Arrows v artillary

Im no military expert BUT i would like to think that xbowmen/archers cannot fire further than a trenbach/catapult but they do, or there is very little difference.

They should not be able to outrange cannons et el but they seem to have similar ranges.

Anything firing uphill should come in range before those at the top come under fire but this does not happen.

Have repeated examples of uphill archers etc firing on heavy artillary before they come in range to return fire. This should really be the other way around.

How can this be changed so a greater range is available.

A second point with ballistas is how come they can knock down large stone walls. They fire a metal bolt which would bounce of stone even by todays building standards. In this era walls could be 10-20 feet thick.

@Capt.Pugwash
Are you sure about the ranges?

In my game artillery has much longer range than archers or crossbowmen, witness the fact that I can take down walls without getting shot to hell by the defenders. Whether it is long enough is a secondary point, which probably applies equally to all missile troops.

As for ballistae knocking down stone walls, whilst they clearly can, its a really bad use for them and they aren't very good at it. Again the effectiveness of all artillery against wooden and stone defences has obviously been enhanced so that we don't have to sit around for days waiting for our equipment to make a breach. By rights it should all be reduced in effectiveness, but of all the artillery available I think the ballista is the least effective to use for this task.

That's wierd because the basic bombard has twice the range of a longbowman/arbalester. The basilisk and monster bombard have almost three times the range. Are you sure you haven't modded your game in some way? Maybe you're playing in Spain or something where height advantage is massive.

I agree with the ballista wall point. Its a pain seeing them slowly but inevitably breaking down your huge stone walls. Especialy when your ballista towers have a slightly shorter range than the regular ballista for some reason.

Siege weapon ranges are, in general, much longer than archers/crossbowmen.

The OP might be facing an AI which is too proud to shoot back...or something :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Pugwash

Anything firing uphill should come in range before those at the top come under fire but this does not happen.

---

Oh it certainly does. Not only that, but an uphill missile unit will kill a LOT more peeps per volley. Trust me, you do not want to try and dislodge the Milanese from a mountainous retreat :laugh4:

On the point about ballistae being able to knock down walls and towers, yes it does seem rather silly. There was some discussion about this in one of the modding threads, the end result being that someone figured out not only how to make the ballista not damage walls/towers/etc, but consequently also not even attempt to target them IIRC. If anyone wants the "fix" I imagine it would be pretty easy to locate in the modding area.

This may come with pitfalls, though. I have no idea if the AI still considers the ballista an assault-enabling unit if it can no longer damage fortifications (of if it indeed ever considered it assault-enabling). If it does, then it's possible the AI could start a siege with absolutely no way to breach the walls or gate at all. I haven't seen the AI assault using only a ballista that I can remember, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't try it...

I lost Paris because one ballista opened the large walls and then the swarm of cavalary chewed up the defenders. Made the mistake of thinking that without infantry there would be no problem for several turns which caused me to try and take the french castle of Angers rather than relive the seige. If that had happened then the French would have been eliminated as no home. In the same scenario my seiging forces of artillary got shot up by the xbowman. ( there where no ballista towers etc)

I'm not convinced that Ballista were incapable of damaging castle walls. They are certainly classed as a seige weapon and had a prominent role in many seiges. There are also depictions of ballista firing missiles with a solid metal ball on the end which would only really have been necessary if one was hoping to smash something solid at the receiving end.

The wikipedia entry for ballista suggests that they were used to destroy walls by firing stone projectiles. Supposedly it was very effective because of its accuracy it could hit the same spot over and over again, unlike a catapult.

I'm more concerned with the fact that a ballistae can be used effectively against Citadels by shooting the gates instead of the walls:wall:

Well that would be the most sensible application given that they have a relatively flat trajectory.

Didz : I think he means shooting long, thin bolts at a metal grate. You know, with holes in it :beam: (I must admit it made me smile the first time I saw it as well)

I've had problems with artillery, and its not there range thats the problem, its the fact that there lowest trajectory is ~zero degrees.

I've noticed artillery fires on from the top of a hill at a greater range but as the enemy comes closer, your cannons can no longer effectively hit the enemy. If there is a green icon but they refuse to fire this is the problem.

The other problem is even if they can aim below zero degrees they will hit the top of the hill.

Not to sure how the game is designed but it does seem the cannons can go below zero degrees at points.

If I set the cannons on the slope of the hill instead of on top there seems to be a lot less problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

I've had problems with artillery, and its not there range thats the problem, its the fact that there lowest trajectory is ~zero degrees.

I've noticed artillery fires on from the top of a hill at a greater range but as the enemy comes closer, your cannons can no longer effectively hit the enemy. If there is a green icon but they refuse to fire this is the problem.

