Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.


[Suggestion] Artillery balance and siege building.

RikhardRikhard Registered Users Posts: 1
edited February 2016 in General Discussion
I am posting this here, though it is a general TW thing:

Many sources tell us that during the pre-gunpowder era, artillery was most times built during the siege and was not carried around with the army, being pretty uncommon in open field battles (except for the roman army).

Arty (catapults, onagers, trebuchets, etc.) could be built during the sieges taking several turns each piece, like ladders or towers. At the same time, arty could have a much greater impact on movement speed of armies, as well as higher upkeep and recruitment cost. This way, arty during open field battles would be less common, and using it would give a great advantage at a great cost on both manouverability and money. Sieges would also be tougher, as it would be much more difficult to break down the enemy walls.

Maybe some kind of high-tier logistics technology could give a boost on arty movement speed, allowing late armies to use it more effectively on the open.


  • quitequite Registered Users Posts: 19
    This is a great idea I think. This something that could be good.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Personally, I'd rather have it as a siege 'deployable' for line units, with upgrades from research. roman units could have anti-personnel pieces (e.g. scorpions) as 'deployables' for field battles.

    This would solve several problems at once:
    (a) no more field-battle onagers etc., meaning better field battles
    (b) all armies (at least with the right units) able to assault towns without having to wait long times - something that gets the AI hung up, although it's at least better in TW:A than in R2
    (c) since onagers etc. would be only for sieges, they could rebalance the stats to make them good vs walls but not vs personnel, since they wouldn't need to fill an field-battle role any more

    some might object to changes in balance from not having to hire them, but IMO not being able to use them without a unit assigned to it (like other siege equipment) would balance the lack of a cost.
  • ColeusColeus Senior Member Western Roman EmpireRegistered Users Posts: 666
    I think artillery as a battlefield deployable is a great idea, as it allows us to use the full 20 spaces in the army roster for proper fighting units. Bring on the infantry clashes!
    "Dear God, forgive us."

    Grizzled TW veteran.
Sign In or Register to comment.