Onagers!? Pfft.

[The Mad Monk]

I have been playing RTW since the game came out, and I finally incorporated two Onager units into my Roman Third Legion. On the First battle i moved upto face a medium contigent of Gallic Warriors. My onagers took a week to set up and move and then proceeded to fire flaming missile's.

The shot landed directly on my prized Legion Head (A First Cohort of Sorts) a unit of all Silver upgrades/experience Urban Cohort, Killing 18 of them. Way to go, . The unit was literally 15 feet from the onagers when this cataclysmic shot was launched. So i moved the line up. With the occasional 1/15 lucky shot where it actually hit the enemy, it was around 3/15 where they hit my own units!

Okay, maybe just an unlucky start i thought to myself.

Next battle was so heavily forested it was settled with pila and gladii.

Then another opportunity arose. Being attacked by another Gallic Horde, the exact repeat of the first battle occured. This time i checked out their stats...they killed more of my units then of the enemy.


Marching along at the snails pace the Onagers limit my Legion to, We were ambushed. My Legionaries fought them off mercilessly but o where art my onager crews? Dead. Every single one of them. so thanks 800 denarii a turn costing SOB's, you guys stink.


Having Onagers in a field army?

Pros
-First turn attack on settlements.
-High Damage

Cons
- Cost a load of money
- Pathetic Accuracy
- No way to reliably aim
- Deliver same damage to your own troops with unlucky shots.
- PAthetic Speed in battle
-Slow down entire Legion.

Overall I think that two Onagers would be much more efficient if replaced by two archer units because they can actually stinking aim!'



Whew,
Rasputin.

[StealthEvo]

I find that moving the Onagers infront of my main line (when i use them) seems to alliviate most of your problems.

[empr guy]

you know, theres a reason they're siege weapons.

[Thorn777]

Onagers kill. In any battle where your opponent waits out you can use all the time in the world to shoot it empty at their center. Lots of shots miss but I usually get around 300 to 400 casualties against a full stack.

And yeah keep them just behind your main line and all troops back and you'll be fine what the friendly fires are concerned.

Every legion in my RS games has at least one if only to assault citys. Forget the ballistas and scorpio's though.

[Lucarius]

I Always place my onagers on the flanks of my army..
and then some cavalry behind them to help them when nessecary

[Genius of the Restoration]

I agree with The Mad Monk. Onagers, pfft, better ways to spend your money.

[Lucarius]

Yes,

But they are really usefull for aussalting cities.
so that the AI can't send reinforcements.

[|Sith| Max]

if you are going to incorporate siege equipment do not use flaming missiles. theyre not a good anti unit thing to start with but it gets worse when they hit your stuff. theyre also quite worthless when you are defending cause the enemy will be marching to you, while an attacking army would be facing a static opponent. For MP, never use them. theyre such a waste of cash that the lot of it was banned.

[Parzival2211]

The main reason I hardly use onagers is that they slow down the army so much. This matters less in Italy and Greece, but in Africa or Eastern Europe it's a pain. I rather spend one turn building ladders and rams than losing 3 turns on the way. The exception is when my troops would be inferior to the defenders on the walls. Then, it makes sense to use onagers and go through the wall relying on cav or phalanx.

[|Sith| Max]

Word. Also they take up slots that can be used by useful units like cav, arch or inf.

[shikaka]

I only use them in decorated siege armies, not in general, or decorated field armies.

[Thorn777]

Most of you seem to have no idea how to utilize them in army vs army battles. Again they can easily kill 300 to 400 of a stack before any engagement. That can be decisive when the army's collide and the opponent will run much quicker or is easier to outflank because of its fewer numbers. Add two units of archers to that and its not fair anymore...they are not as effective when the opponent marches towards you, but when you pull your army back from the frontal line when deploying you still get allot of shots before engagement. Just keep your men behind and stop firing when engaging. Not that hard...I always get golden exp chevrons after a few battles with them.

