Is artillery worth it?

[luck_ponte]

Here is the thing: I've just started my Roman campaign (I'm around turn 50) and I've decided to use scorpions to complement my fresh-new polybian maniples. However, I noticed that the scorpions (actually, all artillery) reduced a great deal of my mobility, so I decided not to recruit them so my army could run to reinforce a border that was under attack. However, I wished to know: in your experience, is artillery worth the mobility loss (either due to effectiveness against units or in sieges)? I know that I could give my general traits to improve my armies movement range, but I'm still thinking if I should replace my slingers with ballistas and scorpions or just use the extra range to blitz my enemies and better reinforce where needed. Thanks in advance ;D

[m_1512]

Not really, artillery in those times was primarily for sieges, and the scorpions were disassembled and assembled by the Romans when needed. In DeI, I think the ancient vanilla howitzers were reduced quite a lot to realistically make them as siege engines.

[Post Hoc]

You could hold a fort or city with one ballista, 4-6 heavy inf, and a general against almost anything.

[ABH2]

It's still more useful in field battles even in DeI.
1. The AI still attacks you if you have it in your army. I don't know about you, but the one thing the the AI does better than me is micromanage troops. Keeping a formation together on the move isn't always easy. I'm probably not the best at the controls, though.
2. If you are defending, especially in sieges, they will still rack up a decent number of free kills. More than extra unit probably would. But missile units are also more powerful in DeI in general. A unit of well-used javeilnmen might be better to carry.

#1 is the biggest reason to use it for me, but I build armies without it. It's sort of cheap to use it, in my view.

I find ballista to be relatively worthless for sieges. The few times I tried to use them, they didn't even have enough ammo to destroy the gate.

[antred]

I find ballista to be relatively worthless for sieges. The few times I tried to use them, they didn't even have enough ammo to destroy the gate.

Don't go for the gates! Take out a chunk of wall near the gates, as that takes less ammo and it means you troops won't be showered with burning oil when rushing through the opening.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

Heavy artillery in my view should only be constructible as siege weapons. Lighter weapons like scorpions should be used only when an army has constructed defenses or a fort/camp. In all honesty vanilla artillery was extremely OP as barbarians could run around with complex machinery that can hit moving cavalry by turn 6. So I tend to stay away from it. Plus historically artillery would be a pain to transport. I would stick to ranged units as they are more mobile, can inflict similar damage, and can be used somewhat in melee, especially useful for running down routing enemies.

[ThatWhichThinks]

I don't tend to bring artillery because it slows my armies down so much. But, in my campaign as Carthage, the AI Ptolomies have been using artillery a lot, and to great effect (unfortunately!). Artillery can blast elephants, ruin cavalry units, and is good for sniping elite infantry as well. One ballista unit is probably going to rack up more kills during the approach phase of a battle than most skirmishers. In fact, rather than artillery, I would categorize ballistae or scorpions as super-skirmishers. In field battles, they do exactly what skirmishers are supposed to do: they harass enemy lines, wear down enemies before the main engagement, and entice enemy formations to attack. Artillery just do it at longer range and with deadlier ammunition. Plus, artillery can really smash a cavalry or elephant unit that is waiting to circle around and attempt to flank you!

Just make sure to keep anti-cavalry (or your own cavalry) ready to deal with enemies trying to smash your artillery once the battle commences.

[m_1512]

Now this we cannot have. Must come up with something.

[Augustusng]

This seems like something that might not be moddable, but I thought it could be interesting if you couldn't normally recruit artillery, but instead you could build it as siege equipment, like siege towers and ladders. Just a thought, but I imagine it would be difficult if not impossible to implement.

[luck_ponte]

This seems like something that might not be moddable, but I thought it could be interesting if you couldn't normally recruit artillery, but instead you could build it as siege equipment, like siege towers and ladders. Just a thought, but I imagine it would be difficult if not impossible to implement.

