===[COMMITTED]=== Onager

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The real question to ask is what can an onager do that other siege weapons in the game can't?  I'll admit that it's cool, but having a redundant unit added to a roster is unnecessary noise that a player would have to deal with.

Well the idea is that the onager serves an area of effect role to target bundled up infantry. It will be only moderately effective against buildings, but its simple design compared to the ballista means it can be built in the field by legionaries.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Are there any more comments on this? Maybe should I make a poll somewhere?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Genava55

Can either of you access this article: https://www-jstor-org.oregonstate.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0677

I found a few things from here about catapult invention and the use of shot from catapults.

if not, ill add some excerpts. basically its far from conclusive in general, since the 1 arm catapults are mostly organic materials.

[Genava55]

Campbell-ANCIENTCATAPULTSHypotheses-2011 (1).pdf

[real_tabasco_sauce]

The onager discussion begins on 690.

Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task.

I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.

Edited September 3, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task.

I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.

I think this, in combination with the ~100 A.D. mention of a 1 arm catapult on some ram-type machine, is enough to conclude that the roman civ's use of onagers is plausible. Apollodorous doesn't portray it as some new invention either.

The idea of the marian reforms upgrade is that it brings the later rome character to the army in a streamlined way. For example, melee CS and the extraordinarii champions are traded for legionaries. I think it makes sense for the upgrade to allow the onagers in the same way since it is a later siege weapon.

Edited September 3, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Ultimately, an interpretation has to be chosen in order to progress the game design. Endless speculation is nice, but a decision eventually has to be made. Any significant historical controversy would be nice to include in the history articles inside the game to let the audience know, hey, 0 A.D. is just one interpretation of history and culture and that many of these issues are still being worked out by historians and archeologists up to present day. Things aren't always clear cut (for instance the exact year or even decade Lorica Segmentata was started to be rolled out to the legions; were the Marian Reforms a rapid change implemented by Marius himself or something slower,  rolled out over the course of years?). It would be good to convey these historical controversies, whichever side the game chooses. Don't forget the Rule of Cool can be one way to decide close disputes. Coin tosses can be avoided then. 

[Genava55]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The onager discussion begins on 690.

Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task.

I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.

The whole article is reviewing the claims of Rihll and is concluding there is little support for it. Personally I am not convinced by the idea that 'glandes' could only have been thrown by Onagers. Honestly I think you are having a confirmation bias in this case, cherry-picking anything supporting its use. While most specialists on the topics expressed the opposing view.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Genava55

[Genava55]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Don't forget the Rule of Cool can be one way to decide close disputes. Coin tosses can be avoided then.

You can include two reforms, one from Marius and one from Augustus. The last one introducing the lorica segmentata and the onager. Happy?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

15 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

You can include two reforms, one from Marius and one from Augustus. The last one introducing the lorica segmentata and the onager. Happy?

Not really. I'd rather just have a principate Rome faction, but that's just me. Perhaps one can choose "Romans" in game setup, but then choose between Republic/Triumvirate/Principate once the game launches.

[Genava55]

33 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd rather just have a principate Rome faction, but that's just me

Thats not only you, I would prefer an additional Principate faction too. With distinctive features like the segmentata and the onager for them. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

The whole article is reviewing the claims of Rihll and is concluding there is little support for it.

No, only one chapter.

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Personally I am not convinced by the idea that 'glandes' could only have been thrown by Onagers.

I don't say this, only that they were used once by a catapult, and that a two armed torsion catapult would be much less suited for this task, so it may have been a one arm catapult.

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

While most specialists on the topics expressed the opposing view.

The authors appear to entertain multiple possibilities, but explain that the lack of evidence renders the situation fairly inconclusive.

Im not cherry picking information, this was something you did not share with us earlier, so I figured I should share it. It seems you are certain that onagers are a much later development and you refuse to entertain the possibility it could be anything but.

I agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone here. It is pretty cool in my eyes to research the marian reforms. The point of this upgrade is to let the player undergo the transformation of the roman army that occurred before 0 a.d.. Onagers are first mentioned about 150 years after, and may have been mentioned in 86 BC providing an area of effect role.

Why not let Rome play out this evolution over time? The reforms also get rid of the roman citizen cavalry and extraordinarii which is also accurate coincidentally.

