Help with archers and artillery.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok, first of all, archers: I just dont get the point of having them. The ONLY time I have found that they can turn the tide is at the end of the battle when there are little troops left and only allready weakened units, but in that situation, having X more numbers of melee troops from the start would have meant the battle wouldnt have been as close!

I found that they just dont rack up any kills, even against lightly armoured troops archers only have time to inflict very few casualties before the enemy engage in melee.

To make horse archers viable I found that I had to position my main force WAY back and then micro the HA as the enemy advanced, however, the same amount of light cavallery would inflict the same amount of kills, and shortens the battletime by half.

Lately I use one or two archers ONLY for the flaming arrows, so I can choose where to give the enemy some lower morale. Apart from that I see no reason what so ever for archers, soemone enlighten me?




Same goes with artillery... Sure they are nice against walls, but siege battles are to bugged for fun anyway, so I autocalc and then you dont need anything but a ram.

I have yet to see an artillery unit cause any worthwhile impact on the enemy troops, even in bridge battles (should be optimal).




Do I just suck or are the ranged elements just inferior? I found that if I go melee only I can just steamroll the enemy into a quick rout.


Thankful for replys mates!

[Slug For A Butt]

I agree with you about artillery, I've never got a result from them yet that makes them more valuable than other units. Even when I'm attacking and the enemy just sit there I get better results from misile.
Can anyone explain where I'm missing the point with artillery? I want to use it, but it causes bugger all casualties. So I stick to bows/xbows to cause casualties, and they can fight melee too.

[Budwise]

I agree with you about artillery, I've never got a result from them yet that makes them more valuable than other units. Even when I'm attacking and the enemy just sit there I get better results from misile.
Can anyone explain where I'm missing the point with artillery? I want to use it, but it causes bugger all casualties. So I stick to bows/xbows to cause casualties, and they can fight melee too.

I love archers, but just a version of Longbowmen. A few groups of Longbowmen will just chew up a unit of something as it comes close and those stakes are really to die for. Plus, when you are defending in a seige, you will wish to have as many as you could get. For help on using archers though, keep them no deep than two deep and put them in the front of your line so they can "SEE" their target. In a melee, think of them as light infantry and you should be fine.

Artillery is good when it comes to forcing the computer to come to you or just hit them over and over. I think that having two Catapults, Balistas, ect was a HUGE improvement over MTW and if used right they can cause major havoc toward the enemy. They aren't Battle Winners but then again, they never were supposed to be. I guess in history, 10 soldiers in an artillery piece could kill more than 10 men while in combat. I guess thats a major limitation of any TW game is the Squad cap. If it was unlimited that you could control, then Siege Equipment would be a lot more beneficial.

[imnothere]

i disagree. artillery is part of the fun of MTW2 - without guns, big onagers (yes i still love my RTW) and giant crossbow, it would not be the same.

as Budwise said, artillery are there to support other elements, not to win battle on its own. try to think of two elements: toys and tools.

it is the tools that gets you going, but toys gives you the most FUN

as for the bowmen - i found that it is tough without them unless you choose to mass-spawn the peasants/grunts. afterall, there are some nasty units that i dont want to touch with my units (housecarls, janissary). plus they provided good firing support AND diversionary target for the enemy archers against my nice expensive infantry/cavalry. afterall, who likes their swisspikemen stir-fried by trebuchet fires and flaming arrows?

[Kadagar_AV]

against huscarles and JHI, I still prefer extra melee to perform flanking manouvers.

I'll run a quick test to see the effectiveness against said units.


And sure artillery is fun, or as my friends serving in the artillery says: "You cant spell PARTY without ARTY", but fluff reasons aside what are their use on the battlefield.

Forcing the enemy off a hill is the only thing I can think of, and that's only if they dont have artillery of their own (and AI usually has).

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok, after some quick testing:

First of all, DAMN the controlls are bad/retarded. You just seem to notice it much more when you play with only 1-2 units. And DAMN the battle AI is stupid, even more evident when you play against 1-2 units.

Anyway, test showed that 1 unit of men at arms combined with 1 unit of retinue longbowmen did did come out better than using 2 units of armoured wordsmen against 1 unit of JHI.

