===[COMMITTED]=== Siege Artillery Rework

[Alexandermb]

Finished hellenic lithobolos equipment.

Spoiler

Missing only roman medium ballista.

 

[Alexandermb]

Well, as @Nescio theres no much difference between roman and greek artillery so i'll just change the capitulo and the frame position of the root:

Spoiler

 

[Alexandermb]

Well, siege artillery is finally done. I only need to do the different projectiles meshes and actors to finish.

Giant artillery will be kept in case @borg- include that in the next changes for buildable artillery on the battlefield as proposed.

Med ballista has the same size of the current artillery. Except for roman ballista wich has more lenght but less width.

[Genava55]

You really did a great job Alexandermb!

[Stan`]

[Alexandermb]

Almost forgot About gastraphetes:

Spoiler

 

[Alexandermb]

@Stan` @LordGood shall we use the new projectile decal used in the new artillery towers instead of flaming decal impact?

[LordGood]

The arty tower projectile is a bit smaller than the standard catapult stone, larger impact actor might be needed 

[Stan`]

2 hours ago, LordGood said:

The arty tower projectile is a bit smaller than the standard catapult stone, larger impact actor might be needed 

Since it's a decal you can just resize it.

[Alexandermb]

8 hours ago, LordGood said:

The arty tower projectile is a bit smaller than the standard catapult stone, larger impact actor might be needed 

i've reduced the stone projectile to match the size of the lithobolos. The actual projectile is the size of the giant lithobolos.

[Nescio]

On 12/9/2019 at 8:27 PM, Alexandermb said:

Finished hellenic lithobolos equipment.

  Hide contents

Missing only roman medium ballista.

Those look good!

Nonetheless, there is space for improvement:

• The power of torsion engines (i.e. the force by which the projectile is launched) is proportional to the thickness/mass/volume of the string. To be able to shoot a rock, one needs a massive string, say at least a hand in diameter, whereas in those actors the string of the largest actor seems visibly just as thin as one of the smallest scorpion.
  Spoiler

  

• Consequently, the larger engines would also have much thicker arms, to prevent them from snapping.
• The largest has two wheels on each side, operated by one man each, which looks a bit ugly and unnecessary. It would be better if two men would turn one wheel.
• Furthermore, there will need to be more differently sized packed artillery actors, with the correct number of men.

Also, could you show all artillery, from small to large? The smallest stone-thrower should be visibly larger than the largest bolt-shooter (and have a larger crew).

On 12/12/2019 at 5:19 AM, LordGood said:

The arty tower projectile is a bit smaller than the standard catapult stone, larger impact actor might be needed 

Given their size, towers would typically be unable to host anything larger than a scorpion (small bolt-shooter) and should thus have similar projectiles, not large rocks or fireballs. Only exceptionally large wall towers, bastions, or fortresses might have space for a small or medium stone-thrower.

Off-topic, it would be nice if the projectile actor could be defined in the templates, rather than in the art files, to improve modifiability, e.g. a Briton fortress firing sling stones or an Iberian tower javelins.

[Stan`]

2 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Off-topic, it would be nice if the projectile actor could be defined in the templates, rather than in the art files, to improve modifiability, e.g. a Briton fortress firing sling stones or an Iberian tower javelins.

You can already do that I believe for both the impact and the projectile.

[Nescio]

8 minutes ago, Stan` said:

You can already do that I believe for both the impact and the projectile.

You can define some values as to how the projectile moves, I believe, but not how the projectile itself looks. At least when comparing the quinquereme and trireme templates, I saw nothing to explain why one shoots large stones and the other just arrows. It seems to be defined in the actor files, e.g. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/art/actors/structures/ptolemies/quinquereme.xml

[Stan`]

@Nescio If the following doesn't work then that's a bug. Usually though it's artists that define projectiles, not gameplay, so it makes sense that it is by default in actor files.

