siege weapon field tactics

[Krauser]

I find that the AI when defending seems to just sit there letting you pelt them with fireballs until 50% of their army is gone. I don't use siege for normal fighting most times. On the way to a new settlement I might come across rebels or some defenders of the settlement and will get a chance to use it in a normal battle but they are definitely not needed.

[massimorocca]

I've played only two imperial campaign so far, before and after patch 1.2. Both on VH and with the Scipii. I based all my tactics on Onagers, giving a battery of 3 as soon as possible to every army and making a sort of siege park in reserve when I start to assault cities. They did wonders, in attacking batlles, cause they burned from 60 to 150 men each ( I'm playing with 160 men's unit). Using flamed loads I usually target the central unit in front of the enemy general's squadron. Rounds spreaded as you know, but you have a good chance to flame the general ( I experienced a 25% ratio at worst). If the enemy had some tough nut, like elephants or cataphracts, I switch one of the onagers, the best ranked to precision fire with solid shots to soften'em, if the elephants shows no willing to advance fast I try also the flamed shots to "ignite" a stampede.
The best onager's scenario, a true heaven, is the bridge defense. Here also the more linear deployment of the 1.2 patch is forced to switch in long columns. You must only target a mid column unit and watch for the slaughter. You must only be quick to switch target if the unit start a charge to avoid the back shot on your defenders. If you think that the pause command is too gamey switch to solid shot, they seldom to never cause friendly fire when you hold your position.
Also in pure defensive battles onager shines. Yes enemy rushes, but a couple of well aimed shots are possible and if the enemies had tight formation like hoplites or phalanx, every hit did 20 casualties. then you could turn you aim to one of the flank. With solid shots you can slow or stop the usual cavalry flanking.

[Deus ret.]

interesting. I did find them quite useless in defence battles for the reasons you mentioned: the enemy attacks you too soon to let your onagers really shine....and in my experience they hit cavalry only as long as the latter don't move.
maybe unit size matters? I'm playing on normal and they ARE useless while defending. Even if they manage to fire one of the two shots they have somewhat accurately, a very little percentage of enemy troops will be dead, and your onagers will be standing on the battlefield futilely until the battle ends.
about killing generals however you're definitely right. I have the same experience: Whenever you fire at units close to the general (and he will likely be close to some of his troops), he almost certainly gets killed by a shot. Of course provided you're attacking and thus have enough time to scrunch him.

[Kourutsu]

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!

[cruix]

In the campaign, the AI likes to have some siege weapons on hand so I usually try to counter that with my own seige weapons. Besides, its fun to see the people go up in flames and cry out

I keep 1-2 Onagers behind my archer line which is behind my frontline to take out any artillery on the field.

the AI is too dumb to guard its artilary with spearmen. just one or two units of equities will take care of nearly all of their siege weapons. and if they're crazy enough to roll those lighter siege weapons along with their army line, just shoot them up with your archers. the 30-40 men running the siege engines crap out after 2 or 3 salvos.

[Somebody Else]

Playing RTR, I liked to have a few units of scorpions - the larger unit sizes meant that a massive volume of fire could be directed at the enemy - whether it be defending or attacking. Just sitting on a hill was enough - the scorpions would kill a quarter to a third of the enemy before they got in range of my archers, who would kill off roughly the same again - so that by the time they got in range of my skirmishers, they'd rout. I'd typically have 100-150 kills per scorpion unit, 50-100 per archer unit, 0-30 per skirmisher unit, 0-15 per melee infantry unit. Cavalry would possibly have commensurate kill rates with the artillery, as they were in charge of chasing down routers. (N.B. Playing on normal unit sizes - I only have a battered old laptop)

Artillery is also especially useful against slow phalanx heavy armies - have a couple of cavalry units running around them as they advance, causing the AI to stick them into phalanx formation, then do some target practice - as they march oh so slowly to their deaths.

Also, as someone said - artillery is excellent for taking out hardened targets, such as legionnaires, armoured hoplites, cataphracts, spartans, elephants, generals, entire army units...

