Gunpowder Units Ineffective

[Rhyfelwyr]

I was expecting the gunpowder discovery to be a real breakthrough, but gunpowder units are pretty ineffective. In my Venice campaign, I tried building a new style army for the late game, made up mostly of Pike Militia and Arquebusiers. But my new army got massacred by the Mongols and their archers, it seems the bows did more damage than the guns. Is there any way to make guns more effective, other than increasing their attack. Factors such as accuracy, kill rate etc?

[BadGenome]

Recruit musketeers instead of arquebusiers if you can; the increased range makes a lot of difference. I've had good luck against the Mongols by using pikes set up at the base of a hill with muskets further up the hill so they can get a clear shot. If you can bring along some trebuchets, throw some cows at those Horde bastards before switching to flaming boulders. Between the scary guns and mad cow disease they should break up. Remember: guns do more morale damage than physical.

[Ciaran]

The Mongols aren´t exactly the best enemy to fight with gunpowder troops, since their mounted troops are on top of your shooters too quickly.
An ideal opponent to use gunpowder against are the Scots, for example, anything with slow, sluggish infantry.
But if you follow BadGenome´s tips about terrain you should get something out of your gunners as well (although the same deployment works very well for crossbows).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks for the tips, I'll try that trick with the hill, now I've trained some Pikemen I have to try and use them for something.

Still, is it possible to modify the accuracy of missile troops in export_descr_unit somehow?

[rainkloud]

You most certainly can. You'll need the descr_projectile file which has all projectiles in there. Under arquebus and musket accuracy you'll want to make the number further away from 1 to make it more accurate.

For example:

.01 is LESS accurate than .001

I would also suggest you change the velocity of the arq/mus. To do this change the SECOND number to something in the 400 range. This will make the rounds look much more realistic.

Before you change the accuracy though I would suggest trying to put your gunners in two rows instead of three. They will fire faster and do more damage. The only reason to use three rows is to have a consistent "stream" of fire which will do more morale damage. Make sure to give them backup and set them to "skirmish"

Hope that helps!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks thats just what I was looking for, I'll start doing some testing...

[Eusebius86]

I'm using patch 1.2 and have had lots of trouble with my gunpowder units in skirmish. Only the front row fires and they don't even fire as a unit (just sporadically). Any help?

Also, whenever my gunpowder units get hit by enemy missiles they have to 'reform' before firing. This is VERY annowing. Any help?

[locked_thread]

edit

[Empirate]

I wouldn't dismiss another explanation: Gunpowder was new, exciting, modern. Even as early as the 1400s many kings and princes prided themselves in their educated statesmanship, and this included outfitting armies with modern weapons that were seen as the way to go. Imagine somebody who has grown up in a feudal society: Charging horses and guys in full plate armor are every day's bread and butter from tournaments, parades and the like. Most nobles probably received their first sword before they could dress themselves. But once they saw for the first time a demonstration by a canny alchemist who used specially prepared bombs to show off, the impact this must have had on the contemporary onlookers was immense.
Thus, gunpowder was probably added because political and military leaders thought it was awesome. In reality, it wasn't so awesome yet, but it takes a certain progress-oriented spirit to evolve a new technology. This spirit was definitely there in renaissance kings and princes.

[Freedom Onanist]

I wouldn't dismiss another explanation: Gunpowder was new, exciting, modern.

I think this is probably more true than would be given credit for.

Got to say though that CyanCentaur has hit the nail on the head. Cost has got to have a lot to do with it.

The longbow, a much more effective weapon than even most muskets disappears in the 1500's relatively quickly after defining English warfare for the last 200 years, why? Archers are insanely expensive to train and many of them had been butchered in the Wars of the Roses when they where pitted against each other (negating their tactical impact and their lives in the process). The country is ravaged by warfare and the economy goes down the drain.

France barely comes out of the Hundred Years War with a recognisable economy and plunges straight into a costly war in Italy. The military professionals are either not available or too expensive.

The pike picks up the slack. Yes it takes training to hold a pike but not as much. And there will always be some desperate poor sod about willing to give it a go without enough training. They were finaly ousted by an even cheaper weapon - the hand gun. Used en masse (with pikes till the bayonet is invented) they work.

[Zoring]

How could a handgun be cheaper then a length of wood with a piece of pig-iron on the end?

[LeeJackson]

How could a handgun be cheaper then a length of wood with a piece of pig-iron on the end?

I'm not sure about the guns, but I imagine that Shot was a lot cheaper then arrows. Arrows had to be assembled by skilled crafts men. Shot requires little skilled labor and is much easier to mass produce.

[locked_thread]

edit