However, mainly thanks to the computers love of the tactic "rush in, withdraw, and stand around and look stupid as you are peppered with arrows".

So in this very controlled setting, yes indeed longbows were worth it.

HOWEVER, you are not commonly attacked by JHI, but rather troops with shields and first and foremost mounted troops (knights).

And that's the main problem, knights (and their muslim counterpart) are just too fast so you dont get many volleys off.

My problem still stands, I see little or no reason to bring archers along except 1 unit for morale issues.

[Odin]

To make horse archers viable I found that I had to position my main force WAY back and then micro the HA as the enemy advanced, however, the same amount of light cavallery would inflict the same amount of kills, and shortens the battletime by half.

Well being an HA fanboy your point is valid about microing the HA's. I group them when I have them in numbers. If your using HA's you must have a different approach to combat, there quick hitters, get out and hit again.

They also do well at chasing routers, they are not designed to Melee, unless you play Russia and get Dvor (perhaps the best HA unit in the game).

Lately I use one or two archers ONLY for the flaming arrows, so I can choose where to give the enemy some lower morale. Apart from that I see no reason what so ever for archers, soemone enlighten me?

When your on the defense this is where they shine, the AI will normally give you a frontal assault, you should be able to get a couple of rounds off before they reach your line, making less men for your infantry to kill. Also in defensive seiges, archers shine.

Put them on the walls and they will make plenty of kills.

Same goes with artillery... Sure they are nice against walls, but siege battles are to bugged for fun anyway, so I autocalc and then you dont need anything but a ram.

I agree with you here, artillery IMHO is only useful for sieges, not field battles.

Do I just suck or are the ranged elements just inferior? I found that if I go melee only I can just steamroll the enemy into a quick rout.

No you dont suck, your just an infantry guy (by the looks of it) nothing wrong with that. Melee is pefectly viable method of generalship, that said Range units do have value but its dependent on your style of play.

If you want to end battles quickly with one major clash on a line, then archers arent necessary at all.

[SadCat]

Jest a note on Artillery, do not target what you want to hit. Looks to me as it falls short or long but never on target. If they have 3 ranks shoot for the middle one and it works fine. Solid shot only as fire shot wants to hit your men jest for fun. SadCat

[Plebian#10]

I have found that a combined arms approach the best way for defeating the enemy. Catapults and ballista for long range death, bowen and slingers for medium range death and the trusty infantry for the close in work. With an effective spy network you should always know what your army is up against and can customize your army prior to contact for the best results. I tend to use small well trained, well lead, mobile army's supplemented by the local garrisons. It is necessary to micro manage both you ballista and your bowen but that is part of the fun......

[DesertEagle]

I've found that doubling the number of artillery pieces in any given unit goes a long way toward making them a more viable part of the battlefield, and a bit more worthwhile to lug around. More bang for the "1 unit slot" buck, as it were. Doubling this again could be interesting. However, to offset the increased firepower they bring (and to reduce the chances of those 1/2 arty, 1/2 militia armies the AI seems so fond of) I've given their cost a 10x multiplier.

Siege equipment is attainable, even for the AI, but usually only a unit or two in an army, and only a bit later. This suits me.

[ainamacil]

Even in Medieval, as soon as I could get cannons, I carried three or four in my armies. And that was when they were stationary! Now that arty moves, it's even more fun for me to play with. But maybe that's just the Napoleonic wannabe in me.

As others have said, some of the arty works like a particularly-large bore general-seeking sniper rifle. Basilisks and Serpentines are both good for this, but I've even managed to headshot generals with culverins.

And I also have a thing for ribaults. Medieval machinegun, tally ho!

Right, so, to recap: Arty is scary, snipes generals like nobody's business, and few things are as cool as letting fly a volley at 100 yards or so and watching your missile clear a line of men through three different units. And watching half of an enemy unit's first line go down from massed ribaults is cool too.

Of course, I prefer to situate the camera behind the enemy force my cannons are targeting and watch the flares of firing in the distance. "If only they knew what I knew about what's going to be greeting them in a moment...