How much arty is too much arty?

I just played my first multiplayer battle and got criticized by my opponent for having too much arty and for camping...

Well... being new to multiplayer in this game I have to ask: how much arty is too much?

It was grassy flatlands, I had 3 9 pounders and 2 howitzers. He had 2 howitzers and a 9 pounder or something. I won. Having destroyed his arty quickly, I let his very large amount of light infantry and a few line infantry destroy themselves as they marched straight up on my artillery and line infantry

I know artillery is powerful in this game- that's why I made sure I had enough of it. Had he done the same maybe it would have been a proper battle...

Am I exhibiting poor multiplayer etiquette?

-edit- BTW this has nothing to do with that Fritz guy who posted about camping and was for some reason or another indefinitely banned...

Originally Posted by Lord_Lotz

I just played my first multiplayer battle and got criticized by my opponent for having too much arty and for camping...

Well... being new to multiplayer in this game I have to ask: how much arty is too much?

It was grassy flatlands, I had 3 9 pounders and 2 howitzers. He had 2 howitzers and a 9 pounder or something. I won. Having destroyed his arty quickly, I let his very large amount of light infantry and a few line infantry destroy themselves as they marched straight up on my artillery and line infantry

I know artillery is powerful in this game- that's why I made sure I had enough of it. Had he done the same maybe it would have been a proper battle...

Am I exhibiting poor multiplayer etiquette?

-edit- BTW this has nothing to do with that Fritz guy who posted about camping and was for some reason or another indefinitely banned...

psssh, no you were fine with how much you brought (I wouldn't bring that much because its risky), he is just upset, and if you play in a game with arty, pretty much because you have the arty advantage, you are entitled to camp.

On the other hand, was this game ranked? because that would explain his anger, also out of curiosity, what map were you playing on.

Originally Posted by sambasam

psssh, no you were fine with how much you brought (I wouldn't bring that much because its risky), he is just upset, and if you play in a game with arty, pretty much because you have the arty advantage, you are entitled to camp.

On the other hand, was this game ranked? because that would explain his anger, also out of curiosity, what map were you playing on.

That's what I thought!!

Not sure if the game was ranked, but still!! I thought that was a perfectly reasonable (if a bit risky as you said) amount of artillery.

Seriously, if he had flanked me it would have been a totally different story! It was on grassy flatlands, so no terrain excuses!!!!

Good to know I wasn't being too rude

Originally Posted by Lord_Lotz

-edit- BTW this has nothing to do with that Fritz guy who posted about camping and was for some reason or another indefinitely banned...

Fritz took his forum name and avatar from a guy who raped and imprisoned his own daughter for 24 years, I think that's a pretty good reason to ban someone. And the fact that he was constantly calling for people to be jerks online probably didn't help either.

As to whether or not your actions were 'rude' or not, well, it's tough to say without seeing a replay and it's all going to come down to opinion. Some people say winning is all that matters, while others place importance on winning in a 'dignified' manner, the definition of which will vary from person to person.

Camping also has different definitions depending on who you ask. Some will say that camping means never leaving your deployment zone, others will say it is only camping if you exploit the 'red line' to prevent your opponent from flanking you. What really matters is if you felt good about the win or not. If you don't feel that you did anything wrong, then ignore the screams of the defeated . If you really need a 3rd party to judge your actions, then remember to save and share the replay.

Personally, I think exploiting the red line is the only really 'unethical' (such a strange concept for a situation where you're trying to kill your opponent ) thing you can do. From your description, it doesn't sound like you did that. And if you had cannon superiority, you were obviously weaker in some other area than your opponent, and it is his responsibility to make use of his own area of advantage. Again, no one can say for sure without a replay, but if you felt you're in the right, then just rest easy knowing that the loser was just looking for an excuse for his loss.

Thanks Keiichi. Had no idea about that Fritz guy's background, sounds dreadful.

Wasn't exploiting the red line (was right in the middle!) and I moved forward a bit out of my deployment zone. I certainly felt like I played a fair match so I think I will have to have another go with the same setup and see if someone can take advantage of my weaknesses!

no way was that too much artillery. While artillery is powerful, it still has weakness. I played one 3v3 tonight where my opponent took 5 artillery to my 2 and he wasted mine fairly quickly. I had no choice but to advance quickly and oddly enough I kicked his butt. He said he was distracted, which I have to believe, because that is a good bit of firepower.

As for camping, I agree with sambasam, if you win the artillery duel, you're entitled to it. That is the whole point of artillery, to force your opponent to rush your defenses. If you are winning though, it does behoove you to end it quickly, so if half his army is dead, don't just wait for him to throw his last few units against you, move up and end it quickly and mercifully.

Here's the real reason he was upset, you trumped his rifle/light units. Grassy flatlands is a map designed for rifle spammers. They setup their rifles expecting you to through yourself on them and then they retreat back to avoid you. The reason they love this map is because they can do this fire and retreat tactic (i.e. kiting) in all directions. If there were hills or features on the map, then they might get caught up or be unable to shot you with their rifles from a safe distance. Artillery changes this whole dynamic and forces them to attack you, breaking their kiting tactic. In fact this is so common that if you see a grassy flatland map and the host says no artillery, you can be sure that he will have 5+ rifles.

The amount of arty you had was reasonable, just some elite grassy flatlands player whining.

I have to say I think 5 units of artillery is excessive, mind you had I been playing you and predicted you would do that I would have spammed cavalry and heres the problem spamming leads to more spamming, and I play the game for fun, and I would feel a little used if a win at all costs player does things like that

Originally Posted by General Nuisance esq

I have to say I think 5 units of artillery is excessive, mind you had I been playing you and predicted you would do that I would have spammed cavalry and heres the problem spamming leads to more spamming, and I play the game for fun, and I would feel a little used if a win at all costs player does things like that

I agree! I think 5 artillery is marginally excessive given how powerfull CA have made it in this game.

