Artillery

I just love using catapults to rain death in incoming hordes.

I've noticed a few things about Artillery. Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause? Do they have to hit the target to scare them or is just being near the blast enough?

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

Welcome to the Org Heidrek !:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause?

---

It's rare to see the enemy rout just from missle fire. Unless they are peasants or militia troops, you will probably still have to engage the enemy in melee. The missile fire will just help "soften them up" before you engage them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

---

I'm not sure, but what you saw might have been the morale of the catapults themselves. Every unit has it's own morale value. I don't think any units other than your General gives a morale bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

---

I don't really use much artillery, but culverins and demi-culverins pack a lot more punch than a catapult, I believe. They are better for knocking down walls, but the trade off is they don't function in the rain.

I use Artillery in only three instances:

1. I decide to assault a stronghold, during which they are invaluable.

2. I am defending in a bridge battle, during which they are valuable, but if used improperly can ruin the day of the pointy-stick boys standing on the bridge.

3. I am defending relatively hilly/mountainous terrain and can be VERY sure of my ability defend in depth and not expose my artillery to the enemy.

In all other situations, Artillery has served as a relatively expensive boat anchor. This is not to say that someone with a better grasp of artillery will not use it effectively. This is not, however, a forte of mine.

I never use artilery on the offensive. The enemy is most of the times to far away and on higher ground to use artilery effectively. You just lose a unit slot for little or no gain. It could be that gunpowder arty is more usefull on the offensive due to their larger range.
Using arty in defence is a different matter, certainly on hilly terrain or on a bridge. Still I prefer a decent archer unit for its faster rate of fire, damage output and flexibility to most artilery.

It speaks for itself that I do use artilery when sieging. That's what it's designed for and where its lack of mobility isn't a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

I just love using catapults to rain death in incoming hordes.

I've noticed a few things about Artillery. Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause? Do they have to hit the target to scare them or is just being near the blast enough?

---

That means it gave the unit that is currently under fire morale penalty. They wouldn't run away until the effects of combined morale penalties bring the effective morale down below a certain threshhold. There are a few morale penalties involved: "weapon causes fear", "recent heavy casualties", "total unit casualties". While "weapon causes fear" may not be enough to make a unit run, the combination of the three (plus other penalties) may cause the unit to run, and in turn will cause the next unit to suffer enough morale penalty to run too.

I believe "weapon cause fear" factor is applied only when the weapon is applied to the unit. Being merely near the blast may not do.

Quote:

---

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

---

No, the number 4 is the starting morale of that particular catapult crew. each unit has their own starting morale number. Then during battle, penalties will be subtracting from that morale number. If it falls under a certain threshold, your catapult crew will run away. That has nothing to do with other units, which have their own morale number.

In single player mode, the only unit that could add morale boost to other units is the general. The more stars the general has, the better morale he could give to his troops. Therefore, it is imperative to "groom" your generals: giving them small battles to win so they win more command points.

Quote:

---

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

---

Catapult is available in early eras while gun powder units may not be available until "gun powder discovery" event happened. It also costs more to produce. Also, it depends on type of castle. Most of the time, catapults are fine for seige. Only late era castles (citadels, etc.) that may require gunpowder to bring them down.

Artillery is good for seiging, so I do bring as many as I could bring. When invading, I always bring large army of several stacks (at least 2). It gives me several options for offensive:two prongs attack after taking the first province, or have the luxury of reinforcement during an arduous battle. I put all of my artillery in the second stack (the first stack is the one commanded by the highest ranking general, and he always enter the province first. When battle starts, the first stack is the one you are given to play with). Unless I want to bring down the walls right away in a surprise attack, in that case I would have a piece or two of artillery in the first stack, I would hate to be ambushed and have on hand many culverins but no infantry to defend them.

Annie

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords. :yes:

Well on a more serious note, I'm afraid that I never train seige equipment nor play siege offensives. I pretty much always starve out or auto resolve all sieges. The only time I'll occasionally fight a siege is if I'm on the defensive. Overall I dislike how sieges were implimented in MTW. RTW had the mechanics for a big improvement but without the AI and pathfinding to handle it.

The real benefit of demi-culverin and culverin is the increased range, especially useful for bridge assaults where you can tear up the defence prior to attempting the crossing. The enemy keeps most of its troops out of catapult range.