I guess it would be much work for nothing imho. Plus, ballistae and scorpions were complex pieces of machinery that required special materials (like sinew and proper glue) and lots of time and expertise to be built. I always envisioned them as being disassembled to march with the army and reassembled in battle, but I could be wrong (history for me is a hobby, I'm nowhere near a specialist).

[Ultra123]

I must say, a avid fan of arty in all tw games in dei I'm finding them quite ineffective, not enough ammo and not enough damage, I'd much rather a units of javs then waste the spot on a ballista

[Tripledot]

When aimed manually, Lithobolos can rack up hundreds of kills, more than enough to make them worth it.

[Post Hoc]

It is worth it, but it's very gamey so I no longer use them except for knocking down walls.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[luck_ponte]

It is worth it, but it's very gamey so I no longer use them except for knocking down walls.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Holy cow, 2k kills? oO huahauhaua i can imagine your satisfaction seeing those babies wrecking havoc in the enemy lines =)

[andrewdrakelive]

Use the siege and artillery mod, on the summons area, and you will find it useful

[luck_ponte]

Use the siege and artillery mod, on the summons area, and you will find it useful

Will check it out, but to be honest, I already use A TON of submods...lol Anyway, thanks for the heads-up

[ABH2]

The notion btw that artillery would slow down an army on the march is a modern one. Its true only since infantry and cavlary can march (at least temporary) without a major bagage train. A roman legion shouldnt be slowed down at all, they had to stay close to their train anyway and even without artillery that was massive (the camp alone!).

I wouldn't say this, actually. First, logistics changed over time for the Romans, so it's hard to make sweeping statements. Besides that, I can say that in the case of both Alexander the Great's army (had a siege train that lagged behind his main force) and in the case of Hannibal, siege equipment was definitely an extra burden. The pace at which the army wanted or had to move would have really been what determined whether siege equipment and such slowed an army down.

Hate to disagree with the consensus (I really do), but historicly the romans made heavy use of artillery even in field battles. Especially scorpions and other small torsion catapults were used almost like light artillery emplacements today.

I think the main issue is that they are a little overpowered. I'm unaware of them being decisive in too many battles, yet in vanilla if I have two of those things I'm going to kill a fifth of my enemies army before they even reach mine.

[Cambion]

Hate to disagree with the consensus (I really do), but historicly the romans made heavy use of artillery even in field battles. Especially scorpions and other small torsion catapults were used almost like light artillery emplacements today. There is plenty of evidence in the form of spent bolt heads (sometimes hundreds in one place), even in Germany, which terrain really didnt lend itself to heavy transports. Its just that the romans were stuborn as hell. They build impressive marching camps every day while in hostile territory and just like that they hauled their artillery everywere. Heavy catapults were a different matter and were probably only build (or at least assembled) during sieges. The notion btw that artillery would slow down an army on the march is a modern one. Its true only since infantry and cavlary can march (at least temporary) without a major bagage train. A roman legion shouldnt be slowed down at all, they had to stay close to their train anyway and even without artillery that was massive (the camp alone!).

[blub19]

you have to consider that an roman legion had like 6k men and then there are the camp followers like families, traders, craftsmen and so on. I think it is save to assume that in hole there where at least 15k people on there way and they would have a lot of carts mostly pulled by oxen with supplies and so on. I don't think that they would be slowed by some carts with some scorpions. I read some where that only the small artillerie was carried with them and for bigger one like balistae and onagers thay had some keyparts with them and used local wood for anything else.

[Caligula's_Horse]

The artillery is a huge advantage in city assaults, either to take down sections of the wall (gates are for barbarians who can't do ballistics), or if you're feeling cheap, taking advantage of the AI's refusal to sally forth and engage you in un-walled settlements. The enemy coming to you is also handy during a field battle, though unless they're situated on a hill or something, its more for convenience then tactical supremancy.

In most field battles though, the artillery isn't pulling its own weight. Which except for the easily portable scorpion (which I might need a buff, especially considering it can't bring down walls), is pretty historically accurate.
Definitely an improvement over vanilla. Those ballistas would have had a competitive edge over some of Napoleon's lighter cannons...