Possibbile Ribualt/Monster Ribualt bug?

[Carl]

I don't really know if this is a bug, but it looks like it might be one all things considered.

The possible bug? Ribualts have bp (Body-Piercing), listed as one of their weapon attributes in the EDU file. However for it to fully work, the projectile in the Descr_Projectile file must ALSO have bp listed as an attribute. The projectiles for Ribualts/Monster ribualts do not have this.

The real question is: Is this actually a bug?

Their are two arguments here:

1. Ribualts/Monster Ribualts are extremely poor anti-infantry weapons when you consider their advertised role, (specelists anti-unit artillery), as things stand, about a 100 kills with all ammo expanded is norm for me with Monster Ribualts on Small unit sizes.

2. Ribualts/Monster Ribualts with bp are perhaps just a Little TOO good, with average kills now being in the 200-3900 region, raising to almost 700 in 1 volley in a worst case scenario seige situation. (20 units lined up 4 ranks deep one behind the other with the Monster Ribualt firing through the lot, so 80 kills per hit average). My biggest worry however would be bridge battles with say 7v1. in those situations it could be quite easy to get 10,000 men packed on top the bridge, a single volley of Monster Ribualt fire from 4 units would clear almost the entire bridge, end to end, that many routing units would then kill everyone else morale and mass rout the entire enemy force, when coupled with a few culverins for softening up and Ribualts for aid at really short ranges it would be possible to build a mostly artillery half stack that would be able to rip apart 7 full stacks of the best melee infantry in existence. Thats a pretty bad situation, and worries me somewhat.


However, I'd like others opinions, (particularly of those able to run the bridge battle i mentioned or test full stack armies on Huge, as at small size they have an advantage as they don't get any extra engines as unit size increases, and I can't run above 3000 men total).

Does anyone else feel it's a bug, and is the cure worse than the problem?

[TevashSzat]

I would probably say that ribaults are fine the way they are right now. They are pretty powerful against infantry, but if you are playing on small unit sizes it might be hard to notice. They are more effective at larger sizes since there is less chance that some of the projectiles will miss due to the larger target. Dont include bp though since it would be way too powerful. I have played 7v1 against medium ai bridge battles. Even now, ribaults just wreak havoc on the crazy numbers of infantry on the bridge and kill easily get 500 kills on large

[Carl]

Even now, ribaults just wreak havoc on the crazy numbers of infantry on the bridge and kill easily get 500 kills on large

It sounds to me like I may have a borked Descr_projectile file to begin with here guys.

I say that because without bp a missile weapons maximum possible number of kills is limited to the total number of shots it fires, Ribaults only have 108 shots per engine (or 216 for a unit, as a unit has 2 engines). to get 500 kills you HAVE to have bp on, can also tell you that even with exhausted ammo I've NEVER seen more than 100 kills from Ribaults, even in bridge battles with pretty dense packing. On the other hand, further tests have shown that Monster Ribualts (even with bp in the Descr_projectile file), tend to run out of ammo at about 500 kills. This sounds really weird guy.

Random question Xdeathfire: Are you running with an unpacked Descr_Projectile file, or have you deleted the files you aren't using? It could be that the bp in the EDU overrides the Descr_Projectile file if it's reading it from the data packs, but not when reading from the unpacked files.

This is puzzling me, what kind of kill totals is everyone else getting with Ribualts/Monster Ribualts in vanilla as I'm struggling to top 100, (p.s. Ribualts have fixed accuracy, unit size/range has no effect on how many hit, trust me, I've tested with other units).

[pike master]

ribaults are supposed to use javelin like bolts but when freezing the gameplay they look like cannon balls.

but they are supposed to be similiar to what edward 3 used at crecy. those fired javelin sized bolts. so they should be able to penetrate multiple targets like a ballista.

i see what you mean now. ca needs to fix that so it will be in agreement with the unit card description. so it would be a bug.

