Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, probably not going further than this, this was a pain to do and i don't remember how many times i've started from scratch because blender rotation bones bugs or clipping with the hip. And i wan

Lithobolos_light attacking ranged animation:  

Ready to land!  

Posted Images

18 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

Question: Since im making operators for the bolt/stone artillery should i scale up Rams at least to have 6 men inside?

Battering rams, tortoises (the protective, slow-moving superstructures protecting men against projectiles), and siege towers are a different subject, but they could be truly enormous, capable of hosting multiple pieces of artillery and numerous troops.

According to Vitruvius (X.13.1), the battering was invented by the Carthaginians besieging Gades (Cadiz). Interestingly, he states that the ram was hitting the top of the wall and slowly worked its way down.

We know the Assyrians had effective battering ram/tortoise/siege tower machines in the 9th C BC at the latest, centuries before the Carthaginians; they're also depicted as hammering down walls from above (0 A.D.'s Persian ram is evidently based on this):

Spoiler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Assyrian_battering_ram.jpg

Vitruvius (X.15) describes a very large tortoise constructed by Hegetor of Byzantium; it was about 19 m long and 13 m wide, had a middle flour with artillery, a look-out turret, and a 54 m long battering ram, capable of knocking down 30 m high walls (again implying ramming walls started at the top), operated by a hundred men.

Ramming the top of walls rather than the base might seem counter-intuitive (especially when looking at reconstructed medieval rams or most of 0 A.D.'s actors), but it actually makes sense, because walls were strongest at the base and weakest at the top.

(@Sundiata, do you happen to know any specifics on siege engines used by the Kushites? Did they also ram walls starting at the top?)

Another enormous siege engine described by Vitruvius (X.16.4) is the helepolis built by Demetrius for besieging Rhodes (305 BC), which was reportedly about 40 m high and 20 m wide, and weighted some 150 ton.

Of course, ancient authors are more interested in the exceptional and Hegetor's ram and Demetrius' tower were extremes, undoubtedly some of the largest siege engines built in antiquity. Nonetheless, ordinary, much smaller rams and siege towers would still be quite large. City walls 5 m thick and 10 m high with turrets adding another 5 m were not exceptional, and siege towers were supposed to dwarf them, otherwise the besieger would have no advantage over the besieged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

;

49 minutes ago, Nescio said:

(@Sundiata, do you happen to know any specifics on siege engines used by the Kushites? Did they also ram walls starting at the top?)

Nope, not for the Kushites. There were a notable number of fortifications and fortified settlements which were lost and reconquered many times over in their history, so they must have had their ways. Apart from the mention of "catapults" in the Victory Stela of Piye's ("things" that throw rocks), or the evidence of sapping/tunneling/fire at Buhen, both of which predate 0AD, I have no references to go on. 

In the Egyptian record however, pictorial evidence for sieges, however rare, do exist. The tombs of Beni Hasan show exactly what you were talking about: they attack the top of the wall with long poles, protected by a light wooden construction, presumably covered in animal hides (not wheeled, but carried). I think the point was to clear the battlements of enemy fighters, partly destroying it. Then infantry could use ladders to climb the walls, or "demolition crews" could start hacking away at the walls or gates, or both. 

Spoiler

1198004769_Egypt_Main_chamber_of_tomb_15_at_Beni_Hasan._Wellcome_M0006216.thumb.jpg.87467b26a1cbf0d444023f039a43a7af.jpg

 

72796197_BeniHasanTomb2siegescenefrescopainting.thumb.jpg.5716487acac5aaad3c638971c28033b6.jpg

158_battering_ram.jpg.146724345a7b4d327af8edce33369aa3.jpg

 

Rare example of an Egyptian siege tower, open design (could be wheeled)

776822630_SiegetowerwarfareAncientEgyptianwheeled.jpg.08e7dedad489c912e19839b6e61a2317.jpg

Here's another look

imageproxy_php.jpeg.ab5ea6a266284fc0dfd4e4ee0a6d74a5.jpeg

 

Maybe a "siege crew" with a small cart could be tasked to build this at enemy structures, and then disassemble it to move on to the next structure? Basically just a cheap, less mobile ram.. 

