Howitzer cry-babies

Hi everyone,
I am so sick and tired of reading players complaining about howitzers!! If you can't handle the challenge then maybe you're playing the wrong game! Instead of complaining, one can learn how to fight and overcome howitzers!! I think howitzers make the game a real challenge, you can't just waltz up to our enemy and just stand there shooting them for an hour, no you'll actually need to have a plan in order to overcome your enemy in time before your troops get chewed by explosive shells, or manage to take out those shells before they pose a threat to your troops!! but how?? now that's a challenge.

Different Generals had different strategies: Napoleon was about speed, he moves faster than you can react so you have little time to make a concentrated artillery offensive. Alexander Suvorov's strategy was to get his troops in contact with your troops ASAP so that you can't use your artillery or you risk killing your troops instead!! they didn't complain and whine about howitzers, no, they developed a strategy!! try developing one too!

Howitzers are a realistic weapon of the time which did wreck havoc on the battle field. Artillery Batteries contained 2 howitzers out of 8 or 25% of each battery. so out of lets say 600 guns in an army, 150 were howitzers!! and guess what?? they were accurate and they were deadly! they had explosive shells for God's sake what do you expect??? of course they will kill your troops that's the whole point of playing this game!!! for me to kill your troops!!!

I've learned how to counter howitzers and defeat them, and sometimes i end up suffering heavy casualties but that's war! casualties!! If you don't like howitzers then you should either stop playing the game or start learning how to play!! People are just too lazy and uncomfortable with the idea of having to THINK and come up with a time sensitive PLAN of killing your enemy before they kill you.

I have an easy strategy for artillery. Use more then the enemy.

Either that or deploy my troops further back. The Ai always comes to me. When they are too close to react, my cavalry (safely hidden far off the flanks) charge the guns and whell round to cut out routing enemy. Works like a charm.

Well I think, that most artillery users are firstly bad players at the game, and use the same strategy as in single player which is waiting for your opponent to come to you, and blast him in the process. Of course, with experienced players that fails terribly, because we can actually flank.

However, there are some exceptions, some very few players know how to use artillery, and how to counter it, and when you get in game with those players, it gets really fun.

I've played countless of games with artillery against artillery, or with no artillery against artillery users, and artillery can seriously slow you down, and you cannot be as aggressive as usual.

And the main reason why players use standard rules (no art, maximum of 5 100/125) is because it allows fast, very aggressive ways, and doesn't give spawn campers aka (70% - 80% of players) any advantages.

I do personally love playing with artillery, howitzers of course, because once you learn how to use them properly, they are a devastating tool, but it does slows down games considerably.

Originally Posted by Dude with the Food

I have an easy strategy for artillery. Use more then the enemy.

Either that or deploy my troops further back. The Ai always comes to me. When they are too close to react, my cavalry (safely hidden far off the flanks) charge the guns and whell round to cut out routing enemy. Works like a charm.

Originally Posted by Karlovacko

Well I think, that most artillery users are firstly bad players at the game, and use the same strategy as in single player which is waiting for your opponent to come to you, and blast him in the process. Of course, with experienced players that fails terribly, because we can actually flank.

However, there are some exceptions, some very few players know how to use artillery, and how to counter it, and when you get in game with those players, it gets really fun.

I've played countless of games with artillery against artillery, or with no artillery against artillery users, and artillery can seriously slow you down, and you cannot be as aggressive as usual.

And the main reason why players use standard rules (no art, maximum of 5 100/125) is because it allows fast, very aggressive ways, and doesn't give spawn campers aka (70% - 80% of players) any advantages.

I do personally love playing with artillery, howitzers of course, because once you learn how to use them properly, they are a devastating tool, but it does slows down games considerably.

exactly Howitzers rule this game... i love using them even if my enemy uses them on me!! yesterday i was playing and Russia used 30 pieces of unicorns on me!!! that's right!! 30!! But because i've learned how to fight against Howitzers, i am not complaining about them.

