Artillery - What is the use of it?

[unmerged(10802)]

I also think it should give a fire bonus.
Watching Sharpe made me see just how rubbish it is in EU2.

 

[unmerged(9191)]

+1 firebounus is very much needed.

It can act as a slight balance to cavalry as well as reducing army size's (duh 8D infantry vs 50D arty)

It just makes since..imagine facing a wall of metal balls every minute...talk about intimidating.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Artillery! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!

Artillery is useful in the end of the game in combat, but before that it is a huge deadweight, which slows down your armies, costs huge sums of money, and causes attrition in your infantry forces.

There needs to be something at the end to balance out this uselessness.

Steele

 

[Elijah]

I disagree it being useless. But for the first half of the game its really only useful for seiging mountains or islands when you can protect it from counterattcks admittedly.

 

[unmerged(5314)]

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 beg to differ in support of the fire superiority bonus for artillery. By any account of the Italian Wars (1496-1556), artillery was crucial if not decisive. Superior artillery either drove the enemy out from entrenched positions or effectively precluded enemy from approaching them. Yes it was cumbersome, - so are the aircraft carriers. Nevertheless both are decisive weapons of great importance to the age.

 

[N Katsyev]

Maybe its powers in the latter stages could even be toned down slightly if this advantage was put in. The general increase in effectivity of the entire army through artillery superiority would no longer have to be represented simply through the fire/shock power of the artillery themselves. Thereby we don't armies becoming incredibly artillery heavy, however to the effect where they can try and gain the firepower advantage.

Also, thanks for the Italian Wars information. I know very little about them.

 

[BSweezy]

In regard to the fact that high-tech infantry are still more cost-effective: a unit of artillery should require fewer men to run it than a 1,000-man infantry unit.

Is there anyway for the manpower to affect artillery recruitment differently than inf/cav? Then smaller countries could use expensive, powerful artillery in place of men.

I can't think of a good historic example, but the guns of the Brits are pretty good.

 

[Juice]

Since the costs of forts has risen and max size has been put in place, most forts don't go over medium from what I have seen so far, I don't think it makes much sense to spend all that money when you can buy 4K or 5K infantry for the same price and support is less. After you get into the higher levels the infantry are better since they move faster and aren't hindered as much as cavalry and arty by terrain, just don't get caught on open plains So as the game stands now the only arty I ever use is the free stuff I get from events, I can't remember ever building any

Juice

 

[Johan]

Hmm...

For example... at LandTech 20...

Each artillery unit (10) does 125 damage in the firephase. Thats compared to 100 an infantry unit does (1000).

At landtech 52, artillery does 800 damage, while infantry does 250.