Is there a chance that the mortal auto-attacking troops feature get removed?
I am a treaty player and I find this function totally useless.
Not only that it does nearly no damage, the splash animation also covers up all the troops and makes the field look so messy. The most annoying thing about the feature is that it makes the Mortals no longer auto-attacking buildings, therefore it requires the player to pay a lot more attention to micro the Mortals. The only exception is the Japanese Morutaru, it prefers attacking buildings, but that’s all.
Do supremacy/campaign/AI players find this feature useful?
Why did the devs impelent this feature in the first place?
If you find yourself in a situation where you have Mortars, and you are engaging the enemy, and there are no enemy buildings nearby, the mortars MUST be able to attack the enemy army, don’t pretend that could never happen.
It’s not my problem that you can’t play the game, your hands should exist.
ok the insinuating that I’m a bad player is just rude because clearly im indicating there’s an issue with playability and useability of a unit thats significantly specialized just ignoring what it’s supposed to do. Dont be an ass.
Secondly why does it need to be better vs infantry? i guess that hand mortars should be better vs infantry and light cannons should get 3x vs inf too because they currently dont and maybe flaming arrows and morutaru and siege elephants and all those other cannons should be randomly better against extra things too. Culvs are already buffed vs siege units and buildings. why do mortars need buffs they already demolish buildings and are exceptionally good at it. every random buff to every euro artillery is a DIRECT nerf to the comparable units for all the other civs. its just power creep and it needs to stop.
Because people like you are creating problems that don’t exist, plus I already stated that I agree that Mortars should prioritize buildings and ships. We live in times where people think they can say anything, but get angry when they are criticized for doing so.
Because in this game, by design, artillery is supposed to counter infantry, just as cavalry counters artillery, etc. Additionally, Mortars do not have to be as good against infantry as other artillery units are. Falconets are pretty good against buildings, but Mortars are even better. Likewise, Mortars should be useful against infantry, but not as good as Falconets. In this way, the Mortars would also have 2 roles, one in which they are very good, and another in which they are quite good.
I am talking only about the Mortars. You are naming a lot of artillery units, grouping them together in a generalized, hasty and superficial way to try to distort my views. You act like you don’t understand game units properly.
The Hand Mortar and the Siege Elephants already have 2 roles, they are a mix between the Mortars and Culverins (Good against buildings, ships and artillery). The Flaming Arrows are a cheaper and weaker version of the Falconets, designed according to the balance of the Asian civs, which have fewer powerful artillery units but compensate in other areas. Culverins have a small bonus against buildings, it’s not that important. As you can see, most artillery units have 2 roles against ground units.
Mortars should also have 2 roles just like the vast majority of units, and be useful in some way when there are no enemy buildings nearby.
specialist units like mortars are exceptionally cost and pop effective in exchange for being good at only one thing. Thats good design. Euros do not need a blanket buff for a 4 pop falconet with extra range that melts buildings. Its ridiculous power creep.
thank you, edgelord of wisdom.
because it haw been exclusively euro artillery, the specialist ones getting multiplier buffs without the equivalent units from other civs being given the same advantages.
and both are painfully mediocre at countering artillery, yet culverins have been buffed twice now to add extra benefits.
cool, make them 6 pop and 600 res like other 2-role heavy artillery
I already explained to you that compared to Falconets, Mortars can be worse against infantry and better against buildings.
Don’t complain if you write without thinking.
Hand Mortars have other advantages, they are cheap, only use 1 pop, and partially cost food. Siege Elephants are tough and have good mobility. Both can be trained in Age III by default (Mortars require age IV or a card). And the Culverins and their buffs aren’t as cool as some make them out to be.
Non-European civs have other bonuses to compensate for their artillery problems, otherwise they would be unplayable. Asians and Africans could also get some European artillery.
Fine, let them cost the same as the Falconets if that improves their damage against infantry.
Artillery should get stances in general like hold ground or defend mode so artillery pieces without unpacking animation don’t run after random units.
It’s not about that. The problem is that the mortars should always prioritize buildings and ships, regardless of whether they are micromanaged or not.
And I agree with that. But hands are also needed. Did you know that there are people on this forum who are asking to remove the Mortar attack against units? It seems like a very extreme measure to me. Maybe they wouldn’t ask for that if they had hands.
It’s the price of having so much flexibility/versatility. But Siege Elephants (good hp, mobility, III Age) have several advantages over Mortars and Culverins, which do not have as much flexibility/versatility, and their role is relegated only to countering a type of land thing.
are you capable of making a post without making an insulting dig at anyone who disagrees? so far any opinion has been from people with no hands, cant play the game, dont know the game, dont think, or angry. Do better.
remember kids, reverting a unit back to how it was for nearly 20 years is an extreme position, but making mortars into a 300 hp 30 range falconet is a totally small adjustment that is necessary and good
Please can you describe those insults? do you see any bad words? I don’t see any, I just see that I have already given you many arguments to support my claims, but you just ignore them. And with your comments you have already shown several times that you do not know the game well. I’m just telling the truth. Do better.
How many times have I already written that Mortars should not be equal to Falconets, but should have more damage against buildings and less against units in comparison? Maybe your real problem is that you don’t have good eyes…
And if you are worried about the range and hp of Mortars, they can be balanced by slightly reducing their range against units and their hp, in exchange for improving their usefulness against infantry.
And it is not necessary to ask that their attack against units be removed (that is extreme), just that the Mortars prioritize buildings and ships, I have already written this many times, but you refuse to understand it. That imprecise and unrigorous way you have of analyzing things will always bring you problems, please evolve.
The change was terrible and made a useful and expensive unit much more difficult to use for its designed and historical purpose. The game now requires that I specifically micromanage mortars as a separate group and individually move and target them each time they kill a building. This is tedious and totally unnecessary.
There’s no rational reason why the auto-attack AI should specifically be programmed to play the game as inefficiently as possible, in this case by making mortars waste time attacking infantry and cavalry instead of buildings. This seems to be a design decision with this team. The cavalry will auto-attack literally anything but the things it counters. Infantry will do the same, actively choosing to play inefficiently unless I specifically move and direct each class of units on the battlefield. I’ll have halbs running around aimlessly hitting nothing while they’re ripped apart. I look away from battle to micro my economy for a second and I’ll find my cavalry literally scattered across 3 separate screens because god forbid they’d ever move as a group when I put them as a hotkeyed group. The auto-attack AI is specifically designed to be an impediment to the player and that’s an atrocious design choice. All it does it demand an increasingly high APM rate to play effectively because I’m having to literally override the terrible AI targeting every time it tries to do it. There’s nothing more frustrating than sending in 20 heavy cav to smash a line of artillery and watching them kill one and then literally run away from the rest of them to go attack a musk, halberdier, or villager half a screen away. I not only have to micro the group, but then split the group for each and every damn artillery piece. And that’s before I deal with the pathing issues. You want to talk about frustrating? This is the thing that’ll have me ready to put my fist through the wall after dealing with certain games. It’s deliberately broken and it shouldn’t be.
Historically, mortars could indeed be used against large infantry formations, but it wasn’t common. You’d rather use smaller, purpose-built guns with a lower trajectory for that. To do it with mortars, you had to switch your ammunition. A 12" steel ball isn’t going to do squat against infantry, but it’ll punch a giant hole in a stone wall. If you want to kill infantry, you need high explosive shells or grapeshot or something similar. So, this should be easy to justify putting the two functions as a toggle with the anti-building function as the primary and the anti-infantry function only when there are no buildings in range or specifically commanded.