Gunpowder Units Ineffective

[Rhyfelwyr]

I was expecting the gunpowder discovery to be a real breakthrough, but gunpowder units are pretty ineffective. In my Venice campaign, I tried building a new style army for the late game, made up mostly of Pike Militia and Arquebusiers. But my new army got massacred by the Mongols and their archers, it seems the bows did more damage than the guns. Is there any way to make guns more effective, other than increasing their attack. Factors such as accuracy, kill rate etc?

[BadGenome]

Recruit musketeers instead of arquebusiers if you can; the increased range makes a lot of difference. I've had good luck against the Mongols by using pikes set up at the base of a hill with muskets further up the hill so they can get a clear shot. If you can bring along some trebuchets, throw some cows at those Horde bastards before switching to flaming boulders. Between the scary guns and mad cow disease :laugh4: they should break up. Remember: guns do more morale damage than physical.

[Ciaran]

The Mongols aren´t exactly the best enemy to fight with gunpowder troops, since their mounted troops are on top of your shooters too quickly.
An ideal opponent to use gunpowder against are the Scots, for example, anything with slow, sluggish infantry.
But if you follow BadGenome´s tips about terrain you should get something out of your gunners as well (although the same deployment works very well for crossbows).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks for the tips, I'll try that trick with the hill, now I've trained some Pikemen I have to try and use them for something.

Still, is it possible to modify the accuracy of missile troops in export_descr_unit somehow?

[rainkloud]

You most certainly can. You'll need the descr_projectile file which has all projectiles in there. Under arquebus and musket accuracy you'll want to make the number further away from 1 to make it more accurate.

For example:

.01 is LESS accurate than .001

I would also suggest you change the velocity of the arq/mus. To do this change the SECOND number to something in the 400 range. This will make the rounds look much more realistic.

Before you change the accuracy though I would suggest trying to put your gunners in two rows instead of three. They will fire faster and do more damage. The only reason to use three rows is to have a consistent "stream" of fire which will do more morale damage. Make sure to give them backup and set them to "skirmish"

Hope that helps!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks thats just what I was looking for, I'll start doing some testing...

[alpaca]

I find gunpowder troops have quite a good balance. Most of them aren't too strong, but if you use them wisely they'll punish your opponent quite hard.

The key component is their morale damage factor. A few volleys of these and any advancing line will have bad morale to start with. Use a few heavy cavalry units to charge them and some of them will already start routing. Using more resilient units to pin other units works, too, but I found pairing them with cavalry is the best option.

There's also a slightly more interesting punch to some of the more advanced firearms: They are armor piercing and have a flat trajectory. That means if you can fire them at a full battle line on the same height a lot of the shots will hit something. I've seen cases where a charging unit of knights was half disemboweled by three units of sudanese gunners before it even reached them (not to mention it routed on impact).

[icek]

try camel gunners from moors roster, not every faction have powerfull gunpowder units.

[The Stranger]

musketeers are great.. especially janisary ones...

[FactionHeir]

I agree that gunpowder units are somewhat weaker than archers due to their slow routine and only mediocrely higher damage. Their accuracy is fine though and doesn't need tinkering.

Morale damage is probably their main use currently, and even then that is difficult considering that you might only get off 1 volley before the enemy is upon you or you need to move some unit in between which in turn triggers their reforming animation for some time and due to inbuilt anti friendly fire makes them not shoot at all in combination with fire_by_rank.

So, what I did personally (and it works quite decently) was to increase all gunpowder infantry/cavalry damage by 50% and remove their fire_by_rank attribute (infantr only) in the EDU file. The damage increase so their bullets will actually kill something late game (otherwise no morale penalty) and the attribute removal to allow them to faster slightly faster by improving their routine. Incidentally, that makes them cluster together more and thus more vulnerable to enemy missile fire and charges, which is a good trade-off.

