I'm sick of massed mortar batteries...

[CBR]

Each historical era will obviously produce different gameplay and that is in itself fine enough and to be expected. But what should also be expected is that they can get it sorta right especially with so few units to balance as in ETW.

It will keep building up into more segreggation, more discontent and more damage to the prestige of the org in this area

The Org is no longer the big MP website and that changed 6 years ago so in the end there is really no more damage that can be done. But yes criticism should be constructive to narrow down the problems in the hope that CA will see it and fix it or to discover if rules are needed so players can get the most fun out of the game.


CBR

[gollum]

Originally posted by CBR
The Org is no longer the big MP website and that changed 6 years ago so in the end there is really no more damage that can be done.

When a disaster that is beyond ones capacity to control hits, its the elements that bring things together that help heal and ultimately reinvogorate - not those that push things apart.

[TexRoadkill]

I don't understand how you guys can be in agreement on facts that are wrong.

Misperceptions about Artillery
1. They are as accurate as direct fire cannons.
Wrong!!! Cannons get 4x more kills then mortar if the enemy is in range of both.

2. Mortars can hit cavalry on the move.
Wrong!!! Not if the cav are running.

3. Mortars destroy light infantry.
Wrong!!! Not if they are in Light Infantry mode and taking cover.

4. Rockets are just as bad as mortars.
Wrong!!! Rockets are worthlesss. I went up against a guys with 10 rockets and they killed about 5 guys per volley.

[CBR]

I might be mistaken but AFAIK the kill count at the end of battle is wrong when it comes to artillery kills. Mortars firing percussion shells can produce lots of kills.

Moving fast might be the best way to avoid mortars but their high range and cheap cost generally makes them better than most other artillery.


CBR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Balanced means all/most units and factions are worth taking. It does not mean all units are identical.

I'm not sure what the problem is with rock paper scissors as that is what earlier TW titles had and, although it might have been weakened in ETW, the elements are still there in the form of infantry/cavalry/artillery combined with the element of formations (square good versus cavalry but bad against artillery)

MTW/VI is a good example of stale gameplay as upgrades made units nearly identical and also removed the need for different unit types. Upgrades in STW/MI also caused similar problems.

CBR

Okay, I was interpreting his Cost/benefit comment differently, very much in terms of stale gameplay as your post went on to suggest.

Of course, some element of rock-paper-scissors is present, just as it is in reality, I was referencing the idea that ALL units ending up equal on a cost-benefit scale made it so that the r-p-s component would be the ONLY thing left.

[Yun Dog]

I agree mortars are cheese and need some nerfing.

That said I see heaps of 'NO MOTARS' games - so its manageable

the only problem comes with shameless exploiters who use mortars on unknowing noobs to get easy stats on their rankings - bleh they need to get a life

On a separate topic (apologies for momentary offtopic)

How are guys finding 3v3 and 4v4

I tried twice on the weekend and both games crashed - one had a serious cow

anyone having successful 3v3 or 4v4 matchups

or ala M2TW is the code unable to support the packet exchange needed ??

that is to say its requiring more data than it can physically send.

[tgi01]

I might be mistaken but AFAIK the kill count at the end of battle is wrong when it comes to artillery kills. Mortars firing percussion shells can produce lots of kills.

Moving fast might be the best way to avoid mortars but their high range and cheap cost generally makes them better than most other artillery.


CBR

Yes I have the same feeling sometimes you only see a cpl of unit kills for certain types of artillery even when you are sure that you kille many more ... could be some kind of area effect thats not counted

Yunson - 4 vs 4 are very lagged ...i managed to finish one so far even there 4 outta 8 ppl dropped ...
could be a performance too .. lots of them are being hosted though... would be nice too hear
from some1 who finds them playable ( and their system specs ... ) ... ( for now im staying out of 4 vs 4 ... )

TGI

[LittleGrizzly]

Okay, I was interpreting his Cost/benefit comment differently, very much in terms of stale gameplay as your post went on to suggest.

