Arrows v artillary

[Didz]

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.

Thats an accurate reflection of a real life issue, however, it would have been a nice touch if the game somehow highlighted the extent of this 'dead ground' in front of your artillery so that you could predict its effects before they occurred.

Historically, this was the reason why Nappoleonic Artillery batteries always included at least one high trajectory weapon (Howitzer) which could lob shells into dead ground but even that had a minimum trajectory and once the enemy got too close it had to stop firing.

Also, there is a mistaken belief, even amongst serious wargamers, that artillery is more effective on a hill. This is actually completely muddled thinking and has been proven so, both by extensive testing, scientific logic and artillery manuals published over the period.

Placing artillery on high ground creates area's of 'dead ground' in front of the guns which have to be neutralised either by other guns or other troops. At Waterloo for example Mercer complained that there was an extensive area of 'Dead Ground' just 50 paces before his battery which allowed the French Cavalry to regroup and organise themselves before and after each attack. He could see the tips of their lances and the tops of their helmet plumes but could not bring his guns to bear on them due to the convex nature of the slope.

The other effect of high ground was to cause shot to plunge into the enemy rather than to bounce thus reducing the effect as the missile is less likely to travel after it hits.

The best location for artillery is actually flat and firm which maximises bounce whilst avoiding any pockets of dead ground for the enemy to shelter in.

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

Yes. Thats a slight inaccuracy which ought to be corrected. Artillery on a forward slope ought to suffer considerable loading problems which should slow their rate of fire. With cannon the obvious problem was trying to keep the cannon ball from rolling back out of the barrel, which required additional precautions such as grommits to be added during the loading process. This remained a problem until the introduction of the cartridge system which combined the ball and the powder into a single package but even then the cartidge had to be held in place until the gunner pricked it and inserted a quill through the touch hole to hold it there.

For other artillery like catapults the risks would be even greater as the slope would affect the balance of the weapon creating a real risk that the energy produced by the firing process would rip the wepaon apart or throw it over on its side.

However, on the whole I think MTW2 does quite a good job of modelling artillery fire. I was watching my son fight a battle in his Egyptian Campaign last night and he had his bombards located on a low ridge firing at the Danish Crusaders on a ridge opposite. He was getting really frustrated as he was causing no casualties at all to the Danes. When I suggested he pressed DEL and monitored the fall of his shot it became obvious why no damage was being done. Shot was either falling short and hitting the front face of the opposite ridge at a high angle and so burying itself without bouncing, or it was bouncing at an equally high angle (as per scientific principles) and passing over the heads of the Danes on the crest. Indeed the only way a shot would have caused casualties was if it had been pitched perfectly to glance the top of the ridge where they stood which was extremely unlikely. I therefore suggested that he reposition his artillery to his right flank so that they were actually firing along the ridge on which the Danes were deployed. The result was a whole sries of bouncing shots which travelled along the length of the Danish Army inflicting considerable loss.

So, take care when placing artillery. Place them on flat level ground whenever possible and avoid situations where there are slopes in front of your position or in front of the enemies. Even though MTW2 doesn't model the risks very well placing them on the forward slopes of a hill will probably lead to the shot burying itself upon impact due to the increased trajectory caused by the hieght and should therefore only be considered a compromise option. What your looking for is the perfect bouncing shot which hits just ahead of the enemy and then bounces right through their formation from front to back preferrable staying below head height.

Didz : I think he means shooting long, thin bolts at a metal grate. You know, with holes in it (I must admit it made me smile the first time I saw it as well)

Yes it looks a bit odd, but what one needs to remember is that in reality those pointy bolts would have been replaced with round metal balls or a half sphere shaped battering head (sort of like a large metal sink plunger).

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.