Arquebusiers and mortars are just one tech appart and belong to the same era, but a quick look seems to reveal that mortars far outclass arquebusiers in pretty much every area. 

Arquebusiers to left, mortar to right

• Combat strength 39 vs 40 with ability to damage fortification, so mortars have little more strength and ability to damage defenders walls which can be useful in siege battles. 
• Range 4 vs 8 with indirect fire, mortars have far superior range and ability to use that range due to having indirect fire.
• Neither can't move or attack, so no advantage to either here.
• Industry cost identical, again equal here.
• Population cost of 2 vs 1, so mortars only cost half as much population to build.
• Both can dig in, so no advantage to either, also keep in mind dig in is in industrial era, not in early modern.
• Mortar remove dug in status with attack, which can be very important if you fight enemies with the ability to dig in.
• Arquebusers can retaliate against melee, mortars can't, in early modern most units are ranged and most pre early modern units are quite weak so I don't think this is a major advantage and it can even be a negative against draftee rush, because if they are killed they leave room for another draftee to rush in and attack which can destroy one of your units. 
• Resource req 1 iron 1 saltpeter vs 2 copper and 2 saltpeter, the first time arquebusiers have some sort of advantage, but that also depend if you can get the iron or not. 
• Tech gunpowder warfare vs siege cannons, arquebusiers have lower tech requirement as gunpowder warfare is needed for siege cannons.

Obviously one good thing about arquebusiers is they upgrade to musketeers in early modern, but that require more tech and similar amount of resource as mortars and while musketeers have more combat strength, mortars are cheaper and have better range with indirect fire. In industrial era mortars can eventually upgrade to the more useful siege artillery, in the long run maybe rifles with the 

Exosuit, but that is so long after arquebusiers and mortars I don't think anyone would plan for it and at that point the game is probably already decided.

So what I think I can see is one unit that seems to be superior or equal in everything except for a little more research and a few extra resource needed.

I agree 100 % with this analysis.

The part about Ottomans is particulary true. It's very to resist against an attack of Ottomoans : The Janissary can move and attack, is great in siege, protect welll the mortars, and the mortar with -50 % cost, are off course, very effective.

I don't exactly know what should be done.

Jojo_Fr wrote:

I agree 100 % with this analysis.

The part about Ottomans is particulary true. It's very to resist against an attack of Ottomoans : The Janissary can move and attack, is great in siege, protect welll the mortars, and the mortar with -50 % cost, are off course, very effective.

I don't exactly know what should be done.

An ottoman mortar only cost 485 base industry, one population and have 43 combat strength with 8 range indirect fire and keep in mind that is not an emblematic unit, just a generic unit that is buffed due to legacy trait which also work on all other heavy weapons.

485 industry is what Halberdiers cost but those also cost 3 population while the mortar only cost 1 population and have far better range and more combat strength than the halberdier.

Goodluck wrote:

• Combat strength 39 vs 40 with ability to damage fortification, so mortars have little more strength and ability to damage defenders walls which can be useful in siege battles. 
• Range 4 vs 8 with indirect fire, mortars have far superior range and ability to use that range due to having indirect fire.
• Neither can't move or attack, so no advantage to either here.
• Industry cost identical, again equal here.
• Population cost of 2 vs 1, so mortars only cost half as much population to build.
• Both can dig in, so no advantage to either, also keep in mind dig in is in industrial era, not in early modern.
• Mortar remove dug in status with attack, which can be very important if you fight enemies with the ability to dig in.
• Arquebusers can retaliate against melee, mortars can't, in early modern most units are ranged and most pre early modern units are quite weak so I don't think this is a major advantage and it can even be a negative against draftee rush, because if they are killed they leave room for another draftee to rush in and attack which can destroy one of your units. 
• Resource req 1 iron 1 saltpeter vs 2 copper and 2 saltpeter, the first time arquebusiers have some sort of advantage, but that also depend if you can get the iron or not. 
• Tech gunpowder warfare vs siege cannons, arquebusiers have lower tech requirement as gunpowder warfare is needed for siege cannons.

It is also worth to keep in mind ottomans legacy trait reduce mortar and other artillery cost by half and give them 3 combat strength, making them far superior to regular mortars.