I quite often assault castles personally. Sieging costs men but more importantly causes more damage to the castle. Assaults, if done carefully, shouldn't be too costly in terms of men and gets you the castle quicker and in better condition. I almost always defend castle assaults manually because the AI is rubbish at it.

Not something I commonly do, but is still effective with long range artillery is to assult with a bunch of artillery (preferbly cuverins due to range) and let the cannons bambard with all thier ammo on the defending enemy before withdrawing them and replace them with combat troops.

Won't give massive casualities but is a strong softerener and looks quite nice (well scary if you're on the reciving end).

Gunpowder artillery types can be very effective. I usually put eight “guns” in a stack with three spear types to shield them, four cavalry to protect the flanks and a good general to add some valour. This can defend a province very well. On flat terrain with long range guns this can also be an effective assault force. Then I add eight more cavalry to replace the gun crews once they exhaust their ammo.

Guns do have shortcomings though. If you put them on the top of a hill, then they will have a dead space to their immediate front down to the base of the hill. This is because the guns cannot depress. So once the enemy force closes, your guns will stop firing. Conversely, guns in a valley won’t be able to fire at an enemy positioned on a hilltop unless they are far away.

Guns can fire right over the line of spears guarding their front, so that is nice. I put four guns in one line and stagger the second line immediately behind them. The concentration of firepower in a four gun group allows the guns to focus a terrible barrage on one single kill zone. This also makes them excellent “King killers”.

The trick to good results with guns is targeting. I fire each four gun group separately. This allows me to bracket a target and almost guarantees some hits. The AI will start running as soon as they are in range. You must aim at the lead unit in a group if this happens. This unit will have moved past the fall of your shot by the time the cannonballs arrive, but the follow on units will still be hit. If the AI chooses to stand and take it, aim at the front units. The cannonballs skip on impact and do a lot of damage.

Here are some pictures of what I have described:

https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=1.jpg
https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=a.jpg
https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...oldenHorde.jpg
(This last battle took place in the rain and the guns still fired.)

Guns require a lot of infrastructure to build and are slow to produce. In Early or High, this isn’t a problem, however in Late; it’s almost not worth the trouble to make them. I try to get six provinces producing guns staggered so that I get a couple each turn.

Mmmm -- artillery :yes:

I do like it! But to do it well, get hold of the Napoleonic mod and have field artillery that can MOVE like it should :2thumbsup:

In field battles, artillery is generally more use when defending, as you can set up a kill zone and force/tempt the enemy to march straight through heavy crossfire. When attacking I'm more likely to use the artillery for denial of terrain than anything. For instance if I want the defenders to move to my left, then artillery on my right wing helps to move them in the right direction. It's not so much the kills that count, as putting them in bad ground to defend against my main army.

Agreed that catapults can do a lot of damage, but it really helps where the enemy are likely to be deployed in dense blocks, and of course in bridge battles and other bottlenecks.

I have a strong suspicion (but haven't actually tested it scientifically) that guns are more accurate when targetted individually rather than in groups. I just get the impression that when I target a group of guns on say a tower, then the shots tend to go all over the place. I guess a genuine test is in order - maybe set up a custom battle, four guns either side of a castle, and target one lot as a group and the other lot individually and see which group brings down their target first... :beam:

And finally:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

---

Who you trying to kid.... real men

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

:laugh4:

Thanks for all of the replies.

I generally include a few artillery pieces in my stacks, but reading about the morale effects they produce, I'm wondering if it might actually be worth trying Ballista's. They cause fear the same a catapults, but are far more accurate and have a faster rate of fire.

You only ever get one kill per hit, but you're really using them for the morale penalty rather than the actual number of casualties. the can also be fired into engaged stacks given that they are more accurate and don't have a blast radius you are unlikely to hit your own troops. You could also use them to sniper enemy generals, once you have reduced the generals unit to low numbers, start pinging them with Ballistas's one at a time until you eventually hit the general or make him flee.

I agree they are best on defense, but I did fluke a way to use them effectively on attack once. I invaded a province, and set the catapults up on top of a hill just in front of my main army. I had lots or archer units but kept getting bad weather until I got the "The enemy is upon us!" message asking if i wanted to fight or abandon the attack.