Don't expect them to be precise hitting the unit your aiming at when using flammable missiles(which I use - normal rocks have no use, only against buildings). Aim at the most crowded part of the enemy army and they have a large margin of error, where almost every second shot does real damage. Also it doesn't matter for onagers if it is elite units or farmers they hit. Everything dies just as quick, including generals always behind the middle of the army where you also have that highest chance of lots of casualties. Often the general gets hit as well by some coincidental hit...

Playing as the Romans they make all the sense in the world since you want your army to be very organized and almost static. When you hit them first with onagers, then with archers coming closer and then with a trillion legionary pilla's when the opponent closes in, full stack army's on VH route like nothing. Its to the point where even RS got boring on me.

Playing as the Skythians or Parthians they indeed make less sense because their units are good at skirmishing being all over the battle field. Behind a static Roman line of legionaries though...

and don't get me started on bridge battles. Then their abnormally effective.

[shikaka]

Most of you seem to have no idea how to utilize them in army vs army battles. Again they can easily kill 300 to 400 of a stack before any engagement.

Either that, or simply 2 units of extra cavalry is more useful field battle.
And they don't slow you down

[Thorn777]

Either that, or simply 2 units of extra cavalry is more useful field battle.
And they don't slow you down

Thats true, but I think that negative is outweighed by the positives, which also includes taking city's in the same turn as besieging them, so the AI cant send reinforcements, and you are indeed not "slowed down" waiting a turn minimum building siege equipment.

Plus I don't have a problem with my legions being these slow machines of death getting little to no casualties like this and almost don't have to refresh troops at all, which can also "slow down".

In the steppes though on these trample roads playing as the skythians its indeed slowing down to substantially, not having that needed strategic value of your few army's being needed everywhere quick.

Romans have paved roads and transport ships around their densely populated Mediterranean when needed.

[Simum]

I agree they are not very useful on the field. Of course attacking a defending army with your catapults up front or on the flanks will make the AI lose men (and not you) but I think the time lost waiting for the casualties to mount is too high.

Now if they used smaller pebbles (compared to a large rock) against infantry as an AOE attack it would be more interesting. The fire attack is still an all-or-nothing attack, usually nothing.

On sieges they are useful to reduce the number of towers shooting the back of my army when assaulting especially when it is mostly cavalry. Usually I withdraw the crew when there is no more ammo to make room for reinforcements

Now balistas I only build for flavor. Never found them useful.

[herne_the _hunter]

Thats true, but I think that negative is outweighed by the positives, which also includes taking city's in the same turn as besieging them, so the AI cant send reinforcements, and you are indeed not "slowed down" waiting a turn minimum building siege equipment.

Onagers are good for sieges but I find taking along a team of spies to be a good alternative.

[shikaka]

Onagers are good for sieges but I find taking along a team of spies to be a good alternative.

A group of 6-8 spies are the best support 'troops' of an all-cavalry army

You would think that cavalry will s.ck in city fighting, but actually the heavier types seriously rule.

[|Sith| Max]

Most of you seem to have no idea how to utilize them in army vs army battles. Again they can easily kill 300 to 400 of a stack before any engagement. That can be decisive when the army's collide and the opponent will run much quicker or is easier to outflank because of its fewer numbers. Add two units of archers to that and its not fair anymore...they are not as effective when the opponent marches towards you, but when you pull your army back from the frontal line when deploying you still get allot of shots before engagement. Just keep your men behind and stop firing when engaging. Not that hard...I always get golden exp chevrons after a few battles with them.

Don't expect them to be precise hitting the unit your aiming at when using flammable missiles(which I use - normal rocks have no use, only against buildings). Aim at the most crowded part of the enemy army and they have a large margin of error, where almost every second shot does real damage. Also it doesn't matter for onagers if it is elite units or farmers they hit. Everything dies just as quick, including generals always behind the middle of the army where you also have that highest chance of lots of casualties. Often the general gets hit as well by some coincidental hit...