[JCoyote]

Not all organ guns fired bolts, many fired balls later on. But really, they weren't just a bunch of musket barrels tied together (like some 19th century guns). They were light cannon barrels. Probably something like 1 pounders. Still, in any case, they should be going through more than one person.

I think the issue is the reload time should be longer. But that presents a problem... the game engine always loads then fires. But firearms and crossbows should fire then load. If the weapon fired then loaded, it would be feasible to make the reload time appropriately prolonged and balanced. But right now making the load time any longer would make the weapon almost useless.

But I do think the shots should be going through more than one target. Attacking a ribault head on in range should be suicide. The best approach should be to have to shoot it down from outside its range with other artie, or swarm it while it reloads.

Thinking about it, a decent solution might be actually tightening its shot pattern. It seems a bit wide, and in field battles where there aren't deep columns it would really limit the usefulness.

[TevashSzat]

Ill try to do a 7v1 bridge battle and post the battle statistics after it

[zarker]

i haven't a clue whats being said here guys - but these rebault with hp things sound awesome

How do i get some? :)

[Carl]

Ill try to do a 7v1 bridge battle and post the battle statistics after it

Thanks.

i see what you mean now. ca needs to fix that so it will be in agreement with the unit card description. so it would be a bug.

hat was kind of my Point, the Descr_Projectile and EDU files don't match up on weather it should be bp or not, theirs clearly some kind of bug going on.

My real concern was weather it would be balanced with bp enabled. Based on the figures i'm getting and what others are getting with defualt Ribualts it looks like theirs an issue with my Descr_Projectile file, allthough others may well be suffering from it too. It's my geuss that it stems from running an unpacked Decr_Projectile file.

i haven't a clue whats being said here guys - but these rebault with hp things sound awesome

How do i get some? :)

You'll need to follow the Unpacker readme to set up a working modding system and have unpacked files.

Then find the Decr_projectile file and open it, then find these lines:

;*********************************************

projectile ribault_shot

effect 					ribault_shot_set
end_effect				ground_impact_ribault_set
end_man_effect			man_impact_small_set
end_package_effect    	wall_impact_small_set
end_shatter_effect		ground_impact_ribault_set
end_shatter_man_effect		man_impact_small_set
end_shatter_package_effect		wall_impact_small_set

damage			5
damage_to_troops 10
radius			0.3
mass			0.1
area			1.0
accuracy_vs_units		0.04
accuracy_vs_buildings	0.0625
accuracy_vs_towers      0.025 
min_angle		-15
max_angle		30
velocity		90
ground_shatter
;bounce			0.01 0.01 0.93 0.5
display			aimed 
;effect_only
; Stuck model not used at the mo, shatter effect is better, but adding some shatter debris for ground impact would be good?
;stuck
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS, max,  max
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  40.0
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  80.0
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  max

;*********************************************

projectile monster_ribault_shot

effect 					monster_ribault_shot_set
end_effect				ground_impact_ribault_set
end_man_effect			man_impact_small_set
end_package_effect    	wall_impact_small_set
end_shatter_effect		ground_impact_ribault_set
end_shatter_man_effect		man_impact_small_set
end_shatter_package_effect		wall_impact_small_set

damage			5
damage_to_troops 5
radius			0.3
mass			0.1
area			1.0
accuracy_vs_units		0.040
accuracy_vs_buildings	0.0625
accuracy_vs_towers      0.025 
min_angle		-15
max_angle		30
velocity		90
;bounce			0.01 0.01 0.93 0.5
ground_shatter
display			aimed 
;effect_only
; Stuck model not used at the mo, shatter effect is better, but adding some shatter debris for ground impact would be good?
;stuck
effect_only

and replace them with:

