Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's an overdebated topic.

# crush damage

The idea was to give it a crush damage to make it a bit different from javeliners and archers.

It seems right now that it was not really a good idea:

- strange in gameplay: we can use slingers to destroy building but not javeliners nor archers for ranged units, nor heavy weaponed melee units.

- strange in visual appearance (aka realism): same reason as above

- strange at history: here I should be corrected but I have in mind that there were specialized slingers or javeliners but also a large amount of warrior just throwing what they have. So basically it's a bit exagerated to make slingers and javeliners so different.

Independantly of a specific 0ad alpha version or whatever, who think we should really remove that.

# stone cost

Just because it launches stone, it costs stone. That's fine but sounds weird on another side (the stone resource is just an abstraction). I never succeed to figure out what to think here.

# ideas ?

Should it be someting different from javeliners and how? I guess the question is mostly relevant for civ which have both units in their unit schema.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe slingers should be able to make only  damage up to a certain point for buildings as realistically they cant take down a castle but do can make mid/small damage. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

Just because it launches stone, it costs stone. That's fine but sounds weird on another side (the stone resource is just an abstraction). I never succeed to figure out what to think here.

Highly skilled slingers like those from Rhodes and the Balneares used metallic projectile. And indeed, stone cost is not really justified even for the regular ones.

Historically, Rhodian slingers have been used to counter Persian archers. See Xenophon in Anabasis 111.3. 7 to 20.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gallic Wars, Book 5, Ch. 43: On the seventh day of the attack, a very high wind having sprung up, they began to discharge by their slings hot balls made of burned or hardened clay, and heated javelins, upon the huts, which, after the Gallic custom, were thatched with straw. These quickly took fire, and by the violence of the wind, scattered their flames in every part of the camp.

By the way about the range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Today

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the type of weight of the sling projectile, I think that there is a valid reason to give them the ability to ignore armour to a limited amount.  Javelins, being even heavier should have even better abilities to penetrate armour at the cost of requiring a good deal of micro to not get caught out after launching a volley with their short range.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slinger much stronger against units without shields (archers, slingers etc.)? Javelin much stronger against unit with shield (infantry, cavalry)? Archer stronger against both but less than slingers and javelineers respectively?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

Slinger much stronger against units without shields (archers, slingers etc.)? Javelin much stronger against unit with shield (infantry, cavalry)? Archer stronger against both but less than slingers and javelineers respectively?

Range and melee resistance could also factor into it.

Slingers have biggest range but lowest armor (They outrange other ranged units, but melee units resist their attacks and crush them in melee),  archers have  somewhat less range than slingers but more armor,  Javelin have shortest range but are the best equipped for a melee.

This just an abstraction based on how they were usually equipped, depending on civ may have different stats.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slinger must be most weaker of the ranged but more cheaper.

Give to them less armor and less health.

And agree with piercing damage.

Cavalry (melee) must have bonus vs ranged unit .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Highly skilled slingers like those from Rhodes and the Balneares used metallic projectile. And indeed, stone cost is not really justified even for the regular ones.

Historically, Rhodian slingers have been used to counter Persian archers. See Xenophon in Anabasis 111.3. 7 to 20.

 

10 hours ago, Genava55 said:

The Gallic Wars, Book 5, Ch. 43: On the seventh day of the attack, a very high wind having sprung up, they began to discharge by their slings hot balls made of burned or hardened clay, and heated javelins, upon the huts, which, after the Gallic custom, were thatched with straw.

Thanks for those informative inputs. Does it also emphasize there were specialized slingers and casual slingers?

Anyone has an input about Macedonian armies? (Battle of Gaugamela for example)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Slinger much stronger against units without shields (archers, slingers etc.)? Javelin much stronger against unit with shield (infantry, cavalry)? Archer stronger against both but less than slingers and javelineers respectively?

Yes it makes sense as it refers to the different nature of those weapons. I always wonder if it's better to focus on the weapon or on the unit role.

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In Delenda Est, slingers cost food and metal and are bonused against ranged infantry (and swordsmen to a lesser extent). No crush attack, only pierce.

It's more or less the same idea then. Bonuses against low armored unit finally.

Nuking the crush part seems consensual then.

Any reason for the metal cost? (Is it to reflect the fact there was use of metalic projectile? or because it fits in the DE gameplay? or anything else?)

@Nescio used metal for all units iirc in 0abc.

