Artillery - What is the use of it?

[unmerged(15591)]

Does anyone of you use artillery? I normally don´t because all it does is:
- Slow down army movement.
- Cost a lot.
- Take much to maintain.
- Is useless in battle.

All right, there is some bonus to besigeings but normally I don´t besiege much, I assault and in that too artillery is useless.

I think that artillery should have some more advantgaes for example:
-Land to sea battle.
-Bonus aginst aphibious assaults.
-More defence bonus.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

Maybe in the higher land techs, artillery should give a much greater bonus to field battles. During the 18th century especially, artillery became small and mobile enough to inflict great damage on an enemy army, but in the earlier period it was much too cumbersome. Often in the Seven Years' War and onward, the side with the greater number of guns could achieve a decisive victory because of them..

As it is, I tend to have one siege leader run around with 40 or 50 guns behind my field armies, sieging the provinces my field armies have cleared out. This isn't a bad system.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Yes, later in the game (Perhaps Levee en Masse?) Artillery should provide a fire bonus.... like cavalry gives a shock bonus. (Because Artillery did prove extremely useful in the field later in the game's timespan.)

 

[unmerged(15591)]

But what do you think of:

I think that artillery should have some more advantgaes for example:
-Land to sea battle.
-Bonus aginst aphibious assaults.
-More defence bonus.

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by dictator
Does anyone of you use artillery? I normally don´t because all it does is:
- Slow down army movement.
- Cost a lot.
- Take much to maintain.
- Is useless in battle.

All right, there is some bonus to besigeings but normally I don´t besiege much, I assault and in that too artillery is useless.

I think that artillery should have some more advantgaes for example:
-Land to sea battle.
-Bonus aginst aphibious assaults.
-More defence bonus.

The nations that would put it and did historically put it to good use are punished by having high costs due to the naval sliders ie Holland Portugal and England. Wheras the countries that never use it get low costs like France Austria and Ottomans

To quote a famous land orientated player "I just disband it and make Horses"

 

[N Katsyev]

Land to sea battle? Are you talking my army Normandie attacks the British fleet in the channel?... I suppose you could try, but remember that naval guns (especially later on) dwarf those used on the land. *happy memories of armies being decimated by my navy on Cossacks*

Bonus to amphibious assaults... employing artillery of the day, bringing it to shore, and putting it into almost immediate battle could have been a logisitical nightmare, not to mention time consuming.

More defense bonus, yes! Artillery should definitely give a bit better firepower to the defender. I like this one.

I also really liked the idea of giving a firepower bonus to the army with artillery supriority. In fact, why wait till the end of the game? Even if it weren't all that valuable on the field during the earlier periods, it would be nice to see people use Aty more, a bonus like this could bring this to being. What is it, more than double and you get the bonus? I like it.

Also, could we see a hardcoded bonus to Polish artillery firepower? While this isn't compeltely serious, it does have some points behind it. Poles were the innovators of light horse cavalry and used battlefield rocketry very effecitvely, even prior to 1650.

 

[Velociryx]

I think Kat will not be happy till Poland has a 50% research boost, Latin tech group, and CB shields on all of the Russias, all the German minors, most of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and everything Ottoman up to Thrace....

-=Vel=-

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think Kat will not be happy till Poland has a 50% research boost, Latin tech group, and CB shields on all of the Russias, all the German minors, most of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and everything Ottoman up to Thrace....

-=Vel=-

Now that's not fair. I even said I wasn't completely serious, just wanted to toss an idea out for thought.

.... However... while we're talking about cb-shields... Poland really should have them on Silesia and Kustrin... *runs and takes cover*

 

[N Katsyev]

On a more serious note however, back to the real topic at hand here, artillery. If we were going to give Artillery the "fire power bonus" much like the cavarly shock bonus, artillery shouldn't have it in marshes, just as it is currently penalized in marshes. I think this change in itself could bring about far more artillery on the battlefield, which would indeed be a very good thing.

 

[Vynd]

Artillery does have a very high fire value after the middle of the game. But you can generally buy several thousand infantry for the cost of one unit of cannons, so infantry is still the most cost- effective way to get firepower. On the other hand, if money is no object, but the size of your army is, then it seems to me that a case can be made for lots of artillery.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Vynd
Artillery does have a very high fire value after the middle of the game. But you can generally buy several thousand infantry for the cost of one unit of cannons, so infantry is still the most cost- effective way to get firepower. On the other hand, if money is no object, but the size of your army is, then it seems to me that a case can be made for lots of artillery.

Granted, but this is a seperate idea than the empowering of artillery beyond what they currently are. If they could grant a firepower bonus, i'm sure people fork over the extra cash to some artillery in some of their armies.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by dictator
Does anyone of you use artillery? I normally don´t because all it does is:
- Slow down army movement.
- Cost a lot.
- Take much to maintain.
- Is useless in battle.

Which is as it should be, for the first two or three centuries.

During this time, artillery is nearly useless in battle but excellent for siegecraft.