;*********************************************

projectile ribault_shot

effect 					ribault_shot_set
end_effect				ground_impact_ribault_set
end_man_effect			man_impact_small_set
end_package_effect    	wall_impact_small_set
end_shatter_effect		ground_impact_ribault_set
end_shatter_man_effect		man_impact_small_set
end_shatter_package_effect		wall_impact_small_set

damage			5
damage_to_troops 10
radius			0.3
mass			0.1
area			1.0
accuracy_vs_units		0.04
accuracy_vs_buildings	0.0625
accuracy_vs_towers      0.025 
min_angle		-15
max_angle		30
velocity		90
ground_shatter
;bounce			0.01 0.01 0.93 0.5
body_piercing
display			aimed 
;effect_only
; Stuck model not used at the mo, shatter effect is better, but adding some shatter debris for ground impact would be good?
;stuck
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS, max,  max
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  40.0
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  80.0
model			data/models_effects/none.CAS,  max

;*********************************************

projectile monster_ribault_shot

effect 					monster_ribault_shot_set
end_effect				ground_impact_ribault_set
end_man_effect			man_impact_small_set
end_package_effect    	wall_impact_small_set
end_shatter_effect		ground_impact_ribault_set
end_shatter_man_effect		man_impact_small_set
end_shatter_package_effect		wall_impact_small_set

damage			5
damage_to_troops 5
radius			0.3
mass			0.1
area			1.0
accuracy_vs_units		0.040
accuracy_vs_buildings	0.0625
accuracy_vs_towers      0.025 
min_angle		-15
max_angle		30
velocity		90
;bounce			0.01 0.01 0.93 0.5
ground_shatter
body_piercing
display			aimed 
;effect_only
; Stuck model not used at the mo, shatter effect is better, but adding some shatter debris for ground impact would be good?
;stuck
effect_only

That should do it.



What kind of kill rates does everyone else get from their Ribualts then anyway? Is anyone else getting better than 200 kills reguarly?

[Foz]

Hmm... interesting discussion here. Has anyone actually stopped to make sure Carl's impression of bp is the right one though? It wouldn't make any sense at all for bp to be modelled such that a single shot could kill 80 or more men: physics dictates that the shot loses energy and velocity the more matter it passes through, meaning you probably couldn't make it kill more than maybe 5 men in a row. I also wouldn't assume that CA models bp as a strict "ignore any bodies and pass through" ability. Most games that I've seen model body piercing do so as merely a chance to pass through one target and continue into a presumable next target, not an automatic thing. The wording in the file is "bp = body piercing. Missile can pass through men and hit those behind." This doesn't really help make the distinction at all, as saying a missile "can" do something doesn't mean it necessarily always does. Granted it could be an automatic thing since it is applied exclusively to artillery, but it seems to me like a question worth considering in any case.

The only question is how the hell to figure out which way it is...

Also since I saw some discussion of shot pattern... does anyone know exactly how the projectile's accuracy entries affect outcomes? Do they represent percentages of success, or distances (maybe average miss amount?), or what? Note that I don't have the benefit of a projectile file in front of me ATM.

[Carl]

@Foz:

From what I can see a bp weapon will pass through EVERY man in it's path inflicting a hit as it goes, it then determines weather that hit kills or not. I've sen bp shots go through people and not kill them, but still hit the guy behind.

Since Ribualts have over 60 attack on each shot and AP it's a near 100% chance of a kill with every shot, so pretty much every hit is a kill. On the other hand, the velocity is so low that at maximum range it it's nearly at the floor, and 20 units 1 behind the other are only just in range. The shot spread also tend to hit the center of the unit more than the flanks of it, I've seen a ribualt, (with bp activated), rip the middle third of the unit to pieces and leave the third on either side fine.

Regarding shot pattern and fixed accuracy:

Fixed accuracy is exactly what it sounds like, as long as the shots don't hit the ground or another obstacle they can't pass through they will hit as often as the accuracy dictates, it is totally unaffected by range, thats why Musketeers are so insane against lose formation units of units at long range, with an accuracy of 93.5% they nearly never miss. they are also almost totally unique amongst units in having a fixed accuracy.

f a shot misses it will miss totally, it's specifically aimed too high/low. However lower accuracy values DO seem to result in more shot spread, although I'm not sure why.

