What kind of argument is that even? 
Artillery
If we consider, logically, if an artillery is on top of a mountain, no one will be able to climb, so why is there a 25% drop in the mountains?
6 Replies
what happens though if the artillery is at the foot of the mountain and the enemy is at the top? also, how would the artillery be able to see where they were shooting? other mountains also could get in the way of shots. your arguement has flaws
I think that you are looking from an answer from somebody in the staff ...
Just from personal observation in my games as a player, it looks like Commandoes are the only unit that has a slight edge in the mountains. I do imagine that the -25% may be a penalty reflecting difficulty of movement in carrying and positioning artillery units? ... 
If yer move artillery in mountain u will have a hard time
yer OWN troops have to PAINFULLY Pull those THICC artillery UP the STEEP slope.
but if yer put milita in mountains they act great
It would be incredibly hard to get even a handful of Artillery on Mountains, The amount that would get on top of the mountains wouldn't be enough to make good use of the fuel, manpower and time spent getting them there. The view and possible firepower they would gain, in most cases would not be anywhere near enough it to be a effective tactic. All units have troubles fighting in mountains due it just simply being very rough terrain. artillery is no different.Hradecky wrote:
If we consider, logically, if an artillery is on top of a mountain, no one will be able to climb, so why is there a 25% drop in the mountains?
Game Operator
EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
The effectiveness of artillery in WW2 had a lot to do with the ability of the Spotters being able to see targets, and call them in as well as the terrain allowing for the arc of the artillery shell path to reach the target.
Mountain terrain obstructs long view which makes the artillery less effective.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.