Edited by fatherbushido
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Range and melee resistance could also factor into it.

Yes that's the first difference we can make, though not everybody agree with the range scale.
I often saw suggested bow > sling > javelin

You suggest sling > bow > javelin? Do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Depending on the type of weight of the sling projectile, I think that there is a valid reason to give them the ability to ignore armour to a limited amount.

One can't disagree. It's actually hard to reflect some physical reality in a consistent way (without making things complex).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slingers shouldn't cost stone. Stone in 0 A.D. is a building material obtained from a quarry.

There were different kinds of sling projectiles:

  • fist-size rocks picked up at the battlefield
  • smooth pebbles obtained from riverbeds
  • terracotta (baked clay) balls
  • lead bullets

In any case, they were not crafted from stone obtained in a quarry, which would be quite cumbersome.

Although it's possible to hurl rocks of c. 500 g, which would have high impact, in practice sling projectiles were much lighter, under c. 50 g, sometimes as little as c. 5 g. The lighter the projectile, the higher the speed and range, and the greater its penetrative power; tiny bullets would go deep into the enemy's flesh and were very difficult to extract; besides, their small size made them difficult to see and dodge.

14 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Anabasis 111.3. 7 to 20.

(I assume the 111 is a typo for iii, because the relevant paragraph is indeed in book III, section 3.)

Xenophon (Anabasis 3.3.16-17) insists Rhodian slingers (who used lead bullets) could shoot twice as far as the Persian slingers (who used stones). In terms of effective range, something like:

Rhodian slingers > Iranian archers > Cretan archers > non-Greek slingers > javelineers

would be realtistic; I'm not entirely sure implementing that would actually be a good idea.

Here are two pages from The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, an accessable introduction:

Spoiler

p123.thumb.png.c5f63e03aa02ebad7177aa2b1c2faac5.png

p124.thumb.png.58c4ba1520d399642ab6668d87e847a9.png

One other thing, I have some doubts about that several slingers in 0 A.D. have shields.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nescio said:

(I assume the 111 is a typo for iii, because the relevant paragraph is indeed in book III, section 3.)

Yep, it is a typo when I copy pasted the reference. Thank you for the correction.

9 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Rhodian slingers > Iranian archers > Cretan archers > non-Greek slingers > javelineers

The non-Greek slingers seem to use very different size of projectile. In the case of the account from Xenophon, the Persian slingers were using very heavy projectiles (as you noticed, they are various projectiles for different roles):

"Now I am told that there are Rhodians in our army, that most of them understand the use of the sling, and that their missile carries no less than twice as far as those from the Persian slings. For the latter have only a short range because the stones that are used in them are as large as the hand can hold; the Rhodians, however, are versed also in the art of slinging leaden bullets."

This is what is difficult about the sling, there are various applications and traditions in its use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

I like the way it is formulated. Thanks.

You're welcome. Off-topic, I also think all military units ought to cost metal, and that structures shouldn't cost food (D2686).

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

Although it's possible to hurl rocks of c. 500 g, which would have high impact, in practice sling projectiles were much lighter, under c. 50 g, sometimes as little as c. 5 g. The lighter the projectile, the higher the speed and range, and the greater its penetrative power; tiny bullets would go deep into the enemy's flesh and were very difficult to extract; besides, their small size made them difficult to see and dodge.

Just to nitpick to boost my meagre ego, lighter does not necessarily imply better penetration.  The primary factors at work are size and density.  A huge rock might not be able to be launched at a very high velocity, yet its mass would compensate, giving it a large degree of momentum.  The issue with its size then comes with pressure, in which the area in contact with a surface works against that.  

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Rhodian slingers > Iranian archers > Cretan archers > non-Greek slingers > javelineers

Obviously you were generalising, but I think that it should be pointed out that the javelin could have functions unlike the others in that they could to an extent render shields ineffective or at least unwieldy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Obviously you were generalising, but I think that it should be pointed out that the javelin could have functions unlike the others in that they could to an extent render shields ineffective or at least unwieldy.  

That could be done with status effects. Javelin units attacking shields and putting a malus on armor @Freagarach

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

That could be done with status effects. Javelin units attacking shields and putting a malus on armor @Freagarach

I would definitely find that interesting with the strategic potential it could provide.  At one point ranged missiles and to an extent melee attacks could be relatively harmless against most shielded units until javelins disable that, leading to a cool hammer anvil effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I would definitely find that interesting with the strategic potential it could provide.  At one point ranged missiles and to an extent melee attacks could be relatively harmless against most shielded units until javelins disable that, leading to a cool hammer anvil effect.