[Empirate]

German Reiters are death on wheels, err, hooves. Short range, but exceedingly powerful attack. Besides, they are good (if not outstanding) heavy cav with a lot of durability. Flank opponent, fire a salvo or two, then charge. The armor-piercing, morale-damaging pistolshots at close range, paired with a cav attack to the flank or rear, will rout most units on impact. Just make sure you've already pinned the enemy using some cheap infantry (pikes are ideal).

[Guru]

German Reiters are death on wheels, err, hooves. Short range, but exceedingly powerful attack. Besides, they are good (if not outstanding) heavy cav with a lot of durability. Flank opponent, fire a salvo or two, then charge. The armor-piercing, morale-damaging pistolshots at close range, paired with a cav attack to the flank or rear, will rout most units on impact. Just make sure you've already pinned the enemy using some cheap infantry (pikes are ideal).

If I've understood correctly their pistols were used to replace lances. I really like this unit since with it I can use tactics that Finnish hakkapellites employed during the 30 years war, for example. Fire a volley at close range when charging in. Charge combined with a deadly volley is usually enough to break any units' back. Hakkapellites fired two volleys but they had two pistols... "Poor" reiters have to do with one only. :charge:

By the way, I have a little question for all the historians out there: Is the "fire by rank" style of shooting actually historically accurate? I thought it was popular to fire every single gun at the same time?

[FactionHeir]

By the way, I have a little question for all the historians out there: Is the "fire by rank" style of shooting actually historically accurate? I thought it was popular to fire every single gun at the same time?

Good question. According to wikipedia, the volley fire and advanced tactics were developed quite late in the 15th century because of the inaccuracy of single fire and to just overwhelm the enemy with the volley which would hit something. All of those references mention European armies only though, but since Turks and Moors for instance have gunpowder infantry as well, its a good question whether at the time of M2TW (around 1250) the volley fire tactic was widely accepted and implemented. Besides, using volley fire was referenced at around 3 shots per minute while shooting at will would allow 4 or more.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Last night I marched my Handgunners into a city square where the Mongol General was with his bodyguard. I managed to fire of one volley before they charged, without managing to cause a single casualty.

Should later gun units, especially musketeers, not be better than simply morale-lowering troops?

[Mete Han]

musketeers are great.. especially janisary ones...

I a campaign with turks playing vh vh my janissary musketeers had a lot of problems with shooting continuosly. They stop shooting fo some reason. I think there is a bug with j muskets. Is there a way to mod this? I play v. 1.0 bu the way...

[Rhedd]

Last night I marched my Handgunners into a city square where the Mongol General was with his bodyguard. I managed to fire of one volley before they charged, without managing to cause a single casualty.

Should later gun units, especially musketeers, not be better than simply morale-lowering troops?Are we talking historically? No. Early firearms (pre-18th c.) suck big time.

I recently read an official account of a test done in the early Napoleonic era, if I remember correctly, and the results were truly laughable. This was a general testing a trained unit of his men, firing at a six-foot-tall wooden wall approximately as wide as an enemy unit, at a reasonable distance. The misfire rate was almost 1/3, and of the rounds which were actually successfully fired, very, very few ended up hitting anything at all.

Earlier firearms are going to be even worse, of course.

No, pre-17th c., it's fair to say that gunpowder was 100% an anti-morale weapon, not a killing one. That goes for field pieces as well as handheld guns.

Even after much improvement, the longbow continued to be a technically superior weapon, with greater accuracy (pre-rifling), and far better rate of fire.

The problem with bows is what it always was, and why they got replaced with crossbows before being supplanted again by guns: Archers have to spend a lifetime of training to be any good.

Any fool can point a stick and touch a match to it. Well... two out of three. The others fire off their ramrods, forget the loading sequence, or otherwise botch the volley. ^_^

Historically, it would be a tragedy if guns outperformed longbows in this game. If you think it'd be more FUN to have better guns, though, then yeah, you can edit them in the descr_projectile.txt file.


