Artillery discussion

[KPJ]

Okay, so I want to have a talk about artillery.
Do you guys like them? Are they any use?
Whenever I use them I end up quite frustrated, and when I fight enemies who use them I find myself quite pleased with my greater maneuverability. This must be a choice on my part, choosing maneuverability over extra firepower, but do others like artillery?

Are they especially useful if you are a non-western nation? To get some firepower for your spearman armies?

 

[Jazerus]

I never use artillery, but I almost never fight protracted wars in Europe, either, so I rarely have to deal with built-up provinces. Assaulting is pretty much always faster than sieging against low-level forts, even with artillery, and the manueverability issues make it harder to destroy enemy armies and easier to be trapped and destroyed yourself.

I could see some very clever situational uses for them, but not as a standard part of every stack.

 

[jjja494]

I never use artillery, but I almost never fight protracted wars in Europe, either, so I rarely have to deal with built-up provinces. Assaulting is pretty much always faster than sieging against low-level forts, even with artillery, and the manueverability issues make it harder to destroy enemy armies and easier to be trapped and destroyed yourself.

I could see some very clever situational uses for them, but not as a standard part of every stack.

Agreed.

 

[The_Tom]

Artillery is essential, especially if you aren't in a Western tech group. By late 1650s, most of the damage my stacks deal is fire damage.

20/4/20

 

[fleetothemoon]

Usually I keep many non-artillery stacks around for maneuverbility, intercepting smaller enemies, rebels and so on. I keep around around a few heavier stacks equipped with artillery to deal with enemy doomstacks. Artillery really packs quite a punch in late game.

 

[Munashiimaru]

I just let my artillery trail behind my armies unless I really need them for combat.

 

[midget_roxx]

Artillary signifacantly decreases casualties taken from assualting forts. If you have 5k art and 20k inf you will probably take 10k casualties. If you have 10k art and 20k inf you will probably only take around 1-2k casualties. And of course they do significant amounts of damage later on in the game.

 

[LordLeto]

I usually throw em into my basic stacks after the 3rd or 4th generation cannons are available. Sure they make my armies slower but I'm usually maneuvering 2 or more stacks at a foe as is and its too easy to trap a opposing AI stack with a little mirco.

 

[wraitii]

I usually build "artillery stacks" ( 50% inf, 50% art ) in late game to help siege along my other 70% inf 30% cav stacks.

 

[Dafool]

Artillery is pretty useless for combat. While it may have better fire than infantry on average, infantry is much cheaper, moves faster, and isn't insta-wiped if caught alone. They are, on the other hand, quite useful for those level 4, 5, & 6 forts that you'll occasionally see in the late game. Some of those actually require artillery if you want to make any real progress.

 

[Renfrost84]

For HttT, I would build a stack of infantry with 2-4 artillery to assault in sieges. I would use cavalry infantry stacks to push the front line. (sorry, I don't know if DW is different in this respect)

 

[KPJ]

Hmm, so maybe have one stack with artillery for big sieges but otherwise avoid them?
I mean, if you can get past the maneuverability problem, are they actually any good in a battle?
If I recall correctly, they can improve infantry's firepower if they are standing 'behind' an infantry, is this worthwhile to try to arrange?
How do they compare to infantry at different stages of the game-- fire and shock modifier, specifically?

 

[Sakkura]

Hmm, so maybe have one stack with artillery for big sieges but otherwise avoid them?
I mean, if you can get past the maneuverability problem, are they actually any good in a battle?
If I recall correctly, they can improve infantry's firepower if they are standing 'behind' an infantry, is this worthwhile to try to arrange?
How do they compare to infantry at different stages of the game-- fire and shock modifier, specifically?

Infantry has a much higher shock modifier than artillery throughout the game. Artillery starts with the same fire modifier as infantry, but it grows faster and eventually ends up much higher than the infantry fire modifier. At land tech 66 in HTTT, the modifiers for infantry are 4.5 combined, while the artillery modifiers add up to 9.025. In other words, artillery scales through the roof in the late game, so sooner or later it will be a force to be reckoned with even in regular battles. Early on it is really only useful for sieges.

 

[unmerged(223117)]

Any coordinated push that I do in western Europe always involves artillery. I use the 6 cav/12 inf stacks to mop up broken armies and handle smaller revolts, but the spearhead is always with artillery stacks. My primary armies are almost always a ratio of 4 infantry to 2-3 artillery and a total of 4-6 cavalry (i.e. 12 infantry, 8 artillery, 4 or 6 cavalry). Cavalry is best employed as a flanking force later in the game from what I've seen (and I think that caps at 4 regiments).

The basic idea is that artillery is for dealing damage in the fire stage, cavalry are good at the shock phase, and infantry are somewhere inbetween (and soak the bulk of the casualties). If you look at the damage multipliers (http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Land_Tech) artillery has a huge fire damage multiplier once you're in the late 20's early 30's of land tech.

It may only have been in IN, but artillery used to provide defense to the infantry in front of them. Once you start approaching the late 20's land tech, it's basically free damage in the fire stage for you to have them in the back row vs carrying more infantry.

If you get a high enough maneuver on a leader, you can also compensate for artillery's slower speed. A coordinated assault with a couple armies should allow you to box your opponent in, or if you want to be really clever you can use spies to sponsor rebels to delay their retreat.

The additional punch they give an army is well worth the speed trade off.

 

[Rangergxi]

Cannons are a valuable in the main battle. Maybe not in small stacks.

 

[Noctus]

Good for duking it out with european armys after landtech 30. And there with around 2 ARTto every 3 INF, or even 1 to 1. Expensive, slow, but packs a very nice punch.

For hunting natives i prefer the higher manuverability.

 

[unmerged(227863)]

Never built a single artillery unit. They cost about twice as much as even cavalry, they are completely useless.

 

[e_quality]

You all might want to check out this thread, and perhaps especially this post.

 

[King Nothing]

A lot of people that doesn't seem to know how it works here..

Artillery shoots above the head of the units in front of them so instead of taking the punch from a infantry unit, the enemy takes it from both the infantry AND the artillery standing behind them. Adding to that, the artillery also increases the defence of the unit in front of them. Late game that makes a huuuuuuuge difference.

 

[Sakkura]

Never built a single artillery unit. They cost about twice as much as even cavalry, they are completely useless.

They do twice as much damage late-game, not to mention their ability to attack and defend from the back row or their effect on sieges. Artillery is very useful.