dropping rocks...ridiculous things in battle

[matteus the inbred]

Playing as the Byzantines, I recently managed to kill a Sicilian king during a fight for Naples by dropping a catapult stone on his head...lucky me, i thought.
Last night, the French invaded Naples as well, with a jaw-dropping (by my standards anyway...) 7,500 men. Ah well, says I, i never liked Naples much anyway. Too hot.
My 800-odd Byzantines did have the significant advantage of being led by a 9-star Jedi Master with the Field Defence Specialist virtue, and no unit had a valour rating of less than 5, but even so, fatigue would surely win eventually.

Found a nice hill to sit on, lined up my 4 catapults, unfurled the Curious Purple Standard of Byzantium and passed round the pre-fight humous. Catapults are a battlefield affectation of mine that i can't get rid of, people say they're a bit rubbish, you'd be better off bringing more archers or something. Sure enough, vast hordes of French poured on...handily marching in column. Since my artillery was all valour 5, their first volley was dead on. And their second. And nearly all subsequent volleys too. Horrid carnage among the tight-packed French, feudal sergeants lying squashed everywhere, yet still they advance.
It looks grim...i'm going to have my armour all dirty and everything, maybe even use some arrows. And then...'the enemy king has been slain!' growls Sean Pertwee's voice. They've done it again! All glory to the rock-chucking guys.

The rest of the battle was a succession of routs that went on and on and on...final enemy casualties; 1129 killed, 3133 captured. My own casualties were a laughable 153 dead, and my two Pronoi Allaigion captured over 700 enemy apiece.
Now, this isn't intended as a 'I'm great, look what i did' piece...low morale armies, once the leader is dead and the first wave seen off, are not really difficult to chase off if your troops are fresh. The sheer scale of the French effort, the crushing ease of their defeat and most of all the joy of artillery taking out the enemy king with a big rock on the head for the second straight battle just struck me as worth writing about...I'd love to hear about battles of similar ridiculousness. apologies for the length of this post!

[Just A Girl]

Thats why i dont like to use catapult things.
They tend to make the game a bit to easy cos the AI Really dosent understand its dying when its being hit by ranged units.

This is even More true with NTW.
With the 1st Cannon you can build bing a HIGHLY mobile howitzer.
That thing can moove like any other unit, so no worrys about needing to Make sure you have it pointing the right way.
It alos Showers about 5 bolders on to the selected unit from A Really impressive distance,
And even when its a totaly basic off the shelf moddle. Its near enough 100% accurate.

I really beleve the AI is Oblivious to Atilary attacks,

For instance in NTW. i simply build 3 howitzers. a couple of mounted horse rifle guys.
and a few infantry units 2 or so.

And thats basically all you need to Win the game.

No matter Howmany enemy units arive on the battel feild, So long as My howitzers are As far away from them as i can be and Still hit them
They will all die.

And Attacking the AI is even worse,
Remember I said there oblivious to atilary attacks?
This is why i say that.

the Ai Are defening and i arive with my 3 howitzers 2 infantry units and 2 horse units,
I set up my howitzers Place my infantry infront of them.
and my horses on there flanks.

I then tell 1 howitzer to target the front most central columb of hostile units.
And the other 2 the ones farther out on either flank

Then you sit and wat there numbers.

100.. (5 rocks bouce about) 80.... (5 rocks bounce about) 63,, (another volley) 48....
And they jsut stand there as Each and every unit is decimated by either direct hits or bouncing bolders.

That kind of makes it a bit Easy.
so i tend not to use atilary any more.

[matteus the inbred]

wow, that sounds like fun!
to be honest, i though people disliked artillery for its battlefield ineffectiveness and tactical inflexibility, not cos the AI doesn't know what to do about it...i assume NTW is the Napoleonic mod? this thing could happen in that period, troops would stand in formation for hours under heavy bombardment. the AI might be dumb, but real historical generals have often been even dumberer (?). or even dumber, maybe.

i experimented with organ guns in a custom battle the other day...6 against 600 pikemen..end result, a lot of dead pikemen! still, cavalry would've minced me and who the hell's gonna field 6 organ guns?

[econ21]

Um, I dropped a rock on the Pope's head once, which was certainly memorable. But it is fairly rare (only happened once to me that I recall). I used to like catapults for the "shock and awe" factor (even more so with firey onagers in RTW) - they certainly seem impressive. But when I look at the post-battle casualties they often kill very modest numbers - far less than a vanilla unit of archers in my SP games. I've heard they get much better with high valour generals, so that may be a factor.

