Jump to content
Thelegionare

Please reduce speed of battering ram

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Do you know there are work in progress for this ? I don't have the diffs number in my head but I think fatherbushido started something with Itms input.

I recall seeing it mentioned either on trac or by someone on IRC. Not really sure.

Edit: Found it, #4000.

 

Edited by (-_-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 3:44 PM, dmzerocold said:

Yeah and not only when they gurt also when they really scare of something.... (for example fire) , they go berserk , when they berserk they kill ally units as well...

There's been plenty of incidents at zoos, and I don't think their handlers were intentionally trying to antagonize them or were playing with fire...

 

On 9/19/2018 at 7:58 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think elephants should be siege units per se.

Is there actually any sources that elephants were used against buildings? I can't imagine they'd enjoy banging their heads against walls ~all day and that they'd play along too nicely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

There's been plenty of incidents at zoos, and I don't think their handlers were intentionally trying to antagonize them or were playing with fire...

 

Not from their handlers , enemy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

There's been plenty of incidents at zoos, and I don't think their handlers were intentionally trying to antagonize them or were playing with fire...

 

Is there actually any sources that elephants were used against buildings? I can't imagine they'd enjoy banging their heads against walls ~all day and that they'd play along too nicely...

There are many examples of elephants being used to batter down city gates, but not much else regarding "sieging" capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

There are many examples of elephants being used to batter down city gates

Are there? Please find me one clear reference for 0 A.D.'s timeframe (500-1 B.C.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Are there? Please find me one clear reference for 0 A.D.'s timeframe (500-1 B.C.).

To be fair, I don't think there's much specifics available about taking down gates during sieges of 500 -1 BC in general... The Carthaginians for example are based almost entirely on very limited secondary sources and other civs like the Seleucids are obscure. Even the Ptolemies leave many unanswered questions, including about their use of war-elephants, and the Kushite war-elephants are also attested from rare finds, not from thoroughly documented period battle reports specifying siege tactics. 

Elephants were notorious for breaking down gates on the Indian subcontinent, to the extent that fortifications were specifically being designed to withstand elephant attacks (pikes on gates and a secondary lower wall, to keep whoever is on the back of the elephant from scaling the primary wall). The Mauryas are in the game... 

 

Quote

During the Chremonidean War, in 266 BC, the Megarians were besieged by the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatas and managed to defeat his elephants employing burning pigs. Despite this success, the Megarians had to submit to the Macedonians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megara

Quote

Elephants were also problematic in siege warfare. Hasdrubal tried to use them in 250 B.C.E. at Panormus,39 but the defenders showered them with missiles, an action which prompted the beasts to rush at the Carthaginians arrayed behind them (Polyb. 1.40.12–13). Metellus, seizing upon the resultant confusion, launched a successful counter- attack, during which all the Punic elephants were either captured or killed (Polyb. 1.40.14–15). A comparable incident, though it occurred after the Second Punic War, might also be adduced. Ten elephants provided by the Numidian king Masinissa were used by Rome during the siege of Numantia (153 B.C.E.). The Roman commander Nobilior employed them to dismantle the hitherto impregnable city walls (App. Hisp. 9.46). All seemed to be going well until a fragment of the wall tumbled onto the head of one of the elephants (App. Ib. 9.46). The wounded beast became so enraged that he trampled both friend and foe alike, an action which provoked his companions to behave similarly (App. Hisp. 9.46). Although not a battlefield incident, it does demonstrate, once again, that stricken elephants could prove more dangerous to the deploying side than to the enemy. Glover goes so far as to suggest that elephants were “as independable as poison gas, which with a change of wind turns and confuses those who employed it.”40

Elephants seem to have been an element during sieges... As much a liability as an asset, but an element nonetheless. 

 

Quote

After his initial corps died in the winter of 218/217 BCE Hannibal acquired fresh replacements and used elephants again at the siege of Capua in 211 BCE.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/876/elephants-in-greek--roman-warfare/

Three elephants were also involved in attempts to storm the siege-works at Capua (Livy 26.5.11),71

So they were also used to break sieges. So perhaps that should be one of their explicit bonuses. They'd need to be more mobile than they are now though... Can't their obstruction box or whatever be reduced in size to allow them to move more smoothly. I mean, it's an organic unit, not a rigid log. 

