dropping rocks...ridiculous things in battle

[matteus the inbred]

While we are on the subject: is there any one that uses trebuchets/mangonels? I find them far less useful than catapults.

well, naturally I use them!! catapults are fine for battles; they're fairly cheap, they have enough range, decent accuracy if their total valour is about 3 or more, and i don't think the bigger siege weapons do more damage against troops. ballistas are rubbish, period.
the bigger ones are siege weapons only, really...they can't turn, they use more crew. but, they can chuck stuff at walls from further away than the defenders can fire, even if they are pretty inaccurate. i usually hire them as mercs anyway, can't be bothered to tech up to them. i did once field 4 or 5 trebs against someone in VI, but catapults would have done just as well.

as a postscriptum to this, i think bridge battles are the siege weapon's best battlefield opportunity. whether in attack or defence, you are essentially firing at an enemy who can't manouevre out of your fire arc and will probably be deployed in depth. i have caused very heavy casualties with just one low valour siege weapon, and the psychological factor is so important in bridge battles. i usually keep a couple of catapults in provinces where i can defend rivers.

[The Darkhorn]

as a postscriptum to this, i think bridge battles are the siege weapon's best battlefield opportunity. whether in attack or defence, you are essentially firing at an enemy who can't manouevre out of your fire arc and will probably be deployed in depth. i have caused very heavy casualties with just one low valour siege weapon, and the psychological factor is so important in bridge battles. i usually keep a couple of catapults in provinces where i can defend rivers.

An excellent observation. The AI often bunches up it's units in a bridge assault, at least it's melee ones. Catapults cause viele carnage firing into the circus on the other side of the bridge. Then you have men and horse scattering in all directions and general chaos and mayhem.

[matteus the inbred]

ah, with one proviso...keep re-targetting your artillery onto units crossing the bridge or waiting to cross, or they might start dropping stuff onto your guys!

even ballistas are worth using here, as they really can't miss, but it's better to bring crossbows and archers. haven't tried naphtha guys yet, i suspect the dangers of dropping it on your own troops when you absolutely cannot afford for them to run away make naphtha a very bad idea...!

i'm tempted to try it though, because i like a laugh as much as anyone.

[The Darkhorn]

ah, with one proviso...keep re-targetting your artillery onto units crossing the bridge or waiting to cross, or they might start dropping stuff onto your guys!

even ballistas are worth using here, as they really can't miss, but it's better to bring crossbows and archers. haven't tried naphtha guys yet, i suspect the dangers of dropping it on your own troops when you absolutely cannot afford for them to run away make naphtha a very bad idea...!

i'm tempted to try it though, because i like a laugh as much as anyone.

Naturally that's what I meant. Thanks for making it clear for others. You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic Matt. I wouldn't recommend trying to throw the grenades over your troops' heads as half of it will end up on their heads!!

[Martok]

Naturally that's what I meant. Thanks for making it clear for others. You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic Matt. I wouldn't recommend trying to throw the grenades over your troops' heads as half of it will end up on their heads!!

Naptha catapults are fun.

[Roark]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

[antisocialmunky]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

Americanism alert! I've heard they were pretty good in the sack, but that's ridiculous.

Any word on the best gunpower unit?

[Cowhead418]

This isn't about siege weapons, but I just had a pretty strange thing happen in my most recent battle. The Almohads had invaded Morocco with about 1400 troops against my 1200 (Portuguese). Right at the start of the battle I noticed on the map with the kill bar the orange dots approaching but there was also an orange dot moving away from my army. It was flashing white so I knew it was the enemy general.

After I had engaged the enemy I looked around for the enemy general because I always look to kill him as soon as possible. He was nowhere to be found and I remembered that he withdrew right at the start of the battle. Without leadership, the enemy army quickly routed off the field. The enemy reinforcements consisted of mostly medium cavalry but they fled right as they appeared instead of fighting. Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?

[Roark]

Americanism alert! I've heard they were pretty good in the sack, but that's ridiculous.

Any word on the best gunpower unit?

Americanism?



As far as gunpowder is concerned, Serpentines vaporise personnel. Period. Otherwise, I use anything that can swivel, but with less success.

[matteus the inbred]

You might like to try a couple of Naptha catapults for this tactic

how evil. i like your style, sir!

Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?

bizarre. check his V&Vs and see if he's got 'screaming girlyman coward' or something...

[Mr White]

I've also experienced the AI immediatly withdrawing his general. It was a unit of urban militia. He fielded a small low quality army with quite a lot of siege engines. I was aided by my allie the Germans (I was the English).
I found it a sensible decision as the AI army (rebels or French) was inferior in quality and quantity. It had no hope of winning the battle so it saved what was woth to be saved ( in its opinion). I wasn't able to catch up with the general as my speedy cavalry first dealt with the artilery.

[Ironside]

Why would the AI withdraw their general immediately? What purpose could it possibly serve?

Often when the general is reduced to a 1 man unit (usually because old unupgraded troops will act as reinforments to the better units), he'll withdraw immidiatly. Trust me, when facing a 9 star general, with morale bonuses, leading 3000 men, it starts to make a whole lot more sence.

I looked around for the enemy general because I always look to kill him as soon as possible

Hard to kill them if they isn't there.

A withdrawn general still give the command bonus and doesn't give the -2 in morale the dead general gives

[antisocialmunky]

Often they get a vice: 'Eager to Withdraw' that gives a morale penalty.

[The Darkhorn]

A withdrawn general still give the command bonus and doesn't give the -2 in morale the dead general gives

And yet, if I withdraw my general, the battle is instantly and automatically lost, but not if he routs.

[hlawrenc]

I use catapults when defending, mainly for the morale penalty it applies to the enemy.

As someone already said, there's something really satisfying about sitting on a hill and squashing people before they can put a bolt into your vanguard units.

My high valour catapults can usually knock up around 30-35 kills before I withdraw them to make room for reinforcement archers.

This has been a very timely thread for me. Recently playing Byz, had invaded Almonds in Tunisa. Almonds set up on one ridge with 4 catapults, I was on another ridge with a big valley in between trying to figure out the least costly way to hit them (wasn't relishing the idea of uphill attack since we were basically even). BUT my friends the Spanish from adjacent province dropped in to help. While I was sitting on my ridge pondering, the Spanish made headlong charge down my ridge, through my troops calling them all sorts of insulting names for not joining in on the attack, into the valley and straight up the hill at the Almonds. Those 4 catapults opened up before the Spanish got out of the valley and received notice their king was killed by big rock well before they even got into Muslim archery range. Despite the loss of the king an a lot of troops the Spanish still routed the Almonds first wave and while chasing the routers I promptly occupied the now vacent ridge. The Spanish, exhausted, were subsequently routed by Almonds second wave, but being fresh, my Byz handled the oncoming Almond reinforcements easily without having to worry about attacking up the hill or facing any catapults.

I wanted to try out some tactics on attacking hills so reloaded the battle 3 more times, each time Spanish charge headlong and each time Spanish Allied King dead by rock in opening minutes. Made a believer out of me. I pack a couple of catapults in every province now that I expect to have to defend.

I have stayed away from artillery (hate to admit it being an old cannon cocker) in MTV because lack of mobility, mainly only used for siege, but now after my experience in Tunisa and this thread I am building artillery much earlier than I have in the past. Thanks to all of you veterans for sharing experiences.

While I see the value of some catapults now for defensive battles, does anyone ever try to use them in attacks? Can't see how they would help unless you lured the enemy to attack you. Also may have missed it in the responses but how can you improve the accuracy of your catapults?

[matteus the inbred]

While I see the value of some catapults now for defensive battles, does anyone ever try to use them in attacks? Can't see how they would help unless you lured the enemy to attack you. Also may have missed it in the responses but how can you improve the accuracy of your catapults?

probably a waste of time in offensive battles as you have to set them up before you start and you can't then move them or bring them on as reinforcements. i have had them in attacks where i know i'm going to win and i want to besiege the enemy quickly, but they did very little. the AI usually moves out of the way, although there's a tiny chance your artillery can therefore force them to abandon a good position. the exception to this is obviously bridge battles. if you want to know which provinces are likely to include bridge battles, there's a list in the Guides section (probably frogbeastegg's Unit Guide).

accuracy can only be improved by increased valour, i think. your general's valour helps, but apparently actual unit valour is better. i'll have to check this though. resign yourself to the fact that artillery is generally quite inaccurate. try and deploy on raised ground, and try and aim for the frontmost enemy units in the centre of their army as this can improve the likelihood of stray shots hitting something of theirs, if not the original target.
unless you're aiming for the enemy General! if you haven't killed him inside four shots, get stroppy...