The other problem is even if they can aim below zero degrees they will hit the top of the hill.

Not to sure how the game is designed but it does seem the cannons can go below zero degrees at points.

If I set the cannons on the slope of the hill instead of on top there seems to be a lot less problems.

---

I've noticed this too, and it might be part of the problem that the OP is getting at. Some artillery have maximum and minimum angles of fire. For instance, if you are on top of a mountain that is really steep and the enemy is below and has catapults, they will NEVER be able to fire at you because the angle is too steep and a catapult can't really release it's ammo at a different point to get the correct trajectory. Same goes for some artillery at the top of hills, too, where the trajectory would no longer be able to effectively target troops that are too steeply downhill.

It may also have to do with loading times. I've noticed that artillery crews don't start loading ammo until the enemy comes into firing range, wasting a lot of time.

I haven't noticed the OP's problem myself (which is probably to do with my lack of attention to detail more than anything else) but if archers and xbows have a shorter loading time they might have time while the artillery is loading to approach, load and get a shot off before the artillery fires.

might be worthwhile increasing arty ranges in proportion to walking speed of infantry, in order to compensate for the loading times and ensure they start firing when the troops are in the correct range.

thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

I've noticed this too, and it might be part of the problem that the OP is getting at. Some artillery have maximum and minimum angles of fire. For instance, if you are on top of a mountain that is really steep and the enemy is below and has catapults, they will NEVER be able to fire at you because the angle is too steep and a catapult can't really release it's ammo at a different point to get the correct trajectory. Same goes for some artillery at the top of hills, too, where the trajectory would no longer be able to effectively target troops that are too steeply downhill.

---

That's probably it - the firing angles. Most projectiles (see descr_projectiles.txt) do not allow much of a downward angle at all: usually -15 for anything except arrows. Thus if you have cannons for instance planted too high on a hilltop, there can be a rather large area surrounding the hill that the cannons would be entirely unable to shoot. The shots go at a particular speed (not variable like arrows are), and the small declination allowed (and corresponding small downward vertical component of movement on the shot) just don't allow the shots to go anywhere near the cannon's elevated position - they are forced to sail far away. For instance in 1 second, the cannonball can fall 28.2 m if fired optimally downward (-15 degrees). In that same 1 second, it travels ~87 m horizontally. That's about a 3:1 ratio, meaning after 1 second the ball has flown 3 times further horizontally than it has dropped vertically. I'm sure you can see why that would be problematic and leave a large area surrounding any elevated artillery position where the artillery simply cannot fire.

As for determining the effect in-game, estimating an area 3 times longer than the height of the hill is probably a good ballpark guess at the closest point where your artillery coverage will be effective.

A related problem lies in the artificial limiting of a cannon's range to an amount far shy of what it's projectile stats would allow. A bombard even on flat ground could shoot out to 715 m within its parameters, but is only allowed to shoot 325 at most by the EDU, which really trivializes the usefulness of high ground to it except that it gets some cleaner sight lines. Thus a substantially elevated position, instead of granting the artillery greater reach, only serves to cut off a huge portion of its targetable area, leaving a fairly narrow ring that it can successfully target, bordering and including its max 325 range. The best solution is probably to set the cannon shot to a lower velocity that gives a flat range more in the 325 ballpark. That lower velocity would then be used as the upper bound on firing range, not the EDU range (which would increase so as to not be a factor). That would actually allow elevated positions to correctly increase artillery range, and would also provide the artillery somewhat better capability to shoot downward (due to less velocity to push the shot out and away) though it will be marginal at best.

If I've done the figuring right, a velocity of 60 gives the bombard a max range of ~318 naturally, and something in that vicinity is likely a good value to use for it. Coupled with the lengthening of the EDU listed range, it would then get better use out of a hilltop position by actually being allowed to fire out to the extended range the elevated terrain naturally affords it...

I remember the first time i got beseiged by an enemy with a couple of ballistae, first of all i laughed because i didnt think theyd be able to punch even one hole in my huge stone walls, that was until they proceeded to breech the wall in four seperate places... I swear the AI gets more ammunition than the player, it shouldn't be possible to do that much damage with sharpened curtain rods!

On a slightly related topic, does anyone know how to make ballista crew able to run with the ballista? I want to see how that makes it more effective as an infantry support weapon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

I've noticed artillery fires on from the top of a hill at a greater range but as the enemy comes closer, your cannons can no longer effectively hit the enemy.

---

Thats an accurate reflection of a real life issue, however, it would have been a nice touch if the game somehow highlighted the extent of this 'dead ground' in front of your artillery so that you could predict its effects before they occurred.

Historically, this was the reason why Nappoleonic Artillery batteries always included at least one high trajectory weapon (Howitzer) which could lob shells into dead ground but even that had a minimum trajectory and once the enemy got too close it had to stop firing.

