Should trebuchets be nerfed?

[Gamer de esquerda]

I kinda feel they are really OP. If you have 2 trebuchets in your army and a strategist with flaming shot, you can easily defeat an army the same size as yours while only losing about 30 guys, if you make your moves well. I haven't tested 3 trebuchets yet.

I think what is most different from previous game is their accuracy. I remember in Rome: Total War, there were flaming shots that were deadly, but it was rare for them to actually hit their target.

[Remosu37]

I don't agree with simply making them more expensive. Trebs fundamentally change how battles are fought.

Infantry and cavary charges after bombardment just aren't a part of 2nd century combat, and Trees can wrack up 1000+kills used correctly when defending in sieges aimed at bunched up enemies.

They are caoable of doing so much damage, They distort battlefield tactics where it becomes a game of min/maxing the trebs effectiveness.

Either they need to be nerfed so they are only effective against bkdjngs or to be made a siege only unit.

[Nero]

Instead of nerfing them they could add the Ballista ffs.

[Skidvar]

I would make trebuchets siege-only for several reasons:
- their use is more historical this way as no armies were moving around with pre-built trebuchets, they had to be built and required decent engineering. Furthermore, it was a time-consuming process.
- because of the lack of other decent siege equipment options in the game (like e.g. catapults, spear carts, and siege towers - no idea why there are no towers in-game as they were used for certain at the time). The prerequisite of a strategist (even leveled up) could be kept.
- sieges will take longer if you have to build trebuchets first. Not sure if any of you have ever visited a walled chinese city (like Xi'An, but the walls are massive: https://imgur.com/a/LP7CGGY )
- the AI doesn't use them a lot in their armies, but higher level settlements have them as defence also which makes it interesting.
- they are OP when enemies are encamped, they make encampment even a disadvantage, which is mostly to the player's advantage as the AI doesn't use them a lot.
- the use of fire arrows becomes more important in encampment battles, counties, and unwalled settlements
- there will be more use of advanced bow & crossbow types, even horse-archers
- there will be extra spots in your armies where you normally would have trebuchets.
- there will be funds available for extra troops

[Virthuss (法國人在台灣)]

There are not that OP. Cavalry can deal way more casualties if used well, and even if the AI is dumb, trebuchets can be countered by flanking them with cavalry or any troop. Or even with another trebuchet unit...

The main problem is the AI being dumb, even if they get their unit to adopt a spread formation even before you shot, making the AI a bit OP as it can anticipate in advance where your projectiles will land...

[Björn]

So what... Artillery has been OP in all TWgames and was never changed. NOOBS that can´t play the game have to have something to use in battle and win.

Don´t think CA wants to fix that bacause it sells a lot of games to NOOBS and CHEATERS. You do know that CHEATERS rule the ranking in all TWgames. And the more they brag about being high in the ranking the more they CHEAT

[VoiD]

As a ranged spammer in pretty much every TW game, and as a great fan of trebuchets in this game I gotta say yes, but they aren't the only problem.

Most archers can get similar kills, or at the very least half as many kills as a treb, costing 60 or even 30 maintenance, while the treb costs 280, it's a great weapon and it's main use is forcing enemies to always come at you and engage you, nearly 100% of my battles play out as defense battles+ranged spam because the enemy always takes too many losses in an artillery battle, or doesn't have any arty at all, so they are forced to engage.

While I do think that trebs are a bit too powerful, both in and off sieges, I don't feel like nerfing them would solve the issue at all, ranged as a whole is quite powerful in this game AND it doesn't have much ammo, less damage and more ammo might be a good idea, though cavalry is also very powerful, if ranged becomes less relevant I fear the game will turn into a cav spam worse than attila, so that also needs adjustments, at least to their charge, that being said cav is also very fragile and die easily, if their charge is not deadly and they die too easily they would be useless.

Infantry as a whole serves no purpose other than holding the lines and wasting enemy efforts in certain formations, perhaps they need to be stronger out of formations, and weaker in formations?

Anyway, my point is: The game's balance is a bit weird, but if you touch one thing, everything might fall appart, I agree that some things could change, battles should last longer, lethalit should drop, staying power should be increased as a whole but all of this will require a lot of work.