[matteus the inbred]

I've heard they get much better with high valour generals, so that may be a factor.

this is most definitely the case...i really only use them with Byzantines cos they have generals who give huge valour bonuses, which makes them astonishingly accurate. i think my 4 killed around 40-50 guys each before running out of ammo, a similar return to a unit of archers (although archers, particularly the Trebizond archers i had, can obviously scrap much better). in sieges under low valour generals artillery can be the most frustrating thing ever, as it can repeatedly miss a large and obviously somewhat stationary castle...

[Just A Girl]

wow, that sounds like fun!


Oh il admit The 1st time I used them.
I was giggeling like a little school girl, And was Extreamly pleased that the 1st volley had done so much damage (lucky hit i thought)
second Was just as acurate
so was the 3rd
Even if the ai are marching Quicky They dont miss.
So the novelty soon wore off.

And yes NTW is napolionic Total war.

Its A great mod,
I rate it at 9/10

would have had 10 out of 10 but its a Little bit easy Even with the time limit.
Also The time limit prevents you playing a nice casual game of camp and build,
So it forces you in to Playing agressivly.

[HopAlongBunny]

My favorite memory of artillery on the battlefield has to be blasting my general with a culvern:laugh4:

[matteus the inbred]

your General? whoops. :laugh4:

perhaps it was a classic management 'and what does this button (or fuse, if you will) do' moment...
or 'no, no, Sire, don't stand THERE...<BANG>'

[antisocialmunky]

Catapults are really good for general/king killing as the rocks seem magnetically attracted to them.

[Odin]

Catapults are a battlefield affectation of mine that i can't get rid of, people say they're a bit rubbish, you'd be better off bringing more archers or something.

Although my passion for catapults dosent seem to be as strong as yours I seem to find a place for them in my armies on a regular basis.

Particularly when defending, there is nothing quite like sitting on a hill lobbing rocks at people far away and knocking them off. A guilty pleasure perhaps, but its fun to watch, particularly the Naptha catapults.

[matteus the inbred]

A guilty pleasure perhaps, but its fun to watch

exactly. i'm a sucker for stuff like that. lining up spears and archers and then sitting on my arse waiting for the enemy to get there is so dull sometimes!


Catapults are really good for general/king killing as the rocks seem magnetically attracted to them.

weird but true. that's 2 out 2 battles where rock meets general. i'd have got the French general in a third battle as well, but he took an arrow first...good way to get around their multiple lives/jedi status. the only historical example i can think of was Simon de Montfort the Elder, who had a terminal encounter with a big rock during the siege of Toulouse...

also works well in VI against hordes of Irish, as they seem to approach in depth, kerns/bonnachts in front then gallows and spears. can get a lot of kills on the bounce, so to speak...

[Lanemerkel1]

your General? whoops. :laugh4:

perhaps it was a classic management 'and what does this button (or fuse, if you will) do' moment...
or 'no, no, Sire, don't stand THERE...<BANG>'


lol


General Loyalty Management?

[matteus the inbred]

General Loyalty Management?

what, don't betray the empire or you too can have a completely innocent-looking accident with some artillery...! :laugh4:

i think one of the Scottish kings managed to blow himself up too...James IV maybe.

[Ironside]

I've heard they get much better with high valour generals, so that may be a factor.

Doesn't seem to help that much. Catapults led by 9 star generals miss quite alot. Combat valour on the other hand. :2thumbsup:

Starting the battle with 10 culverins pounding on the enemy is great fun anyway. ~D

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Reminds me of the time I killed the leader of the Golden Horde with a single cannonball from a tower of my castle, after he died I sallied out against his 10000, outnumbered 2:1, and managed to rout them. Not suprising though really, seeing as these were hardened troops from the Polish, Hungarian, and Byzantine campaigns, and I don't think the Mongols had quite so much valour as them. :book:

[_Aetius_]

Had a similar experience in terms of catapults, there I was with a meagre force of 650 Byzantines against 1700 Spanish Crusaders, I thought to myself "Find a hill, hold it aslong as I can, do as much damage as possible" simple, lose but make them pay for it.

I had 1 catapult team, that had killed squat in the 2 previous battles they had been in so I vengefully put them at the back of my army, the battle starts and the map turns yellow as a load of Spanish come towards me.