Also, there is a mistaken belief, even amongst serious wargamers, that artillery is more effective on a hill. This is actually completely muddled thinking and has been proven so, both by extensive testing, scientific logic and artillery manuals published over the period.

Placing artillery on high ground creates area's of 'dead ground' in front of the guns which have to be neutralised either by other guns or other troops. At Waterloo for example Mercer complained that there was an extensive area of 'Dead Ground' just 50 paces before his battery which allowed the French Cavalry to regroup and organise themselves before and after each attack. He could see the tips of their lances and the tops of their helmet plumes but could not bring his guns to bear on them due to the convex nature of the slope.

The other effect of high ground was to cause shot to plunge into the enemy rather than to bounce thus reducing the effect as the missile is less likely to travel after it hits.

The best location for artillery is actually flat and firm which maximises bounce whilst avoiding any pockets of dead ground for the enemy to shelter in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

If I set the cannons on the slope of the hill instead of on top there seems to be a lot less problems.

---

Yes. Thats a slight inaccuracy which ought to be corrected. Artillery on a forward slope ought to suffer considerable loading problems which should slow their rate of fire. With cannon the obvious problem was trying to keep the cannon ball from rolling back out of the barrel, which required additional precautions such as grommits to be added during the loading process. This remained a problem until the introduction of the cartridge system which combined the ball and the powder into a single package but even then the cartidge had to be held in place until the gunner pricked it and inserted a quill through the touch hole to hold it there.

For other artillery like catapults the risks would be even greater as the slope would affect the balance of the weapon creating a real risk that the energy produced by the firing process would rip the wepaon apart or throw it over on its side.

However, on the whole I think MTW2 does quite a good job of modelling artillery fire. I was watching my son fight a battle in his Egyptian Campaign last night and he had his bombards located on a low ridge firing at the Danish Crusaders on a ridge opposite. He was getting really frustrated as he was causing no casualties at all to the Danes. When I suggested he pressed DEL and monitored the fall of his shot it became obvious why no damage was being done. Shot was either falling short and hitting the front face of the opposite ridge at a high angle and so burying itself without bouncing, or it was bouncing at an equally high angle (as per scientific principles) and passing over the heads of the Danes on the crest. Indeed the only way a shot would have caused casualties was if it had been pitched perfectly to glance the top of the ridge where they stood which was extremely unlikely. I therefore suggested that he reposition his artillery to his right flank so that they were actually firing along the ridge on which the Danes were deployed. The result was a whole sries of bouncing shots which travelled along the length of the Danish Army inflicting considerable loss.

So, take care when placing artillery. Place them on flat level ground whenever possible and avoid situations where there are slopes in front of your position or in front of the enemies. Even though MTW2 doesn't model the risks very well placing them on the forward slopes of a hill will probably lead to the shot burying itself upon impact due to the increased trajectory caused by the hieght and should therefore only be considered a compromise option. What your looking for is the perfect bouncing shot which hits just ahead of the enemy and then bounces right through their formation from front to back preferrable staying below head height.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

Didz : I think he means shooting long, thin bolts at a metal grate. You know, with holes in it :beam: (I must admit it made me smile the first time I saw it as well)

---

Yes it looks a bit odd, but what one needs to remember is that in reality those pointy bolts would have been replaced with round metal balls or a half sphere shaped battering head (sort of like a large metal sink plunger).

Nevertheless, the whole issue of destroying a metal port-cullis by battering it seems unlikely. The most likely result would be that you end up buckling it and throwing it out of its mountings so that neither side would be able to open it.

But I guess the whole things sort of symbolic rather than accurate as in truth the port-cullis would not be the sole defensive element of a gate anyway.

well thats what the serpentines are for (the napolenic ones anyway). They were able to cover the 'dead ground' infront of the artillery firing hundreds of musket balls (M2TW has a version of this iirc). Against the tight formations of the French @ Waterloo, these were very effective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjahboy

well thats what the serpentines are for (the napolenic ones anyway). They were able to cover the 'dead ground' infront of the artillery firing hundreds of musket balls (M2TW has a version of this iirc). Against the tight formations of the French @ Waterloo, these were very effective

---

In fact 'dead ground' provided a certain level of protection from these as well. The shotgun effect certainly reduced the affects of dead ground but only up to a point. In the ACW for example it was quite common for artillery to fire cannister over the heads of their own infantry deployed below them on a slope. Not something I'd care to expereince but nevertheless it did happen. Provided the slope is sharp enough and you are close enough to the guns the shot should clear your head safely, though your eardrums would probably be destroyed and you might get singed by spent wadding.