They are actually a challenge and they force you to think of a strategy on your feet, and you better be right, and you better be quick before your men get chewed!!! These are things that generals experienced on the battlefield and no one will get to experience them by staying in the comfort zone marching up to each other.

I don't complain...my cannons fire shells, too...as they did in the past. And Grapeshot...my battlefields are deadly places to hang out. Never a dull moment. My units are larger than the game gives you...rounds are not always accurate but when they are dead on...its telling. So many folks here go on about accuracy and lethality...try reading a memoir or two of the period before casting your lots on what is what. Many battles were lost/won due solely to artillery...and for Napoleon(being an artillery officer before anything else) used this to his advantage...

I don't like some of these threads as great un-truths get passed around. I see reports by few who actually understand ballistics. An howitzer shell(feet over your head) blasting apart into hundreds of fragments in a 360 degree radius at high velocity will cause great damage, there is no doubt of that. One landing in your midst is like to turn you into hamburger...along with several of your mates. Some artillery units were better than others. I would say the vast majority of Wellington's casualties at Waterloo were from artillery, howitzers especially...and I am not alone in that opinion.

Originally Posted by DinoMight

<..>
Different Generals had different strategies: Napoleon was about speed, he moves faster than you can react so you have little time to make a concentrated artillery offensive. Alexander Suvorov's strategy was to get his troops in contact with your troops ASAP so that you can't use your artillery or you risk killing your troops instead!! they didn't complain and whine about howitzers, no, they developed a strategy!! try developing one too!

Howitzers are a realistic weapon of the time which did wreck havoc on the battle field. Artillery Batteries contained 2 howitzers out of 8 or 25% of each battery. so out of lets say 600 guns in an army, 150 were howitzers!! and guess what?? they were accurate and they were deadly! they had explosive shells for God's sake what do you expect??? of course they will kill your troops that's the whole point of playing this game!!! for me to kill your troops!!!

First off, Howitzers were not an accurate weapon, you're lobbing a shell up in the air where its affect by wind, second its a smoothbore so you already have low accuracy and third, you had to have an experienced to crew to cut proper fuses to have the shells detonate at the right time. Even then they took a very long time to prepare and load if you were to expect the shot doing proper damage. Why do you think only ca 25% of a battery was howitzers ( not even then )? Its because direct fire artillery was alot more powerful whch this game doesnt show quite well.

Also, even if the howitzer landed right in a column of infantry or cavalry the damage wouldn't be extensive.... I think it was Chlapowski in his " Memoirs of a Polish Lancer " mentions that a shell landed right in the line of cavaly, all that happen was a couple horses wounded and 2 men injured by shrapnel. Remember that the shells were rather small, Average was 150 mm, but the powder was in the center surronded by the metal of the shell so the amount of explosives wasn't large ( Except maybe those 20 pdr unicorns ) and black powder isn't all that powerful, nothing compared to modern HE.

Point is, Artillery in general in NTW is just crap...

Originally Posted by LotsofxXandzZ

First off, Howitzers were not an accurate weapon, you're lobbing a shell up in the air where its affect by wind, second its a smoothbore so you already have low accuracy and third, you had to have an experienced to crew to cut proper fuses to have the shells detonate at the right time. Even then they took a very long time to prepare and load if you were to expect the shot doing proper damage. Why do you think only ca 25% of a battery was howitzers ( not even then )? Its because direct fire artillery was alot more powerful whch this game doesnt show quite well.

Also, even if the howitzer landed right in a column of infantry or cavalry the damage wouldn't be extensive.... I think it was Chlapowski in his " Memoirs of a Polish Lancer " mentions that a shell landed right in the line of cavaly, all that happen was a couple horses wounded and 2 men injured by shrapnel. Remember that the shells were rather small, Average was 150 mm, but the powder was in the center surronded by the metal of the shell so the amount of explosives wasn't large ( Except maybe those 20 pdr unicorns ) and black powder isn't all that powerful, nothing compared to modern HE.


