Arrows v artillary

[Agent Smith]

I've had problems with artillery, and its not there range thats the problem, its the fact that there lowest trajectory is ~zero degrees.

I've noticed artillery fires on from the top of a hill at a greater range but as the enemy comes closer, your cannons can no longer effectively hit the enemy. If there is a green icon but they refuse to fire this is the problem.

The other problem is even if they can aim below zero degrees they will hit the top of the hill.

Not to sure how the game is designed but it does seem the cannons can go below zero degrees at points.

If I set the cannons on the slope of the hill instead of on top there seems to be a lot less problems.

I've noticed this too, and it might be part of the problem that the OP is getting at. Some artillery have maximum and minimum angles of fire. For instance, if you are on top of a mountain that is really steep and the enemy is below and has catapults, they will NEVER be able to fire at you because the angle is too steep and a catapult can't really release it's ammo at a different point to get the correct trajectory. Same goes for some artillery at the top of hills, too, where the trajectory would no longer be able to effectively target troops that are too steeply downhill.

[phonicsmonkey]

It may also have to do with loading times. I've noticed that artillery crews don't start loading ammo until the enemy comes into firing range, wasting a lot of time.

I haven't noticed the OP's problem myself (which is probably to do with my lack of attention to detail more than anything else) but if archers and xbows have a shorter loading time they might have time while the artillery is loading to approach, load and get a shot off before the artillery fires.

might be worthwhile increasing arty ranges in proportion to walking speed of infantry, in order to compensate for the loading times and ensure they start firing when the troops are in the correct range.

thoughts?

[Foz]

I've noticed this too, and it might be part of the problem that the OP is getting at. Some artillery have maximum and minimum angles of fire. For instance, if you are on top of a mountain that is really steep and the enemy is below and has catapults, they will NEVER be able to fire at you because the angle is too steep and a catapult can't really release it's ammo at a different point to get the correct trajectory. Same goes for some artillery at the top of hills, too, where the trajectory would no longer be able to effectively target troops that are too steeply downhill.

That's probably it - the firing angles. Most projectiles (see descr_projectiles.txt) do not allow much of a downward angle at all: usually -15 for anything except arrows. Thus if you have cannons for instance planted too high on a hilltop, there can be a rather large area surrounding the hill that the cannons would be entirely unable to shoot. The shots go at a particular speed (not variable like arrows are), and the small declination allowed (and corresponding small downward vertical component of movement on the shot) just don't allow the shots to go anywhere near the cannon's elevated position - they are forced to sail far away. For instance in 1 second, the cannonball can fall 28.2 m if fired optimally downward (-15 degrees). In that same 1 second, it travels ~87 m horizontally. That's about a 3:1 ratio, meaning after 1 second the ball has flown 3 times further horizontally than it has dropped vertically. I'm sure you can see why that would be problematic and leave a large area surrounding any elevated artillery position where the artillery simply cannot fire.

As for determining the effect in-game, estimating an area 3 times longer than the height of the hill is probably a good ballpark guess at the closest point where your artillery coverage will be effective.

A related problem lies in the artificial limiting of a cannon's range to an amount far shy of what it's projectile stats would allow. A bombard even on flat ground could shoot out to 715 m within its parameters, but is only allowed to shoot 325 at most by the EDU, which really trivializes the usefulness of high ground to it except that it gets some cleaner sight lines. Thus a substantially elevated position, instead of granting the artillery greater reach, only serves to cut off a huge portion of its targetable area, leaving a fairly narrow ring that it can successfully target, bordering and including its max 325 range. The best solution is probably to set the cannon shot to a lower velocity that gives a flat range more in the 325 ballpark. That lower velocity would then be used as the upper bound on firing range, not the EDU range (which would increase so as to not be a factor). That would actually allow elevated positions to correctly increase artillery range, and would also provide the artillery somewhat better capability to shoot downward (due to less velocity to push the shot out and away) though it will be marginal at best.

If I've done the figuring right, a velocity of 60 gives the bombard a max range of ~318 naturally, and something in that vicinity is likely a good value to use for it. Coupled with the lengthening of the EDU listed range, it would then get better use out of a hilltop position by actually being allowed to fire out to the extended range the elevated terrain naturally affords it...

[Joshwa]

I remember the first time i got beseiged by an enemy with a couple of ballistae, first of all i laughed because i didnt think theyd be able to punch even one hole in my huge stone walls, that was until they proceeded to breech the wall in four seperate places... I swear the AI gets more ammunition than the player, it shouldn't be possible to do that much damage with sharpened curtain rods!

On a slightly related topic, does anyone know how to make ballista crew able to run with the ballista? I want to see how that makes it more effective as an infantry support weapon

[Kobal2fr]

I remember the first time i got beseiged by an enemy with a couple of ballistae, first of all i laughed because i didnt think theyd be able to punch even one hole in my huge stone walls, that was until they proceeded to breech the wall in four seperate places... I swear the AI gets more ammunition than the player, it shouldn't be possible to do that much damage with sharpened curtain rods!