5e3e06b7fd8e1a153531c4c2c8714569.jpg.b5ca3826c2842d09d2c69256d3b9eac8.jpg

 

 

I don't think Kushites should be heroes at siege warfare, let that be the Greco-Roman speciality, but they should have something more than elephants. A non-wheeled battering ram, light wooden frame covered in cow skins, which is carried, is my preferred choice. Basically this:

Battering_Ram.jpg.b62d528831c8c14a6e343a1654dcd3ef.jpg

 

Alternatively, the heavy log could be replaced with a long pole angled upwards towards the battlements, but I think it would look a little awkward to watch a fortress collapse because some dude with a feather in his hair poked it with a long stick, you know... I think the log looks more convincing. Siege warfare is way too complex to depict accurately anyway... 

 

I would argue for a tunneling technology for all civs. So that you train a "tunneling crew" at the siege workshop. This crew would build a little tunnel entrance at x amount of meters from the target structure, and tunnel towards the target (with a disturbed earth decal for visual indication). When the tunnel reaches the base of the target structure, dust particles at its base will provide a visual indicator that it's under attack. After x amount of time, the target structure will collapse. Can be prevented by taking out the tunneling crew by simply destroying the tunnel entrance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, ladders and hooks were by far the most usual siege equipment, and galleries and tunnels to undermine city walls were also quite common. It would be great to have that in 0 A.D. some day.

Artillery was available only to the largest city-states and kings, who could maintain arsenals and skilled engineers and artillerymen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Anyway, back to artillery. Let's start with a bit of history:

Spoiler
  • The earliest artillery we know of were gastraphetes developed in Syracusae in 399 BC. These were basically large composite bows, not torsion engines. Three decades later, Athens, Sparta, and possibly a few others had obtained them as well, and non-torsion engines remained common until the beginning of the 3rd C BC. (0 A.D.'s oxybeles is evidently one as well, basically a giant crossbow.) They reappeared in the 3rd C AD (see below).
  • The earliest torsion engines emerged around 350 BC, possibly in Macedonia or surroundings. However, only after working formulae were found, presumably by engineers working for Philip II of Macedon, could experts reliably design and construct
  • Alexander the Great proved the worth of artillery, including stone-throwers, during the Siege of Tyre (332 BC). Afterwards all self-respecting great powers build up large arsenals. Rome was the notable exception: they were more than capable of constructing battering rams, tortoises, and siege towers by themselves, but artillery was provided by their (Greek and Punic) allies and vassals.
  • Only with the Augustan reforms and establishment of imperial standing armies (i.e. after 0 A.D.'s timeframe) did artillery become part of the Roman legions, and at the very high number of one per century (about a hundred men), i.e. about sixty per (double) legion.
  • Some further developments were made during Trajan's reign at the beginning of the 2nd C AD, to increase manoeuvrability (e.g. by putting artillery on carts).
  • During the 3rd C AD Roman artillery standards fell, presumably partly because of the high number of rulers and many civil wars, and partly because the successive expansions of citizenship and the influx of “new” Romans into the legions. As a consequence, torsion engines (which were more powerful but also more complex) disappeared in favour of simpler, non-torsion designs, such as the arcuballista (basically a gastraphetes/crossbow) and the new, one-armed onager.
  • Mangonels (traction trebuchets) were probably invented in China in the 4th C, carried by the Avars, and adopted by the Byzantines in the 6th C, from where they spread to Europe and the Near East.
  • Counterweight trebuchets emerged in the 12th C in the Middle East and quickly spread from there.
  • The first cannons appeared in China in the 12th C, the Arab world in the 13th C, and Europe in the 14th C.

And now let's summarize some key points:

