Movable Artillery

[Sirrvs]

...if not...that sucks, hehe. (I haven't played through the whole game yet) I mean some of those cannons like the serpentines should be light enough that your troops can move them during battle.

[ah_dut]

there aint one to my knowledge, in MTW but in NTW there is iirc

[HicRic]

I think it's kind of odd..I mean, when I thing of a stereotypical cannon in films and suchlike, you always think of it as having wheels on, so people can move it around and stuff.

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (HicRic @ June 27 2004,16:27)]I think it's kind of odd..I mean, when I thing of a stereotypical cannon in films and suchlike, you always think of it as having wheels on, so people can move it around and stuff.
Hi hicric

I assume you are thinking about cannons in later times - the ones avaiable during the MTW time were extremly hard to move and that "movement ability" was given credit by making the lighter ones turnable. IMHO there should be no trebuchets or mangorels possible in attacking armies other than siege as they took days to assemble. Moving during battle would be so slow speed even for balistas that it would not help. There is a thread here mentioning that the english in the 100 years war used cannons in one battle - but that was the exeption not the rule.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

nick

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]There is a thread here mentioning that the english in the 100 years war used cannons in one battle - but that was the exeption not the rule.

Not really, one of the main reasons the English Longbows lost their battlefield supremacy in the Hundred years war was because of advances in artillery.

[Ironside]

If I remember correctly movable artillery wasn't in the game thanks to that the comp (AI) couldn't handle them.

NTW:s cannons isn't artillery, but a ranged unit that shoots cannonballs very far.

Why they didn't do the NTW solution is still a question though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[English assassin]

I'm with Nick Maxwell 100% on this: there simply wasn't effective field artillery for almost all of the period covered by the game. Not only did Trebs take several days to assemble, they managed about four shots an hour.

[katank]

movable arty would be really OP.

they are OP in NTW since they are insanely accurate and can move.

nice way in regular is to deploy forward in attack to force the enemy from favorable position or back in defense.

you can also target buildings like shacks etc. using low valor arty and the shots will most likely miss and the bouncing shot can kill some enemies outside normal range.

interestingly enough, this tactic can't be used with high valor arty and this is when high valor can actually hurt you.

[Oaty]

This might make more sense, the support for the cannon. When the cannons move so does the gunpowder and cannonballs have to move. I believe it was hard to set up cannons for battle especially if it rained recently as the wheels would entrench themselves and hinder the movement of the cannon. How did they supply them (this I do'nt know) but I think it is just like the movies portray for the most part, the cannon is set up a supply of cannonballs is put on the ground, then a barrel of gunpowder.

Now a specialty gun like the organ gun I can maybe see as it is very small and has specialty purpose of devastation at close range, and I'm guessing moving the grapeshot or what ammunition it used would'nt be too much of a hinderance to move

[IrishMike]

One idea to stop moveable arty from being OP is to have the option to move it but it cuts down on your ammunition considerable. Maybe have 2 or 3 shots instead of the usual ammount.

[Oaty]

Well to add on to what I said the artillery should be movable until it fires it first shot then should be stationary. This would represent (especially for the attacker) the armies lining up preparing for battle befor the engagement occurs

[katank]

yep, every time you move, you lose say 2 rounds or something so I don't end up trying to chase skirmishing arty

[w00tage]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 28 2004,02:42)]Not really, one of the main reasons the English Longbows lost their battlefield supremacy in the Hundred years war was because of advances in artillery.
Not true, when they were at their most popular it was because lords organised competitions etc and generally encourage people to take up archery. This meant enough were about to fill armies with them. longbows were around for thousands of years but there were only ever a few experts. Afterwards the rise of other weapons (not artillery) and less focus on longbows meant that there were not enough of them to form units. Historically it can be seen as a fad of sorts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif