siege weapon field tactics

**cruix** · 07-09-2005, 07:45

Hi folks. Just wanted to open up a discussion on people's experience with all roman siege weapons (yes, even the non ornager ones) during field battle (NOT sieges).

I personally found most siege weapons to be too *damn* slow to be effective. With my fighting style I need something more along the lines of a mortar than a howitzer. (light enough to move with the troops but packs enough punch to suppress/route the enemy)

So far that role has been filled by 2 cretean archers and 2 roman archers (i'd use 4 creteans, except I try to limit my cretean archer losses if battles happen to turn out bad since I don't reload a botched fight. just adds more realism and impact to the war losses). But since this is a thread about siege weapons strictly, I was tooling around with repeating ballistas but not having much success (the range is too short).

**sapi** · 07-09-2005, 08:29

I like ballistas in spqr and rtr, as they have increased the weapon:unit ratio to more realistic levels, making the units useful.

**Ashen** · 07-09-2005, 09:59

Personally I just find theres nothing as satisfying as having a few units of scorpions bombarding the enemy general. And nothing as cinematic as hitting him when hes charging and watching him literally fly accross the screen in his death animation.

**Mahrabals apprentice** · 07-09-2005, 10:05

I have found artillery to be a waste of money out side of sieges, they just don't do enough damage unless the AI puts its troops in 1 big clump and sits still, all in all in a field battle i'd rather an extra unit of archers, or cavalry, or infantry, well anything really except skirmishers

**Productivity** · 07-09-2005, 10:24

Repeating ballistas usually are good for forty kills a game for me. It's the fact that those kills are of the hardest enemy units that makes them worth while. Spartans, Bastarnae, Generals, you name it, they kill it.

**Mahrabals apprentice** · 07-09-2005, 11:03

Maybe its because my artillary are crewed by raw recruits and they can't hit a barn door from 3 paces.
I have completely ceased artillary production because of the dissapointing results they give in field battles, the fact i can usually wait 1 turn to assault a city (or even better send a spy or 2 into the city to open the gate for me), and finally they slow the army down on the campeign map (unless of course you plant the army on a boat, which is not always possible).

Perhaps i should get a pantheon of mars and a top level artillary builiding place (?!?) and try some 3 chevron repeating ballistas

**Kourutsu** · 07-14-2005, 20:34

Originally Posted by Ashen

Personally I just find theres nothing as satisfying as having a few units of scorpions bombarding the enemy general. And nothing as cinematic as hitting him when hes charging and watching him literally fly accross the screen in his death animation.

Here Here!

**vale** · 07-19-2005, 16:07

seige weapon for me work best in field since I will be using it to splash all those guys out while they still marching to my army.

**Nelson** · 07-19-2005, 19:59

I don’t routinely keep artillery with my armies as it slows them down too much. IMO this strategic limitation far outweighs any engine’s tactical usefulness in the open field. In my campaigns the train is attached temporarily for siege work and otherwise stays in a city or a fort. Several such depots will be established throughout the empire.

I believe that Roman ballistas should move strategically like infantry and not like onagers. The legions had the wherewithal to get around quickly despite their organic light artillery.