Artillery & 20 units limit

[Logue]

I think having units of 500 men just for the sake of having more men isn't very subtle and doesn’t improve the gameplay while it does need improvements.

To cintinue and visualize my concept:

Splitting the whole cluster of all units into
1) a cluster standard units having 20 unit slots for example. This is the main fighting body
2) a cluster of specialized units having 4 unit slots for example. This obviously is NOT the main fighting body but can go for scouts, and skirmishers like a squad of riflemen.
3) a cluster of artillery units having 6-8 unit slots for example. This is the supportive body (yes supportive, but deadly) Of course they can be put up front and lay waste to the land in front of them but they are big machines, being operated by a group of men and dragged by horses.

Like this:

1) regular units cluster:


2) artillery units cluster:


3) special units cluster:

I like this idea but instead of having artillery and special units why not just be able to switch between supporting armies ie the army you control and the army(s) under Ai control?

[Razor]

I like this idea but instead of having artillery and special units why not just be able to switch between supporting armies ie the army you control and the army(s) under Ai control?

Well this subdivision between regular, artillery and special is only meant for one army.
I'm certainly not against the option to switch between your army and the reinforcement armies, but that's something different from what is being discussed here.

[Logue]

Well this subdivision between regular, artillery and special is only meant for one army.
I'm certainly not against the option to switch between your army and the reinforcement armies, but that's something different from what is being discussed here.

Yeah i know but what i what i'm trying to get at is: CA have said there not gonna split up the units into subtypes so instead of subtypes use the tabs use you came up with to allow the control of more units effectively which would allow unit selections to be a bit more flexible.

[Ulisse]

I think having units of 500 men just for the sake of having more men isn't very subtle and doesn’t improve the gameplay while it does need improvements.

To cintinue and visualize my concept:

Splitting the whole cluster of all units into
1) a cluster standard units having 20 unit slots for example. This is the main fighting body
2) a cluster of specialized units having 4 unit slots for example. This obviously is NOT the main fighting body but can go for scouts, and skirmishers like a squad of riflemen.
3) a cluster of artillery units having 6-8 unit slots for example. This is the supportive body (yes supportive, but deadly) Of course they can be put up front and lay waste to the land in front of them but they are big machines, being operated by a group of men and dragged by horses.

Like this:

1) regular units cluster:


2) artillery units cluster:


3) special units cluster:

Wow good idea,Ca could be interested?

[Skyline Pete]

The topic is about the sacrificing of artillery units and specialized units in favor of ‘regular’ cavalry and infantry units and vice versa. Not primarily about the amount of units in one army and most certainly not about unitsizes.

I wouldn't really call it sacrificing as artillery will play a much much greater role in this game than in previous games. Heck in my current French Medieval 2 campaign I am experimenting the inclusion of 3+ serpentine batteries in my armies and they're proving to be far better than having an extra couple of troops. The morale casualties they cause on top of the actual casualties far outweighs any potential penalty I might suffer for not bringing a greater number of combat troops.

[Razor]

I wouldn't really call it sacrificing as artillery will play a much much greater role in this game than in previous games. Heck in my current French Medieval 2 campaign I am experimenting the inclusion of 3+ serpentine batteries in my armies and they're proving to be far better than having an extra couple of troops. The morale casualties they cause on top of the actual casualties far outweighs any potential penalty I might suffer for not bringing a greater number of combat troops.

It is sacrificing because you can't have 18 infantry/cavalry units and 3 artillery units in one army. If desperately want 3 artillery units then 1 unit of infantry or cavalry has to go. That unit is going to be sacrificed.
The same is that if you have 12 infantry units and 8 artullery units in one army, and you need more ( - edited typo -) men because otherwise you cannot hold the line in a battle against the upcoming enemy; a few artillery units have to leave.
That's what I meant with sacrificing.

The whole artillery-becoming-more-deadly-and-important-thing is not the issue here.
Artillery cannot equal an infantry unit or a cavalry unit because they have a far too different role in battles.