2 possibilities:

1. Ribualts have very small elevation and depression angles, so it may be that it's often impossibbile for a shot to miss.

2. Having something less than 100% accuracy results in the shots spreading out side to side, the lower the accuracy, the more spread.

Two is the most likely IMHO, as the miss rate isn't high for Ribualts anyway, so the unable to miss probably doesn't apply as even a full volley of 72 shots from 2 Monster ribualts will only produce 3 misses.

[TevashSzat]

Carl, i believe you are right in your assesment on max kills of the ribaults.

In a 7v1 match, I used one of the bridge maps where there is a stone bridge and had medium ai. I was milan and had 6 monster ribaults as well as 6 halberd militia to hold the bridge in spear wall. Everything was at max upgrades. All 7 of my enemies had 20 units of peasants with no upgrades. What happened was that all of the peasants would cover the bridge and my ribaults started to fire. The rate of killing did not seem particularly impressive. After all of my ribaults ran out of ammo, i quit the battle and found that they all had around 120 kills. Did this 3 more times with more or less the same results.

Feeling that the monster ribaults were not firing from ideal distances and angles, i did another battle where i would have 20 units of peasants against an enemy with one fully upgraded monster ribault. I would put guard mode on my peasants and told all of them to form a dense block right in front of the enemy's monster ribault. After the enemy ran out of ammo, I consistently had about 140 deaths. With just normal ribaults, the kill count was lower at around 100 deaths.

I can conclude that one projectile from a ribault can only kill one person and as a result, they are not as awesome as people would previously think. There overall killing power is not particularly impressive and the only thing that good about them is that they seem to kill alot quicker and with more accuracy than other siege weapons. If I was to be in a bridge battle where there would be huge concentrations of troops, i would much rather to use siege weapons with area of effect damages such as the serpentine since they would be able to kill at least 50 units in an okay shot.

[Carl]

@Xdeathfire: thanks for that, thats was pretty much what I was getting TBH.

A minor point, I've never been able to get ammunition to bounce properly on a bridge, however flaming and exploding shot works well so, no issues.

As you say, their primary advantage seems to be in their ability to do their damage very quickly, Serpentines for example, when placed at the limits of range, are just as effective, but they take rather longer. Culverins and Basilisks are even more powerful, but again, rely on being placed well back. You can place a Ribualt well forward and be sure of it doing just s well, and in less time.

My biggest worries are:

A) It's supposed to be dedicated anti-unit artillery and isn't too good against building as far as I know.

B) if it is given bp it gets a bit crazy against units, 500 kills being easily possible before it runs out of ammo, more if the situation is right.



I'll let people test it and tell me what they think.

Here's a link for a modified Descr_Projectile file, it installs just like my ProblemFixer.

Tell me what you think and if people think it's OK in the altered form, then it's probably a case of a forgotten line in the file.

Either way I do think it needs reporting as the EDU and Projectile files are not matching up ATM, but which was intended I'm not sure.

[TevashSzat]

I fear that adding pure BP would be too much since it would kill too much units is a very short amount of time. Is it possible somehow to limit the penetration power of the projectiles so that it only pierces through 2 or 3 units and then stops at the next one? That way, you can get up to 360-480 kills with monster ribaults which i would say is much more reasonable.

I'll use your changes and see how the new system works.

[Carl]

Is it possible somehow to limit the penetration power of the projectiles so that it only pierces through 2 or 3 units and then stops at the next one? That way, you can get up to 360-480 kills with monster ribaults which i would say is much more reasonable.

You couldn't do it directly, but if you lowered the attack/accurracy you'd get much the same effect.