5 hours ago, Genava55 said:

distinctive features like the segmentata

These could have been first used anywhere between 53BC to 20AD, which is not too long after the marian reforms.

This is why it doesn't make sense to separate the time periods. Republican and prinicpate rome are two timeperiods, but time is a continuum, so just let the civ evolve with an upgrade.

It would be so sad to split the content between two civs, rather than let the one civ remain with depth, intriguing mechanics, and cool gameplay.

There's not enough information to say for certain the onagers were earlier than 0 A. D. but there is enough for ~ 100AD, which I think is enough to add to the game, considering it is locked behind an upgrade that symbolizes later roman developments.

Edited September 3, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, Genava55 said:

You can include two reforms, one from Marius and one from Augustus.

Perhaps the thing to do would be remove the attribution to Marius, and call it something else. 'Military Reforms', 'Imperial Reforms', 'Professional Army', 'Imperial Army'. 

[Genava55]

12 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't say this, only that they were used once by a catapult, and that a two armed torsion catapult would be much less suited for this task, so it may have been a one arm catapult.

The argument from Rihll is that the glandes would have been associated to the onager because it looks like a sling and glandes are the name of sling ammunitions.

But I strongly disagree. I think it is simply Sulla using lithoboloi with lead projectiles. As Appian could not say that Sulla threw "lead stones" against the tower, he used a word he was familiar with for ammunition made out of lead.

Two-armed torsion catapults are generally much better and more precise. It can throw projectiles of more than 70 kg.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

16 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

But I strongly disagree. I think it is simply Sulla using lithoboloi with lead projectiles. As Appian could not say that Sulla threw "lead stones" against the tower, he used a word he was familiar with for ammunition made out of lead.

Oh so more like a volley than one machine projecting multiple lead chunks.

in other words "Sulla killed many by means of catapults shooting twenty of the heaviest lead bullets at once," has a double meaning.

Edited September 3, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Oh so more like a volley than one machine projecting multiple lead chunks.

in other words "Sulla killed many by means of catapults shooting twenty of the heaviest lead bullets at once," has a double meaning.

Translating ancient Greek precisely is difficult, the exact meaning is often uncertain.

Horace White (1899) gives: "Archelaus planted another great tower on the wall opposite the Roman tower and these two assailed each other, discharging all kinds of missiles constantly until Sulla, by means of his catapults, each of which discharged twenty of the heaviest leaden balls at one volley, had killed a large number of the enemy, and had so shaken the tower of Archelaus that it was rendered untenable, and the latter was compelled, by fear of its destruction, to draw it back with all speed."

While Philippe Remacle (2010) gives : "Archelaus placed another large tower on the wall opposite the Roman tower, and these two towers fought each other, throwing all sorts of darts incessantly until Sulla, thanks to his catapults which launched twenty leaden balls very heavy each time, killed a large number of enemies and caused the tower of Archelaus to wobble, which it rendered unstable, and Archelaus was obliged, for fear of its collapse, to withdraw it quickly to the rear."

It is unclear from the original text if the catapults are throwing twenty balls each time as a whole (one volley of all the machines), or if each catapults are throwing twenty balls every time they are firing (one volley of each machines).

However, from the context, I think it is more coherent they are firing 20 lead balls together (one volley of all the machines) as they are weakening the tower.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

So what do you think about changing the name to something like 'imperial army' or 'imperial reforms', the idea being to introduce military changes that occurred as rome became an empire.

I understand the idea of the 'marian reforms' is contested as @wowgetoffyourcellphone pointed out.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

"Marian Reforms", although contested, is still something in the zeitgeist that people know. Whether Marius himself imposed all the changes or they happened over the course of a generation with Marius' "innovations" only being one part, the name is still evocative. And my point was that although some things are hotly contested (people still argue over the way hoplites held their spears), as a game designer you have to make a decision one way or the other. The controversy can be detailed in the <History> tags and the players can delve deeper if they wish.