Of course, some element of rock-paper-scissors is present, just as it is in reality, I was referencing the idea that ALL units ending up equal on a cost-benefit scale made it so that the r-p-s component would be the ONLY thing left.

The thing is if you don't balance all the units properly then it ends up coming down to only a few units people use...

For example with VI the men at arms were the best inf unit for western factions... so almost everyone would have 4 men at arms units in thier army... militia sergants where used a little as well but outside of those 2 infantry units you would hardly ever see other infantry units...

So by having some overpowered units you reduce the amount of units people use... if the units are all balanced it comes down to the way you use your units and what type of units you have picked... rather than being about picking the 4 best types of units and then you only need to match them up to your opponents units correctly.. if he hasn't got overpowered units like you ... you have won... reduces the need for skill and tactics... unless everyone uses overpowered... then it just gets narrow and boring...

[TexRoadkill]

It doesn't matter how powerful mortars are or aren't. Certain players like to sit on a hill and do nothing but wait because they feel they have superior patience. These players will always ban artillery no matter what because it is the only counter to their "Turtle" tactics.

Until they make maps with an objective in the middle that needs to be controlled this will always be a problem.

[Lavos]

Yes I have the same feeling sometimes you only see a cpl of unit kills for certain types of artillery even when you are sure that you kille many more ... could be some kind of area effect thats not counted

Yunson - 4 vs 4 are very lagged ...i managed to finish one so far even there 4 outta 8 ppl dropped ...
could be a performance too .. lots of them are being hosted though... would be nice too hear
from some1 who finds them playable ( and their system specs ... ) ... ( for now im staying out of 4 vs 4 ... )

TGI

Played one and finished one without any problems. It was normal unit size, there was some lag and it played ok. For me its huge improvement over games since Rome. I still play on same comp as m2tw and on that one even 3v3 was too laggy

[PanzerJaeger]

It doesn't matter how powerful mortars are or aren't. Certain players like to sit on a hill and do nothing but wait because they feel they have superior patience. These players will always ban artillery no matter what because it is the only counter to their "Turtle" tactics.

You do not need artillery to take a hill. I find it gives most players a false sense of security, as the hill bonuses don't seem to be very large. And I think the issue is mortars, not other arty units.

[Kenchi_Sulla]

At this stage (nearing 50 mp wins, mostly team games) I think there is no real big exploit that can't be countered. I ban mortars from my games because I dont enjoy the "gameplay" they provide. It's not that they can't be beaten (adopt tactics of enemy, rush, etc.). I don't mind the other arty units in the game and sometimes use them myself.

The bread and butter weapon of this age is the musket. Armour doesn't play a role, melee does matter a bit (if you use it correctly, for example melee the enemy when he uses 20 long range rifle units, or a lot of artillery). Range of the musket, accuracy of the guys wielding it, depth of line, morale and how many guys in a unit are important factors..... basicly historical.

I like this game. It has some problems but overal the gameplay matches my taste. Just ban the mortars and you are good to go.

[Tsavong]

Would a rush by cav wall you use your inf to fix the enemy line should let you get rid of the mortars one way or another.

Well unless the enemy with them caps up a hill.... by a red line..... surrounded by stakes. which seems to happen a fair bit on one of the 2 v 2 maps i forget witch one i find that more annoying than mortars as you cant even try and get behind them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, in my second E:TW multiplayer game ever, which I just finished, the two enemies I was facing had about four mortar units each, give or take, and a rocket unit. I was using a 24-pounder cannon and a rocket unit (because I had never used one before and wanted to try it out). The first enemy, the one on my flank, committed with his infantry (Guards and Grenadiers), keeping his lights in reserve by his artillery.

I destroyed his line using grapeshot from the 24-pounder and half of my British line infantry. He charged with all of his cavalry, but ran into the lights I had hidden in the woods, which destroyed his cavalry when they combined with two of my infantry units in squares and my cavalry bearing down from the flank. He still had infantry in reserve, so he began advancing those.