  • Artillery requires skilled people to design, construct, and repair (engineers) and use (artillerymen).
  • Torsion engines were more powerful than non-torsion engines, but also more complex.
  • Artillery had to be kept dry, especially the strings, which were made from horse tails and manes (the most common and cheapest), women's hair (in emergencies), or sinew (the best and most valuable, but also the hardest to produce, therefore reserved for only the most important/prestious/powerful engines).
  • There is a trade-off between range and impact: smaller engines fired lighter projectiles and outranged larger engines, which fired much heavier projeciles.
  • Bolt-shooters operated at angles between 0° (maximum impact) and 30° (maximum range).
  • Stone-throwers operated at angles between 0° (maximum impact) and 45° (maximum range).
  • Bolt-shooter and stone-throwers (at least the smaller ones) could rotate on their bases.
  • Bolt-shooters were far more common than stone-throwers (at most perhaps 1 in 6).
  • For calibres, the numbers refer to the length (bolt-shooters) or weight (stone-throwers) of their projectiles.
  • The most popular were one-cubit (0.46 m), three-span (0.69 m), and two-cubit (0.92 m) bolt-shooters; three-cubit (1.39 m) and larger did exist but were not as common.
    • I guess 0 A.D.'s scorpio is a one-cubit and the oxybeles is two-cubit, so we might want one size in between, the three-span; they should all have a crew of two operators visible, though.
  • For stone-throwers, Vetruvius (X.11.3) lists various calibres, from two-mina (c. 0.9 kg) to six-talent (c. 150 kg). However, these are just theoretical sizes. Based on actual finds, we can conclude the most popular sizes were (E. W. Marsden (1969) 78-83) 20-mina (9 kg), 30-mina (13 kg), 40-mina (18 kg), 60-mina (26 kg) at Pergamon and 25-mina (11 kg), 30-mina (13 kg) at Rhodes. At Carthage, however, 90-mina (39 kg) was also present, but the vast majority were of light calibres (between 10-mina (4 kg) and 20-mina (9 kg)). It's safe to say lighter stone-throwers were most effective for defensive purposes (higher range) and the heavier types for offensive purposes (high impact on shorter range).
    • We already have three different stone-thrower sizes in 0 A.D. I don't think it's necessary to create larger ones.
  • There were no real differences between different arsenals (Carthage, Syracuse, Alexandria, Rhodes, etc.) Engineers travelled around and could find employment abroad; all engines belong to the same tradition. This also means that any engine could be used for multiple civs in 0 A.D.
12 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

Oxybeles Done!:

Could you make the projectile thicker? Artillery bolts were much heavier than arrows shot by archers.

12 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

So far 5 artillery done. Next in my list is Scorpio, after that Medium Roman Ballista + Two lithobolos same size variants for carthage.

Again, Carthaginian or Roman engines are no different from Greek ones. 

Edited by Nescio
cubit, not span
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of non-covered rams. If this is too much unbalanced for the factions using those (too weak), let's give them the possibility to upgrade it to covered battering rams through a research. And the Mediterranean factions could have the covered ones directly from the start without any research.

I hope sapping will be added in the game one day in the future but that is a more complex thing to add.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stan` said:

Does that work in our engine? The multiprop thimg or do we need a patch?

Nope, i attach with a constrait the bolt from the body armature to the oxybeles armature. A Tag for hide the props in a certain amount of time woudl really help sometimes but in this case works as it should being attached to the oxybeles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stan` said:

Ah I see you used the same smart hack than Lordgood used for the civil war mod.

Not only one smart hack, i have around 10 per siege artillery:

image.png

See those bones and empties on every lever? Thats a constrait for the armature to keep the lever in place or help the direction of the movement. at the start of the lever animation you can see it is first place in the windlass and then return to handle it. Thats another constrait.

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

Again, Carthaginian or Roman engines are no different from Greek ones. 

Most references show roman a different windlass/rail way to work, for example greeks use a dented line.

And only for differentiate carthage is why im willing to do another one following the same principles but with different build or "Capitulo" but if it doesn't need to be different i gues i could leave it that way (That means less work to me but just to finish scorpio and roman medium Ballista)

Spoiler

image.pngimage.png

What are the different sizes im looking for? Well, visually sell what it is his purpose.

For the record this are the different sizes:

Polybolos smaller than current model.
Oxybeles smaller than current model.
Scorpio haven't started but it should have more width and lenght than current model.
Litho/Ballista bigger than current model (Medium size is smaller than current model but bigger than light artillery).

A boltshooter is intended to decimate enemy from a large distance in fast reload speed. This reducing his damage agaisnt building so this weapons wouldn't be that much efficent agaisn't buildings.

A stonethrower could either be a medium size weapon to destroy a ship or to be attached in a ship/wall, wich a Huge ballista would certanly not be very usefull due the reload time and aiming precision.

And a heavy stonethrower seen in the reference above 3-4 Talent caliber lithobolos for Destroy buildings. A polybolos with a burning arrow would certanly destroy a gaul house, but a carthage house/wall what would a bolt do? even it its on fire, it has to enter in the house between a window or something but that means every boltshooter has a precise shot.

Instead, a 3 talent lithobolos/ballista could destroy a wall/building with a boulder easily with each reload time properly.

Im not engineer neither 0.A.D. a Physics simulator so im very limited between Historical Accuracy - Real life usage - PC performance - Blender Limitations. Keep that in mind with any new model sometimes. While i like having measures they often are a restriction if i follow exactly due to my native languaje "Spanish" making difficult to understand some lectures however the most problem resides on not every single piece being measured wich is often leads to a dead end valley.