[Emit_Flesti]

Artillery is also especially useful against slow phalanx heavy armies - have a couple of cavalry units running around them as they advance, causing the AI to stick them into phalanx formation, then do some target practice - as they march oh so slowly to their deaths.

Also, as someone said - artillery is excellent for taking out hardened targets, such as legionnaires, armoured hoplites, cataphracts, spartans, elephants, generals, entire army units...

Ah! Exactly! I usually take 2 of my best artillery with every army. I use them with fire bolts to soften up the enemy lines until they are within my archer's range. Even if they don't do much damage, they help by lowering the morale and ocasionally killing the enemy general.

Onagers are great for offensive battles. I am under the impression that if you aim them to the enemy flanks, they tend to mass in the centre. THEN you aim at the centre, thus buying time for that cavalry to flank and you main line to approach with those deadly archers. Anyone else tried this?

As for sieges, I use ballistas to destroy those wood towers while fighting barbarians. Three or four onagers make it quite easy to smash walls and disperse enemies within the city.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

I tried a brief experiment with seige weaponary, i tried them in a battle where i thought they would excel

I fought a defensive bridge custom battle against the geramns, and i gave them 50% points than i had (give them a little chance).

My army was 3 units of triarii, 1 first legionary cohort, 4 auxilia archers, 6 repeating ballistas, 4 onagers and 2 heavy onagers.

Long story short, the top killers where the archers

The artillery did kill a lot of germans, unfortunatley as the germans advanced i had some firendlty fire problems, and a charcoal general

i said earlier in this thread, and still think, that i would rather have a unit of archers than any artillery unit in a non-seige battle

[Somebody Else]

The main thing artillery has over archers is range, and obviously individual killing power. So, ballistas and repeating ballistas - though somewhat useful, are outclassed by scorpions and archers when it comes to battlefield usefulness. Ballistas have a saving grace in that they can be useful in sieges, but elsewise, not so useful.

Hmm...

Ballista
Pros : Easy to aquire. Flat trajectory.
Cons: Mediocre range.
Repeating Ballista
Pros : High rate of fire. Flat trajectory.
Cons: Mediocre range. Cannot target structures. Top level range required.
Scorpion
Pros : High range. Flat trajectory.
Cons: Cannot target structures.
Onager
Pros : Good range. Splash damage.
Cons: Wildly inaccurate when targeting troops (ie flaming ammo).
Heavy Onager
Pros : High range. Splash damage. High damage to structures.
Cons: Inaccurate targeting troops (flaming ammo). Top level range required.

There, I've probably missed a thing or two, or just got things plain wrong, but hey.

I find that having a flat trajectory is useful as if the direction is pretty much correct, then the missile's bound to hit someone, whereas arcing fire may over or undershoot (this is why slingers can be so effective).

I'm not so sure that the repeating ballista is that useless - after all, it is solely an anti-troop unit, so it must be of some use, but I've always found the extra range of scorpions more useful - despite the slower rate of fire. With the shorter range of repeating ballistas, archers are more useful. At least scorpions fill a niche.

Onagers, and their bigger brothers, heavy onagers, are very good when dealing with large massed armies - where the splash damage is bound to cause tremendous casualties, but with slightly smaller armies, they can be of a little less use, as they're not so likely to hit anything. They are however excellent in sieges, where the arcing fire can get over low wooden walls, or indeed, smash stone walls down.

If I were to rank them, for use in both sieges and field battles;
1st : Heavy Onagers
=2nd: Onagers & Scorpions
4th : Ballistas
5th : Repeating Ballistas

In case of purely field battles, I'd swap repeating ballistas and normal ballistas in the ranking.
In case of purely siege battles, I'd push scorpions down just below ballistas (it's no good being able to kill the enemy, if the walls are left standing).

I rather think I've said too much, but I do like my siege weapons...

[cruix]

Onagers are great for offensive battles. I am under the impression that if you aim them to the enemy flanks, they tend to mass in the centre. THEN you aim at the centre, thus buying time for that cavalry to flank and you main line to approach with those deadly archers. Anyone else tried this?

intersting, must look into this further.