I chose to fight and low and behold, they had come to me and were in range. I immediately sent my main force forward to cover the catapults and started bombiong away at their massed ranks. The result was an absolute slaughter.

I have also used Catapults effectively against believe it or not, the Golden Horde. I was defending one of the flat steppe provinces against an attacking force of just over 4000 of mixed archers and mixed cavalry. I had 2000 mixed troops. I had a great general (7 stars I think) snd they had a 3 start I think. No hills, rivers, nothing but open spaces and a few trees.

I set up 6 catapults in a stretch of forest, placed a couple of units of longbow men at the edge of the forest, with a unit of Pavise crossbows in front of them. Between the archers and artillery I spread out 4 units of infantry (Gallowglasses, Viking Huscarles, FMAA and Feudal Foot Knights (dismounted Druhzina Cav. I think). I had 3 untis of cavalry (2 x Mounted Sergeants and a Royal Knights) kept back behind the artillery.

As the Horde approached, the catapults started pounding them. As they got closer, the Longbows kicked in and started thinning out their archer ranks. Finally, they got into range of the crossbows and started returning fire. while they formed up and started volleying back at my Pavise Crossbows, the artillery is constants pounding away at the archers and causing collateral damage to their cavalry units near by. As soon as their generals unit cam into range, all artillery focused on him

Finally their heavy cavalry massed on one flank and attacked into the trees. I sent two untis of infantry to engage them at the edge of the trees and move 2 units of cavalry out behind their engaged forced to charge into their rear and flank. They soon broke and their general ran. I charged out my remaining infantry and cavalry at their archers who prompty ran for their lives.

They ran and I withdrew the longbows (out of ammo) and brought in more cavalry and infantry. The Catapults lasted three separate engagements before running out of ammo and being withdrawn. I eventually ran out of fast cavalry to counter their endless supply of horse and foot archers, so I eventually withdrew and gave them the province. In the end, I killed just over 1100 of their troops and lost about 100 of my own.

This is kind of a cheat but if you have a border province separated by a river from one you want but which is defended by many more troops than you have, just send one stack with half-a-dozen guns and some spears/archers to deter an attack back across the bridge, which has never happened to me anyway. Pound away until you run out of ammo then withdraw. Repeat next year. Pretty soon you've thinned out the defenders plus your gunners quickly become proficient and very deadly.

I never build ballistas. Worse than useless in my view. If the enemy ever includes ballistas my heart leaps for joy because they've wasted a slot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire.

---

Then I take it you have not used the Organ Gun. Short range but great fun. Even high morale troops like CMAA and MHC will think twice once one of these babies has ripped through their ranks. They can be tricky to use though, because of the range and long load time.

Artillery also seems to be good at picking off generals. For this reason you should never allow your own general to wander across the firing zone of the five trebuchets the AI always manages to bring to a field battle. Somehow that million-to-one shot always seems to come off. But that also happens if it is your artillery and his general. I killed three successive Byzantine emperors with demi-cannons in one campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregori99

I never build ballistas. Worse than useless in my view. If the enemy ever includes ballistas my heart leaps for joy because they've wasted a slot.

---

I've never used them either, but I'm wondering if they could be used effectively to kill Jedi generals. Noting pisses me off more than surrounding and crushing a generals unit but watching the general himself single handedly fight off his attackers for about 5 minutes, then break through them and run away.

If I can use a couple of Ballista's to ping that little bugger straight to hell and just use them to pick off other high defense/armour units one at a time for the rest of the fight. the only thing is the flat trajectory. On a hill it might be ok but on open ground they'd be very hard to use effectively.

I think I'll try this strategy out, if only to see if Balista's can actually be put to a good use somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

---

I love it! Do real men live long enough to get inside :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian1

I love it! Do real men live long enough to get inside :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

It does work but you need to use highland clansman trained in Khazar with the master metalsmith.
:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords. :yes:

---

That's the spirit !!! Enough with that nonsense about artillery, just send a few blockes with axes and they'll chop the gate down without any fuss :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: It's just so unfair that those guys do not get any valour for breaking gates while the little f...ers (:oops:) on the other side try to drow them with boiling oil ...Such action should warrant that they'll get the Famously Brave and Total Idiot V&v.

More seriously that's a good alternative to disbanding outclassed units ...