 

12 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Is there actually any sources that elephants were used against buildings? I can't imagine they'd enjoy banging their heads against walls

Male Asian elephants weigh more than 5 tons, and wild elephants routinely destroy entire villages in some parts of South Asia. Breaking down a fortified wall seems a little much, but simple structures are no problem. Also, I like your avatar...

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Elephants were notorious for breaking down gates on the Indian subcontinent, to the extent that fortifications were specifically being designed to withstand elephant attacks (pikes on gates and a secondary lower wall, to keep whoever is on the back of the elephant from scaling the primary wall). The Mauryas are in the game...

Mauryan fortifications? Or something from many centuries later?

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Elephants seem to have been an element during sieges... As much a liability as an asset, but an element nonetheless. 

So they were also used to break sieges. So perhaps that should be one of their explicit bonuses. They'd need to be more mobile than they are now though... Can't their obstruction box or whatever be reduced in size to allow them to move more smoothly. I mean, it's an organic unit, not a rigid log.

Let's first have a look at those three sources cited.

Panormus (Palermo), 250 B.C.; Plb 1.40:

Spoiler

Meanwhile Hasdrubal noticed the terror displayed by the Romans whenever they had lately found themselves in the presence of the enemy. He learnt also that one of the Consuls had departed and gone to Italy, and that Caecilius was lingering in Panormus with the other half of the army, with the view of protecting the corn-crops of the allies just then ripe for the harvest. He therefore got his troops in motion, marched out, and encamped on the frontier of the territory of Panormus. Caecilius saw well enough that the enemy had become supremely confident, and he was anxious to draw him on; he therefore kept his men within the walls. Hasdrubal imagined that Caecilius dared not come out to give him battle. Elated with this idea, he pushed boldly forward with his whole army and marched over the pass into the territory of Panormus. But though he was destroying all the standing crops up to the very walls of the town, Caecilius was not shaken from his resolution, but kept persistently to it, until he had induced him to cross the river which lay between him and the town. But no sooner had the Carthaginians got their elephants and men across, than Caecilius commenced sending out his light-armed troops to harass them, until be had forced them to get their whole army into fighting order. When he saw that everything was happening as he designed it, he placed some of his light troops to line the wall and moat, with instructions that if the elephants came within range they should pour volleys of their missiles upon them; but that whenever they found themselves being forced from their ground by them, they should retreat into the moat, rush out of it again, and hurl darts at the elephants which happened to be nearest. At the same time he gave orders to the armourers in the market-place to carry the missiles and heap them up outside at the foot of the wall. Meanwhile he took up his own position with his maniples at the gate which was opposite the enemy's left wing, and kept despatching detachment after detachment to reinforce his skirmishers. The engagement commenced by them becoming more and more general, a feeling of emulation took possession of the officers in charge of the elephants. They wished to distinguish themselves in the eyes of Hasdrubal, and they desired that the credit of the victory should be theirs: they therefore, with one accord, charged the advanced skirmishing parties of the enemy, routed them with ease, and pursued them up to the moat. But no sooner did the elephants thus come to close quarters than they were wounded by the archers on the wall, and overwhelmed with volleys of pila and javelins which poured thick and fast upon them from the men stationed on the outer edge of the moat, and who had not yet been engaged,—and thus, studded all over with darts, and wounded past all bearing, they soon got beyond control. They turned and bore down upon their own masters, trampling men to death, and throwing their own lines into utter disorder and confusion. When Caecilius saw this he led out his men with promptitude. His troops were fresh; the enemy were in disorder; and he charged them diagonally on the flank: the result was that he inflicted a severe defeat upon them, killed a large number, and forced the rest into precipitate flight. Of the elephants he captured ten along with their Indian riders: the rest which had thrown their Indians he managed to drive into a herd after the battle, and secured every one of them. This achievement gained him the credit on all hands of having substantially benefited the Roman cause, by once more restoring confidence to the army, and giving them the command of the open country.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plb.+1.40&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234

Numantia, 153 B.C.; App. Hisp. 9.46:

Spoiler

The Arevaci convened immediately, even in the night, at Numantia, which was a very strong city, and chose Ambo and Leuco as their generals. Three days later Nobilior advanced and pitched his camp twenty-four stades from the place. Here he was joined by 300 horse and ten elephants sent to him by Masinissa. When he moved against the enemy he placed these animals in the rear where they could not be seen. Then when battle was joined the army divided and brought the elephants into view. The Celtiberians and their horses, who had never seen elephants before, were thunderstruck and fled to the city. Nobilior advanced at once against the city walls, where the battle raged fiercely, until one of the elephants was struck on the head with a large falling stone, when he became savage, uttered a loud cry, turned upon his friends, and began to destroy everything that came in his way, making no distinction between friend and foe. The other elephants, excited by his cries, all began to do the same, trampling the Romans under foot, scattering and hurling them this way and that. This is always the way with elephants when they are enraged. Then they take everybody for foes; wherefore some people call them the common enemy, on account of their @#$%leness. The Romans took to disorderly flight. When the Numantines perceived this they sallied out and pursued them, killing about 4000 men and three elephants. They also captured many arms and standards. The loss of the Celtiberians was about 2000.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=App.+Hisp.+9.46&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0230

Capua, 211 B.C.; Liv. 26.5:

Spoiler

[1] while matters stood thus at Capua, Hannibal was drawn in opposite directions by the desire to take the citadel of Tarentum and to hold Capua. [2] however, regard for Capua prevailed, a city on which he saw that the attention of all his allies and enemies was concentrated, and one destined to be a striking example, whatever might be the result of its revolt from the Romans. [3] accordingly, leaving in the land of the Bruttii a large part of his baggage and all the heavy —armed, with picked infantry and cavalry he hastened into Campania in the best possible condition for a rapid march. in spite of his swift movement thirty —three elephants managed to follow him. [4] he encamped in a closed valley behind Tifata, a [p. 19]mountain commanding Capua. as he approached, he1 first captured the stronghold of Galatia,2 overpowering its garrison, and then directed his march against the besiegers of Capua. [5] and sending word in advance to Capua, stating at what time he proposed to attack the Roman camp, so that they also, making ready for a sally, might at the same time burst out of all the gates, he inspired great alarm. [6] for on one side he himself attacked, on the other all the Capuans, cavalry and infantry, sallied out, and with them the Carthaginian garrison, commanded by Bostar and Hanno.

[7] the Romans in their alarm, so as not to leave one point undefended by rushing in the same direction, divided their forces among them as follows: Appius Claudius was placed facing the Capuans, Fulvius facing Hannibal: [8] Gaius Nero, the propraetor, with the cavalry of six legions took his place along the road leading to Suessula, Gaius Fulvius Flaccus, the lieutenant, with the cavalry of the allies in the direction of the river Volturnus. [9] the battle began not only with the usual shouting and uproar, but, in addition to the noise of men and horses and arms, the non —combatant populace of Capua disposed along the walls produced so much shouting, together with the clashing of bronze,3 such as is usually kept up in the still night of a lunar eclipse, as to divert the attention even of the combatants. [10] Appius was easily keeping the Capuans away from the earthwork of the camp; on the other side a larger force, Hannibal and the Carthaginians, were pressing Fulvius. there the sixth legion gave way, and after it had been forced back, a [11??] cohort of Spaniards with three elephants managed even to reach the [p. 21]earthwork, and had broken through the Roman centre,4 and wavered between the hope of breaking through into the camp and the danger of being cut off from their own troops. [12] Fulvius, on seeing the alarm of the legion and the danger to the camp, bade Quintus Navius and other first centurions to attack the cohort of the enemy fighting beneath the earthwork. he said that it was a very critical moment; that either they must be allowed to pass —and [13] it would be less of an effort for them to burst into the camp than it had been to break through the solid line —or else they must be disposed of beneath the earthwork. [14] also that it would not involve much fighting; they were few and cut off from their own men; and if the battle —line, which in the panic of the Romans seemed to have been broken through, should face against the enemy from both sides, it would enclose them between two fronts. [15] Navius, on hearing these words of the commander, snatched a standard of the second maniple of the hastati from the standard —bearer and carried it towards the enemy, threatening that he would throw it into their midst if the soldiers did not quickly follow him and take a hand in the battle. [16] a huge frame he had, and his arms added distinction; and the standard held aloft had attracted citizens and enemies to the sight. [17] but when he had pushed through to the standards of the Spaniards, spears were then hurled at him from every side, and almost the entire line turned against him alone. but neither the numbers of the enemy nor the mass of weapons could beat off the attack of such a man.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+26+5&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0158

Yes, armies with elephants besieged cities, however, in all three examples it is clear the fighting took place or started outside the city walls. The usage of elephants as living battering rams is not mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies y'all. I'm still not convinced it'd be a good idea to use elephants to tear down fortifications or that it is historically accurate, even though they can do massive damage when enraged; but I don't have an issue with it being in the game. I agree with @Sundiata however that rams are such a basic technology it should be available for all civs.