[Gaius Magnus]

I have found Onagers to be highly effective in attacks. They are also effective in defense, but not nearly as effective as attacks. Usually, the enemy rushes in when I am defending, which doesn't leave as much time to hit them with the onagers.

But I will say without a doubt, they are one of the most useful units I use.

Also, it is not a 5% chance that you will kill the enemy general. If you have 2 or 3 Onagers and you target the enemy general unit, you have a VERY good chance of killing him. Hell, you have a very good chance of killing off his entire unit! I have not encountered many problems with the Onagers taking up 2 or 3 unit cards. Sure, I have lost once or twice while using onagers, but generally it is against armies where each unit has much more experience than mine. And I believe they were battles where I was defending, which makes the Onagers less useful (though by no means a complete liability).

I used to use flaming pots when attacking troops, but I have switched back to solid shot. I did this because the shot hops once or twice after it hits and the pots just hit one spot.

I guess I could set up some custom battles and try over and over and over just to see which is more effective against troops, but I am too busy with my Brutii campaign (hard/hard).

[pezhetairoi]

My battles rely on either speed, or staying power, or a combination of both. Onagers fail to fulfill either criterion since they are bloody slow and will crash out the instant they come under counterbattery fire, and are wildly inaccurate. So I don't ever factor them in, except when assaulting. As it is I conquer most of the world before I even build a single catapult range, so onagers to me are dispensable.

[Gaius Magnus]

They are pretty accurate if they have a little experience, especially considering that they are generally being aimed at a large mass of troops. Trained in a province with +3 or more experience bonus, they are quite the handy tool indeed.

I have had one Onager in a single unit destroyed by enemy Onagers. I quickly destroyed the enemy Onagers before they were able to destroy another of mine. :)

3 Onager units with 3 Archer Auxilia can rout an enemy army before they even have a chance to reach your lines. Don't forget to bring along some cavalry to mop up the whole mess at the end.

[vale]

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]

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.

[bubbanator]

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.

I agree, does anyone know the file where I can change the movement points?

I also agree with you on the fact that their low movement points outweighs their tactical abilities. I only use them in a few circumstances. A) defending bridges. B) when I am attacking a city that has a large army close by. By having onagers with me, i can bypass the senate army and take Rome when there are very few troops there (then there is just that large army of rebels that you have to worry about)

[vastator]

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.

Spot on! What really bugs me is that loading a couple of scorpions onto a ship slows it down, but a herd of elephants doesn't! I asked one of the mods if there was a way of negating this penalty, but he reckons it's hardcoded.

[pezhetairoi]

Ya! The hardcoded unit stereotypes (inf/cav/siege) are too...stereotypical. Some siege weapons can move around just as well as infantry can.

Y'know, the Napoleonix (that was a typo that I will not erase. As you can see Bartix is getting to me) era saw horse-drawn artillery... if only we could have horse-drawn ballistae... that would truly be a mobile force!

[Norxis]

The simple fact is, and I'm glad that most people agree with me, siege weapons are fun! Normal battles pre-siege weapons are pretty easy and lets face it, you really don't need those extra 2 units that you can give to onagers, cause your going to beat the enemy in battle anyway. If you can get your best armies to rampage non-stop through enemy territory (ie., march up to a city, breach walls, take it), no complaints here. Especially for those boring battles with only wooden walls, battering rams are annoying, is it just me or does anyone else find those battles more annoying than fun? Stone wall battles are sooooo much better!

And if nothing else, as other people have said, do it in honour of the Romans, the forerunners in siege engineering! And because its fun, which is the reason why we're playing the game in the first place!

[Mahrabals apprentice]

forerunners?

They just took greek technology and perfected it.

