Weeda
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-05 04:29 PM
EDT (US)
1 / 24
Yes it seems cannons don't have minimum range and that should definitelly be fixed! I also had situations when a falconet destroyed 3 or more musketeers meleeing it... and that's far from realistc...
MoNo Ager
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-05 04:32 PM
EDT (US)
2 / 24
IMO it definitely shouldn't. You pay loads of cannons who are weak and easily destroyed. No minimum distance is what makes them great, with a minimum distance they'd have to move and set up again it just wouldn't work.
DarkAge
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-05 05:27 PM
EDT (US)
4 / 24
In real-life such a situation wouldn't arrise. An attacking soldier would only need to kill the cannon's crew and the cannon would be useless. If he were stupid enough to stand directly in front of the barrel and slash at the cannon with his sword, then I believe he would find out that the cannon has no minimum range.
lachlan
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-05 01:37 AM
EDT (US)
12 / 24
Its stupid looking having a cannon pivot around in hyper speed when you melee it, its grating on the nerves.
CK the Fat
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-05 03:54 PM
EDT (US)
15 / 24
I wonder why ES removed that feature. Now, with no minumum range, it really defeats the purpose of placing your cannons in the back of your army and keeping them proteced, even against infantry. A patch should definitely put that feature back in.
CK the Fat
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-05 04:02 PM
EDT (US)
17 / 24
I know, but as I play British, my army is usually upgraded musketeers, and as soon as I kill the enemy infantry of cavalry in the enemy front lines, I tell my men to run up and melee the artillary. This works because musketeers are decent against all units and are quick and cheap, plus have an attack bonus versus cannons. Not as good as cavalry, granted, but it works.
Oi_Oi_Oi
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-05 06:19 PM
EDT (US)
20 / 24
Yes, he asked if he could build 50 cannons and I said yes. *rolleyes*