Obviously one good thing about arquebusiers is they upgrade to musketeers in early modern, but that require more tech and similar amount of resource as mortars and while musketeers have more combat strength, mortars are cheaper and have better range with indirect fire. In industrial era mortars can eventually upgrade to the more useful siege artillery, in the long run maybe rifles with the 

Exosuit, but that is so long after arquebusiers and mortars I don't think anyone would plan for it and at that point the game is probably already decided.

So what I think I can see is one unit that seems to be superior or equal in everything except for a little more research and a few extra resource needed.

While a lot of this is true, they're two points to remember :

Any ranged units before arq can be upgraded to arq, while you have no base unit before the mortar, meaning you have to create this fresh unit since you can't do anymore siege units. Make it expensive, and some will just struggle.

No retaliation when there is no modern melee era. Are Poland and Edo a joke to you ? Not to mention that to enter into the walls you destroyed, you'd better take a unit that can enter those walls with some retaliation, mortar won't help you either against camo units.

Hinleon wrote:

While a lot of this is true, they're two points to remember :

Any ranged units before arq can be upgraded to arq, while you have no base unit before the mortar, meaning you have to create this fresh unit since you can't do anymore siege units. Make it expensive, and some will just struggle.

No retaliation when there is no modern melee era. Are Poland and Edo a joke to you ? Not to mention that to enter into the walls you destroyed, you'd better take a unit that can enter those walls with some retaliation, mortar won't help you either against camo units.

It cost 970 money to upgrade a unit to an arquebusier, which can be add up to alot of money. Poland winged hussars avoid retaliation as long as they charge. Edo naginati samurai, halberdiers and draftees work like ordinary melee units so fight those there is potentially a drawback to lacking melee retaliation.

For entry of walls, you could use cheaper halberdiers, instead of arequbusiers, halberdiers also have higher combat strength and thus better surviability and while it lack a ranged attack, that is not much issue as your firepower will likely come from the massed mortars which can destroy like everything you have vision on.

@Crunbum I agree entirely that battles involve way too many cities and that exponentially expanding the game map would be an ideal solution. However, I'm guessing that performance would be a major problem in this regard so my hopes of that happening are dim.

Now I'm not a major history buff, but from what I do understand most historical battles up to maybe the 18th or 19th century were indeed sieges. I don't think that the prevalence of sieges themselves are a problem, but that sieges are not Army vs. City, but City vs. 2 or 3 Cities. Basically what you said, cities take up way too much space relative to the terrain. Given that an increase to the world size is unlikely, I think districting ought to be reworked to just produce much, much smaller cities. Some combination of: make districts cost way more and scale the costs more, drastically reduce the supply of stability, or even add a strict "1 District per 2 / 3 Population" cap like in Endless Legend. Then increase terrain yields (either base or from techs like Lumber Yard), increase adjacency bonuses significantly, and we'll have smaller cities. Maybe give a discount to EQs so they can be built reliably if districts cost more overall.

shasho wrote:

@Crunbum I agree entirely that battles involve way too many cities and that exponentially expanding the game map would be an ideal solution. However, I'm guessing that performance would be a major problem in this regard so my hopes of that happening are dim.

Now I'm not a major history buff, but from what I do understand most historical battles up to maybe the 18th or 19th century were indeed sieges. I don't think that the prevalence of sieges themselves are a problem, but that sieges are not Army vs. City, but City vs. 2 or 3 Cities. Basically what you said, cities take up way too much space relative to the terrain. Given that an increase to the world size is unlikely, I think districting ought to be reworked to just produce much, much smaller cities. Some combination of: make districts cost way more and scale the costs more, drastically reduce the supply of stability, or even add a strict "1 District per 2 / 3 Population" cap like in Endless Legend. Then increase terrain yields (either base or from techs like Lumber Yard), increase adjacency bonuses significantly, and we'll have smaller cities. Maybe give a discount to EQs so they can be built reliably if districts cost more overall.

While I'm no expert on the topic, I do not think an increase in territory size would pose a significant performance issue. It is a turn based game, after all, and most calculations run inbetween turns, not during them, and I think the AI takes its turns very very quickly right now relative to games like civilization. Therefore it should not impact performance to a noticeable degree at all. If players can play on modded maps of a size far larger than the "Huge" option and have no issues whatsoever, then I don't think territory sizes being larger would pose one all of a sudden, and I believe that said territory size should be a game setting before beginning the game.

I do like the large cities.

