Mace Xbows

[Emacz]

I just did a quick search (nothing extensive yet) but haven't come across the Macedonian army using xbows.  Can someone point me in the right direction. Or were they just added for gameplay/balance purposes?

[alre]

they were siege weapons

[real_tabasco_sauce]

The were called Gastraphetes if that helps you search.

[Emacz]

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The were called Gastraphetes if that helps you search.

 

3 hours ago, alre said:

they were siege weapons

Thanks, yeah in game the specific name of Gastraphetophoros wasnt turning anything up.  But Gastraphetes does... although nothing specifically about Mace, probably invented in 399 BC.

Gastraphetes - Wikipedia

Its pretty cool what you can learn just by playing 0ad and then doing a little follow up reading

[ShadowOfHassen]

Hopefully in the next few alphas we can get some of that historical stuff into the game so you all can learn more.

[Emacz]

1 minute ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

Hopefully in the next few alphas we can get some of that historical stuff into the game so you all can learn more.

Im trying to work on an even more "historical" version of the game. Although it still needs a lot of work and testing  Thats why I like to look these things up.

[Genava55]

9 hours ago, Emacz said:

I just did a quick search (nothing extensive yet) but haven't come across the Macedonian army using xbows.  Can someone point me in the right direction. Or were they just added for gameplay/balance purposes?

There is a blog article about it here: https://www.comitatus.net/greekbellybow.html

Although it is not really related to the Macedonians but to the Greeks in general, it is a real ancient weapon.

Edit:

There is a plausible evidence for its use in Macedonia in the 2nd century BC:

https://www.academia.edu/31610915/Perimortem_Weapon_Trauma_to_the_Thoracic_Vertebrae_of_a_2nd_Century_BC_Adult_Male_Skeleton_from_Central_Macedonia_Northern_Greece_2004_Death_from_a_catapulted_bolt_head_Journal_of_Paleopathology

Edited February 13 by Genava55

[Vantha]

The gastraphetes is such a cool weapon. I'm so glad we have it in the game.

And the animation is on point, as always...

[Emacz]

On 13/02/2025 at 2:25 AM, Genava55 said:

There is a blog article about it here: https://www.comitatus.net/greekbellybow.html

Although it is not really related to the Macedonians but to the Greeks in general, it is a real ancient weapon.

Edit:

There is a plausible evidence for its use in Macedonia in the 2nd century BC:

https://www.academia.edu/31610915/Perimortem_Weapon_Trauma_to_the_Thoracic_Vertebrae_of_a_2nd_Century_BC_Adult_Male_Skeleton_from_Central_Macedonia_Northern_Greece_2004_Death_from_a_catapulted_bolt_head_Journal_of_Paleopathology

If the ancient greeks used them as siege weapons and the Hans just used them as regular weapons why do they have same stats?  Or did Han use them as siege as well? they definitely act more like regular soldiers IMO.

[Vantha]

24 minutes ago, Emacz said:

If the ancient greeks used them as siege weapons and the Hans just used them as regular weapons why do they have same stats?  Or did Han use them as siege as well? they definitely act more like regular soldiers IMO.

It depends on how you define a "siege weapon". Crossbows are useful during sieges everywhere. In the Mediterranean, siege warfare was just a lot more common than in China. The main difference is that the Han had a standardized design and produced them en masse. And as you correctly stated, they were used by regular soldiers, in fact, the largest part of Han ranged infantry were crossbowmen. The Greek gastraphetes, on the other hand, was likely an elite piece, only used by single units, and reserved for those who could afford it. Else we would have more reports on it.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

There are also different sizes of crossbows. The ones depicted for the standard Han Crossbowman are smaller personal weapons with a lower draw strength than the siege crossbows shown for the Macedonians where you need the force of your upper body to help push/pull the draw mechanism. The Han of course also had larger crossbows as well.

[Vantha]

Don't underestimate Han crossbows. Even the weaker arm-drawn examples had incredibly heavy draw weights by today's standards. According to Wikipedia, entry-level crossbowman were required to be able to pull at least 76kg (167lbs). Other sources report most of the average arm-drawn crossbows to have even around 90kg (198lbs) draw weights. And they were, even for those draw weights, incredibly energy-efficient as they had unusually long draw lengths (and resulting power stroke). They are at least en par with average European counterparts.

Some of the strongest Han crossbows with multiple times that draw weight had an energy output of over 300 Joules and were probably able pierce some steel armor - which didn't even exist back then!
And keep in mind that they didn't even require an extra spanning devices - which allowed for relatively quick reload times in pitched battle (not comparable to bows, but still)

I don't even want to imagine how it was to face 30,000 of those dudes in battle. Must've been absolutely terrifying.

When we eventually get back to the encyclopedia, I want to discard the current one and take some time to write an entire series of articles on this topic. I find it so fascinating.