Point is, Artillery in general in NTW is just crap...

agreed, when i saw the artillery on NTW and how it functioned i was like What the F is this ??!! I had a post once about this very topic and how artillery was completely useless hitting a group of men throwing them 50 feet back and they ALL get away and walk like nothing happened!!! that's weak CA

Originally Posted by LotsofxXandzZ

First off, Howitzers were not an accurate weapon, you're lobbing a shell up in the air where its affect by wind, second its a smoothbore so you already have low accuracy and third, you had to have an experienced to crew to cut proper fuses to have the shells detonate at the right time. Even then they took a very long time to prepare and load if you were to expect the shot doing proper damage. Why do you think only ca 25% of a battery was howitzers ( not even then )? Its because direct fire artillery was alot more powerful whch this game doesnt show quite well.

Also, even if the howitzer landed right in a column of infantry or cavalry the damage wouldn't be extensive.... I think it was Chlapowski in his " Memoirs of a Polish Lancer " mentions that a shell landed right in the line of cavaly, all that happend was a couple horses wounded and 2 men injured by shrapnel. Remember that the shells were rather small, Average was 150 mm, but the powder was in the center surronded by the metal of the shell so the amount of explosives wasn't large ( Except maybe those 20 pdr unicorns ) and black powder isn't all that powerful, nothing compared to modern HE.

Point is, Artillery in general in NTW is just crap...

Well i kind of already explained how howitzers are kind of overpowered in this game.

They were good support to the direct fire cannons, but they would never take over them just because cannons were just much more effective than howitzers. In Ntw a howitzer shell blows away a whole section of the line when it hits the center, that would never happen, but when a cannon ball hits the line 2, maybe 3 guys die and the rest just stand up. That wouldn't happen, maybe with a 2 or 3 pounder but a 12 pounder would blow away everything in its way. You would see holes through men, broken ribs, heads taken clean off the shoulders and one of the more terrifying sights was a rolling cannon ball. Legs torn off and broken in every rank that it passed through.

A howitzer on the other hand, didn't blow men to pieces like modern HE shells, most of the damage was either from shock waves destroying internal organs or shrapnel tearing through skin. But that would only affect the men standing near it and under perfect conditions. A lot of times the shell would explode too high and do no damage unless you were unlucky enough to get shrapnel buried in your head.They were no where near as effective as cannons. The only real indirect fire weapons to be feared were the 20 pounder unicorns which were a blend between a cannon and a howitzer, it had a longer barrel which allowed for more accuracy and a much larger shot/explosive amount. When that fuse is cut properly you will wreak havoc on anything you hit.

Well and that's why I use howitzers because CA did a crapy job on cannon. I have a post on cannon that I wrote. I describes how I find it absolutely ridiculous that a 12 pounder shell would hit and throw about 20 guyz in the air, yet ALL of them get up and walk away... That's when I said F this S I'm going all howitzer.

My only complaint is about Rebels having freaking Dragoons during initial Rebellion stages on Very Hard.
How the hell do they have access to units I've not even spawned yet?
Nor does the building on their map which should allow them such awesomeness, exist .

Originally Posted by Lord of the Drunk Penguin

My only complaint is about Rebels having freaking Dragoons during initial Rebellion stages on Very Hard.
How the hell do they have access to units I've not even spawned yet?
Nor does the building on their map which should allow them such awesomeness, exist .

Yeh, this is a massive problem. Shouldn't spawned rebels have the lowest tier units and probably only a few cannons max.

Originally Posted by In3x

Yeh, this is a massive problem. Shouldn't spawned rebels have the lowest tier units and probably only a few cannons max.

I get this all the time and I'm wondering where they get them from.
Because none of my men are deserting and I can't think of where they get the skilled generals and weaponry to fight with.

Originally Posted by Hazzard

I get this all the time and I'm wondering where they get them from.

Aliens from space.

They look down upon their righteous struggle and decide to help.
Alien advisor should be a trait for every Rebel general:
'Here, have a cuirass, young man. It sure as hell will help you against these pesky invaders!'

