Artillery

[Heidrek]

I just love using catapults to rain death in incoming hordes.

I've noticed a few things about Artillery. Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause? Do they have to hit the target to scare them or is just being near the blast enough?

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

[Tratorix]

Welcome to the Org Heidrek !

Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause?

It's rare to see the enemy rout just from missle fire. Unless they are peasants or militia troops, you will probably still have to engage the enemy in melee. The missile fire will just help "soften them up" before you engage them.

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

I'm not sure, but what you saw might have been the morale of the catapults themselves. Every unit has it's own morale value. I don't think any units other than your General gives a morale bonus.

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

I don't really use much artillery, but culverins and demi-culverins pack a lot more punch than a catapult, I believe. They are better for knocking down walls, but the trade off is they don't function in the rain.

[Prussian1]

I use Artillery in only three instances:

1. I decide to assault a stronghold, during which they are invaluable.

2. I am defending in a bridge battle, during which they are valuable, but if used improperly can ruin the day of the pointy-stick boys standing on the bridge.

3. I am defending relatively hilly/mountainous terrain and can be VERY sure of my ability defend in depth and not expose my artillery to the enemy.

In all other situations, Artillery has served as a relatively expensive boat anchor. This is not to say that someone with a better grasp of artillery will not use it effectively. This is not, however, a forte of mine.

[Peasant Phill]

I never use artilery on the offensive. The enemy is most of the times to far away and on higher ground to use artilery effectively. You just lose a unit slot for little or no gain. It could be that gunpowder arty is more usefull on the offensive due to their larger range.
Using arty in defence is a different matter, certainly on hilly terrain or on a bridge. Still I prefer a decent archer unit for its faster rate of fire, damage output and flexibility to most artilery.

It speaks for itself that I do use artilery when sieging. That's what it's designed for and where its lack of mobility isn't a problem.

[LadyAnn]

I just love using catapults to rain death in incoming hordes.

I've noticed a few things about Artillery. Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire. Does anyone know how much fear artillery hits actually cause? Do they have to hit the target to scare them or is just being near the blast enough?

That means it gave the unit that is currently under fire morale penalty. They wouldn't run away until the effects of combined morale penalties bring the effective morale down below a certain threshhold. There are a few morale penalties involved: "weapon causes fear", "recent heavy casualties", "total unit casualties". While "weapon causes fear" may not be enough to make a unit run, the combination of the three (plus other penalties) may cause the unit to run, and in turn will cause the next unit to suffer enough morale penalty to run too.

I believe "weapon cause fear" factor is applied only when the weapon is applied to the unit. Being merely near the blast may not do.

I also noticed at www.totalwar.co.kr that they list some stats for Artillery. Catapults for example give a morale bonus of +4. Does this apply to your whole army? does it rely on how many catapults you have?

No, the number 4 is the starting morale of that particular catapult crew. each unit has their own starting morale number. Then during battle, penalties will be subtracting from that morale number. If it falls under a certain threshold, your catapult crew will run away. That has nothing to do with other units, which have their own morale number.

In single player mode, the only unit that could add morale boost to other units is the general. The more stars the general has, the better morale he could give to his troops. Therefore, it is imperative to "groom" your generals: giving them small battles to win so they win more command points.

Finally, i haven't used Demi cuverns or culverns eyt, but it seems to me that so far the best all purpose artillery is the Catapult. Does anyone else have a fav? Any good strategies for using them well? Also, how many do you use in your invading army. I tend to gor for 3-4 bacause they can either hammer incoming troops pretty well, or destroy walls etc pretty quickly when working together.

Catapult is available in early eras while gun powder units may not be available until "gun powder discovery" event happened. It also costs more to produce. Also, it depends on type of castle. Most of the time, catapults are fine for seige. Only late era castles (citadels, etc.) that may require gunpowder to bring them down.

Artillery is good for seiging, so I do bring as many as I could bring. When invading, I always bring large army of several stacks (at least 2). It gives me several options for offensive:two prongs attack after taking the first province, or have the luxury of reinforcement during an arduous battle. I put all of my artillery in the second stack (the first stack is the one commanded by the highest ranking general, and he always enter the province first. When battle starts, the first stack is the one you are given to play with). Unless I want to bring down the walls right away in a surprise attack, in that case I would have a piece or two of artillery in the first stack, I would hate to be ambushed and have on hand many culverins but no infantry to defend them.