[Ludens]

accuracy can only be improved by increased valour, i think. your general's valour helps, but apparently actual unit valour is better.

Valour indeed helps accuracy, but general's valour is no worse than unit valour for this (though unit valour gives a morale bonus and doesn't disappear when the general dies). However, I try not to use them in field battles, as I consider it cheesy. My first act in battles where I have them is to withdraw them. If the enemy has them, they are the first target of my cavalry.

[Roark]

Luden: Do you mean "cheesy" as in: exploiting the weaknesses of the game?

Coz, catapults and their crews can be the biggest waste of space on the battlefield at 0-3 valour...

[Martok]

Valour indeed helps accuracy, but general's valour is no worse than unit valour for this (though unit valour gives a morale bonus and doesn't disappear when the general dies). However, I try not to use them in field battles, as I consider it cheesy. My first act in battles where I have them is to withdraw them. If the enemy has them, they are the first target of my cavalry.

Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree that using artillery in defensive battles is "cheesy", although I understand where you're coming from. I do think it depends a little on the context. Here's how I look at it: I don't deliberately build and deploy artillery to provinces where I expect to fight a lot of defensive battles, as I agree that would be deliberately exploiting a loophole. However, if I wind up fighting a defensive battle where my army simply happens to have artillery crews along with....then yes, you can bet I'm going to put them to good use.

To take an example: When playing as the Spanish, I do what most MTW players do--I take Aragon and Navarre to seal off my northern border against the French. Once that's done, I then turn south and go after the Almohads. (Yes, I know a lot of players go after the Almos first and *then* take Navarre and Aragon, but my point still holds.) Now given that I play Medieval with the XL Mod installed, that means just about every province has a castle of some kind; and that therefore my main Southern army almost always has a good number of artillery pieces (usually half a dozen or so).

Now I don't keep catapults stationed in Aragon and Navarre (unless they've happened to just build one), as they're both chokepoint provinces that I know the French will want to attack if given the chance. On the other hand, however, should the Almos counterattack my army in the south (which they sometimes do), then I'm certainly not going to stop my artillery crews from having their fun chucking rocks at the advancing enemy!

[Roark]

I'm deeply confused...

What exactly is the "loophole" that is taken advantage of by deliberately packing catapults for defensive battles, thereby making it a "cheese" tactic?

You'd be lucky to squish 10 attackers at 0-3 valour. A unit of archers could take out many more.

[Martok]

I'm deeply confused...

What exactly is the "loophole" that is taken advantage of by deliberately packing catapults for defensive battles, thereby making it a "cheese" tactic?

You'd be lucky to squish 10 attackers at 0-3 valour. A unit of archers could take out many more.

Yes, that's true. However, of those 10 guys the catapult kills, one of them is very likely going to be the enemy general....and a dead general of course makes it a heck of a lot easier to route your opponent off the battle map. I think we've pretty firmly established that in general, artillery pieces are a little too good at targeting and killing army commanders. Whether CA deliberately programmed artillery to behave this way, or if it was just a minor bug that was missed, is irrelavent at this point. Given that the accuracy of artillery crews generally leaves a *lot* to be desired (as other have said, you're lucky if you manage to hit the same wall section two times in a row!), it's very unlikely that they could manage to kill generals with such uncanny consistency.

So if you deliberately employ artillery in your defensive armies knowing that they make good "general-killers" (which is certainly not historically accurate!), you're exploiting a loophole in the game. And that makes it a "cheese" tactic.

By the way, I just want to emphasize I am in no way criticizing players who like to use artillery in defensive battles. My opinion is that you should play the game in the way that's most enjoyable to you. (And besides, it's not like I don't understand the appeal. ) I'm just saying that for myself, any victory where I win because of a cheese tactic (running out the clock would be another one), simply doesn't feel like a real victory for me. I like to win and lose battles on my *own* merits, not because I managed to exploit some small flaw in the game that the programmers missed.

[Subedei]

Catapults are really good for general/king killing as the rocks seem magnetically attracted to them.