Reducing armor is actually not really different as reducing health.

Edited by fatherbushido
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Genava55 said:

The non-Greek slingers seem to use very different size of projectile. In the case of the account from Xenophon, the Persian slingers were using very heavy projectiles (as you noticed, they are various projectiles for different roles):

Carthaginian balearic slinger is a exception, i think they used lead projectiles too.

For DE  the helot slinger could have less range than other greek slingers; idea is that they are poorer and the Spartans focused less on ranged warfare, plus the civ has a archaic feel and it would make them closer to early Psiloi (Who fired just stones and sometimes even threw them with their bare hands).

Edited by Ultimate Aurelian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Carthaginian balearic slinger is a exception, i think they used lead projectiles too.

Balearic slingers yes, they used lead it is certain, we found lead bullets in France from the Gallic Wars. Caesar used them a lot during his campaigns.

But I was speaking generally about the size of the projectile, not their type. In Gallic context we found a huge variety of size for the sling ammunition. Stones are generally between 50 and 120 g and there are examples with higher weight.

image.png.c85824aeee34adaf2a4ac622c451d255.png

In the British Isles, at Sussex, there are some case of very well sorted stones probably used for slingshots, mostly between 30 and 90 g.
image.thumb.png.4545851cca0185f847a43fae22e75251.png

Edited by Genava55
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

For DE  the helot slinger could have less range than other greek slingers; idea is that they are poorer and the Spartans focused less on ranged warfare, plus the civ has a archaic feel and it would make them closer to early Psiloi (Who fired just stones and sometimes even threw them with their bare hands).

I could do that. Currently in DE, the Helot Slingers take 50% more XP to promote to new ranks, so I do cause them to be "weaker" in a sense to other slingers. They also don't have rank promotion techs. 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Genava55 said:

This is what is difficult about the sling, there are various applications and traditions in its use.

Also the length and material of the sling, and whether the projectile was released after three swings or just one. That said, there are also different archery traditions, with different bows, arrow lengths and weights, etc. And because 0 A.D. is a game, some kind of generalization is unavoidable...

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

But I was speaking generally about the size of the projectile, not their type. In Gallic context we found a huge variety of size for the sling ammunition. Stones are generally between 50 and 120 g and there are examples with higher weight.

image.png.c85824aeee34adaf2a4ac622c451d255.png

In the British Isles, at Sussex, there are some case of very well sorted stones probably used for slingshots, mostly between 30 and 90 g.

Now this is valuable information, thanks a lot!

I believe Greek lead bullets tended to be lighter, in the 20 g to 50 g range. Maybe there should be two types of slingers in game, one for Greeks, the other for Celts and Persians etc.? Or perhaps keep the one slinger we have, but introduce a special technology (“lead bullets”) that doubles the range but halves the damage?

7 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Obviously you were generalising, but I think that it should be pointed out that the javelin could have functions unlike the others in that they could to an extent render shields ineffective or at least unwieldy.  

Yes, obviously I am, on effective range, based on what Xenophon wrote in his work on the c. 400 BC campaign.

As for javelins, there was possibly even more variation than for other projectiles. Here are two pages on the weapons used by the Romans during the Republic, again from The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare:

Spoiler

p350.thumb.png.31d9ae089993de01087b439b4e6753c7.pngp351.thumb.png.97046d68ffd8699e76ba24a27e0dc7e8.png

To summarize the text, there were apparently four types of Roman javelins used in the 3rd C Roman army, each with a different range and, presumably, function:

  • hastati and principes had two, one slender, one stout; both were short-range weapons (and yes, their  primary use was probably to render the enemy shields unwieldy)
  • velites had five light javelins, c. 2 cm thin and c. 0.9 m long
  • Q. Navius' special forces had seven javelins of c. 1.2 m in length
7 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Just to nitpick to boost my meagre ego, lighter does not necessarily imply better penetration.  The primary factors at work are size and density.

In general, you're right: not necessarily indeed. However, in the case of sling stones, the only real variable is the mass, since the shapes are all similar, and the material (i.e. density) is the same. Heavier means larger and slower. A tiny bullet would penetrate the body, a pound-weight projectile won't.

To use an imperfect modern example, rubber bullets can deeply penetrate the body, rubber truncheons won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...