Peasant Phill
02-27-2006, 10:38
I know such a topic is better discussed in the main hall but as I'm not allowed to post their yet, I'll have to do it here.
I'm playing MTW right now with the XL-mod (great work viking horde) and I have the choice of building naphta catapults. I don't have a lot of cash laying around so I have to know if they are worth their money and building time.
What I think (this is only an assumption) is that by replacing the rock with a jar of explosive chemicals you transform the catapult from an anti-building weapon to an anti-personnel weapon.
I've read that they are great when attacking or defending a bridge because the enemy will be all bunched together or at least stationary. But this is probably its biggest flaw to: its accuracy. The crew of a normal catapult isn't able to compare, in kills, to an archer unit I could deploy in its place, not even by far. So will an explosion make more victims? This'll be the case if it hits a unit dead on, but in my experience with normal catapults this is a rare occurence. On top of that the projectile won't bounce further and by doing so decreasing the chance even more of hitting someone.
A peculiar and well known bug (I presume it's a bug) is the ability of artillery to hit the general. This occurence will happen more often I think as the explosion (if it hits the intended spot) will take more men than a plain rock.
On the other hand will the naphta catapult still be as effective against buildings? I reality a rock will probably do more damage against thick stone walls than some exploding chemicals. Sure they will cause wooden wall to catch fire (I assume) but wooden walls aren't exactly the reason why I use siege engines ( almost every unit can destroy wooden walls with reasonable death rate).
So am I right in my arguments ( I haven't once used naphta catapults so if you have experience that point in an other direction please don't hesitate to reply) or not? Are there than specific situations where they achieve their full potential (like bridge battles)?
Thanks in advance
I'm playing MTW right now with the XL-mod (great work viking horde) and I have the choice of building naphta catapults. I don't have a lot of cash laying around so I have to know if they are worth their money and building time.
What I think (this is only an assumption) is that by replacing the rock with a jar of explosive chemicals you transform the catapult from an anti-building weapon to an anti-personnel weapon.
I've read that they are great when attacking or defending a bridge because the enemy will be all bunched together or at least stationary. But this is probably its biggest flaw to: its accuracy. The crew of a normal catapult isn't able to compare, in kills, to an archer unit I could deploy in its place, not even by far. So will an explosion make more victims? This'll be the case if it hits a unit dead on, but in my experience with normal catapults this is a rare occurence. On top of that the projectile won't bounce further and by doing so decreasing the chance even more of hitting someone.
A peculiar and well known bug (I presume it's a bug) is the ability of artillery to hit the general. This occurence will happen more often I think as the explosion (if it hits the intended spot) will take more men than a plain rock.
On the other hand will the naphta catapult still be as effective against buildings? I reality a rock will probably do more damage against thick stone walls than some exploding chemicals. Sure they will cause wooden wall to catch fire (I assume) but wooden walls aren't exactly the reason why I use siege engines ( almost every unit can destroy wooden walls with reasonable death rate).
So am I right in my arguments ( I haven't once used naphta catapults so if you have experience that point in an other direction please don't hesitate to reply) or not? Are there than specific situations where they achieve their full potential (like bridge battles)?
Thanks in advance