 

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Also, I like your avatar...

Glad you like it. :)

Spoiler

In an interview one of the Pythons said they didn't tell the extras beforehand what would happen in that scene, only that they wouldn't get paid for that day if they laughed. I think that makes it even funnier. :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess saying "many examples" was an error. But one I can think of is Pyrrhus at Argos (where he was slain by a roof tile thrown by an old woman). Your aggressiveness is unwarranted, since I am with you that elephants being meat battering rams mowing down buildings left and right is not much supported. Just felt reasonable to make them good against wooden gates, but not against many other structures which are often made of brick or stone. However, if we follow @Sundiata's suggestion and give every civ the battering ram (which we bloody well should), the gate bonus I suggested for eles would be unnecessary.

 

Can I suggest this? Every civ's battering ram starts as a simple ram carried by men (like the Xiongnu ram). Then many (there's that enraging word again) civs can upgrade them to Covered Rams with a tech (more armor and HP, a little slower). The game needs more visual upgrades, methinks. 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 Can I suggest this? Every civ's battering ram starts as a simple ram carried by men (like the Xiongnu ram). Then many (there's that enraging word again) civs can upgrade them to Covered Rams with a tech (more armor and HP, a little slower). The game needs more visual upgrades, methinks. 

But the problem is that this type of ram is practically unuseful, cause it can be really damaged by a group of ranged units (65% defense to pierce). This would encourage the players to train elephants and no more rams. Also, the players would lose time (against a civ with catapults or elephants) to upgrade the rams before than train them (and also before training hero). This would be really annoying for a civ like macedons that has not access to a good unit that is not ram to counter a mass of catapults. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

But the problem is that this type of ram is practically unuseful, cause it can be really damaged by a group of ranged units (65% defense to pierce). This would encourage the players to train elephants and no more rams. Also, the players would lose time (against a civ with catapults or elephants) to upgrade the rams before than train them (and also before training hero). This would be really annoying for a civ like macedons that has not access to a good unit that is not ram to counter a mass of catapults. 

In my hypothetical world elephants aren't so good against buildings anymore. Also in my world, melee cavalry have a bonus attack vs. your dangerous catapults (and every civ has access to some kind of melee cav, so it's all good).

 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 I my hypothetical world elephants aren't so good against buildings anymore.

I think you are right: I always asked myself how fangs could destroy a stone fort xd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I guess saying "many examples" was an error. But one I can think of is Pyrrhus at Argos (where he was slain by a roof tile thrown by an old woman).

 

Yes, Pyrrhus' army included elephants, however, they were not used to batter down city walls or gates either. Plut. Pyrrh. 32-34 describes what happened during that chaotic night in Argos:

Spoiler

32. At dead of night Pyrrhus came up to the walls of the city, and finding that the gate called Diamperes had been thrown open for them by Aristeas, was undiscovered long enough for his Gauls to enter the city and take possession of the marketplace. But the gate would not admit his elephants, and therefore the towers had to be taken off their backs and put on again when the animals were inside, in darkness and confusion. This caused delay, and the Argives, taking tile alarm, ran up to the Aspis and other strong places of the city, and sending to Antigonus called upon him for help. [2] Antigonus marched up close to the city, and lying in wait there himself, sent his generals and his son inside with a considerable relief-force. Areus also came, with a thousand Cretans and Spartans (the most lightly armed). All these troops united in an assault upon the Gauls and threw them into great confusion. And Pyrrhus, who now entered the city with shouts and cries by way of Cylarabis,1 noticed that the Gauls did not answer his men with any vigour or courage, and therefore conjectured that their response was that of men confounded and in distress. [3] Accordingly, he led on faster, pushing along the horsemen in front of him, who were making their way with difficulty among the water-conduits, of which the city is full, and were in peril of their lives from them. And now, in this night-battle, there was great uncertainty as to what commands were given and how the commands were carried out; men straggled and lost their way among the narrow streets, and generalship was of no avail owing to the darkness, confused shouting, and confined spaces; both parties therefore were unable to accomplish anything and waited for the day.

