Why do... (missiles kill more than artillery)

[mor dan]

regular bowmen or crossbowmen cause more casualties than advanced siege equipment?with heavily armoured troops comprising a front line, i tested 4 pavaise crossbow units along with 3 ribaults, and the ribaults did a little more than half damage. their fire rate doesn't seem to be too far apart. obviously they have a significantly higher damage rating, as well as the ability to take out a row of men rather than just one at a time.

i started the battle as close to the begin line as possible to ensure their army wouldn't have already spread formation, so i could get max casualties, but the Crossbows were still heavily more efficient. the ribaults caused little fear among the charging armies.

[econ21]

Please try to use more descriptive thread titles so people can choose whether they want to read it - "Why do..." is just uninformative.

[Musashi]

120 crossbow bolts > 36 ribault shots.

[Zanshin]

The benefits of artillery are not killing speed but range and damage to structures.

It's like comparing a cavalry unit to a ram.

[mor dan]

ribaults are called long range, yet they kick in later than Crossbows or longbows. so that kinda refutes "longer range".

they are rated 63 power and 5 against buildings, so they aren't meant to damage buildings. they are meant to kill massive amounts of troops in a bottleneck situation.

we aren't comparing bows and such to canons. we're comparing them to the earliest versions of a gatling gun. i don't expect the ribault to have a higher accuracy rating over long range. i do expect it to kill faster when it hits, and when a line is formed directly in front of it, yes, the accuracy should be so high based on the wide range in which it can fire and hit a target.

i'm not comparing battering rams to cavalry as i wouldn't expect cavalry to take down a wall or a battering ram to damage enemy units. i am asking why one ranged unit that is considered advanced technology is worse than the older technology. these techs wouldn't have been introduced to the battlefield if they were...

A) wholly inefficient, causing little or no damage to either numbers or morale

or

B) wholly ineffective, doing little damage in numbers or morale when it actually strikes.

why would you waste men and training on technology that in no way helps? units that line up in front of a ribault should be mowed down like my grass in the summertime. especially at a range of less than 30m. seeing enemy siege weapons meant for subduing your infantry and cavalry should automatically cause a change in tactics in open field combat, not a charge into it. a 60 man unit charging closed formation into a ribalut should sustain heavy casualties. the fact is, they don't. this makes the siege weapon useless by comparison, so why would you bother building one?


my apologies for not being more descriptive in the title. i was asking a question, and the title suggested that. i will be more complete in the future.

[Oaty]

Ribaults are quite a morale killer IMO. The thing you have to remember is that custom battles uses multiplayer stats and is not always comparable to what you run into in a campaign. Also try using 1 unit of archers to compliment the ribaults. Archers will cause an extra morale hit. Also in the campaign, a general usually leads the human army, throw in there experience on top of that and you have some very accurate ribaults.

[mor dan]

i was using a general unit along with them, parked right near the ribaults. the stats i've listed in here are based on the stats given in the custom battle. but if what you say is true, then none of the tests run in custom mode are effective measurements of the combat ability of units.