[Welsh Dragon]

Sounds like a classic case of "Smart Missile Ballista" from Rome 2. If so, reducing their accuracy to make them less effective against units whilst still being able to hit the broad side of a barn (well wall,) would probably be the solution.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Welsh Dragon:

Sounds like a classic case of "Smart Missile Ballista" from Rome 2. If so, reducing their accuracy to make them less effective against units whilst still being able to hit the broad side of a barn (well wall,) would probably be the solution.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

The possible issue with that approach is when they go too far, Shogun 2 vanilla campaign had great artillery, then CA nerfed them because of MP (always found it weird that people even cared about MP in TW) and now all artillery in shogun 2 base campaign is 100% useless, they can't hit anything and they have no ammo, most battles they literally get 0 kills, hell, they can't even hit the castle walls as you've mentioned and this was never fixed.

[Welsh Dragon]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Originally posted by Welsh Dragon:

Sounds like a classic case of "Smart Missile Ballista" from Rome 2. If so, reducing their accuracy to make them less effective against units whilst still being able to hit the broad side of a barn (well wall,) would probably be the solution.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

The possible issue with that approach is when they go too far, Shogun 2 vanilla campaign had great artillery, then CA nerfed them because of MP (always found it weird that people even cared about MP in TW) and now all artillery in shogun 2 base campaign is 100% useless, they can't hit anything and they have no ammo, most battles they literally get 0 kills, hell, they can't even hit the castle walls as you've mentioned and this was never fixed.

Fair point. In general I prefer incremental nerfs/buffs to be sweeping ones. Tweak it a little, see how that works, if it's still an issue tweak it a little more etc.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Remosu37]

Field artillery shouldn't even exist in this era. It's not until the 1600s that the first viable antipersonnel artillery actually make a field battlefield appearance.

Also, it's true you can limit the damage a treb can do, but it forces you to build your entire strategy around it. Loose formations, careful not to overlap units close together, rush to avoid bombardments, etc.

But EVEN IF you are able to limit the trebs kill numbers, the Treb is so influential in the battle every decision needs to take its presence into account, making it IMMENSELY unavoidaly influential on the battlefield.

Given field artillery didn't exist in 190, this is way, way too powerful and basically turns the game into a state no different than a Pike and Shot game from the 1600s or later

What's the point of having different eras of historical games if you just put in units that make battles play out more similarly to latter era games?

[Spector]

If I read this correctly, the armies on the map don't have fewer movement points/distance if they have a trebuchet unit in them? Well... that is the core of the problem then. An army with a trebuchet should suffer a 50% movement penalty.

Problem solved.

( I haven't played any singleplayer yet)

[123]

I tried 4 trebuchets and an army bigger than yours can't even touch your toes XD

[Kitten Food]

Originally posted by Remosu37:

Field artillery shouldn't even exist in this era. It's not until the 1600s that the first viable antipersonnel artillery actually make a field battlefield appearance.

Also, it's true you can limit the damage a treb can do, but it forces you to build your entire strategy around it. Loose formations, careful not to overlap units close together, rush to avoid bombardments, etc.

But EVEN IF you are able to limit the trebs kill numbers, the Treb is so influential in the battle every decision needs to take its presence into account, making it IMMENSELY unavoidaly influential on the battlefield.

Given field artillery didn't exist in 190, this is way, way too powerful and basically turns the game into a state no different than a Pike and Shot game from the 1600s or later

What's the point of having different eras of historical games if you just put in units that make battles play out more similarly to latter era games?

Absolutely agree. While siege artillery existed in a form during this era, it was not 'artillery' or useful in actual battle. There were plenty of experiments and prototypes using ballistic weaponry during this era, but none of it was ever mass rolled out or reliable/cost-effective enough to be widely adopted. I still think artillery should only be allowed in siege battles or at least have a massive campaign movement penalty and increase in upkeep.

[backstab_boy]

Trebs should be siege-only. They are explosively fun of course, but its easy to over-rely on them and I feel that they trivialize the gameplay too much. I think that removing them from the game completely would make the army composition choices much more meaningful and the actual battles more tactical and engaging.

[dulany67]

This game is almost entirely single player right now. If you feel like trebs should not be available, don't use them.