I'm sick of massed mortar batteries...

[The Spartan (Returns)]

[RANT INITIATED]
I've noticed playing online that many users will have at least six mortar units in their armies. They practice 24/7 on a mountainous map, always use landscape obstacles and height advantages.

I don't know all the maps that well, and when the enemy knows all of it, your already at disadvantage.

I'm the more traditional kind of commander relying more on cavalry and infantry. I usually just have 2 mortar teams in my armies. When I have to face this every time, it can be quite difficult to win, and I still get pretty darn close winning some times.

Even more seemingly old fashioned, I almost kinda feel it dishonorable. I mean 6 mortars raining down on your infantry, and by the the time you get in range half of your troop gets decimated. If half of your army is already killed, then it almost feels like your men don't have a chance. Staring at mortars with wooden stakes in front, light infantry shooting down your men as they walk up hill while still out of range... and there's still that elite guard up there... It can be a VERY demoralizing sight indeed.

Why make a big fuss? Why not just play a quick land battle?
Well most land battles are played with the smallest unit sizes, and it's a turn off for me.
[END OF RANT]

Any tips?
Here's what I already do when I join a game. I just pray the enemy doesn't have a huge mortar battery waiting for me at the top of a hill...

1 General,3-4 Heavy/Lancer Cavalry (Sometimes some light cavalry elements), 2 mortars, 6-8 of the most elite infantry.

Now, I'm starting to incorporate light infantry to my late army because of their range, but for now I'm still developing tactics on how to use 'em.

If I AM against someone with a huge arty squad:
1.March as QUICKLY as possible without tiring the troops
2.Arty targets right flank of the enemy
3.Once I get in range, I use my usual gameplan:
4. Infantry engages
5. My column of cavalry all on right flank, gets in position to flank and target either:
1. Other Cavalry 2. Light Infantry 3. Regular Line Infantry 4. Arty
6. My first line is about 5-6 infantry and a second line as reserve with remaining infantry. (usually elite) Reserve either fends off flanking cavalry on the left flank, or help with main engagement
7. If flanks are clear charge the enemy, and general joins in to help out any struggling regiment
8. If the cavalry removes all threats on the flanks then, they help mop up the main engagement

The strategy is to overwhelm the right flank whilst holding the left from any flanking maneuvers. The right flank folds, and each unit on the right rout one by one or altogether eventually leading up to the left flank. If the cavalry is not successful enough, then the chance of defeat increases, depending on the situation.

Of course if one step is already competed and/or not necessary, then I skip steps.

So again any tips, thanks in advance.

[RTKBarrett]

Host a game called, no mortars

"Hi any rules?"
"Yes no mortars plz"
"Awesome!"
"gl hf"

Works for me...

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Host a game called, no mortars

"Hi any rules?"
"Yes no mortars plz"
"Awesome!"
"gl hf"

Works for me...

Yes, yes I'll be doing that some time =P

Probably "2 mortars max" should do it.

In the mean time however... when I'M the patron of a game...

[Paolai]

Host a game called, no mortars

"Hi any rules?"
"Yes no mortars plz"
"Awesome!"
"gl hf"

Works for me...

LOL

well not always works btw

[RTKBarrett]

ive yet to be betrayed by the lovely total war community :D but yes ure right, risk with a pinch of salt..

[YellowMelon]

Um, yes you were. And people always break rules on me.

[RTKBarrett]

80 games, 1 where it happened and u jinxed it >.<

[TexRoadkill]

You are going through the same troubles as many generals of that time period, lol. Artillery is probably most damaging to the players morale then it is to the army. If the opponent is half-smart I rarely see my Artillery getting more then 30 or 40 kills each and often less. Compared to the 100+ kills of a Line Infantry unit they aren't really as useful as a killing tool.

The whole point of artillery is to force the opponent to attack. Generally speaking the defender is usually at an advantage.

Skirmishing is even more important with artillery in play because the goal is to kill the other guys cavalry first and try to force him to have be the attacker. Once he attacks then he has to leave a force to defend his artillery, weakening his main assault and he already has less troops because he bought artillery instead or leave them vulnerable for cav. I like to setup a kill zone with artillery and hidden light infantry, preferably the sniper units, and try to draw their cavalry into the kill zone. The other advantage to your skirmishing is that if your main force is hidden well then the artillery will be wasted trying to hit your moving skirmishers.

One of the best tactics is to use the woods for cover. If you hide a bunch of guys there all the enemy can do is blind fire into the woods. If possible I like to hide my guys in the woods or on the reverse slope of a hill and hope they can wait out the skirmishing period. If you notice they are targeting your cav or general then keep them on the move.

[tgi01]

LOL

well not always works btw

Well actually it works surprisingly well .. sure it happens sometimes that some1 misses it .. but
generally speaking hosting a game called NO MORTARS and reminding ppl of it be4 the game starts works.

Also quite a few ppl are looking for the no mortars games to begin with.

Main problem with the mortars is not their range but thei accuracy .. they also very easily take out regular horse arty even when its moving ... which is both annoying and unrealistic ...

And its soo easy to fix by a) just raising their price to 1000-1200 , b) lower their accuracy ( rockets are also long range they just cant hit anything ) , C) ammo limmit on arty ffs ...

TGI

PS: and if you enter some1 s game and ask for rules and receive the answer none then usually be ready for mortars ....

[Cap'n D]

i do this only to facilitate the wiping out of annoying hill-camping batteries...

1. string all your men out into a single rank and ensure each 'line' of rifles or muskets is spaced with some distance to each other... ( i've noticed the loss rate as you cover even elevated terrain can be reduced by 70% easily)
2. just as you know the battery is about to let rip and the first mortars fire run your men or cavalry and the majority of the barrage can overshoot.
3. COLD_STEEL+RIFLES_RULES...if they have even 2 arty emplacements or mobile cannon that's two less inf units to gut... riflemen, ferguson's are cool...

Camper Pampers pack Picnic Hampers

[Aemilius Paulus]

You are going through the same troubles as many generals of that time period, lol. Artillery is probably most damaging to the players morale then it is to the army. If the opponent is half-smart I rarely see my Artillery getting more then 30 or 40 kills each and often less. Compared to the 100+ kills of a Line Infantry unit they aren't really as useful as a killing tool.

Yeah, I tend to go with TexRoadkill as well. If those six units were line infantry or cavalry, they would have done much more damage. I would be thankful if my opponent so stupidly binged on artillery. Easier for me...

[YellowMelon]

It's a matter of simple balance, anyone who plays MP with any competency will understand that.

750 range reaches into deployment zones
500 makes it basically the cheapest art
55 accuracy? I can't remember.
Whether you bring 2 or 8, it's cost effectiveness is off the charts.

I have started asking people to confirm the rules of no mortar before I start, or I kick em. I always feel bad, but at least I know there is no language barrier when playing on a NA server that can account for them not "understanding" the rules, yet the European server has a better chance of people agreeing. Strange.

I am not disputing the rationale for having artillery, but when you have the hill at the start of the match on these awesome MP maps, you seem to have an accuracy bonus as well (as far as I've seen). Now you don't have to fight for a position, but can force the enemy to either get shot to hell and lose by number loss, or run up the hill and lose to fatigue.

[Relic]

I very much dislike people who do this as well. So much that unless there isn't a drop in this tactic I'll resort to using it myself, to counter theirs.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

The best tactic takes from the playbook of the Free Market: Supply and Demand

If people wont play on those maps / with those rules, etc, then eventually the people who use them will either stop doing that, or group together and form their own server and disappear from the nuisance list.

[therifleman]

It come to a point where if both sides have mortars, a 1 hour minute mortar duel ensues, in which eventually one side's mortars knocks out the other sides'. Their combat effectivness is one big illusion, but everyone seems to just throw them into their army out of fear that their opponent will mortar them to death, if they don't first.

I think MP gameplay would improve if mortars were given a range nerf. Just enough so they aren't able to shoot into the opposing deployment zone right off the bat. It would make it much more of a defensive weapon, and it would put an end to mortar duels.

I rarely use them at this point. I remember one game where I was French against Russians. Russian guy thought he was being so clever, setting his 16 mortars up on an elevated hill behind a wall of stakes and infantry facing me until my 3 cav units snuck up to his lines through the woods and flanked him. To put it less elequently, his his mortars got by my cav. His infantry massacred my cav, but they took all 16 mortars and a handfull of line infantry down with them. The rest of my army advanced up and routed his inf because unlike my opponet, I did not blow a quarter of my money on mortar batteries.

[TexRoadkill]

You guys are killing me. Mortars are not a problem. You guys have been playing this 2 weeks and you say the mortars need to be nerfed or banned? Anybody who uses a lot of artillery is a sitting duck for cavalry and/or sharpshooters.

The players who hate artillery are usually the same players who want to sit on a hill and wait the entire match. Artillery is the best counter for those players and getting rid of it ruins the game.

[KozaK13]

You guys are killing me. Mortars are not a problem. You guys have been playing this 2 weeks and you say the mortars need to be nerfed or banned? Anybody who uses a lot of artillery is a sitting duck for cavalry and/or sharpshooters.

Provided you have sharpshooters and cavalry left by the time you get in range....mortars can hit cavalry who are running.

[YellowMelon]

You guys are killing me. Mortars are not a problem. You guys have been playing this 2 weeks and you say the mortars need to be nerfed or banned? Anybody who uses a lot of artillery is a sitting duck for cavalry and/or sharpshooters.

The players who hate artillery are usually the same players who want to sit on a hill and wait the entire match. Artillery is the best counter for those players and getting rid of it ruins the game.

Who said anything about hating artillery? If anything hating mortars equates liking artillery. Why? Because Mortars with their cost effectiveness (range, accuracy, cost) makes all other artillery worthless.

[Andres]

Gentlemen, please maintain a civilised and friendly tone or this thread gets locked.

