Roman artillery

When do you get to build artillery units with the romans? Yeah I'am a EB noob. (more experienced with RTW and M2TW) But I really like to use them. Not only in sieges but in battles too. It always gives me rush to see my enemy fall dead like stones before any contact especially if it's the general :) I hope to get some decent archers too, but I guess I just don't have the right provinces for that yet. Those sardinians and greek archers from sicily aren't really good. So, my main question: when and how do I get siege units with the romans?
I played Bactria allready for a while but there were some script problems and random crashes + some very poor strategic decisions by myself, so I stopped playing with them. And decided to play with the (boring) Romans to get used to EB. One day I'll start over again, cause I really like there style, position, religion,... But the point is that they were able to build artillery soon (although way too expensive for me at the time).
Thanx if already if you decide to help my noobish being.
peace

I think you have to wait for Marian reforms in order to get artillery as the Romans. And in all honesty, its way too expensive. Not worth it one bit unless you can score a lucky shot on a general or you really have to punch a hole through some heavy infantry in the center.

Artillery in EB is a bit like those Extensive Dock upgrades, they do something but it's throwing your mnai away.

On top of them being more overpriced than oversized ships, the EB team did also not ... spend a lot of time on the bigger ones. Which makes them even less usefull. IF you really want to use Artillery best stay with the smallest ones, I've actually heard of a few people actually having success with them :D

I'd rather have 16 units of Cohors reformata than an one-talent-stone-thrower.

As for archers: go for crete, they are the closest really good archers(easier to just get mercs tho). The numidians can also muster capable archers. The Sardinians may not be the best snipers but still are a very usefull unit considering their spear and humble costs. In general tho Slingers are preferable to archers, as they have armor piercing bullets and thus may actually cause some casualties on higher tier units. Plus both the celtic and the Greek ones are quite usefull.

You probably won't actually use the big siege weapons more than once anyway. Far easier to use towers and fight it out. Useless on a battlefield with lots of trees since they can't move through them.

Cretan archers as mercs are as good an archer as you will get in the west. Celtic slingers are excellent ranged units; armour piercing, long range and you can recruit them from northern Italy.

Thanks for the fast answers, it seems that this forum is very much alive.

@Brave Brave Sir Robin: thats exactly what I would use them for, also I remember from M2TW it was very useful to destroy towers and units on the walls at sieges. But I guess they are indeed too expensive (as I already found out with Bactria). But as mentioned trees are a pain in the ass at battlefields.
It's pity though, cause they were a important part of roman warfare, so I thought maybe it's less expensive with the Romans.

Quote:

---

I'd rather have 16 units of Cohors reformata than an one-talent-stone-thrower.

---

Yes you're totally right.

As for Crete; I already discovered their archers I could hire them as mercenaries in the neighborhood of Tarentum (if I remember well). They're great.

Thanks for the tip about the slingers and Numidian archers, with Bactria I used dem sometimes (slingers), but now wasn't thinking about it. The Sardinian archers made me think of the persian archers with their spears. I loved dem. Actually I had a whole army of them (with two units of normal spearman and two units of light horseman). Very good against rebels and smaller seleucid armies.

Again; thanks for the tips and help.

peace

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

It's pity though, cause they were a important part of roman warfare, so I thought maybe it's less expensive with the Romans.

---

They may not cost less but they do have slightly better stats.

The stone throwers, were used during sieges afaik, for example Massada was heavily "bombarded"...

The smaller ballistae, with bolts are actually a good investment, soon as you can afford them...
While they aren't that great in-battle (if you ask me that is :P), the AI seems to be afraid of them and avoids engaging, even retreats!

I once established a system of forts, at chokepoints, with haploi and katapeltai: the AI never attacked me for a very long time, hellenistic era deterrence lol
Gave me time to expand and consolidate on the other front ^^

Damn my english looks bad if I read it again :s

@ Ca Putt and Arjos: thanks for that information! So its rather useful in a defense way... Would be quite understandable, also in a historical context. It sounds logic to have some forts with capable artillery and some highly mobile armies/legions/... But, and that's a commentary on all the total wars I played, if I had a real life army I would be sure too have some decent engineers that could build catapults/onagers/trebuchets/ballistas/... instead of those stupid rams and siege towers. Just saying...

I think archers may seem underpowered to you because you're used to playing vanilla RTW, where even the most basic unit of archers can wipe out 20% of a heavily armoured unit with each volley, which obviously is totally unrealistic. EB is all about realism. The Romans can't recruit any archers at all until the Marian reforms, except if you conquer a Greek/Gallic culture city (such as Taranto, Rhegion, Sagesta or Bononia) and install a type 3 or 4 government and build the military building that allows you to recruit a conquered city's native troops rather than your own. Then you'll get archers and they do have their uses, but in general they suck unless you can hit a unit in its back.

Like others have said, slingers are way better, but they're still nowhere near as lethal as they were in vanilla RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

if I had a real life army I would be sure too have some decent engineers that could build catapults/onagers/trebuchets/ballistas/... instead of those stupid rams and siege towers. Just saying...

---

Oh absolutely, I remember reading that Philippos and Alexandros of Makedonia, were so successful in their conquests, some argue foremost, due to their engineers and revolutionary siege engines :)
I was just pointing out that in open field, a round stone projectile, is not as effective as one might think... Even a round shot from a gun isn't, both aren't explosive and just fly over the heads, by incredible luck manage to hit few legs bouncing, but that's pretty much it...

Caesar writes in his Gallic Wars that small scorpion style artillery was used during the invasion of Britain to create a beachhead against the tribes who had gathered along the shore preventing the Romans from disembarking easily. I do imagine that these style of weapons would have been fairly common in armies.