Incidently, cannister was effective against French Columns not so much becuase they were densely packed but becuase they were deep. The shot spread rapidly in a cone shape when it left the mouth of the cannon. A significant proportion would bury itself in the earth between the cannon and the target and only that which maintained a flat trajectory hit the front face of the enemy thus benefitting from the tight formation. What mattered was that the significant proportion of the charge which went high over the heads of the enemy eventually degraded and fell back into the columns rear ranks inflicting a spread of additonal casualties down the entire column depth, a bit like parabolic archer fire does in MTW2. Mercer added to this advantage by double shotting his guns with cannister over ball, probably didn't do the barrels of his guns much good but I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joshwa

I remember the first time i got beseiged by an enemy with a couple of ballistae, first of all i laughed because i didnt think theyd be able to punch even one hole in my huge stone walls, that was until they proceeded to breech the wall in four seperate places... I swear the AI gets more ammunition than the player, it shouldn't be possible to do that much damage with sharpened curtain rods!

On a slightly related topic, does anyone know how to make ballista crew able to run with the ballista? I want to see how that makes it more effective as an infantry support weapon

---

I don't think they get more ammo, but they sure as shite are much, much more accurate than mine. Could be that the AI just knows the precise spots where a siege engine shooting a tower will hit everytime, while I whiff-whiff-whiff-hit-the-tower-too-low-hence-not-doing-any-damage-whiff :/

Trebuchets are particularly awfull at this. Once I set 4 of them (2 units) in perfect enfilade of a street where the Milanese had parked like 8 units of infantry, huge press of bodies, perfect target, so I told them to fire at the middle ones over the walls while 4 catapults dealt with the towers and walls, thinking that what with over and undershots, the street would turn into a fricking funeral pyre. I think that out of their whole ammo load, maybe one shot actually landed in that street, the rest ended anywhere in town *but* it. I think one particular shot actually hit a wall on the other side of the city :laugh4:.
Walls they can hit fine, towers are a wee bit too small a target for them (wooden ones anyhow), anywhere else : don't bother :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

In the ACW for example it was quite common for artillery to fire cannister over the heads of their own infantry deployed below them on a slope.

---

Not a good place to earn yourself a nickname little "Too Tall", eh ? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, the whole issue of destroying a metal port-cullis by battering it seems unlikely. The most likely result would be that you end up buckling it and throwing it out of its mountings so that neither side would be able to open it.

But I guess the whole things sort of symbolic rather than accurate as in truth the port-cullis would not be the sole defensive element of a gate anyway

---

Agreed, but then again the whole assault thing is symbolic and I'd say firing stuff at a port-cullis over the course of 6 months to 6 years would probably disintegrate it anyway. Else I wonder how they got past those...Send a lot of strong fellows and just lift it ? Or maybe just blast the walls around and forget the stupid gates :laugh4:.

Talking of cannons and towers.

Is there any way to mod the towers so they have gun ports at ground level? many castles that were upgraded to have gun ports had them at low level not at the top of towers.

Cannon fired from the top of towers have the wrong trajectory to do a lot of damage, whereas ground level shot would cover the "dead ground" in front of gates and allow for more realistic bouncing shots at longer ranges.

@Razanov
Probably not a good idea. The ports would be a serious defensive weakness and given that there are very good reasons for not having level ground in front of a castles walls it would not provide much benefit vis-a-vis the dead ground issue.

Better instead to change the tower armaments from cannon to mortars, with the added option of 'shell shutes' so that bombs could be dropped directly down on the attackers below.

Of course historically the advent of cannon completed changed the design of fortresses leading eventually to the evolution of 'Star Forts' which reached their most advanced at the time of Marlborough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

@Razanov
Probably not a good idea. The ports would be a serious defensive weakness and given that there are very good reasons for not having level ground in front of a castles walls it would not provide much benefit vis-a-vis the dead ground issue.

Better instead to change the tower armaments from cannon to mortars, with the added option of 'shell shutes' so that bombs could be dropped directly down on the attackers below.

---

Yup. After the long awaited boiling oil gates in Kingdoms, beware CA : we'll want machicolations ! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Of course historically the advent of cannon completed changed the design of fortresses leading eventually to the evolution of 'Star Forts' which reached their most advanced at the time of Marlborough.

---

Aaaah, the Forts Vauban (named after Louis the XIVth architect who came up with the design)... I can't tell you how much I hate them. When I was a toddler my father would insist on visiting the local one(s) anywhere we travelled... AND THEY'RE ALL THE FRICKIN' SAME STANDARD DESIGN, THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT ! :wall:

Ahem.