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

Could you make the projectile thicker? Artillery bolts were much heavier than arrows shot by archers.

Yep, of course, i was wondering if it was thicker as seen in one refence before.

Lets Tie to our currect artillery wich is Light and Heavy only. While ladders, hooks and tunnels are good, they need navmesh just like Stronghold or Rise & Fall Civilizations at war gameplay wich is good but currently not possible on 0.A.D.

I would like to leave heavy artillery offense only making it only buildable on neutral territory from a distance restriction from enemy building. Leaving them mostly for Wall/Fortress destructive purpose. Clearly building this kind of artillery wouldn't be possible near the enemy walls because enemy could destroy it with projectiles from the distance or send skirmishes to delay construction.

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

Most references show roman a different windlass/rail way to work, for example greeks use a dented line.

And only for differentiate carthage is why im willing to do another one following the same principles but with different build or "Capitulo" but if it doesn't need to be different i gues i could leave it that way (That means less work to me but just to finish scorpio and roman medium Ballista)

One important to keep in mind is that popular references tend to focus on Alexander the Great for the Greeks and for the Romans on Trajan. When you compare a late 4th C BC Greek engine with an early 2nd C AD Roman engine, then yes, you'll undoubtedly see differences, not because one is Greek and the other Roman, but because there is a time difference of about 500 years.

0 A.D. covers the 500-1 BC timeframe. Whenever possible, the point of reference ought to be c. 250 BC. For Carthage and Rome, the focus is on the Punic Wars, especially the Second (218-201 BC). Scipio captured Carthago Nova (in Spain) in 209 BC and with it its arsenal containing hundreds of pieces of artillery, which were shipped to Rome as spoils of war. When Scipio was about to besiege Carthago (in Tunisia) a few years later, he amassed a huge number of bolt-shooters and stone-throwers from three sources: he requested the captured engines from Rome; he ordered the Greek cities in Sicily (Roman vassals) to send him artillery; and he set up a new workshop at Utica (Carthage's sister and neighbour) to produce new ones. Thus the Roman managed to field a high number of artillery, despite the fact that none of those was actually manufactured by the Romans. This is actually typical. BC (our timeframe), Rome did not have an arsenal, unlike many Punic and Greek cities, and Rome relied on allies and vassals to supply artillery. AD (beyond our timeframe), the entire Mediterranean was Roman, there were no longer any non-Roman Greek or Punic cities, and Rome itself had a large arsenal founded by Augustus, and every legion had its own specialists to construct, repair, and operate artillery.

1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:

Im not engineer neither 0.A.D. a Physics simulator so im very limited between Historical Accuracy - Real life usage - PC performance - Blender Limitations. Keep that in mind with any new model sometimes. While i like having measures they often are a restriction if i follow exactly due to my native languaje "Spanish" making difficult to understand some lectures however the most problem resides on not every single piece being measured wich is often leads to a dead end valley.

Well, I like what you do, my graphical skills are basically non-existent, and I'm not looking for accurate reconstructions; something that seems to give an authentic feel is more than good enough for me.

The point I'm making, though, is that, for 0 A.D.'s timeframe, creating same type but different looking artillery for different civilizations is not only a lot of unnecessary extra work, it is also misleading. Creating different calibres is great, but creating different engines of the same calibre ought to be avoided.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nescio said:

The point I'm making, though, is that, for 0 A.D.'s timeframe, creating same type but different looking artillery for different civilizations is not only a lot of unnecessary extra work, it is also misleading. Creating different calibres is great, but creating different engines of the same calibre ought to be avoided.

Perfect then, no need to do the variants. Haven't started yet with scorpio but won't be an issue since i will reuse everything from other siege engines such as lithobolos/Oxybeles.

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

@Nescio Oxybeles and Scorpio animation would be similar arent they? They both are aimed forward (Maybe a lil bit upwards) but the mechanism is the same on the operators. Besides roman would have a smaller bolt but could be picked up from a basket. 

That would save me a lot of time.

Long answer: artillery consisted of two parts: the base and the engine. The base is fixed, the engine could be rotated and be elevated, regardless of type; bolt-shooters operated at angles from 30° (maximum range) to 0° (maximum impact), stone-throwers from 45° (maximum range) to 0° (maximum impact).

Short answer: having all bolt-shooters point horizontally forward and all stone-throwers diagonally is a simplification I don't mind.