First thing I do is click on my catapult and order it to fire, randomly clicking into the mass of Spanish, first boulder goes absolutely miles away from where I clicked bounces over the Feudal sergeants crashing into a unit of Royal knights killing 1 man, who happened to be the enemy general. :2thumbsup:

Laughing hysterically at the joy of such absurd luck I ordered my trashed units of treb archers to fire down at the Spanish, within a few minutes the crappy units of the Spanish army are running for their lives and the better units can't withstand the charge from my 2 full Varangian units who whilst outrageously outnumbered piled into the Spanish routing the lot of them. I then unleashed my fierce -1 morale horse archers units to chase them down. After about 20 minutes of chasing, routing chasing the stats were 400 Spanish killed and 900 captured to a wonderful 87 Byzantines. The most ridiculous thing i've ever seen. :laugh4:

[antisocialmunky]

exactly. i'm a sucker for stuff like that. lining up spears and archers and then sitting on my arse waiting for the enemy to get there is so dull sometimes!



weird but true. that's 2 out 2 battles where rock meets general. i'd have got the French general in a third battle as well, but he took an arrow first...good way to get around their multiple lives/jedi status. the only historical example i can think of was Simon de Montfort the Elder, who had a terminal encounter with a big rock during the siege of Toulouse...

also works well in VI against hordes of Irish, as they seem to approach in depth, kerns/bonnachts in front then gallows and spears. can get a lot of kills on the bounce, so to speak...

I've named it the Jedi Attraction Postulate and it states that Jedism's warping of 'da force' causes large flying objects to alter their trajectory to bend into the spacial curvature around said jedi.

[ajaxfetish]

what, don't betray the empire or you too can have a completely innocent-looking accident with some artillery...! :laugh4:

i think one of the Scottish kings managed to blow himself up too...James IV maybe.

James II in 1460 during the seige of Roxburgh. He was only 29 years old, and the first Scottish king to adopt cannon for siege warfare. He died when his wife came to visit the siege: he was personally firing a cannon in her honor and it blew up on him. Ah the dangers of trying to impress womenfolk.
:oops:

Ajax

[Martok]

I've named it the Jedi Attraction Postulate and it states that Jedism's warping of 'da force' causes large flying objects to alter their trajectory to bend into the spacial curvature around said jedi.


Good one, ASM. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

But yeah, it's pretty thoroughly documented that artillery crews have an absolutely uncanny ability to knock off generals--both the enemy's and your own. At least this phenomenon doesn't discriminate, as it seems to happen to the AI as often as it does to us! :dizzy2:

[matteus the inbred]

I've named it the Jedi Attraction Postulate and it states that Jedism's warping of 'da force' causes large flying objects to alter their trajectory to bend into the spacial curvature around said jedi.

roflmao
brilliant!


James II in 1460 during the seige of Roxburgh

thanks Ajax, i can never remember which one blew himself up and which one died at Flodden.

i prefer to keep my general away from ballistas...they appear to be useless for anything except neatly turning him into a kebab wrapped in expensive tinfoil...

[Ludens]

I've named it the Jedi Attraction Postulate and it states that Jedism's warping of 'da force' causes large flying objects to alter their trajectory to bend into the spacial curvature around said jedi.
~D . I heard there is a bug in the accuracy calculation that made catapults as accurate against generals as they are against walls. Cannot confirm it though, other than that artillery does seem to have a propensity to hit the general.

While we are on the subject: is there any one that uses trebuchets/mangonels? I find them far less useful than catapults. Yes, they do more damage but they seem unable to reliably hit anything, even a caste wall. Ballistas are even worse: no accuracy and almost no damage when they do hit. Never even managed to hit the enemy general with it either (but they did once kill my own general :oops: ). Can anyone provide some pointers to using them or should I just go for catapults?

[CosmoSteve]

I believe that trebuchets and mangonels have a longer range than catapults, so they are useful when fighting against more advanced castles, especially if those castles have ballista/catapult towers that could destroy a close range catapult.

[antisocialmunky]

I like the catapults because they can rotate themselves(I believe) so they aren't like "Dude, they... are going really really right... that means... RUN AWAY!"

[Martok]

I like using trebuchets, although that's partly just because I like the word. ~:joker: Serously, though....