(Most of the numbers here I took from this excellent thread: https://historum.com/t/han-dynasty-crossbow-iii.179336/)

[alre]

20 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Don't underestimate Han crossbows. Even the weaker arm-drawn examples had incredibly heavy draw weights by today's standards. According to Wikipedia, entry-level crossbowman were required to be able to pull at least 76kg (167lbs). Other sources report most of the average arm-drawn crossbows to have even around 90kg (198lbs) draw weights. And they were, even for those draw weights, incredibly energy-efficient as they had unusually long draw lengths (and resulting power stroke). They are at least en par with average European counterparts.

Some of the strongest Han crossbows with multiple times that draw weight had an energy output of over 300 Joules and were probably able pierce some steel armor - which didn't even exist back then!
And keep in mind that they didn't even require an extra spanning devices - which allowed for relatively quick reload times in pitched battle (not comparable to bows, but still)

I don't even want to imagine how it was to face 30,000 of those dudes in battle. Must've been absolutely terrifying.

When we eventually get back to the encyclopedia, I want to discard the current one and take some time to write an entire series of articles on this topic. I find it so fascinating.

(Most of the numbers here I took from this excellent thread: https://historum.com/t/han-dynasty-crossbow-iii.179336/)

Gastraphetes also had very long draw length, don't get confused with medioeval crossbows that evolved into a shorter draw length.

23 hours ago, Vantha said:

It depends on how you define a "siege weapon". Crossbows are useful during sieges everywhere. In the Mediterranean, siege warfare was just a lot more common than in China. The main difference is that the Han had a standardized design and produced them en masse. And as you correctly stated, they were used by regular soldiers, in fact, the largest part of Han ranged infantry were crossbowmen. The Greek gastraphetes, on the other hand, was likely an elite piece, only used by single units, and reserved for those who could afford it. Else we would have more reports on it.

I don't think they were considered an "elite weapon", nor that they were used by soldiers of particularly elevated social status. They were produced as a mean of defending city walls and kept by the city guard, or produced before sieges by campaign engineers. I don't think they were usually sold. There are not a lot of sources or archaeological evidences though.

[Vantha]

36 minutes ago, alre said:

Gastraphetes also had very long draw length, don't get confused with medioeval crossbows that evolved into a shorter draw length.

That's true. When I wrote "European counterparts" I was referring to the medieval crossbows.

The unique thing about the Gastraphetes is that the bow string is already secured in the trigger mechanism before it is even spanned. This means (depending on the exact design) it might not even need to have a fixed draw length. And that would allow it to be used by soldiers of all sizes and strengths without switching out the prod.

46 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't think they were considered an "elite weapon", nor that they were used by soldiers of particularly elevated social status. They were produced as a mean of defending city walls and kept by the city guard, or produced before sieges by campaign engineers. I don't think they were usually sold. There are not a lot of sources or archaeological evidences though.

Well, they were quite expensive and therefore not used by lower-class peasants - unlike in China.

[Emacz]

On 14/02/2025 at 11:47 AM, Vantha said:

It depends on how you define a "siege weapon". Crossbows are useful during sieges everywhere. In the Mediterranean, siege warfare was just a lot more common than in China. The main difference is that the Han had a standardized design and produced them en masse. And as you correctly stated, they were used by regular soldiers, in fact, the largest part of Han ranged infantry were crossbowmen. The Greek gastraphetes, on the other hand, was likely an elite piece, only used by single units, and reserved for those who could afford it. Else we would have more reports on it.

 

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

There are also different sizes of crossbows. The ones depicted for the standard Han Crossbowman are smaller personal weapons with a lower draw strength than the siege crossbows shown for the Macedonians where you need the force of your upper body to help push/pull the draw mechanism. The Han of course also had larger crossbows as well.

 

7 hours ago, Vantha said:

Don't underestimate Han crossbows. Even the weaker arm-drawn examples had incredibly heavy draw weights by today's standards. According to Wikipedia, entry-level crossbowman were required to be able to pull at least 76kg (167lbs). Other sources report most of the average arm-drawn crossbows to have even around 90kg (198lbs) draw weights. And they were, even for those draw weights, incredibly energy-efficient as they had unusually long draw lengths (and resulting power stroke). They are at least en par with average European counterparts.

Some of the strongest Han crossbows with multiple times that draw weight had an energy output of over 300 Joules and were probably able pierce some steel armor - which didn't even exist back then!
And keep in mind that they didn't even require an extra spanning devices - which allowed for relatively quick reload times in pitched battle (not comparable to bows, but still)

I don't even want to imagine how it was to face 30,000 of those dudes in battle. Must've been absolutely terrifying.

When we eventually get back to the encyclopedia, I want to discard the current one and take some time to write an entire series of articles on this topic. I find it so fascinating.

(Most of the numbers here I took from this excellent thread: https://historum.com/t/han-dynasty-crossbow-iii.179336/)

 

7 hours ago, alre said:

Gastraphetes also had very long draw length, don't get confused with medioeval crossbows that evolved into a shorter draw length.