In any event, I tend to loose almost the same amount of troops whe I use artillery (but since I need a way to get rid of my spearmen backlog I do lack any serious practice) ...

Basically I try never to assault any castel stronger than a keep without reinforced gate (exception being when I need to in order to avoid being excommed) otherwise either:

- castle is full ==> they'll starve in few years.
-castle is occupied by five gives willing to take residence there --> send a bailiff with an eviction order. If you cannot find any few spies with one star will do nicely (no damage to the province if they succeed). Sieges can also become a training ground for assassins if you are in no rush at all (but they are far less usefull than spies since even if you have 75 assassins at hand you can only target one member of the besieged army, the general).

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I have been in those situations where 3 men are inside a fortress and the info parchment for the castle tells you something to the effect of "this castle is likely to hold out for years and years and years :laugh4:". :thumbsdown:

No doubt they're in there getting totally wrecked on the castle ale supplies and eating themselves silly while laughing their socks off at the poor fools camped outside.
:wall:

In such a case I usually try assasination, or try to have a spy open the gates. There have been occasions where all this has failed after years of trying and I've had to either try a bribe or autoresolve an assault in order to end it. I didn't feel like actually fighting the battle against the handful of men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords. :yes:

---

How true! Clansmen work great in this capacity.

Does anyone know how the gate-breaking combat works? Does each man in contact with the gate cause a fixed X damage per combat cycle? Or will higher attack/AP units do more damage and make the gate break faster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

I've never used them either, but I'm wondering if they could be used effectively to kill Jedi generals. Noting pisses me off more than surrounding and crushing a generals unit but watching the general himself single handedly fight off his attackers for about 5 minutes, then break through them and run away.

---

Yeah it's really annoying when they do their El Cid bit. Almost as annoying as your own general dying two seconds after entering battle :wall:

I rarely use pre-gunpowder artillery in field battles and am usually very happy to see them when the A.I decides to bring some along.

I'll sometimes build a siege train of trebuchets or culverns. Large numbers of experienced artillery can make short work of any castle can really reduce your casualties. Otherwise I'll wait out a short siege or attack the stronghold with obsolete infantry.

I'm confident that Artillery can be used well in regular combat, the trick is always going to be in how it's placed. I tend to think of catapults etc as very long range super armour piercing archers that can't move. A single artillery piece is unlikely to be much of an asset, but having 3 or 4 catapults target the leading unit of an army as it approaches can yield decent casulaties to the target and the untis following it. I'm looking forward to using the cannon type units for this, their extra range means a couple of extra volleys before the enemy gets close.

I'm actually looking forward to creating a tank style army with 4 artillery pieces, 3 units of the best archers I can get, preferably Longbows or (Pavise) Arbalesters, about 4-5 units of swords/axes and the remainder Cavalry inc. a mounted archer or two.

Basic strategy will be to pound them with overlapping waves if missile fire (artillery first, then long range AP arrows/bolts, then finally faster but short range regular archers for those that want to close for combat). Infanrty and Archers should be hammered by the ranged assault, and those that try to close for combat will face the Swords/Axes of the waiting troops. Cavalry will swing out to the flanks and attack onces forces have engaged, hopefully triggering a rout.

Oh yes, one more good way to use Artillery on attack: When taking a bridge.

Se up your atillery as close to the bridge as reasonably possible, but out of range of archers on the other side. You now have a way to cover your troops as they cross the bridge and drive back or decimate the enemy's archers. thus weakened you can send over your strongest troops to break the defenders.

I have said this before on some other thread I am sure....I would love to see artillery destroy bridges the same way they do walls...just to add that extra dimension to bridge battles - a desperate AI could fire on the bridge in an effort to destroy it before it falls. Conversely a player would have to be a touch circumspect about spraying troops on the bridge, lest he/she sends it tumbling into the murky waters....

Actually I really like this idea, though they should be hard to destroy, and there should be some disadvatage to the defending player in destroying the bridge. Otherwise all you'd need to do when defending a bridge is blow it up, then retreat out of arrow range and you've won the battle.

I'm thinking that detroying a bridge should prevent all troop movement across that border and cost the province owner time and money to rebuild if they want to do so. As long as the bridge remains destroyed all revenue from the province is reduced (-3 Accumen modifier? Flat -30% from farming income?)