Once you reach the higher techlevels (post tech 30-35), however, and mobile field artillery is invented, artillery becomes positively scary on the battlefield and for supporting assaults (their fire and shock value are added to the infantry's when assaulting fortresses) - and it retains the nice siege bonus.

(No need for a special "fire bonus" for artillery when it already has thrice the firepower and thrice the shockpower of infantry at tech 31!)

Now, under 1.05 I never used artillery if I could avoid it, but that was mainly because of the bug that made it cost ten times as much as was intended in upkeep In 1.06 it is an essential part arm of my military once I start expanding.

Of course, one thing is still the same in 1.06 as in 1.05. If you are going to have a sustained period without war (otherwise known as peace), consider disbanding some or all of your artillery until you need it.

 

[N Katsyev]

Re: Re: Artillery - What is the use of it?

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Which is as it should be, for the first two or three centuries.

Once you reach the higher techlevels (post tech 30-35), however, and mobile field artillery is invented, artillery becomes positively scary on the battlefield and for supporting assaults (their fire and shock value are added to the infantry's when assaulting fortresses) - and it retains the nice siege bonus.

(No need for a special "fire bonus" for artillery when it already has thrice the firepower and thrice the shockpower of infantry at tech 31!)

Even if artillery wasn't very effective at all in the early stages, it still could have quite a marked effect on morale. Having iron balls pounding the ground around you, a couple explosions here and there and the sound of cannonfire... while it may not be hitting you, could do its share in shaking you up a bit. As for the no need for a special fire bonus later on when it has many times the effects of infantry, this is much like saying cavalry isn't needing its cav bonus early on when there is no fire phase and their shock numbers are drastically higher than those of the infantry. Also a +1 firepower bonus is much less than the +3 shock factor bonus of cavalry that John was mentioning.

 

[JohnMK]

I suspect then what gives cav such superiority early on is the shock value of cav as denoted in land.csv (I think that's right value). It's like . . many times that of infantry. Throw in the +1 shock modifier and yep pure cav is surely useful on plains against smaller cav & inf forces.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Kat, i keep correcting it so don't spread false ideas. Cav sup is +1.
Its effectivity is not only this, but that is has 3-4 times more killing power than infantry in early tech levels (as it should), and early CRT shock phases are more deadly than fire (as they should)

I didn't know Art maint was wrong. If yes, it become interesting to use it in XVIII cent again. As it shoul be.

Fire bonus is interesting idea indeed, although i have no idea if its balanced-i don't play XVIII century much, if at all. (especially Art has its value halved in the same places Cavalry has, haha)

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Kat, i keep correcting it so don't spread false ideas. Cav sup is +1.
Its effectivity is not only this, but that is has 3-4 times more killing power than infantry in early tech levels (as it should), and early CRT shock phases are more deadly than fire (as they should)

I didn't know Art maint was wrong. If yes, it become interesting to use it in XVIII cent again. As it shoul be.

Fire bonus is interesting idea indeed, although i have no idea if its balanced-i don't play XVIII century much, if at all. (especially Art has its value halved in the same places Cavalry has, haha)

Didn't know I was spreading a false idea, sorry. *throws some random object at John* I think artillery does need some sort of boost however, and the fire-support idea is a nice way to do this.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Didn't know I was spreading a false idea, sorry. *throws some random object at John* I think artillery does need some sort of boost however, and the fire-support idea is a nice way to do this.

OTOH, if you add some sort of boost (such as a +1 fire bonus equivalent to the cavalry superiority +1 shock bonus), artillery will become important on the early battlefields, which is clearly unhistorical. Though useful for pounding walls, siege artillery just did not cut it in battles.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

I agree with the idea of giving artillery after a certain tech level should grant a +1 or +2 fire bonus to the side with the greater amount, accounting for the superior force's ability to silence the enemy's guns and project its fire down onto the enemy soldiers. I'd say that this is just as sensible as giving cavalry superiority a +1 shock bonus.

 

[Nikolai II]

Nah, check the tables, artillery kills at high techs, no need for more.

Cavalry gets it's bonus so you'll want to keep them around for scouting, else you'd dump them completely in late game.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
OTOH, if you add some sort of boost (such as a +1 fire bonus equivalent to the cavalry superiority +1 shock bonus), artillery will become important on the early battlefields, which is clearly unhistorical. Though useful for pounding walls, siege artillery just did not cut it in battles.

I do see your point here. However the period of artillery's compelte uselessness on the field was ending at the end of the 16th century. At the end of the 16th century we began to see field artillery tactics improved, guns were getting better, and they were seen in more and more armies. Sweden owes many of its vicotries in the late 16th and early 17th to effective artillery use which other powers weren't using to such great effect. But then, Sweden only took her original artillery doctrine from the Poles. So while artillery being important on the field from 1490's (land tech 7) through 1570/80 we'll say might not be quite historical, it is historical for the remainder of the game. Keep in mind here though that shock is still usually the deciding factor during this same 1490 - 1580 period, so the +1 firepower won't be so much a big deal.