Mortars and rockets?

**IlDuce** · 03-12-2009, 18:32

Can someone persuade me to include them in my armies? Their long range and ability to fire over your infantry seems to be negated by the fact they barely kill anyone.

What tactics are effective when using them? That being said the rockets do look cool.

**Shadow_Wolf33** · 03-12-2009, 18:40

They're very handy for goading defending enemy forces to attacking your army, rather than you having to chase after them, which will bring them into range of your other artillery pieces. I've personally found the mortar more useful than the rockets, as mortar has a much higher chance of hitting its targets, plus different ammo loadouts.

They're also good for taking out enemy artillery if you've formed up your forces out of range of their guns, and they're using static emplacements.

**Sheogorath** · 03-12-2009, 18:52

Mortars would (technically) be siege equipment, intended to take on troops behind walls and suchlike. They're modestly effective in that role, I find. Certainly no worse than cannons at taking out troops standing on walls.

On the subject of sieges, I find it amusing that forts are, if anything, tougher than castles were, in regards to artillery fire, than in MTW2?

Well, maybe that's just because your basic cannons tend to miss a lot more.

**IlDuce** · 03-12-2009, 18:56

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Mortars would (technically) be siege equipment, intended to take on troops behind walls and suchlike. They're modestly effective in that role, I find. Certainly no worse than cannons at taking out troops standing on walls.

On the subject of sieges, I find it amusing that forts are, if anything, tougher than castles were, in regards to artillery fire, than in MTW2?

Well, maybe that's just because your basic cannons tend to miss a lot more.

If I'm taking on a fort I tend to use my 64 pounders. They have almost as good a range and by the tiem the mortars have taken out a few men on the wall the cannon will have demolished it.

**Khorak** · 03-12-2009, 19:57

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

On the subject of sieges, I find it amusing that forts are, if anything, tougher than castles were, in regards to artillery fire, than in MTW2?
:

That's because they were. Cannons swiftly rendered medieval fortifications obsolete as they became more sophisticated and available, by the period in time Empire covers, fortifications were specifically built to reduce the effectiveness of the cannons that would be used against them.

Even seemingly minor things such as making a tower round instead of square could be the difference between it being a viable fortification or an easily levelled deathtrap for cannons.

**Sir Beane** · 03-12-2009, 20:51

Originally Posted by Khorak

That's because they were. Cannons swiftly rendered medieval fortifications obsolete as they became more sophisticated and available, by the period in time Empire covers, fortifications were specifically built to reduce the effectiveness of the cannons that would be used against them.

Even seemingly minor things such as making a tower round instead of square could be the difference between it being a viable fortification or an easily levelled deathtrap for cannons.

Many fortifications designed specifically to counter cannon used rings of earthworks, ditches, hills etc. You don't see any of that in Empire sadly. Even Star forts are nowhere near as impressive as they are in real life.

**knoddy** · 03-12-2009, 22:14

barely kill anyone O.o

im taking on spain atm in spain, and i just won 4 battles at the end of turn by defending and putting my motars at the back of the map, having them constantly killing the whole battle, all 5 units of motars in that army are up to like 3 xp now and are getting hundreds of kills per battle. particularly good for wiping out cavalry and generals :D sure they miss alot but if they land and explode in the middle of a unit they can kill 10-20 guys

**Sir Beane** · 03-12-2009, 23:38

Mortars with percussive shells are absolubetly deadly. They seem to kill more people than cannon fire. They also have gigantic range and can fire over obstacles

.

Rockets aren't as great really.

**knoddy** · 03-12-2009, 23:40

ye havnt got rockets yet, but mortars are ownage, the trick is, finding somewhere u can fight a defensive battle and setting ur motars well back from your lines, that way if the ai goes for a firefight, u can keep smashing them with motars while they are fighting ur infantry :)

canister shot cannons on flanks are fun too :P

**Hooahguy** · 03-13-2009, 00:33

mortars are amazing for siege battles. often both sides will get clogged in a tight area, in CQC and i wil just set my mortar to "anti-infantry" and fire away. takes more of their men than mine.