Line 68 - 74 of binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Attack.js

"<Projectile>" +
  "<Speed>50.0</Speed>" +
  "<Spread>2.5</Spread>" +
  "<ActorName>props/units/weapons/rock_flaming.xml</ActorName>" +
  "<ImpactActorName>props/units/weapons/rock_explosion.xml</ImpactActorName>" +
  "<ImpactAnimationLifetime>0.1</ImpactAnimationLifetime>" +
"</Projectile>" +

l 164-166

"<element name='ActorName' a:help='actor of the projectile animation.'>" +
  "<text/>" +
"</element>" +

 

[Carltonus]

The new siege engine models exceeded my expectations after seeing the gameplay video by @psypherium.

The only things left to make are their unit icons. Also, the polybolos icon still uses the oxybeles image, and the Carthaginian deployed siege engines @LordGood's "paintings". Suggest these quick changes, thanks!

Edited January 15, 2021 by Carltonus

[Stan`]

I like @LordGood's icons...

[Carltonus]

What just happened to @Alexandermb's OP light lithobolos? The TLDR is that the projectile is unrealistically large! and appears to be used as some sort of temporary glove. Also, the right engineer is picking up an imaginary projectile:

 

 

On a lighter note (get it?), the stones for the heavy ballista and lithobolos appear out of nowhere instead of being transported by the forward men:

Edited October 1, 2022 by Carltonus
Expanding for the big boys.

[Stan`]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Actor Viewer not always accurate with animations

[Thalatta]

Who would be the one still improving animations? Found this discussion since it has been just quoted, and went fast over it. The incorrect unphysical torsion spirals need fixing, as explained in:

On 26/09/2026 at 8:42 PM, Thalatta said:

-The Lithobolos torsion-springs shouldn't look like spirals: this makes no physical sense. Although there are a few ancient representations that also portray them incorrectly, there are plenty of representations around showing their correct appearance.

  Hide contents

How it's in the game right now:

How it should be:

 

 

Besides:

On 06/12/2019 at 9:33 PM, Nescio said:

Currently most actors are visibly torsion engines (two separate arms and in between a hole in front for the projectile). However, the current oxybeles is the exception: it's a non-torsion crossbow, basically a large gastraphetes, which is fine, because this was the commonest type in the 4th C BC; they were no longer used from the 3rd C BC onwards, though. So if you intend to remake something, a torsion oxybeles of the same size as the current crossbow oxybeles would be nice to have (but also keep the current one).

As mentioned in:

On 26/09/2026 at 8:42 PM, Thalatta said:

-The Oxybelēs is being represented by an early tension design: the oxybelēs would soon use a torsion mechanism mid-4th century B.C., looking like the present Lithobolos, which would completely supersede the tension design by the end of the 3rd century B.C., according to Mardsen. A further advancement would be the Polybolos, which had a magazine to increase shooting rate (could be just a tech).

 

To fix that those don't end looking the same, and if there's a will to properly delve into siege engines, a whole type of machines is being ignored, while many being considered are probably misrepresented:

On 26/09/2026 at 8:42 PM, Thalatta said:

-The Lithobolos is being represented by a dubious design: this is still quite the controversy, but extremely illuminating, and could be used to differentiate units better. Regarding Roman terms, "the Greek bolt-shooting euthytone thus became the catapulta, and the stone-throwing palintone, the Ballista", from Kinard. Campbell and others state similar things, but what palintone exactly means is still debated: initially in his book he takes the conservative position that it had just to do with the orientation of the springs (hard to see in a game), and was a bigger version, necessary to more slowly transfer energy to somewhat equivalently worthy heavier stones. But a few years later (2011), Campbell takes the "French" position (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307732119_The_inswinging_theory, by Iriarte), stating that "this solution, at once etymologically elegant and strikingly logical, has come to be known as 'the inswinging theory,' in which the catapult arms point forward when at rest, and are drawn inward during the spanning process", even claiming, when later discussing the onager, that "as in the case of the Hellenistic stone-projector, a brilliantly perceptive French design was sidelined by inferior German and English versions". Figures 3 and 4 in https://sciences.gloubik.info/spip.php?article1600 show both configurations clearly. In addition, palintones would eventually shoot heavy bolts (by changing their sliders), being a more powerful, although complicated, configuration.