Artillery variations

Ok, so I play the HRE quite a bit, but rarely do I get to gunpowder, let alone actually being able to do much with it. Boredom sets in, and I start a new game. I'm glad to say that my current game is actually still exciting, and gunpowder has come into my hands. So now that I have it, I've got a question about something that's been bothering me.

The Kaiser's forces get five different kinds of gunpowder artillery. The bombard and grand bombard are easily understandable. One is the first primitive artillery piece, and the other is a bigger version. They put big holes in walls. 'Nuff said.

Now it gets confusing. There are still basilisks, cannons, and serpentines on the list.

What is the difference between these? When is one better than the other? The serpentine appears to be the king as it has more ammo. Why would I choose a cannon or a basilisk over it?

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but a search on google to try and find a historical context for these weapons isn't doing me much good.

The quick and dirty, soon to be superceded by someone with better information:

Of those three, the serpentine is a fine antipersonnel weapon, the basilisk is better for taking out walls, and the cannon seems to be a multi-purpose gun, somewhat like the culverin.

Good enough for me.

So a pair of serpentines and a pair of basilisks are really all a seiging army might need?

If u ask me the cannon is the worst between the three against units.
The serpentine is more accurate then the basilisk, but the basilisk has exploding ammo... So the basilisk is better, because it has supreme wall destroying power :wall: and it's good against troops :2thumbsup: (although it is most expensive)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ainamacil

The quick and dirty, soon to be superceded by someone with better information:

---

And here it is...

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Artillery_(M2TW)

I think that the serpentine is my favourite because it does the best on the field.
I find that for bringing down walls, i don't care i'll use a bombard since it's inexpensive - tho it takes longer, i keep my troops out of range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

And here it is...

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Artillery_(M2TW)

---

Miracle, that is a very handy chart. Thanks for posting. It explains pretty much all my questions about M2TW artillery. :)

i wonder why ca given so huge upkeep for artillery, its only a couple of men , they should be much more expensive for buying but less expensive for keeping i think.

Icek,

Because you have to specially train those guys to make the powder, work the charts for range/deflection, and take care of the guns. Toss in the fact that real guns did have a chance of blowing their crews up during use (due to either a spark in the powder, over hot gun, dirty gun that causes a projectile to stick, or just a spark into the mixing bowl) and you discover pretty quickly that most people just won't do it. The only way to get qualified people who are crazy enought to deal with something that dangerous (compared to simply having to worry about enemy troops killing you) is to pay them better!

Not to mention, cannons were only good for so many shots.

I'd hate to be on the crew when one failed. :)

Yes, you are right. I just forgot already those times of m1tw when my cannon made a happy expoding harakiri.

And what about trebuchet, did they job was also so dangerous that they are paid 25 per turn?

The high upkeep is probably for balance. This is hardly a historical simulation. High upkeep makes it very expensive to keep stacks of relatively useless arty lying around when you are at not sieging anything. Not that it ever stopped the AI from sending armies of half ballistas and half town militia against knights.