Like CosmoSteve, I do find them useful against the larger castles. I've also discovered they can be quite handy when you're fighting defensive battles--there's a lot to be said for artillery that can start flinging rocks at the enemy before they're even close enough to bring their archers to bear. ~D

Regardless of what you're using them for, however, the biggest key to employing trebuchets successfully (for me, at least) is numbers. Ideally, you want to have at least 2 of them in a battle (sometimes even 3 or 4) to be truly effective. Having multiple trebuchets helps make up for their lack of accuracy, plus it keeps up a relatively sustained rate of fire (which is another key to employing them effectively).

With Ballistas, I've found them to be far more limited in their use, although I still build a few now and then. Ballistas are actually pretty good for breaking down the gates to forts and even keeps, as it reduces your "regular" units' exposure to the castle's automated defenses. Like other artillery pieces, they can also be useful in defensive battles, although their relatively short range and piss-poor accuracy makes them less effective than the others. So while Ballistas do have their uses, I generally don't use them nearly as much.

When it comes to pre-gunpowder artillery, trebuchets, catapults, and naptha catapults are pretty much all I use.

[Just A Girl]

Balistas break gates and shoots the people bbehind them....
So i like them,

trebuchays need to be prety much as far away from the wall they can be and still be able to target it,
you tend to hit something then.

If its 2 short you get a lucky bounce at times.
2 long and the back wall or keep exetera get it,

There handy as they can be out side of arrow tower range,
Where as my catapults usualy cant be.

[Scurvy]

nothing like a good culverin :burnout:

[antisocialmunky]

~D . I heard there is a bug in the accuracy calculation that made catapults as accurate against generals as they are against walls. Cannot confirm it though, other than that artillery does seem to have a propensity to hit the general.

While we are on the subject: is there any one that uses trebuchets/mangonels? I find them far less useful than catapults. Yes, they do more damage but they seem unable to reliably hit anything, even a caste wall. Ballistas are even worse: no accuracy and almost no damage when they do hit. Never even managed to hit the enemy general with it either (but they did once kill my own general :oops: ). Can anyone provide some pointers to using them or should I just go for catapults?

I always thought it was a feature. Its one of their only redeeming field battle features. Being able to literally lock onto enemy generals and 1 hit KO him is sweetness.

[Ludens]

trebuchays need to be prety much as far away from the wall they can be and still be able to target it,
you tend to hit something then.

If its 2 short you get a lucky bounce at times.
2 long and the back wall or keep exetera get it,
Interesting. My biggest problem with Trebuchets/Mangonels is that they sometimes manage to shoot all their without damaging a wall enough to actually knock it down. Which rather defeats the purpose of taking them.

Anyway, thanks for the advice CosmoSteve, Martok and Just A Girl.

BTW I also consider artillery on the field overpowered, especially against the A.I. who seems clueless on how to either use or counter them.

[Lanemerkel1]

I just played a custom battle where I was playing the Swiss with the Pope, Italy, and HRE as my allies, French, English, Spanish, and Byzantines as my enemies.


each faction had the same army same men same units and same bonus level

10 Arquebusier Units per army (each armies general having full valour weapons and armour)
6 Culverin Units per Army


I killed the byzantine and French generals whom I was facing at the time right off the bat, the Germans killed off the Spanish General, and I got over to that side of the field in time to help out in 24 gun crushing of the English general




I have to give props to the English though, even though they took the brunt of my allied force they stayed in the battle the longest.

[Evil Eddie]

I dont bother with balistas (total waste of money) and all other non-gun powder seige engines except for catapults, which can turn so makes them far more effect in tracking enemy movements.

Nothing better than being on a flat landscape watching an enemy army march towards you while your cannons blast nice clear pathways through their units. Hopefully by the time they get close you have used most of your ammo and you can retire you artillery units for some reserves.

[matteus the inbred]

While we are on the subject: is there any one that uses trebuchets/mangonels? I find them far less useful than catapults.

well, naturally I use them!! catapults are fine for battles; they're fairly cheap, they have enough range, decent accuracy if their total valour is about 3 or more, and i don't think the bigger siege weapons do more damage against troops. ballistas are rubbish, period.
the bigger ones are siege weapons only, really...they can't turn, they use more crew. but, they can chuck stuff at walls from further away than the defenders can fire, even if they are pretty inaccurate. i usually hire them as mercs anyway, can't be bothered to tech up to them. i did once field 4 or 5 trebs against someone in VI, but catapults would have done just as well.

as a postscriptum to this, i think bridge battles are the siege weapon's best battlefield opportunity. whether in attack or defence, you are essentially firing at an enemy who can't manouevre out of your fire arc and will probably be deployed in depth. i have caused very heavy casualties with just one low valour siege weapon, and the psychological factor is so important in bridge battles. i usually keep a couple of catapults in provinces where i can defend rivers.