3 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

What are the different sizes im looking for? Well, visually sell what it is his purpose.

For the record this are the different sizes:

Polybolos smaller than current model.
Oxybeles smaller than current model.
Scorpio haven't started but it should have more width and lenght than current model.
Litho/Ballista bigger than current model (Medium size is smaller than current model but bigger than light artillery).

A boltshooter is intended to decimate enemy from a large distance in fast reload speed. This reducing his damage agaisnt building so this weapons wouldn't be that much efficent agaisn't buildings.

A stonethrower could either be a medium size weapon to destroy a ship or to be attached in a ship/wall, wich a Huge ballista would certanly not be very usefull due the reload time and aiming precision.

And a heavy stonethrower seen in the reference above 3-4 Talent caliber lithobolos for Destroy buildings. A polybolos with a burning arrow would certanly destroy a gaul house, but a carthage house/wall what would a bolt do? even it its on fire, it has to enter in the house between a window or something but that means every boltshooter has a precise shot.

Instead, a 3 talent lithobolos/ballista could destroy a wall/building with a boulder easily with each reload time properly.

What I would like (gameplay; can be discussed later) is the following:

  • all siege engines are uncapturable; they require specialists to operate and killing the crew makes them useless
  • remove splash damage
  • bolt-shooters are expensive, accurate, very long range, pure pierce damage weapons very effective against soldiers, but not against structures
  • stone-throwers are very expensive, long range, pure crush damage weapons effective against siege engines and structures

There would be different calibres/sizes of both types and civilizations would have a subset, but none would have all. Currently (A23) I believe there are the following actors, from small to large:

  • gastraphetes (crossbowman)
  • scorpio
  • polybolos
  • oxybeles
  • lithobolos
  • cart ballista
  • rome ballista

However, I lost track of what you're doing in this thread, so if you've added any new ones, please insert them in the list.

For me, it's easier to consider the size of the projectiles, rather than the engines. Ideally, I'd like to see the following:

  • hand-held gastraphetes: one-span (23 cm)
  • small bolt-shooter/scorpio: one-cubit (46 cm)
  • medium bolt-shooter/scorpio/oxybeles: three-span (69 cm)
  • large bolt-shooter/oxybeles: two-cubit (92 cm)

i.e. a 1:2:3:4 projectile size ratio. (For the polybolos, whichever projectile size seems most appropiate; I consider the polybolos an unimportant extra, like the Theban fireraiser.)

All bolt-shooters should have a visible crew of two, stone-throwers more.

For the stone-throwers (60 mina = 1 talent = 26 kg):

  • [maybe] small stone-thrower: 15 mina = 0.25 talent = 6.5 kg
    • according to ancient sources, the preferred size for targetting enemy troops from city walls and towers
  • medium stone-thrower (current lithobolos?): 30 mina = 0.50 talent = 13 kg
    • according to ancient sources, the preferred size for destroying ordinary siege towers, battering rams, tortoises, galleries, palisades, etc.
  • [maybe] medium-large stone-thrower (current cart ballista): 40 mina = 0.67 talent = 17.5 kg
  • large stone-thrower (current rome ballista?): 60 mina = 1 talent = 26 kg
    • according to ancient sources, the preferrred size for toppling city walls and serious fortifications
  • [maybe] huge stone-thrower (new one?): 90 mina = 1.5 talent = 39 kg

The “maybe”s I consider unnecessary but nice to have. Concerning the huge one, three-talent or above stone-throwers are occassionally mentioned in ancient texts, but they were rare; realistically 1.5 talent appears to be the largest somewhat common size, based on actual projectile finds.

Also note that mass is proportional to volume, hence r³, so heavier stones would only look slightly larger. [EDIT] Let's say a round 1 kg stone has a diameter of 10.0 cm, then a round 15 mina stone would have a diameter of 18.7 cm, 30 mina 23.6 cm, 60 mina 29.7 cm, and 90 mina 34.0 cm. The actual numbers are irrelevant, but the ratios give some idea (to put it differently, a 1 : 1.26 : 1.59 : 1.82 projectile diameter ratio).

1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:

Perfect then, no need to do the variants. Haven't started yet with scorpio but won't be an issue since i will reuse everything from other siege engines such as lithobolos/Oxybeles.

Indeed, there is no need for variants. Just three sizes of bolt-shooters and three stone-throwers would be enough.

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).