Annie

[caravel]

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

Well on a more serious note, I'm afraid that I never train seige equipment nor play siege offensives. I pretty much always starve out or auto resolve all sieges. The only time I'll occasionally fight a siege is if I'm on the defensive. Overall I dislike how sieges were implimented in MTW. RTW had the mechanics for a big improvement but without the AI and pathfinding to handle it.

[gregori99]

The real benefit of demi-culverin and culverin is the increased range, especially useful for bridge assaults where you can tear up the defence prior to attempting the crossing. The enemy keeps most of its troops out of catapult range.

I quite often assault castles personally. Sieging costs men but more importantly causes more damage to the castle. Assaults, if done carefully, shouldn't be too costly in terms of men and gets you the castle quicker and in better condition. I almost always defend castle assaults manually because the AI is rubbish at it.

[Ironside]

Not something I commonly do, but is still effective with long range artillery is to assult with a bunch of artillery (preferbly cuverins due to range) and let the cannons bambard with all thier ammo on the defending enemy before withdrawing them and replace them with combat troops.

Won't give massive casualities but is a strong softerener and looks quite nice (well scary if you're on the reciving end).

[Agent Miles]

Gunpowder artillery types can be very effective. I usually put eight “guns” in a stack with three spear types to shield them, four cavalry to protect the flanks and a good general to add some valour. This can defend a province very well. On flat terrain with long range guns this can also be an effective assault force. Then I add eight more cavalry to replace the gun crews once they exhaust their ammo.

Guns do have shortcomings though. If you put them on the top of a hill, then they will have a dead space to their immediate front down to the base of the hill. This is because the guns cannot depress. So once the enemy force closes, your guns will stop firing. Conversely, guns in a valley won’t be able to fire at an enemy positioned on a hilltop unless they are far away.

Guns can fire right over the line of spears guarding their front, so that is nice. I put four guns in one line and stagger the second line immediately behind them. The concentration of firepower in a four gun group allows the guns to focus a terrible barrage on one single kill zone. This also makes them excellent “King killers”.

The trick to good results with guns is targeting. I fire each four gun group separately. This allows me to bracket a target and almost guarantees some hits. The AI will start running as soon as they are in range. You must aim at the lead unit in a group if this happens. This unit will have moved past the fall of your shot by the time the cannonballs arrive, but the follow on units will still be hit. If the AI chooses to stand and take it, aim at the front units. The cannonballs skip on impact and do a lot of damage.

Here are some pictures of what I have described:

https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=1.jpg
https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=a.jpg
https://s132.photobucket.com/albums/...oldenHorde.jpg
(This last battle took place in the rain and the guns still fired.)

Guns require a lot of infrastructure to build and are slow to produce. In Early or High, this isn’t a problem, however in Late; it’s almost not worth the trouble to make them. I try to get six provinces producing guns staggered so that I get a couple each turn.

[macsen rufus]

Mmmm -- artillery

I do like it! But to do it well, get hold of the Napoleonic mod and have field artillery that can MOVE like it should

In field battles, artillery is generally more use when defending, as you can set up a kill zone and force/tempt the enemy to march straight through heavy crossfire. When attacking I'm more likely to use the artillery for denial of terrain than anything. For instance if I want the defenders to move to my left, then artillery on my right wing helps to move them in the right direction. It's not so much the kills that count, as putting them in bad ground to defend against my main army.

Agreed that catapults can do a lot of damage, but it really helps where the enemy are likely to be deployed in dense blocks, and of course in bridge battles and other bottlenecks.

I have a strong suspicion (but haven't actually tested it scientifically) that guns are more accurate when targetted individually rather than in groups. I just get the impression that when I target a group of guns on say a tower, then the shots tend to go all over the place. I guess a genuine test is in order - maybe set up a custom battle, four guns either side of a castle, and target one lot as a group and the other lot individually and see which group brings down their target first...