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 03-13-2009, 01:11

Oh man... don't me get me started. Almost EVERYONE who plays online has at least 6 of 'em in their army... it's so annoying. I'm the guy who fights a little more traditionally with more infantry and cavalry and less arty. Once you're done deploying and battle starts, a rain of a mortar shells fly in the air and land on your infantry, sometimes killing 100+. Very effective when used right. Unless you have more arty or the same amount, this FORCES you to attack and you can take many casualties while marching... I try to march as fast possible to avoid casualties, and while not tiring the troops.
... and when you get there you usually fight uphill, while light infantry take out even more of your troops while still being out of range.

"Half of our army has been killed, and we are finally in range... What are your orders Colonel?"

**Sir Beane** · 03-13-2009, 01:14

Originally Posted by SorBlade15

Oh man... don't me get me started. Almost EVERYONE who plays online has at least 6 of 'em in their army... it's so annoying. I'm the guy who fights a little more traditionally with more infantry and cavalry and less arty. Once you're done deploying and battle starts, a rain of a mortar shells fly in the air and land on your infantry, sometimes killing 100+. Very effective when used right. Unless you have more arty or the same amount, this FORCES you to attack and you can take many casualties while marching... I try to march as fast possible to avoid casualties, and while not tiring the troops.
... and when you get there you usually fight uphill, while light infantry take out even more of your troops while still being out of range.

"Half of our army has been killed, and we are finally in range. What are your orders Colonel?"

Actually the tradition at this time for many armies was to have a large massed artilley group. While a lot of arty was silly in Med 2 in Empire its pretty much historically accurate. I can imagine how it could affect multiplayer balance however.

Counter-battery fire is the way to go usually.

**Eusebius86** · 03-13-2009, 01:19

Napoleon hated counter-battery fire... unless the enemy batteries were killing more of his troops then his batteries were of the enemy, he never engaged in the practice.

Gameplay wise, I usually send a couple cavalry out to deal with undefended artillery. AI does that all the time.

**Hooahguy** · 03-13-2009, 01:50

Originally Posted by SorBlade15

Oh man... don't me get me started. Almost EVERYONE who plays online has at least 6 of 'em in their army... it's so annoying. I'm the guy who fights a little more traditionally with more infantry and cavalry and less arty. Once you're done deploying and battle starts, a rain of a mortar shells fly in the air and land on your infantry, sometimes killing 100+. Very effective when used right. Unless you have more arty or the same amount, this FORCES you to attack and you can take many casualties while marching... I try to march as fast possible to avoid casualties, and while not tiring the troops.
... and when you get there you usually fight uphill, while light infantry take out even more of your troops while still being out of range.

"Half of our army has been killed, and we are finally in range... What are your orders Colonel?"

thats why i always keep some cavalry far out in the flanks, preferably hidden. when the enemy is all good and locked up, charge at the batteries!

people tend to leave them unprotected.

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 03-13-2009, 02:00

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

Actually the tradition at this time for many armies was to have a large massed artilley group. While a lot of arty was silly in Med 2 in Empire its pretty much historically accurate. I can imagine how it could affect multiplayer balance however.

Counter-battery fire is the way to go usually.

I HATE counter-battery fire, I just can't stand watching, hoping your artillery kills more than they do.
See yeah, a lot of arty was silly in Medieval 2. I carry on some of that mentality on to Empire, but I still definitely know how to tactically use a 18th century army. :P

Originally Posted by Eusebius86

Napoleon hated counter-battery fire... unless the enemy batteries were killing more of his troops then his batteries were of the enemy, he never engaged in the practice.

Gameplay wise, I usually send a couple cavalry out to deal with undefended artillery. AI does that all the time.

Well so do I!
When we're talking online, a human opponent never leaves his battery open. In fact, on the big mountains, they put them back up as far as the deployment phase let's 'em.

Originally Posted by hooahguy

thats why i always keep some cavalry far out in the flanks, preferably hidden. when the enemy is all good and locked up, charge at the batteries!

people tend to leave them unprotected.

Nope... I even see someone encase his battery using stakes from light infantry.

I gotta admit this is pretty darn clever, but I really miss the good 'ol "charge home" part of the old time periods as much as I love the new change in tactics in gunpowder warfare.

**IlDuce** · 03-13-2009, 02:43

I know what you mean about missing that charge. I wish there was a way to get my line infantry to mass charge instead of clicking individual enemies. Sort of a fire at will but with bayonets instead.