[The Darkhorn]

as a postscriptum to this, i think bridge battles are the siege weapon's best battlefield opportunity. whether in attack or defence, you are essentially firing at an enemy who can't manouevre out of your fire arc and will probably be deployed in depth. i have caused very heavy casualties with just one low valour siege weapon, and the psychological factor is so important in bridge battles. i usually keep a couple of catapults in provinces where i can defend rivers.

An excellent observation. The AI often bunches up it's units in a bridge assault, at least it's melee ones. Catapults cause viele carnage firing into the circus on the other side of the bridge. Then you have men and horse scattering in all directions and general chaos and mayhem.:tomato2:

[matteus the inbred]

ah, with one proviso...keep re-targetting your artillery onto units crossing the bridge or waiting to cross, or they might start dropping stuff onto your guys!

even ballistas are worth using here, as they really can't miss, but it's better to bring crossbows and archers. haven't tried naphtha guys yet, i suspect the dangers of dropping it on your own troops when you absolutely cannot afford for them to run away make naphtha a very bad idea...! :oops:

i'm tempted to try it though, because i like a laugh as much as anyone.

[The Darkhorn]

ah, with one proviso...keep re-targetting your artillery onto units crossing the bridge or waiting to cross, or they might start dropping stuff onto your guys!

even ballistas are worth using here, as they really can't miss, but it's better to bring crossbows and archers. haven't tried naphtha guys yet, i suspect the dangers of dropping it on your own troops when you absolutely cannot afford for them to run away make naphtha a very bad idea...! :oops:

i'm tempted to try it though, because i like a laugh as much as anyone.
Naturally that's what I meant. Thanks for making it clear for others. You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic Matt. I wouldn't recommend trying to throw the grenades over your troops' heads as half of it will end up on their heads!!:oops:

[Martok]

Naturally that's what I meant. Thanks for making it clear for others. You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic Matt. I wouldn't recommend trying to throw the grenades over your troops' heads as half of it will end up on their heads!!:oops:


Naptha catapults are fun. ~D

[Roark]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

[antisocialmunky]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

Americanism alert! I've heard they were pretty good in the sack, but that's ridiculous.

Any word on the best gunpower unit?

[Cowhead418]

This isn't about siege weapons, but I just had a pretty strange thing happen in my most recent battle. The Almohads had invaded Morocco with about 1400 troops against my 1200 (Portuguese). Right at the start of the battle I noticed on the map with the kill bar the orange dots approaching but there was also an orange dot moving away from my army. It was flashing white so I knew it was the enemy general.

After I had engaged the enemy I looked around for the enemy general because I always look to kill him as soon as possible. He was nowhere to be found and I remembered that he withdrew right at the start of the battle. Without leadership, the enemy army quickly routed off the field. The enemy reinforcements consisted of mostly medium cavalry but they fled right as they appeared instead of fighting. Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?~:confused:

[Roark]

Americanism alert! I've heard they were pretty good in the sack, but that's ridiculous.

Any word on the best gunpower unit?



Americanism? :embarassed:



As far as gunpowder is concerned, Serpentines vaporise personnel. Period. Otherwise, I use anything that can swivel, but with less success.

[matteus the inbred]

You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic

how evil. i like your style, sir!


Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?~:confused:

bizarre. check his V&Vs and see if he's got 'screaming girlyman coward' or something...

[Mr White]

I've also experienced the AI immediatly withdrawing his general. It was a unit of urban militia. He fielded a small low quality army with quite a lot of siege engines. I was aided by my allie the Germans (I was the English).
I found it a sensible decision as the AI army (rebels or French) was inferior in quality and quantity. It had no hope of winning the battle so it saved what was woth to be saved ( in its opinion). I wasn't able to catch up with the general as my speedy cavalry first dealt with the artilery.

[Ironside]

Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?~:confused:

Often when the general is reduced to a 1 man unit (usually because old unupgraded troops will act as reinforments to the better units), he'll withdraw immidiatly. Trust me, when facing a 9 star general, with morale bonuses, leading 3000 men, it starts to make a whole lot more sence. :furious3:

I looked around for the enemy general because I always look to kill him as soon as possible
Hard to kill them if they isn't there.

A withdrawn general still give the command bonus and doesn't give the -2 in morale the dead general gives ~;)

[antisocialmunky]

Often they get a vice: 'Eager to Withdraw' that gives a morale penalty.