And finally:

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

Who you trying to kid.... real men

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Heidrek]

Thanks for all of the replies.

I generally include a few artillery pieces in my stacks, but reading about the morale effects they produce, I'm wondering if it might actually be worth trying Ballista's. They cause fear the same a catapults, but are far more accurate and have a faster rate of fire.

You only ever get one kill per hit, but you're really using them for the morale penalty rather than the actual number of casualties. the can also be fired into engaged stacks given that they are more accurate and don't have a blast radius you are unlikely to hit your own troops. You could also use them to sniper enemy generals, once you have reduced the generals unit to low numbers, start pinging them with Ballistas's one at a time until you eventually hit the general or make him flee.

I agree they are best on defense, but I did fluke a way to use them effectively on attack once. I invaded a province, and set the catapults up on top of a hill just in front of my main army. I had lots or archer units but kept getting bad weather until I got the "The enemy is upon us!" message asking if i wanted to fight or abandon the attack.

I chose to fight and low and behold, they had come to me and were in range. I immediately sent my main force forward to cover the catapults and started bombiong away at their massed ranks. The result was an absolute slaughter.

I have also used Catapults effectively against believe it or not, the Golden Horde. I was defending one of the flat steppe provinces against an attacking force of just over 4000 of mixed archers and mixed cavalry. I had 2000 mixed troops. I had a great general (7 stars I think) snd they had a 3 start I think. No hills, rivers, nothing but open spaces and a few trees.

I set up 6 catapults in a stretch of forest, placed a couple of units of longbow men at the edge of the forest, with a unit of Pavise crossbows in front of them. Between the archers and artillery I spread out 4 units of infantry (Gallowglasses, Viking Huscarles, FMAA and Feudal Foot Knights (dismounted Druhzina Cav. I think). I had 3 untis of cavalry (2 x Mounted Sergeants and a Royal Knights) kept back behind the artillery.

As the Horde approached, the catapults started pounding them. As they got closer, the Longbows kicked in and started thinning out their archer ranks. Finally, they got into range of the crossbows and started returning fire. while they formed up and started volleying back at my Pavise Crossbows, the artillery is constants pounding away at the archers and causing collateral damage to their cavalry units near by. As soon as their generals unit cam into range, all artillery focused on him

Finally their heavy cavalry massed on one flank and attacked into the trees. I sent two untis of infantry to engage them at the edge of the trees and move 2 units of cavalry out behind their engaged forced to charge into their rear and flank. They soon broke and their general ran. I charged out my remaining infantry and cavalry at their archers who prompty ran for their lives.

They ran and I withdrew the longbows (out of ammo) and brought in more cavalry and infantry. The Catapults lasted three separate engagements before running out of ammo and being withdrawn. I eventually ran out of fast cavalry to counter their endless supply of horse and foot archers, so I eventually withdrew and gave them the province. In the end, I killed just over 1100 of their troops and lost about 100 of my own.

[gregori99]

This is kind of a cheat but if you have a border province separated by a river from one you want but which is defended by many more troops than you have, just send one stack with half-a-dozen guns and some spears/archers to deter an attack back across the bridge, which has never happened to me anyway. Pound away until you run out of ammo then withdraw. Repeat next year. Pretty soon you've thinned out the defenders plus your gunners quickly become proficient and very deadly.

I never build ballistas. Worse than useless in my view. If the enemy ever includes ballistas my heart leaps for joy because they've wasted a slot.

[Bregil the Bowman]

Their description says they cause fear, but I've never seen an enemy rout because of artillery fire.

Then I take it you have not used the Organ Gun. Short range but great fun. Even high morale troops like CMAA and MHC will think twice once one of these babies has ripped through their ranks. They can be tricky to use though, because of the range and long load time.

Artillery also seems to be good at picking off generals. For this reason you should never allow your own general to wander across the firing zone of the five trebuchets the AI always manages to bring to a field battle. Somehow that million-to-one shot always seems to come off. But that also happens if it is your artillery and his general. I killed three successive Byzantine emperors with demi-cannons in one campaign.

