Wall artillery not firing

[Ernavill]

So I have played a few sieges now with wall artillery in my current campaign. I deploy them at the start of the battle and I'm able to select them once the battle is started. I cannot, however, order them to fire on targets, nor do I see them firing of their own accord. Anyone know if this is a general bug or specific to me? Haven't been able to find any recent forum posts on this, just old ones on siege equipment not spawning at all.

The only mod I use is 4 turns per year mod.

[Barrelz]

Are they within your arc of fire?

[Fred_the_Cow]

I had the same problem with certain cities the last time I played, but that was... a while ago. I don't remember which cities now. Game sucks.

[Ernavill]

I can't seem to order the squad away from the artillery. And yes the enemies are within the arc of fire. I have tried disable auto fire and turning it back on again. But it seems they don't respond to anything. Very weird.

[Fred_the_Cow]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

Very weird.

Frustrating, too. Especially if the outcome of the battle is going to be close.

[Ernavill]

Yup I lost one of them, which I would probably have won had I been able to use my ballistas to wreck some ladders.

[Kalon]

yea but at least you got female generals right? CA has their priorities mate...game bugs aren't important...what is really important is making sure history is re-written to be more inclusive....
and if you don't agree...obviously you are an alt right manbaby antisjw bigot...

[Ernavill]

@ y4uhittaz well the Celtic tribes in Britain did have female generals, The leader of the celts during Julius Ceasar's invasion of Britain was a woman. I didn't see any so far in any non celtic factions (I'm playing as British Confederation that's why I noticed them there). So it's not re-writing history, it's added historical accuracy.

@Ver Sacrum I am just playing a general grand campaign. I haven't bought any of the expansions. Field artillery works fine btw, it's only wall mounted artillery that is bugged.

[Present]

I think that's kinda a bug or something. Too sad...

[khan]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

I can't seem to order the squad away from the artillery. And yes the enemies are within the arc of fire. I have tried disable auto fire and turning it back on again. But it seems they don't respond to anything. Very weird.

Try flee order then rally them back.

[Kalon]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

@ y4uhittaz well the Celtic tribes in Britain did have female generals, The leader of the celts during Julius Ceasar's invasion of Britain was a woman. I didn't see any so far in any non celtic factions (I'm playing as British Confederation that's why I noticed them there). So it's not re-writing history, it's added historical accuracy.

Generals? you mean general, one, as if I am not very aware of who Boudica was....note I gave her a name instead of saying "the leader of the celts during Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain".
Oh...and being the leader or figurehead doesn't make you a general. Plenty of queens and politicians and movers and shakers were female....but not generals. Also, Boudica wasn't the leader of the celts during Julius' invasion. She lead a rebellion AFTER the invasion against the occupying Roman forces.
Isn't it weird that all the defenders of this BS don't actually know history as well as the people collectively facepalming at making 10-15% of generals female? Making 10-15 of all generals female is not added historical accuracy, its revisionism. Plain and simple revisionism. Sorry but through all of history in the world, there are about a dozen or so female generals spread across a thousand years and thousands of miles. This is a fact. historical accuracy would have less than 1% of generals be female.

[Hammer Of Evil]

Originally posted by y4uhittaz:

yea but at least you got female generals right? CA has their priorities mate...game bugs aren't important...what is really important is making sure history is re-written to be more inclusive....
and if you don't agree...obviously you are an alt right manbaby antisjw bigot...

hahahaha

[Ernavill]

Originally posted by y4uhittaz:

Originally posted by Ernavill:

@ y4uhittaz well the Celtic tribes in Britain did have female generals, The leader of the celts during Julius Ceasar's invasion of Britain was a woman. I didn't see any so far in any non celtic factions (I'm playing as British Confederation that's why I noticed them there). So it's not re-writing history, it's added historical accuracy.