I'd like you to try the 7 on 1 bridge battle again as I just ran it (my PC can handle it really, it just crawls along at about 1/6th the normal pace and the camera is jerky, so it's a bit boring), and 5 Ribualts with 5 catapult behind them all set to fire at will bassicclly held of 7 full stacks, kills 6600 of them. All the Ribualts had about 700 kills, except for 2 that managed 1700 each!

Okay, as i noted before, the nature of bridge battles produces EXTREME bunching, probably why projectiles can't bounce on a bridge, and that defintlly favours the ribualts immenssly since every time they fired they tottally cleared the bridge from one end to the other with ease due to their abilitioy to go through so many ranks and the dense packing meant they could decimate an entire stack nearly every volley if enough units where on the bridge so it is somthing a a rigged test.


n the other hand, whilst it isn't really possibbile to get those kind of results outside bridge battles, it's a worrying statistic. I agree, that somthing need to be done to beef up Ribualts as they are pitiful all things considered ATM, but at the same time, with just bp added on they feel a bit too good.

[TevashSzat]

In your battles, are you positioning them at the mouth of the birdge or do u have pikemen holding the bridge while the ribaults fire from the sides

[Carl]

At the mouth of the bridge with the Catapults as close behind as I dare. Catapults where using flaming rocks and I did nothing except sit their with them on fire at will.

[TevashSzat]

That sounds better then with ribualts at the mouth of the bridge, but still i dont know about it. I can just picture armies made out of 10 ribault units just shreading any army without decent missle support. I'll make up my mide when i test out the changes out tomorrow i guess

[JCoyote]

Yeah I think this is a physics problem. BP is established as an all-or-nothing thing. It's too bad you couldn't model the projectile to have a reducing possibility of continuing on after each soldier it went through. So after going through 1 guy, it had a 100% chance of continuing, after 2 guys a 75% chance, 3 guys 50%, etc. That might be unnecessarily mathematic, but could allow for some flex in the performance... every once in a while little would happen, on rare occasions they'd be utterly devastating. But I don't see a way to do that with the engine...

The ribault projectiles should go through 3 or 4 people most times before stopping. I wonder if simply tripling the number of rounds fired each shot, and tripling the ammo supply as well, would make it more appropriately balanced without BP?

[TevashSzat]

The advantage of the ribault is not that it can do extremely crazy amounts of damage, it can be easily beaten by serpentines and good shots, but that it does so in a short amount of time. Increasing the ammo size will not affect it a large amount and thus will leave it just about at the same effectiveness

[Carl]

That sounds better then with ribualts at the mouth of the bridge, but still i dont know about it. I can just picture armies made out of 10 ribault units just shredding any army without decent missile support. I'll make up my mind when i test out the changes out tomorrow i guess

I wouldn't worry too much about Field battles, a ribualt in a Field battle can only shred some of he unit with each volley and will only get 2 volleys against anyone running across the gap. Monster Ribualts can almost do what you described by firing one ordinary volley followed by a barrage volley, but thats because they literally shred any units in front of them during barrage fire, which typically means a third of the enemy army.

The reason they are so insane in bridge battles is that they reload faster than the enemy units can run across the bridge, and anything on the bridge when they fire will lose 90% of it's men and rout, (if their are enough Ribualts set up anyway, you need at least 5), so until they run out of ammo it's impossibbile for any infantry to make it across, and even Cav have to be well timed. (Hence why i say it's a rigged test, anything with that many shots per volley that are bp would have the same effect). Fortunately, any unit with the "Long Range Missiles" tag out-ranges them by at least 5 point, throw cheap stuff at them to stop them moving up and you can shot them down, especially with Musketeers. Fire arrows are also good as they can burn the engines.

On the flip side, a good enfilade shot at the right moment on a flattish battlefield could easily decide a battle. Frankly, without more experience I've zero clue how much is TOO much unless it's blindingly obvious as it is in bridge battles.