[The Darkhorn]

A withdrawn general still give the command bonus and doesn't give the -2 in morale the dead general gives ~;)
And yet, if I withdraw my general, the battle is instantly and automatically lost, but not if he routs.

:gah:

[hlawrenc]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

This has been a very timely thread for me. Recently playing Byz, had invaded Almonds in Tunisa. Almonds set up on one ridge with 4 catapults, I was on another ridge with a big valley in between trying to figure out the least costly way to hit them (wasn't relishing the idea of uphill attack since we were basically even). BUT my friends the Spanish from adjacent province dropped in to help. While I was sitting on my ridge pondering, the Spanish made headlong charge down my ridge, through my troops calling them all sorts of insulting names for not joining in on the attack, into the valley and straight up the hill at the Almonds. Those 4 catapults opened up before the Spanish got out of the valley and received notice their king was killed by big rock well before they even got into Muslim archery range. Despite the loss of the king an a lot of troops the Spanish still routed the Almonds first wave and while chasing the routers I promptly occupied the now vacent ridge. The Spanish, exhausted, were subsequently routed by Almonds second wave, but being fresh, my Byz handled the oncoming Almond reinforcements easily without having to worry about attacking up the hill or facing any catapults.

I wanted to try out some tactics on attacking hills so reloaded the battle 3 more times, each time Spanish charge headlong and each time Spanish Allied King dead by rock in opening minutes. Made a believer out of me. I pack a couple of catapults in every province now that I expect to have to defend.

I have stayed away from artillery (hate to admit it being an old cannon cocker) in MTV because lack of mobility, mainly only used for siege, but now after my experience in Tunisa and this thread I am building artillery much earlier than I have in the past. Thanks to all of you veterans for sharing experiences.

While I see the value of some catapults now for defensive battles, does anyone ever try to use them in attacks? Can't see how they would help unless you lured the enemy to attack you. Also may have missed it in the responses but how can you improve the accuracy of your catapults?

[matteus the inbred]

While I see the value of some catapults now for defensive battles, does anyone ever try to use them in attacks? Can't see how they would help unless you lured the enemy to attack you. Also may have missed it in the responses but how can you improve the accuracy of your catapults?

probably a waste of time in offensive battles as you have to set them up before you start and you can't then move them or bring them on as reinforcements. i have had them in attacks where i know i'm going to win and i want to besiege the enemy quickly, but they did very little. the AI usually moves out of the way, although there's a tiny chance your artillery can therefore force them to abandon a good position. the exception to this is obviously bridge battles. if you want to know which provinces are likely to include bridge battles, there's a list in the Guides section (probably frogbeastegg's Unit Guide).

accuracy can only be improved by increased valour, i think. your general's valour helps, but apparently actual unit valour is better. i'll have to check this though. resign yourself to the fact that artillery is generally quite inaccurate. try and deploy on raised ground, and try and aim for the frontmost enemy units in the centre of their army as this can improve the likelihood of stray shots hitting something of theirs, if not the original target.
unless you're aiming for the enemy General! if you haven't killed him inside four shots, get stroppy...:laugh4:

[Ludens]

accuracy can only be improved by increased valour, i think. your general's valour helps, but apparently actual unit valour is better.
Valour indeed helps accuracy, but general's valour is no worse than unit valour for this (though unit valour gives a morale bonus and doesn't disappear when the general dies). However, I try not to use them in field battles, as I consider it cheesy. My first act in battles where I have them is to withdraw them. If the enemy has them, they are the first target of my cavalry.

[Roark]

Luden: Do you mean "cheesy" as in: exploiting the weaknesses of the game?

Coz, catapults and their crews can be the biggest waste of space on the battlefield at 0-3 valour...

[Martok]

Valour indeed helps accuracy, but general's valour is no worse than unit valour for this (though unit valour gives a morale bonus and doesn't disappear when the general dies). However, I try not to use them in field battles, as I consider it cheesy. My first act in battles where I have them is to withdraw them. If the enemy has them, they are the first target of my cavalry.


Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree that using artillery in defensive battles is "cheesy", although I understand where you're coming from. I do think it depends a little on the context. Here's how I look at it: I don't deliberately build and deploy artillery to provinces where I expect to fight a lot of defensive battles, as I agree that would be deliberately exploiting a loophole. However, if I wind up fighting a defensive battle where my army simply happens to have artillery crews along with....then yes, you can bet I'm going to put them to good use. ~D

To take an example: When playing as the Spanish, I do what most MTW players do--I take Aragon and Navarre to seal off my northern border against the French. Once that's done, I then turn south and go after the Almohads. (Yes, I know a lot of players go after the Almos first and *then* take Navarre and Aragon, but my point still holds.) Now given that I play Medieval with the XL Mod installed, that means just about every province has a castle of some kind; and that therefore my main Southern army almost always has a good number of artillery pieces (usually half a dozen or so).

Now I don't keep catapults stationed in Aragon and Navarre (unless they've happened to just build one), as they're both chokepoint provinces that I know the French will want to attack if given the chance. On the other hand, however, should the Almos counterattack my army in the south (which they sometimes do), then I'm certainly not going to stop my artillery crews from having their fun chucking rocks at the advancing enemy!

[Roark]

I'm deeply confused...

What exactly is the "loophole" that is taken advantage of by deliberately packing catapults for defensive battles, thereby making it a "cheese" tactic?

You'd be lucky to squish 10 attackers at 0-3 valour. A unit of archers could take out many more.

[Martok]

I'm deeply confused...

What exactly is the "loophole" that is taken advantage of by deliberately packing catapults for defensive battles, thereby making it a "cheese" tactic?

You'd be lucky to squish 10 attackers at 0-3 valour. A unit of archers could take out many more.


Yes, that's true. However, of those 10 guys the catapult kills, one of them is very likely going to be the enemy general....and a dead general of course makes it a heck of a lot easier to route your opponent off the battle map. I think we've pretty firmly established that in general, artillery pieces are a little too good at targeting and killing army commanders. Whether CA deliberately programmed artillery to behave this way, or if it was just a minor bug that was missed, is irrelavent at this point. Given that the accuracy of artillery crews generally leaves a *lot* to be desired (as other have said, you're lucky if you manage to hit the same wall section two times in a row!), it's very unlikely that they could manage to kill generals with such uncanny consistency.

So if you deliberately employ artillery in your defensive armies knowing that they make good "general-killers" (which is certainly not historically accurate!), you're exploiting a loophole in the game. And that makes it a "cheese" tactic.

By the way, I just want to emphasize I am in no way criticizing players who like to use artillery in defensive battles. My opinion is that you should play the game in the way that's most enjoyable to you. (And besides, it's not like I don't understand the appeal. ~:) ) I'm just saying that for myself, any victory where I win because of a cheese tactic (running out the clock would be another one), simply doesn't feel like a real victory for me. I like to win and lose battles on my *own* merits, not because I managed to exploit some small flaw in the game that the programmers missed.

[Subedei]

Catapults are really good for general/king killing as the rocks seem magnetically attracted to them.


Yeah, that is right...2 5-9 star Generals, a few Golden Bands and 2-7 Catapults on the bridges over Nile & that is it....I am playing Carthage & hold Egypt vs. gigantic Egyptian Armies trying to come back 2 their birthplaces...and I don't know how many Generals of the Pharao were killed by a flying, burning mass doping on his chariot.

Well, a few Golden Band Infantry men were hit by these too...sadly enough....

[The Darkhorn]

You know, I have never had artillery kill a general. Maybe I don't have the same bug. Actually it's cause I rarely target the general, preferring instead to fire at the second unit in a bunch of units. A short bounce hits the first one. If it's on target or goes long, it hits the others. I did after reading this thread target a general in one of my last battles with a 5 valour catapult. Nothing. Just some casualties (it was an anglican jinette).

[Odin]

So if you deliberately employ artillery in your defensive armies knowing that they make good "general-killers" (which is certainly not historically accurate!), you're exploiting a loophole in the game. And that makes it a "cheese" tactic.



I agree with this statement 100%, however in my usage with catapults in defensive battles I havent seen a high percentage of generals killed. I do notice that when the AI is forming its advance a lot of the units intermingle to gain thier position within the formation. I suppose in that situation its logical to assume that rocks tossed have a higher chance of hitting a general.

[Ludens]

Luden: Do you mean "cheesy" as in: exploiting the weaknesses of the game?
I mean that with a catapult I can usually kill the enemy general plus a couple of powerful troops that are pretty much invulnerable to archers, whereas if the A.I. brings them he usually won't be able to hit anything with it. I used to be quite fond of them (still am, I hate having to starve a castle garison out, so I always bring at least two of them), but then I realized how handicapped the A.I. was by it's inability to respond to them. It also isn't historically accurate to use pre-gunpowder artillery on the battlefield (with the exception of ballista) anyway, so I just withdraw the crews as soon as the battle starts.


