the bridge but water, the cannon ball is lost, wasted. That's why we need artillery to be accurate as much as possible. Bouncing cannon ball can be very devastating when it hits units on the bridge and then crowd on the other side of the bridge. Veteran Serpentine cannon can outdamage archers when placed and used properly.

[Jihad]

There is no reason to use artillery in the first place when you can use arbalesters/crossbows while hallberdiers guarding the bridge.You will decimate any mongol army like this.Artillery isnt accurate for this job their main job is to demolish walls and thats it.

[Stazi]

Have you ever tried to demolish walls with Serpentine cannon?


There is no reason to use artillery in the first place when you can use arbalesters/crossbows while hallberdiers guarding the bridge.
Of course, you can use xbows. It's easier but after hundreds of battles it becomes boring and you search for the new ways of doing things. As I wrote, Serpentine cannon can be accurate and useful but needs some easy battles to train up.

[LordK9]

My bad; I just couldn't conceive of using artillery in the open; if they're in my army, I either replace them before they arrive or withdraw them immediately (except in some cases - when a hill is available close to the rear and I'm on defense). I read artillery but my brain read missile. Maybe I'm related to Rosana Rosana Dana (showing my age!). I've never yet built those sepentine units; just didn't seem cost effective. I thought about bringing cannon type units to the field but, so far, have used them solely in sieges.

Actually, I salivate when I get to fight Mongols on bridges. Easiest way there is to get rid of masses of heavy Mongol cavalry. Cavalry and bridges just don't work.

[Geezer57]

Never had much luck with any single-projectile (Serpentine, for example) artillery against the Mongols - they're just too inaccurate unless nursed to high valor. I do dearly love to have an organ gun or two in my starting forces, especially if I can place them on the edge of a forest supported by anti-cavalry units (Halbs, Billmen, heavy spears, etc.). Many Mongol Heavy Cavalry have fallen to the organ gun, and when they run out of ammo, withdraw them from battle and have more conventional missile troops (arbalesters, etc.) reinforce.

[caravel]

Makes sense to use siege engines/artillery in bridge defence, but arbalests can do serious enough damage there and the resulting heavy losses, plus under fire penalties are usually enough to break morale. I've always found that artillery is almost a wasted unit slot in most battles (except sieges). It runs out of ammo fast, is very inaccurate and the crews are then only fit for withdrawal (and can be easy HA targets). In a battle that could last hours, taking out a few MHC with artillery early on is not going to be much help in the grand scheme of things. But yes, opinions differ and it's always good to try different approaches (otherwise it gets dull fast).