I don't think they were considered an "elite weapon", nor that they were used by soldiers of particularly elevated social status. They were produced as a mean of defending city walls and kept by the city guard, or produced before sieges by campaign engineers. I don't think they were usually sold. There are not a lot of sources or archaeological evidences though.

 

6 hours ago, Vantha said:

That's true. When I wrote "European counterparts" I was referring to the medieval crossbows.

The unique thing about the Gastraphetes is that the bow string is already secured in the trigger mechanism before it is even spanned. This means (depending on the exact design) it might not even need to have a fixed draw length. And that would allow it to be used by soldiers of all sizes and strengths without switching out the prod.

Well, they were quite expensive and therefore not used by lower-class peasants - unlike in China.

This is my point! This is all great info. Why are pretty much every champ XBOW the same stats, ever citizen swordman same stats etc  Finally I like how there is a Catophract mixin.  

I try and find the historical differences in civs and work them into my mod. Yes it can become a little more confusing, especially for newer players.  But it can also make it more interest sting and strategic.  For example based on what Ive read both the Kush and Maury where know for their Archers... Kush tended to use poisoned arrows, so I gave them less pierce dmg and added poisone dmg.  Maury used 7 foot bows that they had to stabilize with their feet.  I gave them +2 range and alittle extra pierce.  

if people like these ideas and can bring me some sort of proof references I want to make more changes.  For now since you said the mace xbows were mroe siege I gave them extra range and dmg, but they shoot slower.. I also gave the troops a little more armor but they walk slower... so they are kind of in-between normal units and actual siege.

Feel free to check out my topic about the historical mod:

Always looking for players to play with and try things out, but also always looking for new ideas.  We also have a small discord group where we discuss changes and what not. Thats one of the things I love about 0ad and it being open source.  The Devs work really hard to put the game together and worry about all the coding and what not. We can play around with the historical side of it and make new units (Brits, Celts, Persians all had some variation of axmen infantry)  and mabye some of those ghings will make it into later alphas! Cheers

[Vantha]

19 hours ago, Emacz said:

Why are pretty much every champ XBOW the same stats, ever citizen swordman same stats etc

I've mentioned this in the past somewhere already, but I fully agree with that. I get the point that citizen soldiers all need to have the more or less the same stats, so that players know what they get when they e.g. train a "Swordsman". (Even though I believe the issue here only lies in not being able to communicate differences in stats to the player very well) But especially for champions there's huge potential for differentiation.

I really like, for example, that the Han pikemen have less resistance but deal more damage than Macedonian pikemen - since they don't even carry a shield.

[Emacz]

58 minutes ago, Vantha said:

I've mentioned this in the past somewhere already, but I fully agree with that. I get the point that citizen soldiers all need to have the more or less the same stats, so that players know what they get when they e.g. train a "Swordsman". (Even though I believe the issue here only lies in not being able to communicate differences in stats to the player very well) But especially for champions there's huge potential for differentiation.

I really like, for example, that the Han pikemen have less resistance but deal more damage than Macedonian pikemen - since they don't even carry a shield.

Ah I thought pretty much all pikeman didnt carry shield?  they were two handed weapons? I guess they could kinda of have a smaller one on their forearm or something.

[Vantha]

2 hours ago, Emacz said:

Ah I thought pretty much all pikeman didnt carry shield?  they were two handed weapons? I guess they could kinda of have a smaller one on their forearm or something.

Macedonian pikemen (phalangites) carried shields over their necks (a very innovative idea for the time). And Seleucid and Ptolemaic pikemen fought in this Macedonian manner too. Han pikemen on the other hand, only carried a so-called "Ji", which is better classified as a halberd rather than a pike.

[Emacz]

We could definitely use ur expertise with the historical mod. Are you on discord?  I forget, if I've asked.  What's ur in game account?  Would love for you to check out some of the things and point out any inaccuracies or things we could improve on if you see some

[Vantha]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

We could definitely use ur expertise with the historical mod. Are you on discord?  I forget, if I've asked.  What's ur in game account?  Would love for you to check out some of the things and point out any inaccuracies or things we could improve on if you see some

I'm currently quite busy with some other projects here and I want to take enough time for everything I work on. If anything, I'm a bit overloaded at the moment. So: no, sorry. Not right now at least, but I might be more free in a few weeks.

[Genava55]

10 hours ago, Emacz said:

Ah I thought pretty much all pikeman didnt carry shield?  they were two handed weapons? I guess they could kinda of have a smaller one on their forearm or something.

 

[Emacz]

Thanks yeah i think i came accross that video but havent watched it yet, but also saw some info on the macedonian phalanx (I gave them an aura, long with Sparta, Athens) since formations don't really add any bonus.  Same thing with Romans and testudo....and again want to/willing to play around with more!

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

 

It would be interesting if we could have a discussion about the linothorax. I'm of the view that it was white-washed leather rather than linen, where the quilted linen corselet came later. The term "linothorax" is so cool though that I'd still want to use it.