They should be hard to destroy so the defender would need significant artillery dedicated to destroying the bridge only.

Hmmm artillery destroy bridge, next battle would be two armies looking at each other from the banks of the river?

Bridges must be eliminated from Totalwar. No more senseless bridge battle.

Annie

Quote:

---

Bridges must be eliminated from Totalwar. No more senseless bridge battle.

---

It's easy enough to get rid of them, if you really want to go there: just open up the startpos files and set all borders and provinces to the "NO_RIVER" attribute. No river, no bridge ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Does anyone know how the gate-breaking combat works? Does each man in contact with the gate cause a fixed X damage per combat cycle? Or will higher attack/AP units do more damage and make the gate break faster?

---

My tests indicate that the rate of wall destruction it's determined by the number of men in contact with the wall. If there is an advantage to using a stronger unit, the effect is very small. For instance, in my test a unit with attack 5 destroys a wall in 240 seconds, and a unit with attack 0 destroys the same type of wall in 260 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

My tests indicate that the rate of wall destruction it's determined by the number of men in contact with the wall. If there is an advantage to using a stronger unit, the effect is very small. For instance, in my test a unit with attack 5 destroys a wall in 240 seconds, and a unit with attack 0 destroys the same type of wall in 260 seconds.

---

In the process of castle testing for our mod it was my impression that every unit that attacks a wall or a tower is using the torch instead of its original weapon. There even is an animation for this.
This is the entry for torch in the projectile.txt:

Code:

---

;Name        Length        Freq        Range        Velocity        Accuracy        Lethality        Power        Armour Mod        Reload Time        Shoot Immediated        Reload Moving        IsGun        TryHigh        FireInRain        MinAngle        MaxMangle        AccColDec        LaunchFX        Model        bounce        minCrew        numSoldiers        TurnSpeed        Not Used        ArtilleryReload        FieldOfFire        NumSafeShots        Safety        HitGround        HitTree        HitSolider        HitWood        HitStone        BlastRadius        BlastKillChance        AimAdjust        CustomBatleCost        FlamingProjectile        IsFlaming
torch        10        5        500        50                0.75                0.05                5        1        15        n        n        n        y        y        -20        85        y        NONE        NONE        n        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        REMOVE        REMOVE        REMOVE        REMOVE        REMOVE        0        0        0        0        NONE        y

---

I can't be bothered to fix the format, it's off after "armour mod"

The torch is indeed the weapon used by infantry to attack walls. This is because there is something hardcoded into the game engine where only missiles and not a unit's melee attack can damage walls and structures.

Great, thanks for the info! I have seen the torch animation, but I wasn't aware that it signified a hardcoded weapon switch for the attackers. :bow:

I attacked Algerias castle last night, eager to put my 3 shiny new Demi Culverins to good use. To be sure I really hammered the castle nice and fast I brought along a Mangonel and 4 catapults.

It was realtively lightly defended so I didn't need too much in terms of actual troops to kill the defenders.

What I found out surprised me. Despite the Demi Culvs. being more powerful and more accurate, with the same reload time, the 4 catapults destroyed their target (a catapult tower) well before the 3 Demi Culverins and Mangonel destroyed theirs. The mangonel also got destroyed by the castles catapults after a couple of shots, but still I would have thought the Demi Culverins would destroy their target much quicker?

Instead, they missed a lot more than the catapults (both cat's and culvs were 4-5 valour), and while this was ok because it damaged the walls behind, that's not the point. Has anyone else found something similar?

What's your Siege weapon of choice? I love using them on defense aginst foot/archer heavy armies. So far I think i like the humble Catapult the best. Does anyone know if the cannon type artillery pieces (Demi Culv's/ Culverins) can safely fire over the heads of your own troops at ground level? I ask because I put them on a hill once and they couldn't target the enemy once they got below the Demi Culv's level. I'm thinking it might be best to use them at ground level rather than on hills, even though you give up a bit of range adavtage.

I'm really starting to like the "kill you in waves" approach to defense, where the closer you get, the more you get hurt. 2-3 Demi Culverins at the back, 3 Catapults interspersed between them, then line of Archers (1 unit) and 2 Organ Guns (one at each end of the eacher line). Finally 2 Pavise Arbalesters form the front line. 3 units of heavy infantry and 2 units of cavalry wait behind this line (or perhaps just 5 units of mixed heavy/light cavalry?).