At this point, I charged my cavalry into his mortars [up a hill and] through his light infantry (he neglected to deploy stakes - I did not), and destroyed them. At this point, the game ended abruptly and I did not get to see the final casualties screen (it took me back to the lobby). I managed to get an achievement for it being my first ranked battle - though I wonder why it took me back to the lobby instantly.

[PanzerJaeger]

At this point, I charged my cavalry into his mortars [up a hill and] through his light infantry (he neglected to deploy stakes - I did not), and destroyed them. At this point, the game ended abruptly and I did not get to see the final casualties screen (it took me back to the lobby). I managed to get an achievement for it being my first ranked battle - though I wonder why it took me back to the lobby instantly.

It seems to be a bug in the game. Sometimes it will allow a person to quit/drop and the game will continue (in 2v2 and above) or end correctly with a stats page (in 1v1), but much of the time it sends you back to the lobby. Some people appear to be using this, by terminating ETW completely from the task manager, as a last ditch attempt to get out of having a lost game on their stats. It works most of the time.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've just been caught by that. The host left the game after my ally and I routed his army and were cornering his half-strength ally. It apparently recorded it as a land battle loss, the only land battle I've "lost" so far.

[thurjack_mahr]

See, I don't see mortars and artillery as being that bad of an issue.

If you fight someone with a lot of artillery, they have skrimped somewhere else. The mortars lose thier charm up close, and they only have a handful of mortar operators. In most of my stock armies, I use two mortars and sometimes a cannon. It's not so much for the direct damage they do, it's that they harass the enemey and make him have to advance on you.

[NimitsTexan]

A couple of early period mortars is not a big deal.

A massed battery of 5-8 4" late period mortars with a couple of XP upgrades will tear your troops before they can get there . . . and of course, it forces you to attack while the other guy can sit there and receive you on good ground.

[thurjack_mahr]

If people don't like the idea of other players selecting a bunch of mortars, there is always the "Quick Battle" option that removes the choices and pre-builds an army for both sides.

Part of the realism of a battle is being able to adapt and overcome what the enemy throws at you though.

Artilleries role is to make the enemy advance under fire. It does very little good in a line battle, when it can deal as much damage to thier line as yours. All you need to do against an artie masser is to advance and engage. If they put that much cash into all those artie units, you will have a bigger line, even assuming you soak up some hits on your advance.

[NimitsTexan]

What you are ignoring is that:

(A) There is nothing realistic about the mortars in the game. Mortars were not battlefield weapons, were too slow to move with a field army, and their ranges were shorter, not longer, than field gun.

(B) Massed late period mortars WILL take out the equivalent of 1-2 Line Regiments before you can get in range, offsetting one's manpower advantage.

[nafod]

What you are ignoring is that:

(A) There is nothing realistic about the mortars in the game. Mortars were not battlefield weapons, were too slow to move with a field army, and their ranges were shorter, not longer, than field gun.

(B) Massed late period mortars WILL take out the equivalent of 1-2 Line Regiments before you can get in range, offsetting one's manpower advantage.

NimitzTexan,

you've hit the nail on the head. I heard all the clamour over mortars and couldn't understand why, until I built one in my Prussian Campaign.

Of all the artillery in the game I'd estimate the mortar should have the shortest range. As they were typically used in sieges to lob projectiles over enemy walls as the much longer ranged smoothbore artillery was restricted to counterfiring enemy batteries, or targeting the men atop the walls and or the walls themselves.

The direct fire guns would be used to cover troops digging trenches and building battlements to get the mortars in place in a fairly protected position close enough to the walls to put them in range.

I've no idea how or why CA decided they should be the longest ranged artillery piece in the game. I'd guess it was to get around siege battles as they are immobile, and since we aren't allowed to construct siege entrenchments they would get mauled as they closed to effective range.