Sorry. I had a traumatizing childhood :sweatdrop:

I agree that the value of high ground to artillery is far overplayed by most historical enthusiasts, however it does afford some benefits - though obviously with some cost as well. Probably the foremost of these benefits is that it is far easier to target artillery from an elevated position - you can simply see the battlefield much more clearly. I imagine artillery in medieval times would have often been directed from the position it was at (by its commander): the advent of better communication means and other technology seems primarily responsible for the shift to artillery being targeted by spotters. To whatever extent the artillery commander had to direct his artillery during the battle, it stands to reason that he could do so far more effectively from an elevated position.

Those same clear sight lines afforded by a raised position would also allow the artillery to confidently fire into much more tricky situations than it could from flat ground behind its own men. This in turn should mean that a battery on elevated terrain gains the ability to fire into melee with low to moderate risk of hitting its own men, and in general it should be able to fire at units much closer to its own with considerably lower risk of fratricide. In game terms you can easily see the difference with bombards for instance - a bombard on ground level is nearly useless once melee is joined as its own troops generally obstruct all potential firing lines - it will usually sit there and not shoot at all on auto-fire. From a raised position, however, it can sometimes continue firing, finding the elevated trajectory enough to clear shots at enemy units which it would certainly not have from a lower position.

The last point is that from a physics standpoint, there clearly is a range benefit to being on elevated terrain. I am unsure how important that is in medieval battles, but it remains simple fact that if your artillery is higher, it can in fact shoot further. The game doesn't allow that currently (which I think is BS btw) but it works for the historical aspect of a raised position's usefulness to artillery, which is why I mention it.

So the way it looks to me, setting artillery on a hilltop is not strictly better nor worse, it is simply a different application. I would suggest it is primarily aimed at getting the best long-range use out of your batteries: their range goes up, a short-to-medium range dead zone is imposed, and you open up more firing lines especially into melee. OTOH if you intend to use your batteries for close-range firing, clearly they should not be elevated, and you will also most of the time need to keep your troops out of the way to allow the cannons to fire.

Artillery on high ground is good for attacking advancing enemies that have a good distance to travel, but, like has been said, there is a risk of losing all effectiveness once the enemy gets close.

I heard someone mention howitzers, and that brings up an interesting point. Has anyone tested mortars on steep slopes? I wonder if mortars can attack within the dead zone that other artillery can't hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

Probably the foremost of these benefits is that it is far easier to target artillery from an elevated position - you can simply see the battlefield much more clearly.

---

Eyewitness accounts suggest otherwise, in general these accounts suggest that on most battlefields visibility of all troops anywhere was seriously impaired by smoke dust and the movement of intervening formations. Even ancient eyewitnesses claim not to have been able to see beyond the the immediate threats that they had to deal with, and the fact that both chariots, cavalry and missiles would appear and strike them at random as if from nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

This in turn should mean that a battery on elevated terrain gains the ability to fire into melee with low to moderate risk of hitting its own men, and in general it should be able to fire at units much closer to its own with considerably lower risk of fratricide.

---

I seriously doubt this either. It certainly would not have been possible in the Napoleonic period even if the artillery commander could see a target to fire at.

In medieval times before the introduction of premade cartridges and with the possibility of wide variations in both the quality, measure and containment of the charge, not to mention windage, such marksmanship would be pretty much impossible.

Even at Waterloo centuries later Mercer was forced to fire on an allied Prussian battery because they refused to stop firing shot at the French below his position some of which were bouncing up the slope into his position killing his men.

About the only thing which could be considered advantageous about a slope in front of a battery is that cannister was more effective when the ground sloped away from the point of discharge, but I'm not sure if medieval cannon had that option as I dont think cannister was invented until the 18th Century. They probably just jammed gravel and nails etc down the barrel if that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Eyewitness accounts suggest otherwise, the general account suggests that on most battlefields visibility of all troops anywhere was seriously impaired by smoke dust and the movement of intervening formations. Even ancient eyewitnesses claim not to have been able to see beyond the the immedite threats that they had to deal with, and the fact that both chariots, cavalry and missiles would appear as if from nowhere.

---

You are of course quoting accounts from troops who were on the ground actually being threatened by chariots, cavalry, and missiles, I presume? I gather that because actual observers in positions like I'm talking about would not mention threats they had to deal with. It's entirely possible an observer from a raised rear position could see somewhat better as he isn't immersed in the actual combat, and certainly he doesn't even have any "intervening formations" as he can simply see over them. Whether or not the cannon's own smoke would partially or wholly obstruct their view is of course a concern, but I don't think there is any question that if there is any chance to see at all it can be done best from a raised position. Even if you only catch a glimpse of what's going on periodically, you are still tremendously advantaged if that partial picture of the battle is from elevation instead of into the backs of your own troops.

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt this either. It certainly would not have been possible in the Napoleonic period even if the artillery commander could see a target to fire at.