Originally Posted by Lord of the Drunk Penguin

My only complaint is about Rebels having freaking Dragoons during initial Rebellion stages on Very Hard.
How the hell do they have access to units I've not even spawned yet?
Nor does the building on their map which should allow them such awesomeness, exist .

Originally Posted by In3x

Yeh, this is a massive problem. Shouldn't spawned rebels have the lowest tier units and probably only a few cannons max.

Originally Posted by Hazzard

I get this all the time and I'm wondering where they get them from.
Because none of my men are deserting and I can't think of where they get the skilled generals and weaponry to fight with.

There is a mod that limits these rebel uprising armies to basic cavalry, militia and line infantry. I downloaded it and it works like a charm.

because they'r bull and uber-unrealistic. NTW Fails horridly in representing everything in the napoleonic wars, and fails uber-atomic-majorly in representing actual artillery/its effect/its purpose in battles.

right here its all about killing like... 200 dudes before a shot is fired and than blitzing your way through formations with almost no one left. courtesy of your howtizers that deal more damage in two shells than what aprx. 20 shrapnel shells would've dealt in a range of 800 yards in a civil war battlefield.

Originally Posted by General Sultan V

because they'r bull and uber-unrealistic. NTW Fails horridly in representing everything in the napoleonic wars, and fails uber-atomic-majorly in representing actual artillery/its effect/its purpose in battles.

right here its all about killing like... 200 dudes before a shot is fired and than blitzing your way through formations with almost no one left. courtesy of your howtizers that deal more damage in two shells than what aprx. 20 shrapnel shells would've dealt in a range of 800 yards in a civil war battlefield.

Yea, most people who don't know how to defend or play against howitzers feel the same way

See I can defend against Howitzers my way. Looking at you Karolacko. How would you flank me? I see you have decided to forget my cavalry. And I normally deploy nearer one edge of the battlefield. I almost never fight without artillery and if it is, it's either 1-5 unit skirmishes or they are replaced by more cavalry. You insult me, my strategy and (quote) '70-80%' of people who play. Maybe I don't like fighting aggresively. Maybe I'd rather shoot you before you could stab me.

But yeah, I agree with the whole super-rebel thing. I actually prefer it though, mainly because I join them for the better flags. Andalsotheir24lbersthatcancompletelydevasteanyaggresiveaction.

Originally Posted by Dude with the Food

See I can defend against Howitzers my way. Looking at you Karolacko. How would you flank me? I see you have decided to forget my cavalry. And I normally deploy nearer one edge of the battlefield. I almost never fight without artillery and if it is, it's either 1-5 unit skirmishes or they are replaced by more cavalry. You insult me, my strategy and (quote) '70-80%' of people who play. Maybe I don't like fighting aggresively. Maybe I'd rather shoot you before you could stab me.
.

In reality defending is much harder than attacking, but you, you abuse the game by sitting in a corner with already overpowered artillery. He is damned right to insult you, it ruins the game to go up against corner campers, i want a challenge, not fighting some little corner camper who has no idea of mobile warfare.

Im not the rush attacker myself but seriously that tactic only works against noobs, how many hours do you have on Napoleon Total War? Have you never played against experienced players who have put you so far into that little corner like a cowardly dog? Maybe thought of trying something else for once or are you too pro with your corner camper strategy...

Play the game however you want but have the decensy to stick to playing against the AI so new guys can learn from real players and not corner campers. Sitting in corners is just exploiting a weakness of this game, in a real battle you would just be surrounded and destroyed, luckily most people don't need to surround you since your mobile skills are too weak to take any initiative.

Hopefully some other people agree with me.... I hope that nobody else here thinks corner camping with artillery is a legit strategy....

I never said I play MP. If I did I'm sure I'd learn to adapt my strategy against others. However, I doubt I'd go around insulting other people's strategies because they don't like it. Nobody has a right to insult my strategies as long as I'm not cheating. How dare you.

Reading about the 1st Silesian War, in depth, is a good study on how period generals countered artillery and its effects. No conjecture or speculation. Just fact.