[Frost, colonel]

It is sacrificing because you can't have 18 infantry/cavalry units and 3 artillery units in one army. If desperately want 3 artillery units then 1 unit of infantry or cavalry has to go. That unit is going to be sacrificed.
The same is that if you have 12 infantry units and 8 artullery units in one army, and you need for men because otherwise you cannot hold the line in a battle against the upcoming enemy; a few artillery units have to leave.
That's what I meant with sacrificing.

The whole artillery-becoming-more-deadly-and-important-thing is not the issue here.
Artillery cannot equal an infantry unit or a cavalry unit because they have a far too different role in battles.

I still don't get your arguement, if the artill is decent enough, you don't need as much inf, so what if you have to loose one inf, to gain 4 guns.

Jack Lusted is an experienced gamer and modder, if he says after playing ETW, that it's a fair trade then what's the problem.

If the AI has 13 units of inf, and I have had to loose one for an extra gun battery, leaving me with just twelve inf, then I may well, either turn all my batteries on just one of his units, so we both have 12 inf, or if I engage after a general softening up, his morale and numbers per inf unit will be weaker.

So why do you say you won't be able to hold a line, if you loose an inf unit to get a battery?
If you do come accross an army with few guns, and lots of inf/cav, then I will try and use the terrain to hinder it being able to bring those superior no's to bare while my gun batteries work there magic. In this situation a decent commander should be able to inflict much higher casualties on the side with few guns but more troops. If the ground isn't favourable, try to retreat/move to where it is.

I quite like the way you put your 20 cards together, and then lay them out on the table(battle). Going for a balanced army may not always work, but it will be fun trying to properly use, a balanced combined arms force, in a way Fred the Great would be pleased with!

[Razor]

I still don't get your arguement, if the artill is decent enough, you don't need as much inf, so what is you have to loose one inf, to gain 4 guns.

It’s the dilemma you’re facing: should I have one artillery unit extra in the army or one infantry or cavalry unit extra? Artillery although deadly and supergreat has a different role and Works differently from infantry or cavalry and therefore they cannot be compared or made equal by including both in the standard 20 unit slots.

Jack Lusted is an experienced gamer and modder, if he says after playing ETW, that it's a fair trade then what's the problem.

He’s thinking in term of 20 units and no more. He’s equalling the infantry/cavalry with artillery. Ofcourse the same can be said with infantry versus cavalry, but the difference in roles on the battlefield between infantry versus cavalry aren’t that big compared to artillery versus cavalry/infantry.

If the AI has 13 units of inf, and I have had to loose one for an extra gun battery, leaving me with just twelve inf, then I may well, either turn all my batteries on just one of his units, so we both have 12 inf, or if I engage after a general softening up, his morale and numbers per inf unit will be weaker.

So why do you say you won't be able to hold a line, if you loose an inf unit to get a battery?

What if you’re being outflanked by the enemy because you have only 6 infantry.cavalry and the enemy 12 infantry/cavalry. You might not be able to stretch your front enough to prevent the enemy from outflanking you. All because of the 20 units limit and you having artillery...

[Skyline Pete]

The same is that if you have 12 infantry units and 8 artullery units in one army, and you need for men because otherwise you cannot hold the line in a battle against the upcoming enemy; a few artillery units have to leave.

Been there done that. I would often win in a case like this against the AI. The large units of artillery would inflict such grievous casualties that by the time the enemy reached my line they'd be extremely demoralised.

And why stop at 4 arty units? Why not 20? You know, an additional tab for up to 20 arty units. Hell lets not just stop at arty, lets do cavalry too because I don't want to sacrifice some of my precious line inf spots just for some silly buggers on horses.

Artillery plays a HUGE importance in this era and there is absolutely no way you are making a sacrifice by bring along a few pieces of artillery in exchange for some of the other available units. It's a trade up you as a player need to make, should I make a cav based army or an inf based army? Should I bring arty to hit from a distance or should I take an extra lot of troops to push hard quickly. Hopefully before the other army's arty tears you a new one.