Yeah, that is right...2 5-9 star Generals, a few Golden Bands and 2-7 Catapults on the bridges over Nile & that is it....I am playing Carthage & hold Egypt vs. gigantic Egyptian Armies trying to come back 2 their birthplaces...and I don't know how many Generals of the Pharao were killed by a flying, burning mass doping on his chariot.

Well, a few Golden Band Infantry men were hit by these too...sadly enough....

[The Darkhorn]

You know, I have never had artillery kill a general. Maybe I don't have the same bug. Actually it's cause I rarely target the general, preferring instead to fire at the second unit in a bunch of units. A short bounce hits the first one. If it's on target or goes long, it hits the others. I did after reading this thread target a general in one of my last battles with a 5 valour catapult. Nothing. Just some casualties (it was an anglican jinette).

[Odin]

So if you deliberately employ artillery in your defensive armies knowing that they make good "general-killers" (which is certainly not historically accurate!), you're exploiting a loophole in the game. And that makes it a "cheese" tactic.

I agree with this statement 100%, however in my usage with catapults in defensive battles I havent seen a high percentage of generals killed. I do notice that when the AI is forming its advance a lot of the units intermingle to gain thier position within the formation. I suppose in that situation its logical to assume that rocks tossed have a higher chance of hitting a general.

[Ludens]

Luden: Do you mean "cheesy" as in: exploiting the weaknesses of the game?

I mean that with a catapult I can usually kill the enemy general plus a couple of powerful troops that are pretty much invulnerable to archers, whereas if the A.I. brings them he usually won't be able to hit anything with it. I used to be quite fond of them (still am, I hate having to starve a castle garison out, so I always bring at least two of them), but then I realized how handicapped the A.I. was by it's inability to respond to them. It also isn't historically accurate to use pre-gunpowder artillery on the battlefield (with the exception of ballista) anyway, so I just withdraw the crews as soon as the battle starts.

By the way, I just want to emphasize I am in no way criticizing players who like to use artillery in defensive battles. My opinion is simply that you should play the game in the way that's most enjoyable to you. (And besides, it's not like I don't understand the appeal! ) I'm just saying that for myself, any victory where I win because of a cheese tactic (running out the clock would be another one), simply doesn't feel like a real victory for me. I like to win and lose battles on my *own* merits, not because I managed to exploit some small flaw in the game that the programmers missed.

My sentiments exactly. It's not as if it is a major exploit anyway, but I think catapults make the game just a little too easy.

[matteus the inbred]

It also isn't historically accurate to use pre-gunpowder artillery on the battlefield (with the exception of ballista)

this is sadly true...none of us should be using anything much really! the standard use of torsion or counterweight artillery seems to have gone out with the decline of the Romans, except in sieges, when even then it seems to have been fairly novel to use anything except battering rams and scaling ladders (which you can't use in MTW...!).

i agree that's it's a bit cheesy in this sense...it's good fun to have a couple, but i think taking more than that is not just cheesy but also tactically inadvisable...you could field hundreds of troops instead of 4 catapults, which could make all the difference.

i've got no problem with using loads of them in sieges though. that's what they're there for, and i'd rather use them than lose hundreds of men storming the place. the AI still has a response; apart from the largest types of siege weapon, catapults often get shot up by decent sized castles anyway, and i've even had the AI deploy outside of castles and try flanking me.

basically though, it's all about having fun, and i find catapults amusing to use in moderation.

[Roark]

Well, I've been playing for about a year, and I've only ever killed a general with artillery once, so I guess I just don't consider it exploitation.

[antisocialmunky]

Well this game isn't about historical correctness, its about playing a historic game... You shouldn't shoot for realism.

[Lanemerkel1]

the entire game is "Historically Inaccurate"



would you please tell me when the Vikings conquered all of england? or when the Byzantines conquered all of Europe? oh that's right IT DIDN'T HAPPEN the whole point of the game is pretty much to see how many possible outcomes of medieval europe you can get, historically, pretty much all of europe stayed the same, if anything (except for Russia and the Ottoman Empire) they all lost territory instead of gained it.


pretty much the name of the game is seeing if you can beat out the kings/generals of the medieval age

[Mr White]

It should not be a game that is historically correct but it should aim for a game in a historically correct situation. Meaning that the outcome doesn't matter (not much fun if you allready know how it'll end) but the means should be as historically correct as possible.