[Heidrek]

I never build ballistas. Worse than useless in my view. If the enemy ever includes ballistas my heart leaps for joy because they've wasted a slot.

I've never used them either, but I'm wondering if they could be used effectively to kill Jedi generals. Noting pisses me off more than surrounding and crushing a generals unit but watching the general himself single handedly fight off his attackers for about 5 minutes, then break through them and run away.

If I can use a couple of Ballista's to ping that little bugger straight to hell and just use them to pick off other high defense/armour units one at a time for the rest of the fight. the only thing is the flat trajectory. On a hill it might be ok but on open ground they'd be very hard to use effectively.

I think I'll try this strategy out, if only to see if Balista's can actually be put to a good use somehow.

[Prussian1]

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

I love it! Do real men live long enough to get inside

[caravel]

I love it! Do real men live long enough to get inside

It does work but you need to use highland clansman trained in Khazar with the master metalsmith.

[Jxrc]

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

That's the spirit !!! Enough with that nonsense about artillery, just send a few blockes with axes and they'll chop the gate down without any fuss It's just so unfair that those guys do not get any valour for breaking gates while the little f...ers () on the other side try to drow them with boiling oil ...Such action should warrant that they'll get the Famously Brave and Total Idiot V&v.

More seriously that's a good alternative to disbanding outclassed units ...

In any event, I tend to loose almost the same amount of troops whe I use artillery (but since I need a way to get rid of my spearmen backlog I do lack any serious practice) ...

Basically I try never to assault any castel stronger than a keep without reinforced gate (exception being when I need to in order to avoid being excommed) otherwise either:

- castle is full ==> they'll starve in few years.
-castle is occupied by five gives willing to take residence there --> send a bailiff with an eviction order. If you cannot find any few spies with one star will do nicely (no damage to the province if they succeed). Sieges can also become a training ground for assassins if you are in no rush at all (but they are far less usefull than spies since even if you have 75 assassins at hand you can only target one member of the besieged army, the general).

[caravel]

I have been in those situations where 3 men are inside a fortress and the info parchment for the castle tells you something to the effect of "this castle is likely to hold out for years and years and years ".

No doubt they're in there getting totally wrecked on the castle ale supplies and eating themselves silly while laughing their socks off at the poor fools camped outside.


In such a case I usually try assasination, or try to have a spy open the gates. There have been occasions where all this has failed after years of trying and I've had to either try a bribe or autoresolve an assault in order to end it. I didn't feel like actually fighting the battle against the handful of men.

[drone]

Real men hack down the reinforced steel gates with their swords.

How true! Clansmen work great in this capacity.

Does anyone know how the gate-breaking combat works? Does each man in contact with the gate cause a fixed X damage per combat cycle? Or will higher attack/AP units do more damage and make the gate break faster?

[gregori99]

I've never used them either, but I'm wondering if they could be used effectively to kill Jedi generals. Noting pisses me off more than surrounding and crushing a generals unit but watching the general himself single handedly fight off his attackers for about 5 minutes, then break through them and run away.

Yeah it's really annoying when they do their El Cid bit. Almost as annoying as your own general dying two seconds after entering battle

[Max Power]

I rarely use pre-gunpowder artillery in field battles and am usually very happy to see them when the A.I decides to bring some along.

I'll sometimes build a siege train of trebuchets or culverns. Large numbers of experienced artillery can make short work of any castle can really reduce your casualties. Otherwise I'll wait out a short siege or attack the stronghold with obsolete infantry.

[Heidrek]

I'm confident that Artillery can be used well in regular combat, the trick is always going to be in how it's placed. I tend to think of catapults etc as very long range super armour piercing archers that can't move. A single artillery piece is unlikely to be much of an asset, but having 3 or 4 catapults target the leading unit of an army as it approaches can yield decent casulaties to the target and the untis following it. I'm looking forward to using the cannon type units for this, their extra range means a couple of extra volleys before the enemy gets close.

I'm actually looking forward to creating a tank style army with 4 artillery pieces, 3 units of the best archers I can get, preferably Longbows or (Pavise) Arbalesters, about 4-5 units of swords/axes and the remainder Cavalry inc. a mounted archer or two.