[Razor]

Been there done that. I would often win in a case like this against the AI. The large units of artillery would inflict such grievous casualties that by the time the enemy reached my line they'd be extremely demoralised.

It depends how dumb the AI is to let his army being shot to pieces before it reaches you. It wasn’t a real challenge to do that in previous TW games...

And why stop at 4 arty units? Why not 20? You know, an additional tab for up to 20 arty units. Hell lets not just stop at arty, lets do cavalry too because I don't want to sacrifice some of my precious line inf spots just for some silly buggers on horses.

I agree, why not? Well there’s atill al imit we have to deal with. And since in general infantry and cavalry units outnumbered artiller numbers I chose to have not 4 but 8 artillery slots.

Artillery plays a HUGE importance in this era and there is absolutely no way you are making a sacrifice by bring along a few pieces of artillery in exchange for some of the other available units. It's a trade up you as a player need to make, should I make a cav based army or an inf based army? Should I bring arty to hit from a distance or should I take an extra lot of troops to push hard quickly. Hopefully before the other army's arty tears you a new one.

It’s a trade you need to make because of the maximum of 20 units. If normal units and artilley were seperate you didn’t have to do that. Also a general didn’t had to deal with this weird dilemma.

What you said about infantry and cavalry, yes you’re right there, but the difference of roles in battle between artillery and infantry/cavalry is far greater than the difference between infantry
and cavalry.

I see you’re still focussing on artillery, but what about scouts/riflemen or the praeventores in BI? Surely 50 men of spies can’t compete against a legionary cohort of 160 men? Having these specialized spies seperated from the 20 unit slots they can actually have an advantage instead of having a penalty because, instead of them a unit of legionaries could have been used in the battle.

Of course these unit slots for different types of units is just a measure to the sacrificing or exchanging units because of the 20 units limit. A perfect TW game would indeed be having an unlimited amount of units, but that’s impossible.

[magpie]

Hi Razor, I fully agree wth your augument, that extra unit slots on top of the main 20 should be added for special units.
There seems to be a lot of people on this thread who are content with tiny little armies and for no progress by CA , in how the armies could be developed with a little vision. regards magpie.

[Razor]

Hi Razor, I fully agree wth your augument, that extra unit slots on top of the main 20 should be added for special units.
There seems to be a lot of people on this thread who are content with tiny little armies and for no progress by CA , in how the armies could be developed with a little vision. regards magpie.

Thanks, I feel much better now...

[Logue]

Well if you are able to switch between reinforcement armies you could stick the artillery and cavalry in the reinforcement army and then have them fight on the same battle map, or if its just the artillery in a separate army that could also be useful for besieging in that you could take a couple of light guns for use against troops and not have the heavier guns in the 2nd army engage. Kinda march divided fight united principle.

[ashbery76]

Micromanaging 20 units is enough thanks.

[Ojf]

I think since artillery will take up a precious spot, grapeshots will only be worth it or artillery will be overpowerd

[Montressor]

As for the OP, I think it's an excellent suggestion. It would also stop the proliferation of the 15 stack artillery armies you see from the AI. ACtually, I think such a system would ensure that the AI built better proportioned forces.

That said, I can see the logic of the system CA uses (as in, providing a minor strategic challenge to the player to blance their own armies), and I wouldn't be surprised if the AI does field more blanced armies this time.

[Razor]

Well if you are able to switch between reinforcement armies you could stick the artillery and cavalry in the reinforcement army and then have them fight on the same battle map, or if its just the artillery in a separate army that could also be useful for besieging in that you could take a couple of light guns for use against troops and not have the heavier guns in the 2nd army engage. Kinda march divided fight united principle.

But then you cannot deploy your artillery behind the ‘reinforcement’ army or vice versa.