In medieval times before the introduction of premade cartridges and with the possibility of wide variations in both the quality, measure and containment of the charge, not to mention windage, such marksmanship would be pretty much impossible.

Even at Waterloo centuries later Mercer was forced to fire on an allied Prussian battery because they refused to stop firing shot at the French below his position some of which were bouncing up the slope into his position killing his men.

---

Oh I don't debate the realities of artillery targeting at all. This sort of thing would undoubtedly be crazy in real life. It remains, however, that the cannons in the game will not fire if the shot at the center of the enemy unit is not clear... and they will if it is. Elevation does often clear that LOS, and so your cannons can often continue to fire into melee if they are elevated in the game. Certainly they will kill some of your own men too with undershoots, but in many situations that is still far more desirable than your cannons simply being dormant, trapped behind friendly lines that obstruct even the possibility of firing.

Quote:

---

About the only thing which could be considered advantageous about a slope in front of a battery is that cannister was more effective when the ground sloped away from the point of discharge, but I'm not sure if medieval cannon had that option as I dont think cannister was invented until the 18th Century. They probably just jammed gravel and nails etc down the barrel if that.

---

Yeah I've never heard of medieval canister of any sort either. Not even sure anyone would have thought of that - they may have just kept firing cannon balls.

In another strange occurence of relevance, I just finished a section about cannons in my Medieval Warfare book. Needless to say, it was quite interesting, and also shows that gunpowder artillery in M2TW is ENTIRELY inaccurate, and the OP was actually correct in what he said...historically, anyway, but not in the gameplay...

1.) "Cannons" were being used as early as 1313, and were used in sieges around 1324. However, these "cannons" were not really cannons at all in the modern sense. A surviving pots de fer, as described in those sieges, was found in Sweden and was only 18 inches long. A French fleet in 1338 also was known to carry one which only weighed 25 lbs. (EDIT: A picture of one is available at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...ng_cannon1.jpg )

2.) These early artillery were used firing two distinctive types of ordinance, one being a heavy iron arrow (making it basically an anti-personnel gunpowder crossbow), the other being the standard iron balls.

3.) It wasn't until the mid-1400's that a field gun was made that was capable of outdistancing a longbow.

4.) Casting field guns in iron wasn't available until around 1540.

5.) By the last quarter of the 1300's, cannons were available that could fire 200 lb. shot, which was a huge improvement over the original pots de fer type of gunpowder "cannon."

6.) Iron balls were expensive, so often times the bombards fired stone balls instead. They often times shattered against walls, making them ineffective at times against static defenses. But, the shattering effect made a good anti-personnel type of round.

7.) There were no gun carraiges in the 14th century and the guns were simply secured to wooden beams by ropes or iron straps, or placed on the ground and lashed to wooden frames.

8.) Carriages first appeared around 1450, but they were only good for transport and not effective enough to make them adequate field guns.

9.) In 1450 gunpowder was capable of being granulated, which allowed for smaller calibre cannons.

10.) The first real use of mobile field artillery was in 1494-95 when Charles VIII invaded Italy.

11.) Case shot was first recorded in 1410, and case, cannister, and grape shot was widely used by 1450.

12.) By the late 1400's, the effective range of a cannon was only 200 yards, with a maximum range between 350 and 500 yards (if using a long, cast barrel).

13.) Rate of fire would have not exceeded four rounds per hour.

14.) And, last, for useless info, wrought iron guns of the period were called bombards from the Greek word bombos, meaning a "loud humming noise like a bee."

I think that covered many of the things brought up in the conversation :beam: . Need to say, the gunpowder units in M2TW are just for fun and bare basically no historical accuracy whatsoever.

Quote:

---

4.) Casting field guns in iron wasn't available until around 1540

---

So what did they use ? Bronze ? I know the Japanese (and probably Chinese as well, since the people of Nippon basically nicked every bits and pieces of their culture) used wooden ones, and I've seen a leather mortar in the arsenal of Venice... That's right, leather reinforced with wood+metal. Huge caliber, too, maybe 40-50cm wide.
I wouldn't have fired that thing with a 10 ft. ceremonial pig poker :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

So what did they use ? Bronze ? I know the Japanese (and probably Chinese as well, since the people of Nippon basically nicked every bits and pieces of their culture) used wooden ones, and I've seen a leather mortar in the arsenal of Venice... That's right, leather reinforced with wood+metal. Huge caliber, too, maybe 40-50cm wide.
I wouldn't have fired that thing with a 10 ft. ceremonial pig poker :)

---

Sorry, I should've said what the early material was! :dizzy2:

They mainly used brass and wrought iron. Iron casting didn't come along until the date provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

Need to say, the gunpowder units in M2TW are just for fun and bare basically no historical accuracy whatsoever.