Basic strategy will be to pound them with overlapping waves if missile fire (artillery first, then long range AP arrows/bolts, then finally faster but short range regular archers for those that want to close for combat). Infanrty and Archers should be hammered by the ranged assault, and those that try to close for combat will face the Swords/Axes of the waiting troops. Cavalry will swing out to the flanks and attack onces forces have engaged, hopefully triggering a rout.

[Heidrek]

Oh yes, one more good way to use Artillery on attack: When taking a bridge.

Se up your atillery as close to the bridge as reasonably possible, but out of range of archers on the other side. You now have a way to cover your troops as they cross the bridge and drive back or decimate the enemy's archers. thus weakened you can send over your strongest troops to break the defenders.

[bamff]

I have said this before on some other thread I am sure....I would love to see artillery destroy bridges the same way they do walls...just to add that extra dimension to bridge battles - a desperate AI could fire on the bridge in an effort to destroy it before it falls. Conversely a player would have to be a touch circumspect about spraying troops on the bridge, lest he/she sends it tumbling into the murky waters....

[Heidrek]

Actually I really like this idea, though they should be hard to destroy, and there should be some disadvatage to the defending player in destroying the bridge. Otherwise all you'd need to do when defending a bridge is blow it up, then retreat out of arrow range and you've won the battle.

I'm thinking that detroying a bridge should prevent all troop movement across that border and cost the province owner time and money to rebuild if they want to do so. As long as the bridge remains destroyed all revenue from the province is reduced (-3 Accumen modifier? Flat -30% from farming income?)

They should be hard to destroy so the defender would need significant artillery dedicated to destroying the bridge only.

[LadyAnn]

Hmmm artillery destroy bridge, next battle would be two armies looking at each other from the banks of the river?

Bridges must be eliminated from Totalwar. No more senseless bridge battle.

Annie

[macsen rufus]

Bridges must be eliminated from Totalwar. No more senseless bridge battle.

It's easy enough to get rid of them, if you really want to go there: just open up the startpos files and set all borders and provinces to the "NO_RIVER" attribute. No river, no bridge

[Puzz3D]

Does anyone know how the gate-breaking combat works? Does each man in contact with the gate cause a fixed X damage per combat cycle? Or will higher attack/AP units do more damage and make the gate break faster?

My tests indicate that the rate of wall destruction it's determined by the number of men in contact with the wall. If there is an advantage to using a stronger unit, the effect is very small. For instance, in my test a unit with attack 5 destroys a wall in 240 seconds, and a unit with attack 0 destroys the same type of wall in 260 seconds.

[R'as al Ghul]

My tests indicate that the rate of wall destruction it's determined by the number of men in contact with the wall. If there is an advantage to using a stronger unit, the effect is very small. For instance, in my test a unit with attack 5 destroys a wall in 240 seconds, and a unit with attack 0 destroys the same type of wall in 260 seconds.

In the process of castle testing for our mod it was my impression that every unit that attacks a wall or a tower is using the torch instead of its original weapon. There even is an animation for this.
This is the entry for torch in the projectile.txt:

;Name	Length	Freq	Range	Velocity	Accuracy	Lethality	Power	Armour Mod	Reload Time	Shoot Immediated	Reload Moving	IsGun	TryHigh	FireInRain	MinAngle	MaxMangle	AccColDec	LaunchFX	Model	bounce	minCrew	numSoldiers	TurnSpeed	Not Used	ArtilleryReload	FieldOfFire	NumSafeShots	Safety	HitGround	HitTree	HitSolider	HitWood	HitStone	BlastRadius	BlastKillChance	AimAdjust	CustomBatleCost	FlamingProjectile	IsFlaming
torch	10	5	500	50		0.75		0.05		5	1	15	n	n	n	y	y	-20	85	y	NONE	NONE	n	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	REMOVE	REMOVE	REMOVE	REMOVE	REMOVE	0	0	0	0	NONE	y

I can't be bothered to fix the format, it's off after "armour mod"

[caravel]

The torch is indeed the weapon used by infantry to attack walls. This is because there is something hardcoded into the game engine where only missiles and not a unit's melee attack can damage walls and structures.