[4] But when at last it began to grow light, the sight of the Aspis filled with armed enemies greatly disturbed Pyrrhus; moreover, among the numerous votive-offerings in the market-place he caught sight of a wolf and bull in bronze, represented as closing with one another in battle, and he was dumbfounded, for he called to mind an ancient oracle regarding himself which declared that it was fated for him to die when he saw a wolf fighting with a bull. [5] Now, the Argives say that these figures were set up in their market-place as memorials of an ancient event. Namely, when Danaüs first landed in the country, near Pyramia in the district of Thyreatis, and was on his way to Argos, he saw a wolf fighting with a bull; and conceiving that he himself was represented by the wolf (since both were strangers and were attacking the natives), he watched the battle to its end, and when the wolf had prevailed, paid his vows to Apollo Lyceius (the wolf-god), attacked the city, and was victorious, after Gelanor, who was at that time king of Argos, had been driven out by a faction. This, then, was the significance of the dedication.2

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D32

33. Dejected at this well as because none of his hopes were being realized, Pyrrhus purposed to retreat; but fearing the narrowness of the gates he sent to his son Helenus, who had been left outside the city with the greater part of the forces, ordering him to tear down part of the wall and succour those who rushed out through the breach, in case the enemy molested them. [2] Owing to the haste and tumult, however, the messenger brought no clear orders, but actually made a mistake, and the young prince, taking the rest of the elephants and the best of his soldiers, marched through the gate into the city to help his father. But Pyrrhus was already on the retreat. And as long as the marketplace afforded him room for withdrawing and fighting, he would turn and repel his assailants; [3] but after he had been driven out of the market-place into the narrow street which led up to the gate, and encountered those who were rushing to his aid from the opposite direction, some of these could not hear him when he called out to them to withdraw, and those who did, even though they were very ready to obey him, were kept from doing so by those who were pouring in behind them from the gate. [4] For the largest of the elephants had fallen athwart the gateway1 and lay there roaring, in the way of those who would have turned back; and another elephant, one of those which had gone on into the city, Nicon by name, seeking to recover his rider, who had fallen from his back in consequence of wounds, and dashing in the face of those who were trying to get out, crowded friends and foes alike together in a promiscuous throng, [5] until, having found the body of his master, he took it up with his proboscis, laid it across his two tusks, and turned back as if crazed, overthrowing and killing those who came in his way. Thus crushed and matted together not a man of them could act at all for himself, but the whole multitude, bolted together, as it were, into one body, kept rolling and swaying this way and that. [6] Little fighting could be done against those of the enemy who were continually being caught up into their ranks or attacking them from the rear, and they wrought most harm to themselves. For when a man had drawn his sword or poised his spear, he could not recover or sheathe his weapon again, but it would pass through those who stood in its way, and so they died from one another's blows. 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D33

34. But Pyrrhus, seeing the stormy sea that surged about him, took off the coronal, with which his helmet was distinguished, and gave it to one of his companions; then, relying on his horse, he plunged in among the enemy who were pursuing him. Here he was wounded by a spear which pierced his breastplate-not a mortal, nor even a severe wound-and turned upon the man who had struck him, who was an Argive, not of illustrious birth, but the son of a poor old woman. [2] His mother, like the rest of the women, was at this moment watching the battle from the house-top, and when she saw that her son was engaged in conflict with Pyrrhus she was filled with distress in view of the danger to him, and lifting up a tile with both her hands threw it at Pyrrhus. It fell upon his head below his helmet and crushed the vertebrae at the base of his neck, so that his sight was blurred and his hands dropped the reins. Then he sank down from his horse and fell near the tomb of Licymnius,1 unrecognised by most who saw him. [3] But a certain Zopyrus, who was serving under Antigonus, and two or three others, ran up to him, saw who he was, and dragged him into a door-way just as he was beginning to recover from the blow. And when Zopyrus drew an Illyrian short-sword with which to cut off his head, Pyrrhus gave him a terrible look, so that Zopyrus was frightened; his hands trembled, and yet he essayed the deed; but being full of alarm and confusion his blow did not fall true, but along the mouth and chin, so that it was only slowly and with difficulty that he severed the head. [4] Presently what had happened was known to many, and Alcyoneus, running to the spot, asked for the head as if he would see whose it was. But when he had got it he rode away to his father, and cast it down before him as he sat among his friends. Antigonus, however, when he saw and recognised the head, drove his son away, smiting him with his staff' and calling him impious and barbarous; then, covering his face with his cloak he burst into tears, calling to mind Antigonus his grandfather and Demetrius his father, who were examples in his own family of a reversal of fortune.