I do not understand why you are comparing a ranged infantry unit to a siege unit. They have two entirely different functions. If you are playing the game as though they do not have two completely different roles to perform in combat then you are making sieges more difficult than they need to be. The role of the mortar is to destroy the fortifications an enemy unit is hiding behind, and/or remove the dug in status from enemy units. Siege weapons are not intended to kill units directly, they are intended to destroy enemy fortifications such that ALL of your other units will have an easier time killing the enemy units. This is why siege weapons have indirect fire and extended ranges, such that they can sit behind your other units, out of harms way, and soften up enemy positions. Yes siege weapons do some damage to the units in the hex but that is not their purpose in life. Yes, ranged infantry units can shoot enemy units that are behind fortifications or dug in, but they will do much less damage to those units and they do not damage the fortifications at all. Non-infantry units, i.e. horses and tanks, can not enter or pass through enemy fortifications. But, after your siege units destroy the enemy fornications in a hex, ALL of your other units can then enter through that destroyed hex, without any movement penalty, making the capture of the city much easier and faster. Pro Tip 1: Your siege weapons can target an EMPTY hex that is fortified. If you are being sieged by the enemy you should make it a priority to destroy the enemy's siege units and its ranged units. Pro Tip 2: Horses are really really good at destroying siege weapons and ranged units. So a few well place anti-calvary or anti-tank units, on your flanks to protect your siege units is always a good idea.

Do siege weapons do more proportional damage to units than fortifications? Yes. And that needs to be adjusted/balanced.

Maybe this sums it up best when I say that I am looking forward to your post on Rifles vs Battleships.  Hint: Battleships are not for killing other ships.

PopsiclePrime wrote:

I do not understand why you are comparing a ranged infantry unit to a siege unit. They have two entirely different functions. If you are playing the game as though they do not have two completely different roles to perform in combat then you are making sieges more difficult than they need to be. The role of the mortar is to destroy the fortifications an enemy unit is hiding behind, and/or remove the dug in status from enemy units. Siege weapons are not intended to kill units directly, they are intended to destroy enemy fortifications such that ALL of your other units will have an easier time killing the enemy units. This is why siege weapons have indirect fire and extended ranges, such that they can sit behind your other units, out of harms way, and soften up enemy positions. Yes siege weapons do some damage to the units in the hex but that is not their purpose in life. Yes, ranged infantry units can shoot enemy units that are behind fortifications or dug in, but they will do much less damage to those units and they do not damage the fortifications at all. Non-infantry units, i.e. horses and tanks, can not enter or pass through enemy fortifications. But, after your siege units destroy the enemy fornications in a hex, ALL of your other units can then enter through that destroyed hex, without any movement penalty, making the capture of the city much easier and faster. Pro Tip 1: Your siege weapons can target an EMPTY hex that is fortified. If you are being sieged by the enemy you should make it a priority to destroy the enemy's siege units and its ranged units. Pro Tip 2: Horses are really really good at destroying siege weapons and ranged units. So a few well place anti-calvary or anti-tank units, on your flanks to protect your siege units is always a good idea.

Do siege weapons do more proportional damage to units than fortifications? Yes. And that needs to be adjusted/balanced.

Maybe this sums it up best when I say that I am looking forward to your post on Rifles vs Battleships.  Hint: Battleships are not for killing other ships.

It doesn't matter what something is for thematically. Fact of the matter is, if a mortar is better (and far better) at everything including arquebusier-things, than an arquebusier, then it will be used in that role as well. And that is currently the case. Better stats, twice the range, same industry cost, lower pop cost....

You don't get to say "unit X is meant for Y". It doesn't matter what it is meant for. What matters is what it works well at. Also, breaching walls is something there is no reason to do 99% of the time so that's that, you just use mortars the same as you would any other unit at the moment, except it has far greater range.