Mete Han: Yes, there's a way to fix that. Upgrade to the 1.2 patch. ^_^

[DisruptorX]

If you place your muskets directly in front of pikes, so that the end of the pikes are in front of the muskets, they are truly fearsome. Muskets decimate enemy formations, and with the pikes behind them, cannot be charged by enemy cavalry.

I personally love muskets. Later in the game, archers can't make a dent in heavy armour.

[rich19]

Are you kidding? I've found gunpowder troops (well, arquebusiers) to be an awesome weapon against mongols. Get a long, thin line of them on high ground, set them to skirmish, and put a line of pikes behind them. Some heavy cavalry or perhaps some infantry on the wings. Let them come to you - the arquebusiers will fine a volley or two before retreating behind the pikes. The mongol lancers charge after them into the pikes, and you can then take your cav around the sides and into the back of them. Once the arquebusiers have retreated behind your pike line, turn skirmish off and deploy them so they can fire at the HA or infantry. They are effective against both.

[khaos83_2000]

Gunpowder Units in mtw2 is quite balanced. They kill slowly BUT will eventually kill everything if left alone.
They are fun to use but they need high level barracks to get them. This is a problem as i only designate the cities around my capital to get up to huge city status. But they are still fun to play with.

I once get a full stack of handgunners against a full stack of pavis xbow and some militias, both w/o generals. Although i manage to win but my handgunners are decimated. The battle is a funny one as each side has their winning and losing moments.

[Cadwallon]

I read :book: somewhere that Janissary Musketeers were individually better than their European equivalent, but tended not to shoot as a unit. Turkish units tended to emphasise individual bravery and feats of arms. The reason that Western armies tended to prevail over their Eastern counterparts was the degree of organisation and standardisation that became a feature of modern late medieval and early renaissance armies.

Tell that to my great-grandfather who fought at Gallipoli!:help:

[GFX707]

In my 1.2 experience I have found that crossbows seem to be absolutely devastating everything from pikemen to bodyguard units....whereas my camel gunners and Sudanese Gunners don't really seem to kil anywhere near as fast.

[DisruptorX]

I read :book: somewhere that Janissary Musketeers were individually better than their European equivalent, but tended not to shoot as a unit. Turkish units tended to emphasise individual bravery and feats of arms. The reason that Western armies tended to prevail over their Eastern counterparts was the degree of organisation and standardisation that became a feature of modern late medieval and early renaissance armies.

Tell that to my great-grandfather who fought at Gallipoli!:help:

I don't know about that. During the height of the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s, they were nearly unstoppable and suffered few major losses, notably Vienna and Malta.

[Freedom Onanist]

I read :book: somewhere that Janissary Musketeers were individually better than their European equivalent, but tended not to shoot as a unit. Turkish units tended to emphasise individual bravery and feats of arms. The reason that Western armies tended to prevail over their Eastern counterparts was the degree of organisation and standardisation that became a feature of modern late medieval and early renaissance armies.

Tell that to my great-grandfather who fought at Gallipoli!:help:

Like diruptorX, I'd say it was exactly the other way around. In the late med period (1400 - 1600) Turkish armies in particular (only them in the mid east?) attained a very high degree of standardisation in terms of logistics, equipment and training. This was their major advantage over the European armies they met who were still evolving out out of medieval/feudal structures. They simply couldn't field armies that were as large and well equiped for as long. Of course the Turkish system then became sclerotic and decayed into outdated stasis - until it was re-organised in the late 19th early 20th centuries as you say.

On the subject of gunpowder units, I find them a pain in the proverbial as well, just not worth the hassle. They really are too weak, slow and cumbursome to use for me. All that putting them on higher up a hill with pikes in fron, what if there is no hill? Their vulnerabilty and overall usefulness just seems to be way below that of most archers (I find crossbows a pain too), if you want the moral hit use flaming arrows.