The fore runners were the assyrians, they were the first be be able to take walled cities by force

[eastsidehighrise]

i can only assume that a couple onagers can cause some serious damage - when you're defending one end of a bridge and the enemy potentially have hundreds of men crammed on the bridge. sitting targets

[Ciaran]

I like Onagers, each of my armies has at least two of them and I like to shoot them dry before closing in. Against highly mobile units like cavalry or chariots they aren´t that effective, that´s true, but they can reduce tightly packed infantry formations quite nicely. More often than not they won my day.
They´re especially nice if a lot of enemy units sit in a fort, all cramped up in the (relatively) tiny space. In that situation, they often leave next to no work for the infantry.

[vastator]

I just watched a prog called "Ancient Discoveries" on UKTV History, and it was amazing. I knew the Greeks had wheeled flamethrowers for use in sieges, but it's possible that they also had hand-held versions that worked like a flit gun - perfect for city assaults.

Apparently the largest standard missile fired by Roman ballistae weighed close to 60 pounds, but some custom-built models fired 180 pounders. These monsters stood around 40 feet high and made an onager look puny!

They also demonstrated the scorpion and the later cheiroballistra. The scorpion had a missile velocity of around 39 m/s, and the cheiroballistra could manage over 50 m/s. Interestingly, Roman lorica segmentata could deflect the bolts, although they were capable of pinning a mail-clad warrior to a tree.

Personally, I've increased the number of ballistae/scorpions per unit to three (I think RTR uses four) to give them more firepower on the battlefiled. I may push scorpions up to four, but that will mean increasing the unit cost.

[Viking]

I always make sure to have some Onagers in my army, because of the fun to watch burning soldiers fly and to kill the enemy general easy if I should feel for it.

[Zenicetus]

I always have two artillery units with me just because it's a fun unit to use. I could win most battles with an 18 slot army, so I don't feel like I'm giving anything up.

WRT the slower movement speed on the strategy map... it gives me the flexibility to take a smaller town or fort on the same turn, instead of waiting to build seiege equipment. So it balances out. Mainly I just like blowing up stuff.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

Personally, I've increased the number of ballistae/scorpions per unit to three (I think RTR uses four) to give them more firepower on the battlefiled. I may push scorpions up to four, but that will mean increasing the unit cost.

And how do i do that? A doubling of firepower may convince me to give artillary a second chance

[nanoboy]

I've noticed that except for the AI's ridiculous tendency to sit there and take it when defending, siege weaponry is mostly superfluous on the field. They'll do damage, and they'll wear down morale, but they are not cost-effective as field weapons. One notable exception is the bridge battle, of course, and that using siege weapons during one is a simple pleasure. Still, those are few and far between.

One note on scorpions, though: they're actually useful in attacking stone-walled cities. They do a helpful job of removing defenders from the walls prior to using siege towers or moving in past archers.

[Emit_Flesti]

I always have two artillery units with me just because it's a fun unit to use. I could win most battles with an 18 slot army, so I don't feel like I'm giving anything up.

WRT the slower movement speed on the strategy map... it gives me the flexibility to take a smaller town or fort on the same turn, instead of waiting to build seiege equipment. So it balances out. Mainly I just like blowing up stuff.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Productivity]

I tried a brief experiment with seige weaponary, i tried them in a battle where i thought they would excel

I fought a defensive bridge custom battle against the geramns, and i gave them 50% points than i had (give them a little chance).

My army was 3 units of triarii, 1 first legionary cohort, 4 auxilia archers, 6 repeating ballistas, 4 onagers and 2 heavy onagers.

Long story short, the top killers where the archers

The artillery did kill a lot of germans, unfortunatley as the germans advanced i had some firendlty fire problems, and a charcoal general

i said earlier in this thread, and still think, that i would rather have a unit of archers than any artillery unit in a non-seige battle

That's the worst battle for repeating ballistas (or ballistas and scorpions for that matter). They can't differentiate targets on bridges because it is so crowded. Repeatign ballistas are good for killing two hit point units, or ultra high armour units, things which archers struggle with. Fire them into low-medium quality/cost units and they are never going to be cost effective. Fire them into high quality/high cost units and they will be worth it.

[Conqueror]

The art of using onagers