You have no control over other people's feelings about how you play. The fact that you are asking the question in this forum is a good sign that you care about the quality of game play, not just winning.

Personally, my favoret opponent is an engaging one. One who uses arty, rifles, line, and cav dynamicly. If someone sits on the other side of the field and blasts me with arty as I run all my troops to engage, it's not as fun. It is the same with rifles. I want an opponent who has the balls to meet me in the middle, and use a variety of tactics. I would rather play an opponent that has the currage to loose an interesting fight, than someone who wants to win so much that they implement only one tactic to do it. That is the kind of opponent I want, so that is the player I try to be. Yes, I wish my star ranking was higher, but that desire is small compared to the enjoyment of a good battle.

Originally Posted by oeozero

You have no control over other people's feelings about how you play. The fact that you are asking the question in this forum is a good sign that you care about the quality of game play, not just winning.

Personally, my favoret opponent is an engaging one. One who uses arty, rifles, line, and cav dynamicly. If someone sits on the other side of the field and blasts me with arty as I run all my troops to engage, it's not as fun. It is the same with rifles. I want an opponent who has the balls to meet me in the middle, and use a variety of tactics. I would rather play an opponent that has the currage to loose an interesting fight, than someone who wants to win so much that they implement only one tactic to do it. That is the kind of opponent I want, so that is the player I try to be. Yes, I wish my star ranking was higher, but that desire is small compared to the enjoyment of a good battle.

all is fair in love and war

Originally Posted by oeozero

You have no control over other people's feelings about how you play. The fact that you are asking the question in this forum is a good sign that you care about the quality of game play, not just winning.

Personally, my favoret opponent is an engaging one. One who uses arty, rifles, line, and cav dynamicly. If someone sits on the other side of the field and blasts me with arty as I run all my troops to engage, it's not as fun. It is the same with rifles. I want an opponent who has the balls to meet me in the middle, and use a variety of tactics. I would rather play an opponent that has the currage to loose an interesting fight, than someone who wants to win so much that they implement only one tactic to do it. That is the kind of opponent I want, so that is the player I try to be. Yes, I wish my star ranking was higher, but that desire is small compared to the enjoyment of a good battle.

well said! me 2!

Originally Posted by oeozero

. Yes, I wish my star ranking was higher, but that desire is small compared to the enjoyment of a good battle.

Quikc off-topic question, whats the maximum stars?

Anyway, 21 units of artillary, is too much artillary. Cannons win battles!

Originally Posted by Alexander_Paines

Quikc off-topic question, whats the maximum stars?

Anyway, 21 units of artillary, is too much artillary. Cannons win battles!

I'd presume it is 9, like the previous total war title, Empire.

Originally Posted by ottomanfan

I agree! I think 5 artillery is marginally excessive given how powerfull CA have made it in this game.

5 is an okay number... If someone brings more then 5 they will be lacking else where, and thats where I hit

Originally Posted by ottomanfan

I agree! I think 5 artillery is marginally excessive given how powerfull CA have made it in this game.

I don't feel this way at all. In fact, I'm not sure I agree that CA has made it super-powerful.

Yes, there are instances where the artillery seems to do more than its share of the fight. But then there are plenty of others (like a game last night where a player rushed my 4 20-lber unicorns & 2 Guard Horses & took them both out within the first 5 minutes of the game. Talk about a quick defeat) where my artillery does next to nothing at all.

I hate all these "Rules" that players put on their games, and avoid them at every opportunity. You mean I can't bring artillery and I can't bring "snipers" (what the rest of us call riflemen)?

Limitations limitations limitations. Yecch.

Consider: a 20-lber Unicorn, while devastating when it hits (provided it hits, at a 30 accuracy), costs the player almost 1500. That's more than any Elite unit in the game. If that player packs 4 of them, while having an impressive pyrotechnics display, will surely be missing something. Like cavalry, for starters. Or light infantry.

im starting to regret getting grand battery of the convention

it costs 2490 which is much more than 2 24-pdrs themselves and grand battery has no accuracy, firepower or morale bonuses

Originally Posted by TheAussieDigger

im starting to regret getting grand battery of the convention

it costs 2490 which is much more than 2 24-pdrs themselves and grand battery has no accuracy, firepower or morale bonuses

Does free up an extra slot though, so maybe 2 young guards and the rest of your line as national guards?(the semi-decent militia).

Consider: a 20-lber Unicorn, while devastating when it hits (provided it hits, at a 30 accuracy),

Try inspire + target shot. It lasts quite a while and unicorn's accuracy becomes 80.

I play a lot of ranked matches and most ranked matches allow only 1-2 artillery, no fixed (no rockets or mortars).
5 artillery is an unusual amount for a ranked match.

The key really is to define it before hand. I won't play in ranked matches any more in which its not clearly defined what the "rules" are.

My personal opinion is that its excessive, most of the matches ranked or unranked involve 1-3 artly per side.

I got owned by a guy with 5 batteries recently, it pissed my off not because he owned me with the artly but because it was not defined before hand and normally it would be considered "unsporting", so I don't want to literally have to ask you every game "hey are you using an army with 5 rockets?". Another issue that people have with it is it makes it very easy for you to sit back and camp. Actually now that I think about it he did say "no rules", ok so its my own fault for "assuming".

Having said that one mans "unsporting" is another mans "good tactics", I used 2 licornes in a battle recently and my ranked opponent called me a variety of names. I didn't feel at all like I was being unsporting.

Mundty (5 stars)