I don't think it would be a shame to split up the Romans. Was it a shame to split up the Greeks? I don't think so. With separate civs you can delve deeper into the differences of one era over another. And it's all how you present this difference to the player. My suggestion for the base game would be to present "Romans" as one civ, and then the player can choose their era/epoch after the game launches with a cool pop-up choice in screen. This adds an element of surprise for the other players. Yeah, you know the enemy Roman player will probably go heavy on Infantry and Siege, but you don't know in which way, because the different eras give different bonuses and different heroes, roster is different,, things look different, etc. Will they choose Republican (Punic Wars), Triumvirate (Marius->G.J.Caesar), Principate (High Imperial) or Dominate (post-Crisis)? And once you scout them out or they scout you out, you know, oh @#&#036;%, they chose XXXX, I better alter my strategy!

To do this would take more work, for sure, but I consider that kind of work to be fun. This is a hobby after all.   DE kind if shows the way with the hero choice system.

Edited September 3, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Marian Reforms", although contested, is still something in the zeitgeist that people know. Whether Marius himself imposed all the changes or they happened over the course of a generation with Marius' "innovations" only being one part, the name is still evocative. And my point was that although some things are hotly contested (people still argue over the way hoplites held their spears), as a game designer you have to make a decision one way or the other. The controversy can be detailed in the <History> tags and the players can delve deeper if they wish.

agree totally.

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think it would be a shame to split up the Romans. Was it a shame to split up the Greeks? I don't think so.

Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland.

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

My suggestion for the base game would be to present "Romans" as one civ, and then the player can choose their era/epoch after the game launches with a cool pop-up choice in screen. This adds an element of surprise for the other players.

I suppose that could work, but I still think this would be less enjoyable than to present it as an upgrade. Splitting the civ would mean both roman civs share a lot of units and structures, so it would be hard to defend them as being distinct.

Since we know time flows in one direction, it makes a lot of sense for these later developments to be unlocked after growing a city, not before. In this case, just a few differences in the roster completely bring quite a difference in how the civ is played. I am sure players would like to be able to wait to make the decision than to be stuck with one version of rome when they would rather have picked the other.

As an upgrade, the element of surprise is equal if not better than the pre-game customization option, since there is less time to react to the change in strategy. Of course, the opponent can scout and guess that the opponent might research the reforms based on the economy choices.

The upgrade as I have designed it is supposed to unlock some powerful units at the cost of losing access to many CS units. This makes the economy susceptible to raids, and if the economy fails, it will be hard for rome to afford the legionaries to defend itself.

If this was a standalone civ, you couldn't produce this gameplay dynamic. At least not in a streamlined way.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I suppose that could work, but I still think this would be less enjoyable than to present it as an upgrade. Splitting the civ would mean both roman civs share a lot of units and structures, so it would be hard to defend them as being distinct.

 

Play the Imperial Romans in DE and say they aren't distinct from the Republican Romans.  

 

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland.

Well, me too, which is why we'd make those sister civs not bland, duh.  

 

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Play the Imperial Romans in DE and say they aren't distinct from the Republican Romans.

Well the buildings have like 80% overlap. But thats not a major issue.

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland.

Well, me too, which is why we'd make those sister civs not bland, duh.  

I just find it much better to simplify or rather synthesize down to just one civ. Which involves pulling from the more interesting units and structures and putting together a streamlined civ. I also would say adding an additional roman civ would make the other civs seem under-appreciated. Also, adding a whole civ outside of 0ad's timeframe seems like it could be a bit of an issue with the historians too.

We don't need all the stuff from the imperial era, just enough to show the changes in the military going into imperial rome.

However, if someone comes along down the line and makes an imperial rome civ for vanilla 0ad, all you would have to do is remove the onager from the existing romans, and make sure the imperial romans start with legionaries. So, whats the harm in my patch?

Its not like we are forever fixed in making decisions like these.

Edited September 4, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 04/09/2023 at 8:25 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

However, if someone comes along down the line and makes an imperial rome civ for vanilla 0ad, all you would have to do is remove the onager from the existing romans, and make sure the imperial romans start with legionaries. So, whats the harm in my patch?

Its not like we are forever fixed in making decisions like these.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Does this sound reasonable?

I think it is just the onager part that you and @Genava55 are unhappy with, so if a future imperial rome civ uses these onagers, it would be simple to move them to the new civ.

[Genava55]

11 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Does this sound reasonable?

I have given my opinion based on the evidence but adding the onager is only a slight divergence from historical accuracy. It is not that bad. So yes. Thats ok.

I am not sure an imperial civ will happen in vanilla, due to stubborness, but we can accept this solution.