The ribault projectiles should go through 3 or 4 people most times before stopping. I wonder if simply tripling the number of rounds fired each shot, and tripling the ammo supply as well, would make it more appropriately balanced without BP?

You can't increase the number of shots fired per volley unfortunately, or decrease the reload time. That would be the best answer.

[TevashSzat]

Carl, I have tried to use your change to the ribaults, but when i start with your shortcut, i get to the very first loading screen and a message box comes up saying that there was an unspecified error and i just exit the game. I can play vanilla M2TW fine though so what am i doing wrong?

[Carl]

The advantage of the ribault is not that it can do extremely crazy amounts of damage, it can be easily beaten by serpentines and good shots, but that it does so in a short amount of time. Increasing the ammo size will not affect it a large amount and thus will leave it just about at the same effectiveness

true enough, the issue is that all that doesn't really mean anything, all that matters in a battle is it's ability to do damage in total, if it had more range so it was doing damage for longer periods of time, it might be useful without bp. As it is their are plenty of other units that equal or outperform it overall against troops and are much better against buildings. The issue is that it might do damage quickly, but regardless of that, it's still outperformed overall by many other units. Considering it's supposed role and many disadvantages, that's clearly an issue IMHO.

Hows the testing gone, i've done some 10 ribualts vs. full stack tests and how well they do seems to be dependent on the type of unit. Units with 60 men tend to do poorly, whilst those with 48 do well. My best guess is that the morale penalty per man lost is the same regardless of weather it's 48 or 60 men base and thus the greater losses per volley of the 60 man units produces routing before they make melee. 48 strong suffer damage but do okay in my experience, and don't tend to rout before making melee.

What about you, what did you think?

Carl, I have tried to use your change to the ribaults, but when i start with your shortcut, i get to the very first loading screen and a message box comes up saying that there was an unspecified error and i just exit the game. I can play vanilla M2TW fine though so what am i doing wrong?

Scratch that, give me a moment and I'll get on it and tell you.

[Carl]

Here's a working one, I tried it and it wouldn't work for me, so re-did it from scratch and it worked fine, not sure what i did wrong TBH.

[pike master]

have you guys seen the history channel episode on bullets where they showed a ribault like weapon that could fire a million rounds a minute. it is a modern prototype of a weapon that has multiple shots lined up in each barrel.

bit off topic but neat i thought.

[Carl]

Yeah, I've seen it, and whilst it does have a fire rate of a million rounds a minute, it's only got a couple of thousand rounds as far as i remember. If I remember right it's basically about 500 40mm tubes with some special grenade launcher style projectile in, dozens of them stacked into each tube so as to give massive numbers of shots. Useful for providing large area, low lethality, (compared to a Mortar anyway), barrage that lands everywhere near simultaneously.

[JCoyote]

Metal Storm. I've seen a lot of hype but it's far from ideal. The issue is with the barrels... To reload the weapon, you have to replace the entire barrel(s). It doesn't appear that the barrels can be rifled either. So there is a weight and range disadvantage. Not great for prolonged firefights.

As for the million rpm one, it was a 9mm prototype. There are 40mm grenade launcher versions but of fewer barrels. Getting all those barrels to line up parallel enough for decent range but still be replaceable in the field could be extremely difficult as well.

I do think there is a good use for it though... it could be a great system for direct fire from an aircraft. With the right recoil management system, it could be superb. Aircraft don't have to worry about prolonged firefights, dropping all their shots in one pass and then reloading at the airfield is fine for them.

[pike master]

why not just use a huge bore loaded with flachettes. kinda like a shotgun.

[JCoyote]

why not just use a huge bore loaded with flachettes. kinda like a shotgun.

Somewhat poorer ballistics, and flechettes are more expensive to manufacture accurate versions than bullets. Plus their wounding capacities are heavily velocity dependent; the fins make them shed velocity quickly though. But true, for ground based applications I would find a cannister/flechette loaded recoilless gun much more useful than a Metal Storm "machine gun".