Generals? you mean general, one, as if I am not very aware of who Boudica was....note I gave her a name instead of saying "the leader of the celts during Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain".
Oh...and being the leader or figurehead doesn't make you a general. Plenty of queens and politicians and movers and shakers were female....but not generals. Also, Boudica wasn't the leader of the celts during Julius' invasion. She lead a rebellion AFTER the invasion against the occupying Roman forces.
Isn't it weird that all the defenders of this BS don't actually know history as well as the people collectively facepalming at making 10-15% of generals female? Making 10-15 of all generals female is not added historical accuracy, its revisionism. Plain and simple revisionism. Sorry but through all of history in the world, there are about a dozen or so female generals spread across a thousand years and thousands of miles. This is a fact. historical accuracy would have less than 1% of generals be female.

Agreed that if you make all your generals female it is more than would be historically accurate, but then again the Britons never captured Rome and yet in my campaign that banner is snugly flying over the city. This game is about taking history in a new direction, not about reconstructing it exactly. If you don't want any female generals, nothing is stopping you from only getting male generals. But some people might enjoy having a matriarchal society. We all know that the historical accuracy of Rome is far from perfect, but most people don't care at all, they just enjoy the game for what it is.... entertainment.

[Kalon]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

Originally posted by y4uhittaz:

Generals? you mean general, one, as if I am not very aware of who Boudica was....note I gave her a name instead of saying "the leader of the celts during Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain".
Oh...and being the leader or figurehead doesn't make you a general. Plenty of queens and politicians and movers and shakers were female....but not generals. Also, Boudica wasn't the leader of the celts during Julius' invasion. She lead a rebellion AFTER the invasion against the occupying Roman forces.
Isn't it weird that all the defenders of this BS don't actually know history as well as the people collectively facepalming at making 10-15% of generals female? Making 10-15 of all generals female is not added historical accuracy, its revisionism. Plain and simple revisionism. Sorry but through all of history in the world, there are about a dozen or so female generals spread across a thousand years and thousands of miles. This is a fact. historical accuracy would have less than 1% of generals be female.

Agreed that if you make all your generals female it is more than would be historically accurate, but then again the Britons never captured Rome and yet in my campaign that banner is snugly flying over the city. This game is about taking history in a new direction, not about reconstructing it exactly. If you don't want any female generals, nothing is stopping you from only getting male generals. But some people might enjoy having a matriarchal society. We all know that the historical accuracy of Rome is far from perfect, but most people don't care at all, they just enjoy the game for what it is.... entertainment.

So you don't care about someone else inserting their politics into your game? Why stop with female generals? Where are the asians in your british campaign? What is that you say? There were no asians in ancient Britain? Well well well you bigot...some people want asian representation...the game is about entertainment right? So lets have asians, and hispanic, and transgendered representation in your game....not a mod that you elect to download....no no no....a patch that is downloaded for you and forced into your game...
You want that right? You want asians and hispanic generals right? Cause if you dont...you are a bigot....

[LSD]

Originally posted by y4uhittaz:

yea but at least you got female generals right? CA has their priorities mate...game bugs aren't important...what is really important is making sure history is re-written to be more inclusive....
and if you don't agree...obviously you are an alt right manbaby antisjw bigot...

Get a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ life, jesus.

[Simple Kind of Man]

Originally posted by y4uhittaz:

Originally posted by Ernavill:

Agreed that if you make all your generals female it is more than would be historically accurate, but then again the Britons never captured Rome and yet in my campaign that banner is snugly flying over the city. This game is about taking history in a new direction, not about reconstructing it exactly. If you don't want any female generals, nothing is stopping you from only getting male generals. But some people might enjoy having a matriarchal society. We all know that the historical accuracy of Rome is far from perfect, but most people don't care at all, they just enjoy the game for what it is.... entertainment.

So you don't care about someone else inserting their politics into your game? Why stop with female generals? Where are the asians in your british campaign? What is that you say? There were no asians in ancient Britain? Well well well you bigot...some people want asian representation...the game is about entertainment right? So lets have asians, and hispanic, and transgendered representation in your game....not a mod that you elect to download....no no no....a patch that is downloaded for you and forced into your game...
You want that right? You want asians and hispanic generals right? Cause if you dont...you are a bigot....

and this is how u use "logic" to make the rest of us with logic look bad