Something I'm pretty proud of

**Zarax** · 09-16-2005, 11:48

Yeah! I made my first assault above fort level without losses!

**Grey_Fox** · 09-16-2005, 13:19

Was it a peasant that was defending?

**Zarax** · 09-16-2005, 13:31

No, they were mostly slav warriors and javs plus a few bulgarian bingands and a couple RK...

Basically the most important factor is that my cannons pretty much annihilated the castle defences, so that there was little arrow fire against my heavy armoured assault troops.

**ToranagaSama** · 09-16-2005, 15:20

I believe you've hit upon a new flavor of CHEESE: Cannon, a little strong than Gouda....

;) ;)

**Zarax** · 09-16-2005, 15:25

I agree, massive cannon barrages are quite cheesy against the AI, which balks instead of charging at full speed against it...

That said, it's quite funny see a castle reduced to rubble in a few minutes

I suspect MTW gunpodwer artillery is quite overpowered compared to their real counterparts...

**Budwise** · 09-16-2005, 20:36

Originally Posted by Zarax

I agree, massive cannon barrages are quite cheesy against the AI, which balks instead of charging at full speed against it...

That said, it's quite funny see a castle reduced to rubble in a few minutes

I suspect MTW gunpodwer artillery is quite overpowered compared to their real counterparts...

I don't think so. In real life, you would use maybe a hundred cannons to hit a well defended castle like this. But here, you can only get up to 16. They have to balance it out somehow.

**phred** · 09-16-2005, 23:31

Originally Posted by Budwise

I don't think so. In real life, you would use maybe a hundred cannons to hit a well defended castle like this. But here, you can only get up to 16. They have to balance it out somehow.

Could any one nation actually field 100 cannons back then? The Turks only had 3 to take Constantinople and that was in 1453.

**Zarax** · 09-17-2005, 00:02

Actually, one cannon was enough to siege a city, the problem is that in the real word took months or weeks at best rather than minutes...

**Mithrandir** · 09-17-2005, 14:23

Originally Posted by phred

Could any one nation actually field 100 cannons back then? The Turks only had 3 to take Constantinople and that was in 1453.

Add the fact that when you take that into account, you also have to have thousands of "normal" troops as well.

MTW battles are a summary or real ones :).

**Budwise** · 09-17-2005, 18:55

Originally Posted by phred

Could any one nation actually field 100 cannons back then? The Turks only had 3 to take Constantinople and that was in 1453.

Honestly, I don't see a hundred cannons with an army the size of the one that sacked Constanople unreasonable. I know they did it with a lot less but it was possible. Hell, I would have been scared out of my mind to watch my city go down like that.

Sure, as an afterthought a hundred seems a little extreme, but not thirty.

**ajaxfetish** · 09-17-2005, 20:22

Gunpowder weapons were very expensive in the late middle ages. There were the costs to design and produce them, to maintain and transport them, and to pay skilled engineers to man them.

The French under King Charles VII developed the finest siege train of the age and used it to drive the English off their soil by quickly (in a relative sense) bringing down all English-held strongholds within France. Harfleur, made famous in Shakespeare's Henry V surrendered after 17 days of bombardment just 4 years before the game ends. Charles was able to employ 16 guns in that siege. During the siege of Constantinople, already mentioned, the Sultan had to hire Christians specialists to man his guns because of the level of expertise required.

Employing up to 16 guns in a single siege seems a reasonable, if not excessive, comparison to the historical reality of late medieval gunpowder sieges.