If you have a gentle slope to work with, switch the organ gun/archer line with the Arbalester line. As soon as they come into range, the cannons start, as they get a bit closer, the Catapults kick in, giving a fairly steady barrage of artillery that should start hurting. As they get closer (but still out or archery range) the Arbalesters start to volley as well.

If they have arbalesters too, they may try returning fire here but they will be very heavily outgunned as the artillery will tear them apart once they stop moving. Those that continue to close the gap face the rapid fire of regular Archers volleys as well as the Arb's. Finally, anything that gets closer than Archery range will face a double barreled shotgun blast from the 2 Organ Guns before they can get anywhere near melee range.

If they don't break by this point, the heavy cavalry will charge them backed by the heavy infantry to mop up after the charge if necessary.

such a strategy would be weak against a Cavalry heavy force that can speed through the hail of missiles with minimal loses, or a force that could outmanouver the defensive position and get the artillery out of alignment, but foot heavy armies or mixed forced should get torn apart I'd think.

I think I'll try a custom battle with something like this and see how it works! I love the idea of creating a missile storm that only gets worse the closer you get, and if you do make it through, you will be facing fresh, fully manned heavy infantry troops or a heavy cavalry charge into your depleted ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

What I found out surprised me. Despite the Demi Culvs. being more powerful and more accurate, with the same reload time, the 4 catapults destroyed their target (a catapult tower) well before the 3 Demi Culverins and Mangonel destroyed theirs. The mangonel also got destroyed by the castles catapults after a couple of shots, but still I would have thought the Demi Culverins would destroy their target much quicker?

Instead, they missed a lot more than the catapults (both cat's and culvs were 4-5 valour), and while this was ok because it damaged the walls behind, that's not the point. Has anyone else found something similar?

---

Valour for missile troops affects accuracy, so I'd suggest you retry the test with all your artillery types at same valour levels. (And that's a good reason to use your artillery in the field battle first, as they valour up quite nicely :2thumbsup: )

I found the mention of torches interesting, as I was always under the impression that the torches were on the "other side" ie being thrown from the walls (by those invisible defenders) on to the hapless attackers below - at least that's the way it LOOKS. They fall down and out from the walls, and also can be seen with stone walls, which no infantry/melee unit can attack :inquisitive:

I'm sure torches are thrown from the walls onto the attackers, though I can't say I've ever noticed anyone die from one.

My favourite artillery piece for killing is the demi-culverin, and yes, it can fire over the heads of defenders. But my favourite piece of all is the serpentine, even though I hardly ever get to use it. The enemy is terrified of it, and often will halt their advance just out of range. That means that if you're outnumbered in terms of spears/swords, if you have 2 or 3 serpentines spaced along the defensive wall and plenty of missile troops you can still win the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

I found the mention of torches interesting, as I was always under the impression that the torches were on the "other side" ie being thrown from the walls (by those invisible defenders) on to the hapless attackers below - at least that's the way it LOOKS. They fall down and out from the walls, and also can be seen with stone walls, which no infantry/melee unit can attack :inquisitive:

---

The torches are swiftly thrown upwards and then more slowly loop back and downwards to quite clearly impact with the wall causing damage. Try running a custom battle and attack a wooden walled fort. zoom right in and watch it for a while and you'll see what I mean.

:bow:

https://img233.imageshack.us/img233/...ngdeathgt7.jpg

Eat lead Emperor!

Artillery often make for some very fun destruction, and are excellent for bombarding hapless enemies as they advance, as long as it isn't raining that is. The smoke, the sound, the corpses. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregori99

My favourite artillery piece for killing is the demi-culverin, and yes, it can fire over the heads of defenders. But my favourite piece of all is the serpentine, even though I hardly ever get to use it. The enemy is terrified of it, and often will halt their advance just out of range. That means that if you're outnumbered in terms of spears/swords, if you have 2 or 3 serpentines spaced along the defensive wall and plenty of missile troops you can still win the day.

---

Why the Demi-Culverin and not the Culverin? i haven't used the Culverin yet, but it looks pretty fearsome. Huge range, good accuracy, decent relaod time. Looks like an all round better version of the Demi.

I have thried Serpentines yet either, but they look fun. Good range and reload time.