I think since artillery will take up a precious spot, grapeshots will only be worth it or artillery will be overpowerd

I hope not...

As for the OP, I think it's an excellent suggestion. It would also stop the proliferation of the 15 stack artillery armies you see from the AI. ACtually, I think such a system would ensure that the AI built better proportioned forces.

That said, I can see the logic of the system CA uses (as in, providing a minor strategic challenge to the player to blance their own armies), and I wouldn't be surprised if the AI does field more blanced armies this time.

Indeed, it would help the AI. And btw with 8 artillery unit slots, that’s more than enough artillery for one army? (8 x 4 = 32 cannons) Even in a siege.

I can also see CA’s point, but the player can still balance his own army with this. And we would get rid of the weird dilemma of whether to include infantry or artillery, and have artillery and special units without replacing precious infantry/cavalry units.
It would also get the proportions of artillery versus regular troops armies ‘right’.

[Logue]

But then you cannot deploy your artillery behind the ‘reinforcement’ army or vice versa.

No but it means you cavalry and artillery will be on the flanks which means you could set up to take advantage of that. So you are extending your line and if the maps are going to be bigger then it will help since i find the M2TW maps sizes to be too big for medieval combat but i recon they would be big enough for ETW.

[Samuel Adams]

Has anyone seen what Artillery can do to infantry? Or even cavalry?

Let's take an OOB with the following setup:

Army 1:
2 Arty
1 General
14 Infantry
3 Cav

VS

Army 2
1 Gen
15 Infantry
4 Cavalry

Now they have to march to each other, and attack and attempt at foiling the other's plans. This is standard maneuvering. The Artillery laden Army can have the artillery deploy and begin pounding the advancing enemy from range. The effect is devastating if the artillery commander knows his stuff; is he shooting down a line? Is he shooting down the ranks of an advancing column? Or is he simply shooting at a single line, taking out 1-6 men tops per shell?

By the time the enemy is within shooting range, you have already destroyed morale in several units, caused casualties of considerable proportion, and at best have caused some units to have much less line coverage and thus make a narrower and weaker line, or at worst have decimated a line battalion so that your enemy has that many less troops on line. couple your artillery with your attacks, and I promise that the man with the balanced Artillery will win, every time.

[Razor]

Has anyone seen what Artillery can do to infantry? Or even cavalry?

Let's take an OOB with the following setup:

Army 1:
2 Arty
1 General
14 Infantry
3 Cav

VS

Army 2
1 Gen
15 Infantry
4 Cavalry

Now they have to march to each other, and attack and attempt at foiling the other's plans. This is standard maneuvering. The Artillery laden Army can have the artillery deploy and begin pounding the advancing enemy from range. The effect is devastating if the artillery commander knows his stuff; is he shooting down a line? Is he shooting down the ranks of an advancing column? Or is he simply shooting at a single line, taking out 1-6 men tops per shell?

By the time the enemy is within shooting range, you have already destroyed morale in several units, caused casualties of considerable proportion, and at best have caused some units to have much less line coverage and thus make a narrower and weaker line, or at worst have decimated a line battalion so that your enemy has that many less troops on line. couple your artillery with your attacks, and I promise that the man with the balanced Artillery will win, every time.

Nice story, but it doesn't prove anything... Artillery is deadly, but I haven't played Empire to see how deadly. Have you...?
Btw why are we discussing the use of artillery? Of course artillery may turn out to be the key feature of your army. But why do the cannonns have to be in at the cost of other units and not be an extra?

Still the fact remains that if you have an army of 18 units and you want to include 4 artillery units, 2 units have to leave.
It's this that the 2 units have to leave in order to have artillery that I'm against.
Having additional artillery unit slots will allow the player to fully use the standard 20 unit slots for infantry or cavalry and the additional artillery slots for artillery. This way deleting artillery units cannot result in the player adding extra infantry or cavalry units to fill in the empty unit slots, because the unit slot is meant for artillery only.