By the way, I just want to emphasize I am in no way criticizing players who like to use artillery in defensive battles. My opinion is simply that you should play the game in the way that's most enjoyable to you. (And besides, it's not like I don't understand the appeal! ) I'm just saying that for myself, any victory where I win because of a cheese tactic (running out the clock would be another one), simply doesn't feel like a real victory for me. I like to win and lose battles on my *own* merits, not because I managed to exploit some small flaw in the game that the programmers missed.
My sentiments exactly. It's not as if it is a major exploit anyway, but I think catapults make the game just a little too easy.

[matteus the inbred]

It also isn't historically accurate to use pre-gunpowder artillery on the battlefield (with the exception of ballista)

this is sadly true...none of us should be using anything much really! the standard use of torsion or counterweight artillery seems to have gone out with the decline of the Romans, except in sieges, when even then it seems to have been fairly novel to use anything except battering rams and scaling ladders (which you can't use in MTW...!).

i agree that's it's a bit cheesy in this sense...it's good fun to have a couple, but i think taking more than that is not just cheesy but also tactically inadvisable...you could field hundreds of troops instead of 4 catapults, which could make all the difference.

i've got no problem with using loads of them in sieges though. that's what they're there for, and i'd rather use them than lose hundreds of men storming the place. the AI still has a response; apart from the largest types of siege weapon, catapults often get shot up by decent sized castles anyway, and i've even had the AI deploy outside of castles and try flanking me.

basically though, it's all about having fun, and i find catapults amusing to use in moderation.

[Roark]

Well, I've been playing for about a year, and I've only ever killed a general with artillery once, so I guess I just don't consider it exploitation.

[antisocialmunky]

Well this game isn't about historical correctness, its about playing a historic game... You shouldn't shoot for realism.

[Lanemerkel1]

the entire game is "Historically Inaccurate"



would you please tell me when the Vikings conquered all of england? or when the Byzantines conquered all of Europe? oh that's right IT DIDN'T HAPPEN the whole point of the game is pretty much to see how many possible outcomes of medieval europe you can get, historically, pretty much all of europe stayed the same, if anything (except for Russia and the Ottoman Empire) they all lost territory instead of gained it.


pretty much the name of the game is seeing if you can beat out the kings/generals of the medieval age

[Mr White]

It should not be a game that is historically correct but it should aim for a game in a historically correct situation. Meaning that the outcome doesn't matter (not much fun if you allready know how it'll end) but the means should be as historically correct as possible.

[Alexios]

Had a similar experience in terms of catapults, there I was with a meagre force of 650 Byzantines against 1700 Spanish Crusaders, I thought to myself "Find a hill, hold it aslong as I can, do as much damage as possible" simple, lose but make them pay for it.

I had 1 catapult team, that had killed squat in the 2 previous battles they had been in so I vengefully put them at the back of my army, the battle starts and the map turns yellow as a load of Spanish come towards me.

First thing I do is click on my catapult and order it to fire, randomly clicking into the mass of Spanish, first boulder goes absolutely miles away from where I clicked bounces over the Feudal sergeants crashing into a unit of Royal knights killing 1 man, who happened to be the enemy general.

I experienced something similar to this, except I was the victim rather than the victor of such circumstance. I was playing the Byz and fighting the Spanish somewhere in Western Europe. I went into battle with complete, overwhelming odds in my favor. I rushed my army downfield to claim the easy victory with my 7-star Prince in the rear. The Spaniards then fired one volley from two of their catapults, and guess who got killed???

Within a minute or so my entire army routed... they were practically tripping over each other 'cuz they couldn't get off the field fast enough! Words can't describe how p**ssed I was. :furious3:

[Zain]

Lately I've tried a new thing and have modded my Longbowmen. Now, they are like the best Snipers ever trained in the Universe!!! I backed up my army far back on the field (it's all perfectly flat) and used my awesome Longbowmen. They shot down the French King in the first wave of shots, and this was definently longer range than any weapon I had ever seen. Anyway, we shot down their King from one side of the map to the other, and while their army tried to get to us, we killed off every single one of them. Game end, 2,360 killed, 0 lost. :smile:

-ZainDustin

[cegman]

I guess I never use them to target the general but I can see why historically they weren't used. But they are so good at taking out morale that I almost have to use them.