---

Well not in the time frame represented by the game, anyway.

It looks as though there has been a bit of a time warp on the technology side, which actually comes back to the issue being discussed on another thread.

Oh! and another common misconception about solid shot artillery is that they shoot farther from high ground. In fact in most cases range is reduced, mainly because you lose the bounce effect. Fired at a low trajectory a solid shot will bounce several times and carry quite a distance (provided that the ground is firm and unobstructed). Likewise at a low trajectory these bounces are more likely to be below lethal height. Fired from a higher elevation. whether by angling the barrel or placing the gun on higher ground the shot travels farther before hitting the ground creating a zone of dead ground in front of the gun, but then does so at a steeper angle.

In doing so it has a greater chance of burying itself and so not travelling any further, and if it does bounce it will do so much higher reducing both the lateral distance travelled and the lethal zone along its point of travel by wasting kinetic energy in height rather than distance.

Quoth Didz

Quote:

---

Probably not a good idea. The ports would be a serious defensive weakness and given that there are very good reasons for not having level ground in front of a castles walls it would not provide much benefit vis-a-vis the dead ground issue.

---

Please have a look here:

http://www.castlewales.com/rag_tr13.html

If you study the photos (they may take a while to load) you will notice ground level gun ports.

Defensively they were no more a weakness than arrow slits. Not a great arc of fire admittedly but handy for the odd shot at attacking forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozanov

Defensively they were no more a weakness than arrow slits. Not a great arc of fire admittedly but handy for the odd shot at attacking forces.

---

True, studying the overview image it appears these ports had a pretty poor field of fire but its interesting to see that some owners did insert gunports into the lower walls of their towers. Mind you looking at the overview image it seems that even here they were careful to place an apron wall around the tower to prevent the enemy getting too close. http://www.castlewales.com/raglan1.html

It says they were based upon French designs so perhaps this was more common on the continent.

However, if I am reading this site correctly the building of this castle was not started until 1435 and not completed until 1589, so its really one of those rare examples of a building designed and built on the fringes of a major technological revolution where tradition still held sway over common sense, and it only held out for eleven weeks under seige.

"However, if I am reading this site correctly the building of this castle was not started until 1435 and not completed until 1589, so its really one of those rare examples of a building designed and built on the fringes of a major technological revolution where tradition still held sway over common sense, and it only held out for eleven weeks under seige." If my living room/bedroom held out 20min under seige I would be shocked. Ok I did forget the cannon ports but think this was a tower that expected a relief force soon. Not a castle expecting to stand alone. SadCat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadCat

If my living room/bedroom held out 20min under seige I would be shocked. Ok I did forget the cannon ports but think this was a tower that expected a relief force soon. Not a castle expecting to stand alone. SadCat

---

True, but I was comparing it to comparable seiges of the same period, such as that of Corfe Castle in Dorset which held out for almost three years under command of Lady Mary Bankes.

Lady Bankes fought to the bitter end, locking herself in her personal chambers and throwing hot coals out the window onto the attacking forces, in the final stages of the assault.

Now that is my kind of a woman! SadCat

According to wikipedia(albeit i admit, the article doesnt state a source for this information) Corfe Castle fell due to an inside betrayal after being besieged for only 2 months

Quote:

---

During the English Civil War, the castle twice came under siege by Parliamentarian forces. Sir John Bankes was away from his estate attending to Charles I so defence of the castle was led by his wife Lady Mary Bankes — "Brave Dame Mary" as she became known.

The first siege, in 1643, lasted for six weeks before the Parliamentarians withdrew with the loss of 100 men. The second siege, in 1646, was resisted for two months before the castle was betrayed by a member of the garrison.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfe_Castle

Dunno though, according to the article about the lady herself it says

Quote:

---

However, because she showed such courage she was allowed to keep the keys of the castle, which are now held at Kingston Lacy near Wimborne, Dorset.

---

(this article also states that it was an inside job though) so there at least seems to have been fighting going on :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alsn

According to wikipedia(albeit i admit, the article doesnt state a source for this information) Corfe Castle fell due to an inside betrayal after being besieged for only 2 months http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfe_Castle

---

I was relying on this site for the information:
http://www.thedorsetpage.com/locations/place/C350.htm

Quote:

---

On mayday 1643 a troop of republican horsemen entered Corfe to find the Castle barred. Corfe was held under siege for three years, finally falling on 27 February 1646.

---

I suspect it comes down to 'when is a seige not a seige', if the garrison are unable to leave the castle due to the presence of enemy troops are they still under seige even though the enemy are not actually attacking the castle.

The man who bretrayed Lady Bankes was one of her officers, Colonel Pitman, he led a party of Roundheads into the castle via a sally gate. The Roundheads had reversed their jackets and were mistaken as Royalists until it was too late.