PopsiclePrime wrote:

I do not understand why you are comparing a ranged infantry unit to a siege unit. They have two entirely different functions. If you are playing the game as though they do not have two completely different roles to perform in combat then you are making sieges more difficult than they need to be. The role of the mortar is to destroy the fortifications an enemy unit is hiding behind, and/or remove the dug in status from enemy units. Siege weapons are not intended to kill units directly, they are intended to destroy enemy fortifications such that ALL of your other units will have an easier time killing the enemy units. This is why siege weapons have indirect fire and extended ranges, such that they can sit behind your other units, out of harms way, and soften up enemy positions. Yes siege weapons do some damage to the units in the hex but that is not their purpose in life. Yes, ranged infantry units can shoot enemy units that are behind fortifications or dug in, but they will do much less damage to those units and they do not damage the fortifications at all. Non-infantry units, i.e. horses and tanks, can not enter or pass through enemy fortifications. But, after your siege units destroy the enemy fornications in a hex, ALL of your other units can then enter through that destroyed hex, without any movement penalty, making the capture of the city much easier and faster. Pro Tip 1: Your siege weapons can target an EMPTY hex that is fortified. If you are being sieged by the enemy you should make it a priority to destroy the enemy's siege units and its ranged units. Pro Tip 2: Horses are really really good at destroying siege weapons and ranged units. So a few well place anti-calvary or anti-tank units, on your flanks to protect your siege units is always a good idea.

Do siege weapons do more proportional damage to units than fortifications? Yes. And that needs to be adjusted/balanced.

Maybe this sums it up best when I say that I am looking forward to your post on Rifles vs Battleships.  Hint: Battleships are not for killing other ships.

This. They fulfill completely different roles in battle. Arquebusiers are for putting in your frontline and protecting the mortars. Having an army entirely composed of mortars will get you absolutely crushed by massed melee/cavalry units.

PopsiclePrime wrote:

I do not understand why you are comparing a ranged infantry unit to a siege unit. They have two entirely different functions. If you are playing the game as though they do not have two completely different roles to perform in combat then you are making sieges more difficult than they need to be. The role of the mortar is to destroy the fortifications an enemy unit is hiding behind, and/or remove the dug in status from enemy units. Siege weapons are not intended to kill units directly, they are intended to destroy enemy fortifications such that ALL of your other units will have an easier time killing the enemy units. This is why siege weapons have indirect fire and extended ranges, such that they can sit behind your other units, out of harms way, and soften up enemy positions. Yes siege weapons do some damage to the units in the hex but that is not their purpose in life. Yes, ranged infantry units can shoot enemy units that are behind fortifications or dug in, but they will do much less damage to those units and they do not damage the fortifications at all. Non-infantry units, i.e. horses and tanks, can not enter or pass through enemy fortifications. But, after your siege units destroy the enemy fornications in a hex, ALL of your other units can then enter through that destroyed hex, without any movement penalty, making the capture of the city much easier and faster. Pro Tip 1: Your siege weapons can target an EMPTY hex that is fortified. If you are being sieged by the enemy you should make it a priority to destroy the enemy's siege units and its ranged units. Pro Tip 2: Horses are really really good at destroying siege weapons and ranged units. So a few well place anti-calvary or anti-tank units, on your flanks to protect your siege units is always a good idea.

Do siege weapons do more proportional damage to units than fortifications? Yes. And that needs to be adjusted/balanced.

Maybe this sums it up best when I say that I am looking forward to your post on Rifles vs Battleships.  Hint: Battleships are not for killing other ships.

Mortars is probably better at killing units than any other early modern unit as their 8 range indirect fire allow them to put out alot of firepower per turn when massed. In many ways they are similar to the ancient era archers, but better and more expensive.

danza4x wrote:
This. They fulfill completely different roles in battle. Arquebusiers are for putting in your frontline and protecting the mortars. Having an army entirely composed of mortars will get you absolutely crushed by massed melee/cavalry units.

If you want a frontline tank for your mortars, I would say halberdiers seems like the superior choice. They cost half as much industry to build (1 more pop however), they have higher combat strength, much higher against cavalry and the lack of a ranged attack probably wont hurt that much as you probably simply want to leave the tanking unit in defence mode for additional combat strength and let the mortars destroy the enemy.

This could be easily fixed by making mortars unable to retaliate melee attacks, or giving it close combat penalty like ranged units. Maybe even both.

deathstarinrobes wrote:

This could be easily fixed by making mortars unable to retaliate melee attacks, or giving it close combat penalty like ranged units. Maybe even both.

Mortars already can't retaliate against melee attacks.

Perhaps there ought to be some shuffling of values regarding how fortification damage is calculated. I have no idea how it works currently, but basically make it so that siege units have a significantly worse overall Combat Strength, but they still do the same damage to fortifications.