Since it’s a repost of an old article, I’ll repost my comment from the old thread from the previous official forums about it – the only post there:
Interesting… The article states that it’s gained on mobility over the centuries, but in the game it feels like mortars are the slowest artillery units, in comparison with for example horse artillery or even falconet-type cannons.
In 1v1 I can’t recall actually using it since horse artillery, falconets and heavy cannons do much better in an open field due to their fine damage against infantry. Mortars, on the other hand, can’t attack nothing but buildings, and oftentimes you have enough siege potential among your infantry or even cavalry. Also, buildings other than walls don’t have that high HP, so producing mortars doesn’t really fit. Additionally, games seldom go into the IV age, where mortars become available.
In treaty games, though, I noticed they’re much more useful in sieging down enemy’s bases, which are always heavily walled and fortified. Their main advantage is their range and high attack against buildings. Cannons do well, but yeah, the range there is crucial, since culverins can’t achieve them.
Certain civs have really nice bonuses on mortars, like Portuguese having 50 range on them, or Russians having access to cheaper mortars. Chinese and Japanese ones are pretty mobile, which makes them superior to regular, European. In general, though, these two nations are banned in treaty for being overpowered, so it doesn’t really matter