As to what that effective range is or should be I do not know, but it should be shorter relative to a cannon firing ball ammunition at any rate.

They might as well have included air support.

Naf

[thurjack_mahr]

Heh, just a funny thought...

You think there is some whining on the forums regarding mortors, but I really have to wonder what historically, the soliders themselves must have been discussing while marching from battlefield to battlefield.

"Eh, Fred, who are we up against next?"

"The Ottomen."

"Oh, poop! They have Bombard Mortors!"

"Yeah, I wish the Duke would agree to not use the cannons if they don't use the mortors..."

"Yeah, but he says they will break the agreement...."

"Poop!"

You get the idea.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that making a battlefield simulation is at times not going to be fair, because war in and of itself is not a fair and balanced thing. Artillery whittles down people before they ever join the front line. For each unit of mortors to pay for themselves, they have to do at least an equal dollar amount in damage to the enemy to offset the cost for the unit itself.

The real value in mortors, in my humble opinion, isn't that they kill so many people (they don't, usually, against a foe who knows enough to keep thier troops moving) but rather that they make one side react to being shelled. If you stand still while you have the enemy shelling you, you are going to take astounding casualties, and they will tear you up before you are able to close.

A couple other points:

Cavalry is, in my opinion, the best counter. Esp those missile cavalry. By the time you are in range, the minimum range on the mortars makes them more or less useless without shelling friendly troops, and horses can move fast enough to close the gap and mortars are terribly inaccurate against galloping horses who change direction frequently!

Hint: Next time you are fighting someone with a lot of massed mortors, take one unit of cheap cavalry and waypoint it back and forth all over the middle of the line. Tap R on and off occassionally to change between walking and running and unless the other guy is individually targeting units, the artillary will tear up around your decoy unit while you advance your line intact. Try it :)

[Ishmael]

What you are ignoring is that:

(A) There is nothing realistic about the mortars in the game. Mortars were not battlefield weapons, were too slow to move with a field army, and their ranges were shorter, not longer, than field gun.

(B) Massed late period mortars WILL take out the equivalent of 1-2 Line Regiments before you can get in range, offsetting one's manpower advantage.

But assuming that by 'massed' you mean 4+, shouldn't that still leave you with the equivalent of 2+ more units than he has?

[NimitsTexan]

But assuming that by 'massed' you mean 4+, shouldn't that still leave you with the equivalent of 2+ more units than he has?

Depends on the period/Army size. Considering that you can get 4 mortars for about the same price as 3 Line or 2 Guards Infantry, not necessarily.

If mortars were the most expensive Artillery, or their range was limited so that, instead fo shooting back to back, they could only hit the enemy zone if forward deployed, it would not be so bad.

The problem, is, of course, that they are cheap, they can hit pretty much the whole field, their explosive shot can kill 30-50% of a unit with one hit, and mass can easily compensate for any accuracy problems.

[Tsavong]

They also demoralise so units rout faster.

[Puzz3D]

Okay, I was interpreting his Cost/benefit comment differently, very much in terms of stale gameplay as your post went on to suggest.

Of course, some element of rock-paper-scissors is present, just as it is in reality, I was referencing the idea that ALL units ending up equal on a cost-benefit scale made it so that the r-p-s component would be the ONLY thing left.

You will still have terrain, weather, morale and fatigue effects along with whatever rps is present. Your army composition would be based upon the expected terrain, the expected weather, the tactics you like to employ and also what kind of army you expect to face. That final point is very important because, in a game where the cost/benifit ratio of all the units is equal, the enemy can bring a wide variety of army types. This means you have to "know your enemy" (Sun Tzu) before you can make an educated guess at what type of army he will select. When you start guessing right it will influence your enemy to choose a different kind of army. Then a cat and mouse type of game in army selection will develop among players who play each other a lot. The game takes on a psychological factor which is missing in a game with unbalanced units.