I've got to say though that all round it's pretty tough to beat the humble catapult. High angle of fire means that it's "bounces" fall closer together, especially at closer ranges, increasing the likelihood of casualties. Very capable of taking down castle walls in multiples, fires in the rain and can turn. they stay useful troughout the game, and can even be used to defend castle attacks, firing over the walls to hit apporaching units.

all in all though, artillery is pretty damn cool. I can't wait to play as the English so I can get my Artillery/Longbow/Pav. crossbow or Pav. Arbalest overlapping archery wall in place. Anyone walking through that hailstorm of artillery and armour piercing arrows is going to get mauled.

I'm thinking something like this formation:





<-P. Xbows-><-P. Xbows->
<---Lbows--><--Lbows--->
<---2 x Infantry---><--Lbows--> <--Lbows---><--2 x Infantry--->
<Cavalry> <----------------4 x Artillery-------------><Calvalry>


Either that or a single unit of Pav's at the front with 3 L.Bows behind in a long line and 2 more units of cavalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Actually I really like this idea, though they should be hard to destroy, and there should be some disadvatage to the defending player in destroying the bridge. Otherwise all you'd need to do when defending a bridge is blow it up, then retreat out of arrow range and you've won the battle.

I'm thinking that detroying a bridge should prevent all troop movement across that border and cost the province owner time and money to rebuild if they want to do so. As long as the bridge remains destroyed all revenue from the province is reduced (-3 Accumen modifier? Flat -30% from farming income?)

They should be hard to destroy so the defender would need significant artillery dedicated to destroying the bridge only.

---

Naturally there would have to be a "follow up" penalty - a reduction in trade income and an inability to move troops across said border are both options...but I fear that we digress from the main issue of the thread, so I promise to sit back, shut up, and behave now....

Personally I love the typo that says a culverin fires a 45 kilo shot, they actually fired on average 5-10 kilo shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The torches are swiftly thrown upwards and then more slowly loop back and downwards to quite clearly impact with the wall causing damage. Try running a custom battle and attack a wooden walled fort. zoom right in and watch it for a while and you'll see what I mean.

---

I know the effect of which you speak, but I'm still not convinced - why? Because the same happens at stone walls - which the infantry cannot attack - hence I believe the torches come from the walls, not the attackers.

Still, as neither party seems to be harmed by them, it really is a big-end/little-end debate :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Why the Demi-Culverin and not the Culverin? i haven't used the Culverin yet, but it looks pretty fearsome. Huge range, good accuracy, decent relaod time. Looks like an all round better version of the Demi.

I have thried Serpentines yet either, but they look fun. Good range and reload time.

I've got to say though that all round it's pretty tough to beat the humble catapult.

---

The long range of the culverin is its achilles heel. Once the enemy get within a certain range it's useless. The same happens with demi-culverins but you get to use them much longer. Culverins are more use on attack than defence, if you expect the enemy to be on the defensive, because you can usually reach them wherever they put themselves.

The serpentines have a really short range, but if the enemy try to press home their attack they are devastating. I've seen a 100 strong unit of Chivalric Sergeants route after one shot, leaving 70-80 men dead. A few of those may have fallen to arrow fire but you get the picture.

After you've played with the more advanced artillery for a bit, I'd be surprised if you still favoured catapults :laugh4:

If you play the XL mod, you get to use Naptha Catapults as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

Naturally there would have to be a "follow up" penalty - a reduction in trade income and an inability to move troops across said border are both options...but I fear that we digress from the main issue of the thread, so I promise to sit back, shut up, and behave now....

---

Each turn is a year, so it would be quite easy to re-build a bridge in that time (like broken catapults, trebuchets etc. are assumed to have been rebuilt after a battle). If you can blow bridges during a battle, maybe you could have fords so it as still possible to get across, but more difficult with slowed movement.

None of which is possible with MTW but would have been interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregori99

The serpentines have a really short range, but if the enemy try to press home their attack they are devastating. I've seen a 100 strong unit of Chivalric Sergeants route after one shot, leaving 70-80 men dead. A few of those may have fallen to arrow fire but you get the picture.

---

Well that's rediculous. Cannons were not that effective in this time period.