One note on projectiles of the era; Stone cannon balls had a tendancy to shatter when they hit hard ground, often spraying shards through the front portion of a formation they were aimed at instead of bouncing through the formation. This was very effective when it happened, but was very hard to predict.

It would be very cool if some of our shots could "Shatter" and cut out a cresent of troops in an enemy force.

I bet we have to partially blame Ridley Scott for the historical inaccuracy of artillery in Rome and Medieval II - after seeing those catapults in The Gladiator, who doesn't want a battlefield with strong artillery.

Seriously, though, as a game balance issue I think they have to be useful enough for lugging around the battlefield, as they limit the movement of the army hugely and their support cost is relatively high. Good thing that most arty can't do such feats as Onagers used to in Rome.

They are fun when you're operating them, but get annoying when you have to wipe out 10-12 of any siege engines that the AI insists on mass producing.

I was surprised to hear a historian claim that Trebuchet were not very good at destroying castle walls. He reckoned that for the most part they were used to lob stuff into the castle rather than at it.

I'm not sure that he's right in fact, I'm sure that they were tested and shown to be pretty effective. (though not as effective as in MTW2, of course)

Well it would make *some* sense... I mean, castle walls probably took ages to build, not to mention the manpower required to get the stones, carry them all the way up the cliff/moutain/hill and then set them properly.
It would therefore be understandable that besiegers would want to keep them as intact as possible and opt to wait the defenders out, shortening said wait by lobbing flaming and/or diseased stuff inside and hoping to hit the granaries/wells/living quarters/arrow stocks etc...
Or, in short, target the people and most importantly their will, instead of the castle itself.

I'm not saying that's really what they did, nor that your historian is right in saying so, but it's not a preposterous idea either.

Interesting conversation, especially for an old artillery buff like myself.

I posted this before about trebuchets, but it is worth repeating.

In reality trebuchets were probably the most accurate seige engine of all and that includes most of the the primitive smooth bore artillery. While its range was limited to about 300 yards, unlike other primitive artillery, the trebuchet's propelling energy relied on the absolute constant of the force of gravity. Unless one changed the position of the engine, the length of the throwing arm, the fulcrum position, or the size of the counterweight---a trebuchet would put a projectile of uniform size and weight in the same spot just about every time.

All of the other pre-gunpowder siege engines such as the catapult, onager, or ballista relied on tension as a propelling force and this was subject to the varibles of the strength, quality, and condition of the tortion material used.

Early smoothbore black powder weapons also suffered from many variables including weather conditions, the inconsistancies of barrel manufacture, and the extreme variables of the quality of the gunpowder used.

Cheers

@ Caliburn - I tuned down the AI's use of siege engines by making them all 10x more expensive, both for gunpowder and non. I justify this by saying that they were an expensive endevour, having to hire out an engineer (or have one on retainer) and furthermore, it helps the computer not build as many. They'll have 2 or 3 in late game, when they have enough money to spare, but I figure that if they are bringing an army of spear militia, they probably won't be paying for an engineer.

@ Didz - I would imagine if there was any reason to doubt the efficacy of trebuchets, it would be their high acing trajectory. After all, catapults and ballistas, not to mention gunpowder siege engines all had a flatter more direct trajectory. This would result in more energy going into the wall, and less "sliding" or "glancing" off it as the projectile continues downward. They might be the most accurate, and more powerful in raw numbers, but as far as how that power is applied, it might be less effective. Just my personal opinion, I'm not a scientist or anything :P

Kobal,

Especially if you want to keep the walls as intact as possible, you would want to use a trebuche. It keeps hitting the same spot over an over, thus reducing the total amount of damage required while putting one hole in the wall. That would make it much easier to fix.

DesertEagle

Yes, the amount of energy transmitted compared to total potential is reduced a little by the downward angle. On the flip side a trebuche can generally throw a much heavier projectile than other siege weapons. Cannons had a hard time getting up over the 200-300 lbs weight limit due to pressure restrictions on the barrels. Catapults and Balista had a lower limit due to their method of manufacture. Trebuche were able to throw projectiles over a ton accurately. As such, even if it only delivered half as much energy per pound of projectile it would still be far more effective than other weapons.

The down side to real world trebuches is that they were not mobile. Unlike gunpowder or tortion powered siege weapons, trebuche relied on very heavy counterweights. Some of the counter weights were over 20 tons. As such the real heavy duty trebuche were not only built in place but aimed at a specific target when they were assembled. When ranging the weapon, projectiles of a known weight were used and the mass of the counter weight was adjusted based on where the projectiles landed. This trick also allowed the trebuche to hit at the top of the wall to begin with and work its way down, simply by removing a few of the stones from the counterweight.