[Empirate]

You dislike crossbows as well? What can I say, you just missed out on the single awesomest cavkiller in the game! Against the Mongols and Timurids I bring lots of crossbows (Pavese if possible) and regularly destroy their pathetic mounted archers, then their pathetic heavy cav and finally their pathetic foot missiles. Pavese Xbows in particular pack a mean, mean punch. They fire fast, far, and accurately. They're partially protected by their huge tower shield when reloading. Just perfect for missile duels.
As for Musketeers and their lesser brethren, Arquebusiers, I like them and find them useful, but I must agree that most crossbowmen outclass them where killing power is concerned. They do have a large impact on enemy morale, though, and one or two volleys just before the clash of the infantry lines will lower enemy staying power just enough to easily rout them. They most certainly DO cause casualties, too, if not as many and as quickly as crossbowmen. The two classes of missile infantry have in common that they fire in a very flat trajectory, so the more enfilade you're able to lay down, the more casualties you can cause. Height advantages, on the other hand, don't do too much for them, especially if the slope is convex.
I usually expect good crossbowmen to kill about 6-10 enemies per volley at medium range, against heavily armored troops in tight formation. Arquebusiers do more like 2-6 (and have less range), with Musketeers somewhere in between. Add in the morale effect of gunpowder, and the heightened kill rate at close ranges (accuracy is a major issue), and the gunpowder units don't look so shabby anymore!

[Freedom Onanist]

I don't use xbowes as a matter of personal taste/lazyness. I'm not saying they aren't good - they are. They just take a level of micromanagement I, sadly, can not apply myself to. I know, I know it is my loss.

I am going to play as the French or HRE next (after many English/Spanish/Danish games) so I will explore the world of the xbow more thouroughly.

[craziii]

I find gunpowder infantry to be very affective in field battles, especially janissary ones. an army of them is extremely devastating, very few field maps have no hills, when that occurs withdraw from battle :P my mongol + timurid gunpowder army consist of 12 muskets + 4 jan archers + general + 3 qapakulu ( you need this for the mongol lancers). set them up nicely on hills, and watch the 6 chevron mongol armies melt away. note, you will only have enough ammo for like 2 to 2.5 stack of mongols, so don't bite more than you can chew.

for sieges, all gunpowder infantry are 100% useless. they don't fire on walls. ever. aren't they suppose to shine when put on high places like the wall?

they really need to change the code of ramparts on all fortifications, so range units can fire through. I don't get how rtw range units can do this and m2tw units can't. maybe I should post this in the bug and/or the suggestion thread.

[DVX BELLORVM]

for sieges, all gunpowder infantry are 100% useless. they don't fire on walls. ever. aren't they suppose to shine when put on high places like the wall?

They do fire from the walls. The problem might be when you leave the autofire on, missile (and gunpowder) units tend to shoot at the nearest target. And when the targets comes directly under the walls, they can't shoot them any more because they are not in the line of fire.

Once you manually set another target, they happily continue to shoot.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Empirate]

I wouldn't dismiss another explanation: Gunpowder was new, exciting, modern. Even as early as the 1400s many kings and princes prided themselves in their educated statesmanship, and this included outfitting armies with modern weapons that were seen as the way to go. Imagine somebody who has grown up in a feudal society: Charging horses and guys in full plate armor are every day's bread and butter from tournaments, parades and the like. Most nobles probably received their first sword before they could dress themselves. But once they saw for the first time a demonstration by a canny alchemist who used specially prepared bombs to show off, the impact this must have had on the contemporary onlookers was immense.
Thus, gunpowder was probably added because political and military leaders thought it was awesome. In reality, it wasn't so awesome yet, but it takes a certain progress-oriented spirit to evolve a new technology. This spirit was definitely there in renaissance kings and princes.

[Freedom Onanist]

I wouldn't dismiss another explanation: Gunpowder was new, exciting, modern.

I think this is probably more true than would be given credit for.

Got to say though that CyanCentaur has hit the nail on the head. Cost has got to have a lot to do with it.

The longbow, a much more effective weapon than even most muskets disappears in the 1500's relatively quickly after defining English warfare for the last 200 years, why? Archers are insanely expensive to train and many of them had been butchered in the Wars of the Roses when they where pitted against each other (negating their tactical impact and their lives in the process). The country is ravaged by warfare and the economy goes down the drain.