But back to topic, arguably the reason ribaults disappeared likely had to do with grapeshot loadings being made for cannon. Makes a much more versatile weapon.

[Musashi]

My only issue with ribaults is that when you scale up to huge unit sizes, their killing power doesn't scale up, and they simply can't handle the numbers involved. On small or medium I'm sure a ribault crew could wipe out an entire unit in one volley. But on huge, they don't make that kind of a dent.

Basically, at that point, a unit of musketeers, with 120 guns, does significantly more damage, so there's no reason for me to ever bring a ribault.

[Foz]

My only issue with ribaults is that when you scale up to huge unit sizes, their killing power doesn't scale up, and they simply can't handle the numbers involved. On small or medium I'm sure a ribault crew could wipe out an entire unit in one volley. But on huge, they don't make that kind of a dent.

Basically, at that point, a unit of musketeers, with 120 guns, does significantly more damage, so there's no reason for me to ever bring a ribault.

I had been considering this as well, and it seems like a strong pointer toward ribaults being bodypiercing - if they body-pierce, then the kills should scale at least somewhat with the unit size, as larger continuous chunks of men will theoretically die due to the increased unit depth and breadth.

The real question is, will this be in line with how other artillery operates? I think it may. Most other artillery falls into the category of aimed shots that cause area damage. While it is true that the area damage caused by a single shot will not scale along with unit sizes, I think another factor may largely make up for this: aimed shots. Aimed shots, if I understand the mechanic correctly, do not hit or miss with specified percentages - rather, they apply some kind of drifting that seems to account primarily for bad aim on the part of the firing unit. If I understand this correctly, then it leads to one very applicable point: a larger unit represents more area, and thus has a higher chance of being hit by drifting shots. So while any given hit is the same no matter the unit size, we might reasonably expect a higher hit percentage from area affect artillery as the unit size is raised.

Another applicable point may be that larger unit sizes mean units have more interior area where enemies completely surround a given spot. To illustrate this, let's consider one group of 9 men and another of 25:

XXX
XXX
XXX

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

For simplicity, we'll simplify the battlefield to a grid and say an artillery shell kills any men in the square it hits and any adjacent square: 9 men at most. What situation does each unit find itself in?

12321
24642
36963
24642
12321

1233321
2466642
3699963
3699963
3699963
2466642
1233321

I've charted the number of kills we'd expect from a shell landing at each position. The positions occupied by men in each case are in bold, while those not bold are shells that land outside the group but near enough to cause a few kills. Notice how the unit that is size 25, though it is less than 3 times larger than the 9 man unit, has a maximum kill zone (the 9s) 9 times the size. The area represented by 6s (still a very good hit) is a 12 to 4 comparison, 3 times as much. The small unit has 25 possible hits, 5 of which are very damaging (6 or more kills). That's 20%. Contrast this with the large unit having 49 possible hits, with 21 being very damaging. That's ~42.8%. Granted this is an extreme case since one unit is thrice the size of the other, but the fact remains that mathematically the larger the unit is, the greater the percentage of hits that are very damaging will be, which translates into a higher kill rate per hit against larger units.

So not only is it easier to hit a unit that is larger and takes up more space on the battlefield, but the unit's extremely vulnerable area also increases along with the unit size, and therefore we can surmise that the number of hits and average kills per hit should both increase for area affect artillery as the unit size increases. In short, though artillery do not experience stat benefits from increased unit sizes, they do gain performance benefits due to the physics of having a larger target unit, and so can be said to scale appropriately with unit size.

That being the case, it seems appropriate that ribaults too should scale with unit size, which can be accomplished with body piercing (again due to physics that I outlined in the first paragraph). Whether their stats will then require modification is of course a separate matter entirely, but I think what I've outlined is a big enough point to necessitate ribaults having body-piercing ability.