Edited by Nescio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nescio said:

all siege engines are uncapturable; they require specialists to operate and killing the crew makes them useless

Appian, The Illyrian Wars 4: "[18] The transalpine Iapydes, a strong and savage tribe, drove back the Romans twice within the space of about twenty years, overran Aquileia, and plundered the Roman colony of Tergestus. When Augustus advanced against them by a steep and rugged road, note they made it still harder for him by felling trees. As he advanced farther they took refuge in another forest, where they lay in ambush for the approaching foe. Augustus, who was always suspecting something of this kind, sent forces to occupy certain ridges which flanked both sides of his advance through the flat country and the fallen timber. The Iapydes darted out from their ambush and wounded many of the soldiers, but the greater part of their own forces were killed by the Romans who fell upon them from the heights above. The remainder again took refuge in the thickets, abandoning their town, the name of which was Terponus. Augustus took this town, but did not burn it, hoping that they also would give themselves up, and they did so.

[19] Thence he advanced to another place called Metulus, which is the chief town of the Iapydes. It is situated on a heavily timbered mountain, on two ridges with a narrow valley between them. Here were about 3,000 warlike and well-armed youth, who easily beat off the Romans who surrounded their walls.

The latter raised a mound. The Metulians interrupted the work by assaults by day and by night, and harassed the soldiers from the walls with engines which they had obtained from the war which Decimus Brutus had waged there with [Marc] Antony and Augustus. When their wall began to crumble they built another inside, abandoned the ruined one, and took shelter behind the other.

The Romans captured the abandoned one and burned it. Against the new fortification they raised two mounds and from these threw four bridges to the top of the wall. Then, in order to distract their attention, Augustus sent a part of his force around to the rear of the town and ordered the others to dash across the bridges to the walls. He ascended to the top of a high tower to see the result."


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

Edited by Genava55
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nescio said:
  • all siege engines are uncapturable; they require specialists to operate and killing the crew makes them useless
  • remove splash damage
  • bolt-shooters are expensive, accurate, very long range, pure pierce damage weapons very effective against soldiers, but not against structures
  • stone-throwers are very expensive, long range, pure crush damage weapons effective against siege engines and structures

Pretty much what i've propose. Also make bolt-shooters weak agaisn't projectiles, the siege engine is very small so it won't offer any cover from skirmishers or arrows. A Giant ballista offers a little bit of cover however it shouldn't be that weak to projectiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

The Metulians interrupted the work by assaults by day and by night, and harassed the soldiers from the walls with engines which they had obtained from the war which Decimus Brutus had waged there with [Marc] Antony and Augustus.

True, but there was quite some time between the wars in which those engines were obtained and the wars in which they were used. It's similar to the example of Scipio (a few posts above), who seized a large number of artillery when capturing Carthago Nova and used those a few years later when about to besiege Carthago itself.

However, artillery being captured, turned around in the heat of battle, and starting firing on the troops of its previous owners? Unlikely.

In some earlier alpha, rams were capturable, but that was later reverted. I think it makes sense to have capturable structures but uncapturable units. Gameplay changes should probably be discussed somewhere else, though.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nescio said:

They look nice!

Light means bolt-shooter and heavy means stone-thrower?

Light for boltshooters yes, however I meant Tier 1 artillery, tier 2 would be medium stone throwers about the size of current lithobolos and finally heavy or tier 3 artillery Wich would be latest lithobolos and ballista.

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

Light for boltshooters yes, however I meant Tier 1 artillery, tier 2 would be medium stone throwers about the size of current lithobolos and finally heavy or tier 3 artillery Wich would be latest lithobolos and ballista.

How many different artillery actors do you currently have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nescio said:

How many different artillery actors do you currently have?

5 only, the ones seen before and lastly Scorpio. Missing the light Roman ballista and if isn't much trouble the Medium ballista, lithobolos. So light artillery 2 operators, medium 3 to 4 depending what is needed. And lastly the ones already done Wich are heavy lithobolos and ballista with 5-6 crew. 

Mostly I want to visually offer the destroyer of walls and fortress as the heavy artillery. Those would be the door breakers of the walls opening walls to let your army get into City. This should also be done considering rams will be nerfed at some point.

The medium artillery will be the ones you carry around for combats and small sieges. Lastly the light artillery Wich will be for skirmishes, defenses like walls or ships and infantry decimators ought to be used mostly but also very weak so they wouldn't be that reliable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alexandermb changed the title to ===[COMMITTED]=== Siege Artillery Rework

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...