[5] The head and body of Pyrrhus, then, Antigonus caused to be adorned for burial and burned; and when Alcyoneus found Helenus in an abject state and wearing a paltry cloak, and spoke to him kindly and brought him into the presence of his father, Antigonus was pleased with his conduct, and said: ‘This is better, my son, than what thou didst before; but not even now hast thou done well in allowing this clothing to remain, which is a disgrace the rather to us who are held to be the victors.’ [6] Then, after showing kindness to Helenus and adorning his person, he sent him back to Epeirus, and he dealt mildly with the friends of Pyrrhus when he became master of their camp and of their whole force.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D34

 

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

give every civ the battering ram

Yes, I fully agree, preferably in the town phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Thanks for the replies y'all. I'm still not convinced it'd be a good idea to use elephants to tear down fortifications or that it is historically accurate, even though they can do massive damage when enraged; but I don't have an issue with it being in the game. I agree with @Sundiata however that rams are such a basic technology it should be available for all civs.

It is at least as historically accurate as destroying fortifications with a spear or a sword. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Also in my world, melee cavalry have a bonus attack vs. your dangerous catapults (and every civ has access to some kind of melee cav, so it's all good).

If all melee units have a "melee" attack type that the catapults (and all siege equipment in general) have very little defense against then there is no need for the bonus. Melee cavalry and infantry, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, would be a natural choice against siege equipment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In my hypothetical world elephants aren't so good against buildings anymore. Also in my world, melee cavalry have a bonus attack vs. your dangerous catapults (and every civ has access to some kind of melee cav, so it's all good).

 

cavalry has a bonus? most cav is either ranged or, if melee, they have a spear not a sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unrealistic siege weapons mechanics is just a turn off on any RTS game imo. Like AoE2 the rams are like transport vehicle, seems like they run faster with the music on. The best siege weapons mechanics for me is the Stronghold style. They build and man it. If the operator dies its immobilized, like Sudden Strike game. There’s no point on arguing it’s speed and armor etc etc, they are useful only when the besieged is outnumbered. Then you can mobilize these sieges without much opposition otherwise they can’t just operate alone and beat up a defender. This game can be much better without “ghost” units and structures. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 3:41 PM, Nescio said:

Mauryan fortifications? Or something from many centuries later?

I didn't say Mauryan fortifications, did I? (although even they were built with multiple moats) I don't know anything about the specifics about the design of perishable wooden doors on the gates of 2000+ year old fortifications... God knows I'm not looking at Viking gate designs for inspiration... I'm looking at Indian gates of later times to extrapolate what earlier Indian gates may have looked like.

This is a necessary step if you're going to feature things like doors in a game representing 2000+ year old civs. Or we could just start scrapping everything that doesn't have a primary period reference, like 90% of the Carthaginian civ and about 50% of everything else. 

Also, we do actually have period Maurya references about elephants assaulting fortifications. The Arthashastra mentions something called nagarayanam, the art of assailing forts and cities with elephants....

 

On 9/23/2018 at 3:41 PM, Nescio said:

Yes, armies with elephants besieged cities, however, in all three examples it is clear the fighting took place or started outside the city walls. The usage of elephants as living battering rams is not mentioned.

It is clear from all three of those references that elephants of the attacking armies advanced up to the actual fortifications breaking through the earthworks in the third example... 

Also, please allow me to quote myself from the previous page on this very thread:

Quote

As it's been brought up before more than once though, including in this thread, elephants weren't primarily used for sieging, although they could definitely take down simple structures and ram gates. Elephants were more of a risky elite battlefront unit, used to scare the living daylights of anyone on the other side. Their ability to take down structures should be a nice extra, but not their main feature. That task belongs to proper siege equipment.

So as you can see, I'm not arguing that elephants are siege-equipment, or that it should be their primary purpose.

BUT,

the idea that elephants have any problem with destroying buildings is 100% ridiculous. As I said, a fortified wall might be a little much, but what do you think most ancient structures were built from anyway? I'll give you a hint, it's like 90% clay/mud/brick/wood/straw... As I said before, Asian elephants can way more than 5 tons. Their hide is so thick it takes specialized rifles to shoot them. Their tusks, without blood vessels, are way denser than bone, and are actually enlarged teeth, embedded 1/3 into their skull. Ivory is a natural "high strength nano composite". I mean, they use it to fight other 5 ton elephants...