On a slightly related topic, does anyone know how to make ballista crew able to run with the ballista? I want to see how that makes it more effective as an infantry support weapon

I don't think they get more ammo, but they sure as shite are much, much more accurate than mine. Could be that the AI just knows the precise spots where a siege engine shooting a tower will hit everytime, while I whiff-whiff-whiff-hit-the-tower-too-low-hence-not-doing-any-damage-whiff :/

Trebuchets are particularly awfull at this. Once I set 4 of them (2 units) in perfect enfilade of a street where the Milanese had parked like 8 units of infantry, huge press of bodies, perfect target, so I told them to fire at the middle ones over the walls while 4 catapults dealt with the towers and walls, thinking that what with over and undershots, the street would turn into a fricking funeral pyre. I think that out of their whole ammo load, maybe one shot actually landed in that street, the rest ended anywhere in town *but* it. I think one particular shot actually hit a wall on the other side of the city .
Walls they can hit fine, towers are a wee bit too small a target for them (wooden ones anyhow), anywhere else : don't bother

In the ACW for example it was quite common for artillery to fire cannister over the heads of their own infantry deployed below them on a slope.

Not a good place to earn yourself a nickname little "Too Tall", eh ?

Nevertheless, the whole issue of destroying a metal port-cullis by battering it seems unlikely. The most likely result would be that you end up buckling it and throwing it out of its mountings so that neither side would be able to open it.

But I guess the whole things sort of symbolic rather than accurate as in truth the port-cullis would not be the sole defensive element of a gate anyway

Agreed, but then again the whole assault thing is symbolic and I'd say firing stuff at a port-cullis over the course of 6 months to 6 years would probably disintegrate it anyway. Else I wonder how they got past those...Send a lot of strong fellows and just lift it ? Or maybe just blast the walls around and forget the stupid gates .

[Rozanov]

Talking of cannons and towers.

Is there any way to mod the towers so they have gun ports at ground level? many castles that were upgraded to have gun ports had them at low level not at the top of towers.

Cannon fired from the top of towers have the wrong trajectory to do a lot of damage, whereas ground level shot would cover the "dead ground" in front of gates and allow for more realistic bouncing shots at longer ranges.

[Didz]

@Razanov
Probably not a good idea. The ports would be a serious defensive weakness and given that there are very good reasons for not having level ground in front of a castles walls it would not provide much benefit vis-a-vis the dead ground issue.

Better instead to change the tower armaments from cannon to mortars, with the added option of 'shell shutes' so that bombs could be dropped directly down on the attackers below.

Of course historically the advent of cannon completed changed the design of fortresses leading eventually to the evolution of 'Star Forts' which reached their most advanced at the time of Marlborough.

[Kobal2fr]

@Razanov
Probably not a good idea. The ports would be a serious defensive weakness and given that there are very good reasons for not having level ground in front of a castles walls it would not provide much benefit vis-a-vis the dead ground issue.

Better instead to change the tower armaments from cannon to mortars, with the added option of 'shell shutes' so that bombs could be dropped directly down on the attackers below.

Yup. After the long awaited boiling oil gates in Kingdoms, beware CA : we'll want machicolations !

Of course historically the advent of cannon completed changed the design of fortresses leading eventually to the evolution of 'Star Forts' which reached their most advanced at the time of Marlborough.

Aaaah, the Forts Vauban (named after Louis the XIVth architect who came up with the design)... I can't tell you how much I hate them. When I was a toddler my father would insist on visiting the local one(s) anywhere we travelled... AND THEY'RE ALL THE FRICKIN' SAME STANDARD DESIGN, THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT !

Ahem.

Sorry. I had a traumatizing childhood

[Foz]

I agree that the value of high ground to artillery is far overplayed by most historical enthusiasts, however it does afford some benefits - though obviously with some cost as well. Probably the foremost of these benefits is that it is far easier to target artillery from an elevated position - you can simply see the battlefield much more clearly. I imagine artillery in medieval times would have often been directed from the position it was at (by its commander): the advent of better communication means and other technology seems primarily responsible for the shift to artillery being targeted by spotters. To whatever extent the artillery commander had to direct his artillery during the battle, it stands to reason that he could do so far more effectively from an elevated position.

Those same clear sight lines afforded by a raised position would also allow the artillery to confidently fire into much more tricky situations than it could from flat ground behind its own men. This in turn should mean that a battery on elevated terrain gains the ability to fire into melee with low to moderate risk of hitting its own men, and in general it should be able to fire at units much closer to its own with considerably lower risk of fratricide. In game terms you can easily see the difference with bombards for instance - a bombard on ground level is nearly useless once melee is joined as its own troops generally obstruct all potential firing lines - it will usually sit there and not shoot at all on auto-fire. From a raised position, however, it can sometimes continue firing, finding the elevated trajectory enough to clear shots at enemy units which it would certainly not have from a lower position.

The last point is that from a physics standpoint, there clearly is a range benefit to being on elevated terrain. I am unsure how important that is in medieval battles, but it remains simple fact that if your artillery is higher, it can in fact shoot further. The game doesn't allow that currently (which I think is BS btw) but it works for the historical aspect of a raised position's usefulness to artillery, which is why I mention it.

So the way it looks to me, setting artillery on a hilltop is not strictly better nor worse, it is simply a different application. I would suggest it is primarily aimed at getting the best long-range use out of your batteries: their range goes up, a short-to-medium range dead zone is imposed, and you open up more firing lines especially into melee. OTOH if you intend to use your batteries for close-range firing, clearly they should not be elevated, and you will also most of the time need to keep your troops out of the way to allow the cannons to fire.