The serpentine's not a cannon but a volley-gun. I can't comment on how effective they were on the battlefield, but they were deployed extensively during the 100 years war. According to Wikipedia Edward III had a volley gun (a ribauldequin) with 144 barrels in groups of 12. Certainly by the end of the 100 years war (over 100 years later) the weapon would have been more developed.

I only guessed at the casualty figures I quoted. I remember the unit reeling away with fewer than 20 survivors. How many actually fell to the serpentine was a guess but it was a lot. All lying in neat rows :devilish:

Just think how many men would be hit by 144 pieces of iron shot fired into tightly packed men at close range.

Gotta love artilley. I take it the Serenpentine is a better anti personel artillery piece than an Organ Gun? Can they fire over troops or need a clear line of fire?

Just checked the stats on Serpentines Vs Organ Guns.

Serpentines look like fast reloading, low power Demi Culverins. Same long range, same blast radius, same accuracy level. Aside from faster reload time and lower power per shot they seems the same. No idea why a Serpentine blast would take out so many people then a Demi Culverin hit only wipes our 2-4.

Organ Guns on the other hand have much shorter range (less than vanilla archers), long reload time, very low power, but a huge blast radius, about 5 x the blast radius of a Demi Culv.

Are you sure it wasn't an organ gun that wreaked such terrible devastation against the spears?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Just checked the stats on Serpentines Vs Organ Guns.

Serpentines look like fast reloading, low power Demi Culverins. Same long range, same blast radius, same accuracy level. Aside from faster reload time and lower power per shot they seems the same. No idea why a Serpentine blast would take out so many people then a Demi Culverin hit only wipes our 2-4.

Organ Guns on the other hand have much shorter range (less than vanilla archers), long reload time, very low power, but a huge blast radius, about 5 x the blast radius of a Demi Culv.

Are you sure it wasn't an organ gun that wreaked such terrible devastation against the spears?

---

I should have added that I'm playing the XL mod currently. I'll have to check if VH modded the serpentine. Certainly, the XL sepentine doesn't have the range of demi-culverins. I'll get back to you...

Ribaldequin is the same as organ gun: multiple barrels, fire small projectiles, short range, mainly against infantry. Serpentine is a primitive canon, firing with serpentine powder, which is a primitive form of black powder (using unrefined potassum nitrate), has one barrel, sending heavier projectile.

Annie
ps.: this is to counter gregory99 about "serpentine is an organ gun".

Whoops - there's nothing like having a senior moment and making a fool of yourself...

Of course when I said 'serpentine' I actually meant 'organ gun'. talk about a brainstorm. :embarassed:

He he he, what about using a couple of Organ Guns in a castle defense. Set them up behind the innermost gate house with support troops behind then and vaporise the packed warriors trying to break down the gate!

Anyone tried this? Can you fire through the closed gate?

Even if you cant, you can set three up pointed at the gate, but set back a bit. As soon as it falls and units start trickling through let em rip and wipe out the invading forces. then send in your troops to mop up the shell shocked survivors while they reload. Hopefully they rout and you can set up again for the next unfortunates!!

That's the best use of organ gun: surprise attackers behind a protected environment. In the open, organ gun has so short a range, it is a liability more than an asset.

Annie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregori99

I should have added that I'm playing the XL mod currently. I'll have to check if VH modded the serpentine. Certainly, the XL sepentine doesn't have the range of demi-culverins. I'll get back to you...

---

Well it must have been changed in the XL mod because in MTW the serpentine is a light cannon with the same 320 meter range as a demi-culvern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Well it must have been changed in the XL mod because in MTW the serpentine is a light cannon with the same 320 meter range as a demi-culvern.

---

Yes I know. See my self-flaggellation a couple of posts up :wall:

hahaha.eee.easy mistake gregori99. how I just need to get me a couple of Organ Guns to put in front of my infantry line when I'm defending and I'll get a chance to see this bad boy in action. Even if they only get one round off each wave I'm confident that my infantry can break the remaining attackers giving them a chance to reload. I'm thinking Gallowglasses and CMAA or Vikings should make short work of the unfortunates that make it through the overlapping waves of missiles.

Just got back into MTW - simply superb game, every bit as good as I remeber it.

I'm playing the tiberius mod, and I've noticed that catapults now suck! they have almost no range meaning you get fewer shots in before they close for melee, has anyone used them effecively in the Tib mod? I guess at bridge battles they'd still be ok....