I'd like to emphasize (again) that elephants weren't primarily used as siege-equipment, but removing this very soft abstraction from the game (not really even an abstraction, more like a rarity), whilst swords and spears and even arrows can take down structures, is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. In addition to that, I don't even see the problem with elephants. They're super vulnerable as it is. An elephant sent to attack a garrisoned fortress in-game, simply dies... In addition, they are often too unwieldy to use effectively on the battlefield. 

I'm just going to end this post with angry elephants trashing stuff so you people will grow some respect for the destructive powers of the mighty elephant :P I'll end with a picture I took myself of some African elephants :) 

Spoiler

This guy is flipping a rickshaw over its head... With only one tusk:

 

 

This guy is flipping a car, like it's a toy

 

 

This guy is casually flipping a truck... 

 

I mean, come on... If this is what it does to a metal truck, Imagine what an elephant would do with a wooden battering ram...

 

Teaming up to take down a wall...

 

 

 

Here are some more peaceful guys i met in 2012. Wild elephants in Mole National Park, Northern Ghana:

1984098753_ElephantsMole2012.thumb.jpg.3bb19b00cfeb1161bd9dff6ae399ebf2.jpg

This is insanely close by the way... They were standing about 10 meters from me, and fully aware of our presence (3 more people to my rear). We were also on foot, and nowhere near a "safe spot", but the elephants didn't mind us one bit. A very magical moment :) 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's approach it differently and rephrase some things more sharply:

  • War elephants are highly effective vs buildings in Age of Mythology, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
  • 0 A.D.'s Mauryas can't construct any siege weapons, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
  • Some 16th C A.D. Mughal fortresses had anti-elephant spikes on gates, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
  • Humans can raze stone walls, elephants are much larger and stronger than humans, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.

These statements are all improper arguments. In my opinion historical accuracy should matter for 0 A.D. So far I've not seen any evidence war elephants were used to batter down city walls or gates in 0 A.D.'s timeframe (500-1 B.C.), therefore they shouldn't be effectively battering rams in game.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Also, we do actually have period Maurya references about elephants assaulting fortifications. The Arthashastra mentions something called nagarayanam, the art of assailing forts and cities with elephants....

Interesting; could you quote or link to a translation?

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

It is clear from all three of those references that elephants of the attacking armies advanced up to the actual fortifications breaking through the earthworks in the third example...

The third, you mean Livy's account of the siege of Capua? Read carefully. The Romans were besieging the city and Hannibal arrived to rescue his Capuan allies. The "earthwork" is not Capua's city walls, it's simply the emergency fortification surrounding the Roman army camp, probably erected within a few days at most. And the text says the elephants arrived at the earthworks, i.e. they had broken through the Roman field army formation and had now reached the camp behind it. This is yet another example where elephants are *not* used as battering rams.

None of the sources indicates elephants were actually ordered to attack gates or city walls. Elephants are occassionally mentioned in descriptions of sieges, yes, but so are archers and cavalry, and those are not effectively siege weapons either.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

So as you can see, I'm not arguing that elephants are siege-equipment, or that it should be their primary purpose.

Good, we're in agreement on this then.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I'd like to emphasize (again) that elephants weren't primarily used as siege-equipment, but removing this very soft abstraction from the game (not really even an abstraction, more like a rarity), whilst swords and spears and even arrows can take down structures, is utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I never said elephants shouldn't be able to attack structures. What I'm saying is that war elephants shouldn't be organic battering rams. In 0 A.D. they clearly are: a battering ram inflicts 150 crush damage per 1.5 s, a war elephant 150 crush + 20 hack damage per 1.5 s, so elephants are not very effective vs massed human soldiers, but can actually raze a structure quicker than a ram can. In my opinion this should really change.

 

PS Not exactly Apelles, but still enjoyable to look at:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Elephant_show_in_Chiang_Mai_P1110470.JPG

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thankforpie said:

cavalry has a bonus? most cav is either ranged or, if melee, they have a spear not a sword

I said melee cav, bruv. And since the siege unit is made up of a couple of dudes and a wooden contraption, I don't see where the distinction between sword and spear cav should matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×