In an unbalanced game, even some of the best players will use whatever exploits they can find, and you'll stand no chance against them unless you employ the same exploits. Asking them to stop using exploits won't work, and I know this from years of first hand experience with TW multiplayer. The degree of imbalance is important, but in a game between closely matched opponents it doesn't take much of an imbalance to force both teams to use the exploits if one of them does.

[Yun Dog]

Having already stated that I think mortars need to be nurfed. I am starting to understand the necessity of them.

The maps are generally very biased toward one team, the other team usually starts the game in an inferior position.

This results in one team 'camping it up' and who can blame them, why would you leave a superior position.

So the inferior team must manover into range of the camped team and voila as soon as your arty is in range it is promptly destroyed and you are forced to attack the hill position.

Last night I fought against two guys who clearly knew the map, knew where they would start, had an almost perfect defensive position, I think they had to move 1 unit the whole game. I dont blame them, thats good play to do otherwise would be mad. Then I was thinking gee I wish I had some mortars to unsettle them. But no they made it very clear it was a no mortar game.

This is where its starting to get real cheesy, no mortar games attracts camping like flies to a turd. You can say "No Mortars" but you cant have game thats "No Campers" and to some degree the maps dont lend themselves to it.

Bottom line be wary of the no mortar games cause you can almost guarentee theres a lil spider in there.

There needs to be a new set of 'thought out' maps that balance the terrain adv/dis a bit better, and tak into account arty range when they design them. Cause 9/10 by the time you get your arty into position it will have been destroyed, and then theres 1 tactic left to you.

Given all the camping Im starting to think mortars are a necessary evil

[Megas Methuselah]

Having already stated that I think mortars need to be nurfed. I am starting to understand the necessity of them.

The maps are generally very biased toward one team, the other team usually starts the game in an inferior position.

This results in one team 'camping it up' and who can blame them, why would you leave a superior position.

So the inferior team must manover into range of the camped team and voila as soon as your arty is in range it is promptly destroyed and you are forced to attack the hill position.

Last night I fought against two guys who clearly knew the map, knew where they would start, had an almost perfect defensive position, I think they had to move 1 unit the whole game. I dont blame them, thats good play to do otherwise would be mad. Then I was thinking gee I wish I had some mortars to unsettle them. But no they made it very clear it was a no mortar game.

This is where its starting to get real cheesy, no mortar games attracts camping like flies to a turd. You can say "No Mortars" but you cant have game thats "No Campers" and to some degree the maps dont lend themselves to it.

Bottom line be wary of the no mortar games cause you can almost guarentee theres a lil spider in there.

There needs to be a new set of 'thought out' maps that balance the terrain adv/dis a bit better, and tak into account arty range when they design them. Cause 9/10 by the time you get your arty into position it will have been destroyed, and then theres 1 tactic left to you.

Given all the camping Im starting to think mortars are a necessary evil

Scare those kids off with Fergusons or Native Americans. I love whipping those suckers as the Powhatan Confederacy; they never know what hits them.

[Oleander Ardens]

Well the Defense is the stronger form, als Clausewitz tells us. With equal ressources it is easy to use terrain features to achieve a great advantage by defending. Usually the attacker would only attack if he had enough ressources to do so of if it was the best course of action. In the TW games both have equal gold and thus the attacker is disadvantaged in difficult terrain. I would thus like to have balanced maps and equal ressources and also interesting maps with unequal ressources.

Mortars are excellent for bombarding campers, sadly they are so unbalanced that they need to banned. A lot of artillery helps against campers which are not able to win the CB duel even with their natural advantages. I generally like Howitzers for the task, but of course it is hard to get the numbers right. Too few and they will get counter-fired, too much and you will be outnumberd against an agressive enemy.

[Ishmael]

Ok folks, i'm curious-as of the latest patch, mortar cost has nearly doubled in singleplayer, and i assume this has carried over into multiplayer. So do you feel that they are properly balanced now?