Ballista firing down hill

[Maximus the Meek]

I tried to place my ballista up high to fire down on troops below. But it wouldn't target them, it was always red. But the ballista could target uphill. How do their angles of fire work? Thank you,

Max

[ichi]

Look in the Total War folder at a file named Projectilestats, it shows that for MTW VI 2.01 ballistas have a minimum down angle of 0, while most other weapons show a minimum of -20. I'm not positive that these are equivalent to real world angles, since 64 is straight up, but the numbers lead me to believe that ballistas won't shoot down at all

ichi

[PittBull260]

hmm when I try that it usually works they cant shoot them once they're really close or on a really steap hill

[Maximus the Meek]

have you ever used ballista to great effect, or are they just pretty useless?

thank you

max

[PittBull260]

have you ever used ballista to great effect, or are they just pretty useless?

thank you

max

oh theyre useful, and cannons are even better
they're best for defending against slow moving troops.

[VAE VICTUS]

ok,if your facing a mass of slow moving infantry,have about 5 onagers,catapults whatever,and just un load.i did this to a larger army,my barrages killed 45% of their troops before i ran out of ammo.then my cohorts finished the job.but they arent that effective against cavalry,and the uint must be relatively still for max effect.and get as close as you can.

[ichi]

ok,if your facing a mass of slow moving infantry,have about 5 onagers,catapults whatever,and just un load.i did this to a larger army,my barrages killed 45% of their troops before i ran out of ammo.then my cohorts finished the job.but they arent that effective against cavalry,and the uint must be relatively still for max effect.and get as close as you can.

Which is great for Rome, but I think the question was regarding Ballistas in MTW (cause the Main Hall is a MTW forum).

have you ever used ballista to great effect, or are they just pretty useless?

They're almost useless; IMHO Ballistas are a waste of time and take a spot away from my army, a spot that would be much better filled with a cav, inf, or even good missile troop. Maybe on a bridge, but otherwise minimally effective.

Heavy siege engines like Culverins or Trebuchets are useful when storming a stone castle, but Ballistas are essentially locked in one location and just don't kill as many enemies as a good melee troop. Personally I'd rather have vanilla archers.

ichi

[ShadowMagnet]

Ballistas in melee battles have proved a waste of time in my case.
Their just fire a single missile every 10 seconds, or so, and even slow moving units like halberdiers will mow them down with only several casaulties. On top of that I'm not impressed with their apparent lack of fear-causing bonus. Even three ballistas firing at a single unit of peasants don't seem to even touch their morale.
Archers' volley covers some serious ground in comparison and takes out impressive numbers of foes in short time (esp. when upgraded).
Siege engines of most kinds are only reserved for sieges in my book.
Otherwise they're useless.

[PittBull260]

they can be very useful when used right

[Zion_Raven]

I guess the question is...Used how?

I have seen what catapults can do! Anyone ever make the mistake of trying to get a good piece of defensive ground and accidentally positionaing your army right next to the enemy and in range of 3 catapults???? Well, much to my and my men's regret, I have!

Otherwise i can't see how they would be effective unless it was some defensive action. But that could just be my inexperience talking!

[ichi]

they can be very useful when used right

I guess the question is...Used how?

that would be my question also

Not to start a flame war, but because I've never seen Ballistas as effective as a good cav or inf unit.

Please, explain

ichi

[PittBull260]

that would be my question also

Not to start a flame war, but because I've never seen Ballistas as effective as a good cav or inf unit.

Please, explain

ichi

I used 4 units of ballistas in one battle, I was defending, all you need to do is find a high spot put the ballistas there, keep strong infantry in front to protect the ballistas, when the enemy starts charging at u, they'll loose a lot of men before they reach you

a nice combination of ballista's, heavy infantry and archers, is a very very useful army, or cannons instead of ballistas is even better

[ichi]

try an experiment using the custom battles.

In the first run, use the army you describe and look at the kills (by unit) at the end.

Then run the same battle and replace the ballistas with two archers and two heavy cav, or four heavy cav if you already have sufficient missile troops.

Compare the kills from the two battles, focusing on the relative contribution of the ballistas compared to the cav.

I've always found that good cav kill and capture more than fixed arty and allow for a more mobile style of play.

That said, if Ballistas work for you and fit your style, then by all means fire away.

ichi

[Productivity]

have you ever used ballista to great effect, or are they just pretty useless?

thank you

max

I find if you tell them to hit a generals unit they are incredibly useful. They are very accurate, so they can usually take out a whole unit of knights without too much trouble.

Against normal troops they are useless.

[BAD]

I built some ballistae once. . .
















I didn't do it again. -_-

Though maybe if what dgb says about there accuracy is true use them for taking out that special general they can be useful. I the Mongol Khan, or the Pope etc. Have them in the first wave then when they have speared the dude get em off and bring on some better troops for the slaughter

[Maximus the Meek]

I wish the AI was better built, so that it did not attack people with siege weapons. The weapons just sit there, while the AI abandons them, then it is at a severe disadvantage.

Max

[PittBull260]

try an experiment using the custom battles.

In the first run, use the army you describe and look at the kills (by unit) at the end.

Then run the same battle and replace the ballistas with two archers and two heavy cav, or four heavy cav if you already have sufficient missile troops.

Compare the kills from the two battles, focusing on the relative contribution of the ballistas compared to the cav.

I've always found that good cav kill and capture more than fixed arty and allow for a more mobile style of play.

That said, if Ballistas work for you and fit your style, then by all means fire away.

ichi

i never said ballistas were better, im just saying when u have to use them, us them like that :)

[Budwise]

The Main Question IS?

Why the hell are you using Ballistas to begin with?

[edyzmedieval]

Ballistas are useful in the game....But only in early times.... Also, very useful in RTW....

[Productivity]

The Main Question IS?

Why the hell are you using Ballistas to begin with?

Because most people ignore then in multiplayer battles.

Until they take out their prized unit of knights with valour, armour + weapon upgrades. Then tehy start to care about them.

[ichi]

Because most people ignore then in multiplayer battles.

There's a reason why one rarely sees Ballistas in MP battles.

Slow rate of fire, low kill rate, immovable . . .

It's one thing to say that if you have several in a campaign battles and you can protect them by sitting on a hill, then use them to target Generals and other high armor elite troops,

but nobody should get the idea that a Ballista is a valuable MP device. I've seen some folks use Catapults effectively, and, of course, gunpowder arty in Late Era games can be decisive, but

Until they take out their prized unit of knights with valour, armour + weapon upgrades.

I've never seen this, only the opposite where my cav took one hit from the Ballista before rolling over them. Remember that in MP its all about getting a unit free to flank, thus routing an enemy unit which in turn frees up another unit. I'd much rather have a cav any cav to get behind your line.

ichi