Playing as the Romans they make all the sense in the world since you want your army to be very organized and almost static. When you hit them first with onagers, then with archers coming closer and then with a trillion legionary pilla's when the opponent closes in, full stack army's on VH route like nothing. Its to the point where even RS got boring on me.

Playing as the Skythians or Parthians they indeed make less sense because their units are good at skirmishing being all over the battle field. Behind a static Roman line of legionaries though...

and don't get me started on bridge battles. Then their abnormally effective.

That is a beautiful text. i can see you put a lot of time into it. Shame you are wrong about catapults and that its too long to read. I wont really care what you bring VS the AI but save yourself the trouble and dont bring em in MP if you ever go there.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Add two units of archers to that and its not fair anymore...they are not as effective when the opponent marches towards you, but when you pull your army back from the frontal line when deploying you still get allot of shots before engagement. Just keep your men behind and stop firing when engaging. Not that hard...I always get golden exp chevrons after a few battles with them.

How do you get gold experienced archers after only a few battles? Or are you talking about onagers? Not that gold experience on onagers really helps you anyway.

Playing as the Romans they make all the sense in the world since you want your army to be very organized and almost static.

I wouldn't use the Romans as a static army because they have strong cav, infantry and archers. They're just as suited to advancing and enveloping to sitting there waiting for the enemy. Just about anything will work with Rome because they've got no glaring weaknesses and many strengths.

Thats true, but I think that negative is outweighed by the positives, which also includes taking city's in the same turn as besieging them, so the AI cant send reinforcements, and you are indeed not "slowed down" waiting a turn minimum building siege equipment.

You can't take the settlement the same turn, that's right, but your faster speed often means you'll arrive places a turn earlier anyway, especially if you use cav to initiate the siege ahead of your infantry and archers. The AI bringing reinforcements is a good thing because then you don't have to chase them. If it takes more than one turn to build siege equipment something is very wrong. One or two ladders is all that is needed in most situations.

Plus I don't have a problem with my legions being these slow machines of death getting little to no casualties like this and almost don't have to refresh troops at all, which can also "slow down"

Combining units should mean that you only ever need to retrain a couple of units, so your army can continue marching. I still think extra cav would allow you to win the battles with the same number of casualties on your side. Less if you play your cards right. They're just not as versatile, reliable or effective as other units.

[Thorn777]

That is a beautiful text. i can see you put a lot of time into it. Shame you are wrong about catapults and that its too long to read. I wont really care what you bring VS the AI but save yourself the trouble and dont bring em in MP if you ever go there.

Great contribution. And yeah in MP their pretty much useless, whats new?

How do you get gold experienced archers after only a few battles? Or are you talking about onagers? Not that gold experience on onagers really helps you anyway.

Onagers.

Obviously it says how much they just killed, not how they become even more useful.

I wouldn't use the Romans as a static army because they have strong cav, infantry and archers. They're just as suited to advancing and enveloping to sitting there waiting for the enemy. Just about anything will work with Rome because they've got no glaring weaknesses and many strengths.

Sure you can, but I usually play like that with the Romans. Slow, organized, heavy infantry based taking its time to kill everyone while taking little casualties by utilizing its various ranged attacks before engagement.

You can't take the settlement the same turn, that's right, but your faster speed often means you'll arrive places a turn earlier anyway, especially if you use cav to initiate the siege ahead of your infantry and archers. The AI bringing reinforcements is a good thing because then you don't have to chase them. If it takes more than one turn to build siege equipment something is very wrong. One or two ladders is all that is needed in most situations.

Sure but just to say it also has pro's evening the speed argument out a bit. Not completely but I never claimed so.

Combining units should mean that you only ever need to retrain a couple of units, so your army can continue marching. I still think extra cav would allow you to win the battles with the same number of casualties on your side. Less if you play your cards right. They're just not as versatile, reliable or effective as other units.

Thats true. But I usually play RS with the tidy numbered legions and play house rules etc. Even on vanilla I liked tidy Roman army's though. No stacks of hastati and all that. Always trying to play as historical correct as possible.