France barely comes out of the Hundred Years War with a recognisable economy and plunges straight into a costly war in Italy. The military professionals are either not available or too expensive.

The pike picks up the slack. Yes it takes training to hold a pike but not as much. And there will always be some desperate poor sod about willing to give it a go without enough training. They were finaly ousted by an even cheaper weapon - the hand gun. Used en masse (with pikes till the bayonet is invented) they work.

[Zoring]

How could a handgun be cheaper then a length of wood with a piece of pig-iron on the end?

[LeeJackson]

How could a handgun be cheaper then a length of wood with a piece of pig-iron on the end?

I'm not sure about the guns, but I imagine that Shot was a lot cheaper then arrows. Arrows had to be assembled by skilled crafts men. Shot requires little skilled labor and is much easier to mass produce.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Matt_Lane]

In terms of ammo costs: I agree with LeeJackson that grinding powder and producing cheap slugs was cheaper than crafting arrows tipped with armor piercing high grade steel.

Also I'd say gunpowder is cheaper to haul into battle. Powder and shot are compact for transportation, translating to fewer wagon trains. This also means fewer mules to feed and more fodder for your cavalry.

Surely during this period gunpowder was still hard to come by and therefore expensive. It was also temperamental and vulnerable to moisture where as I would imagine you could store up plenty of cross bow bolts until they were needed.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Empirate]

Gunpowder consists of charcoal (easy to get), sulphur (relatively easy to get) and saltpeter (very tricky to get). For a long time, the Atacama desert in Chile was the only place where saltpeter could be found in great abundance, thus limiting gunpowder use to what saltpeter you could scratch from your own ground - usually not much. The synthesis of Saltpeter was only invented in the 20th century!
Furthermore, gunpowder is dangerous in great quantities and highly perishable in heavy weather. Shot isn't that easy, either. You can stick much anything into a blunderbuss (nails, small rocks, shards of earthenware...), but a musket will only take smooth leaden balls or blow up.
I agree about crossbows and of course bows being "high-tech", and about arrows and bolts being tricky to make. Still, one should not underestimate the costs of gunpowder weapons. Even making simple tubes of iron isn't so easy using only renaissance metallurgy. I won't believe gunpowder weapons were successful because of the cost involved. Crossbows would remain the superior weapon for a long time, while bows just needed too much training. I say it must have been as much a cultural thing as anything else!

Also, in the early armies that used handguns or even muskets, bows and crossbows still played a large role. We talk about the Mughal "gunpowder empires", for example, but these were founded as much on mounted archers as on cannon, handguns and muskets.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Empirate]

I suspect you might be right... However, it's clear that the transition took several hundred years to complete. So the M2:TW depiction, in which gunpowder-equipped armies fight against crossbow- or even bow-equipped armies is not at all inaccurate. For me, it is part of the appeal of the game that different tech levels can clash, but are still close enough that the lower tech level can win given numerical or tactical superiority.

[Eusebius86]

I'm using patch 1.2 and have had lots of trouble with my gunpowder units in skirmish. Only the front row fires and they don't even fire as a unit (just sporadically). Any help?

Also, whenever my gunpowder units get hit by enemy missiles they have to 'reform' before firing. This is VERY annowing. Any help?

[TevashSzat]

I'm using patch 1.2 and have had lots of trouble with my gunpowder units in skirmish. Only the front row fires and they don't even fire as a unit (just sporadically). Any help?

Also, whenever my gunpowder units get hit by enemy missiles they have to 'reform' before firing. This is VERY annowing. Any help?

This is a very well known bug. Don't remember the solution from the top of my head, but a quick search should do it

[antisocialmunky]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Timurid Elephanzers. Those things are absolutely ridiculous and are probably the best gunpowder units in the game.

Suddenly bridge battles become not so great an idea...

[Zoring]

Not to mention the Elephantmusketeers who can out shoot a squad of 90 Musketeers! Madness!