[YellowMelon]

Unreal.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Yellow Mellon
Unreal.

Indeed. Mr Andres such *arguments* are the bread and butter of the mp forums/community. Its understood and appreciated that you are trying to do what you were entrusted in the best of ways, but a more hands-free approach might work best.

It is undertandable that you being SP play and forums only member cannot fully and transparently discern the ways and dynamics of the mp community but the last thing needed here is to brake the posting flow all the time imho. You ll get the very results you are trying to avoid from the other side.

[Andres]

Indeed. Mr Andres such *arguments* are the bread and butter of the mp forums/community. Its understood and appreciated that you are trying to do what you were entrusted in the best of ways, but a more hands-free approach might work best.

It is undertandable that you being SP play and forums only member cannot fully and transparently discern the ways and dynamics of the mp community but the last thing needed here is to brake the posting flow all the time imho. You ll get the very results you are trying to avoid from the other side.

It is not my intention to break the posting flow.

The Org is a place where we discuss civilised and in a nice and friendly way. The MP section is no exception to that.

The "dickhead ratio" of Northern Americans nor the terminology "gang raped" have a place in here.

If you wish to further discuss Org policy, then you can either drop me a pm, or, if you feel a public discussion would be better, open a thread in the Watchtower on the matter

[RTKBarrett]

Typical response lolz...

[tibilicus]

I'm not offended nor do I think anyone else here is offended.

Therefore surely the use of such language is inappropriate if someone is offended by it which isn't the case therefore there is no problem here, right?


Back on topic mortars are ridiculous but hey it's a step up from other games. Haven't had the option to play much online yet due to steam being immune to all ports and firewalls but it can't be as bad as previous games.


RTW for example, max 2 HA, max 4 archers max 6 cavalry, no arty, no els, no Cantabrian circle. Probably not exact but the rules were something along those lines, you get the idea. Maybe there's hope that CA might patch it as well as patch the problem which me and others get which stops us from playing MP 90% of the time.

Of course a patch would require CA to actually pay attention to the MP section of their game which is highly improbable....

[pevergreen]

Therefore surely the use of such language is inappropriate if someone is offended by it which isn't the case therefore there is no problem here, right?

Its against the Org policy, which makes in inappropriate to be anywhere. Those phrases would have been met with harsher eyes elsewhere, I would know.

Sorry for butting in on your area Andres...

[Puzz3D]

Back on topic mortars are ridiculous but hey it's a step up from other games.

ETW isn't even close to providing the quality multiplayer experience that the very first TW game provided.

If the mortars are corrected for playbalance, that will uncover another unbalanced unit for players to exploit. The problem won't go away until Creative Assembly makes the cost/benefit ratio of all the units nearly equal. Players can effectively exploit a unit that's imbalanced by as little as 15%. When the top players exploit imbalances, it forces any player who has an expectation of winning a battle to do the same, and this ultimately causes the gameplay to converge to a narrow playstyle resulting in premature boredom and a loss of interest in the game by a large part of the MP community.

[tibilicus]

ETW isn't even close to providing the quality multiplayer experience that the very first TW game provided.

If the mortars are corrected for playbalance, that will uncover another unbalanced unit for players to exploit. The problem won't go away until Creative Assembly makes the cost/benefit ratio of all the units nearly equal. Players can effectively exploit a unit that's imbalanced by as little as 15%. When the top players exploit imbalances, it forces any player who has an expectation of winning a battle to do the same, and this ultimately causes the gameplay to converge to a narrow playstyle resulting in premature boredom and a loss of interest in the game by a large part of the MP community.

So your suggesting to make each unit similar in strength and revolve the game entirely around movement like earlier TW releases?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Puzz3d:

I'm not an MP'er, but one of the things I've always enjoyed in the TW series IS the inequity of things. If all units are balanced, you end up with "rock - paper - scissors." If I wanted perfect balance, I'd go to chess.com.

I understand your basic point of course, those who take the "munchie" route are always a bit vexing, but of all the units are completely balanced, some of the flavor of the whole thing is lost.

[CBR]

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

[gollum]

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

Precisely

Originally posted by CBR
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)

The problem is political in nature. It is part of the conflict of the old/new mp communities - the old one formed around STW/MTW and the newer one formed around RTW/M2TW, because of their different gameplays. The org is the ground where the drama unfolds because it is the sole intersection point for both. Until both realise that they need to accept each other, and then work together without turning their backs to one another or to the current TW games no matter how bad they are, it will find no solution.

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

And please dont let anyone tell you that its CAs fault. CA is a games company. Not a charity. Not an accademic institution. Not an artists guild. Their motives for gameplay design decisions are for a mix of reasons and aim to accomodate a mix of people.

They dont aim for the best gameplay - they aim for a mix of the best and most attractive commercially gameplay. And they have every right to do this - its their game. One should either buy and play their games with the hope of contributing/helping to have a better game in the near and far future or find another game to play if it doesnt suit one at all.