Why do catapults can still attack people if people are invulnerable to them?

[Sebastián Gómez]

1 hour ago, Dizaka said:

@Player of 0AD but what you had in splash you lost in mobility.

Cata-heavy armies could be outmaneuvered.  As a cata-heavy army the disadvantage was you had to know when to unpack and not do it too early or too late.

Very few players could manage catas.  Most cata armies started appearing 16-18 mins into the game and that is only if you intentionally went cata.  Also, only 2 civs could do it (Rome/mace) due to arsenal/encampment as other civs would only be able to do it in the 20-23 min mark.

Also, catas are a good anti-snowballing measure.  Finally, they can be easily countered with cav.  Catas are not much worse than champ cav ...and with current metal availability plenty counters and better alternative strategies (e.g., champs) than catas.

I fully agree.

[davidsrsb]

Catapults were very powerful weapons, very effective against organic units. Their weakness was cost, packing time and vulnerability to hack - they were fragile machines, so they needed a lot of protection

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree , Catas they should be easy to damage by any melee unit.

[Player of 0AD]

What really should be changed is the accuracy. I tested how many shots a catapult needs for hitting a deer, in some cases it needed like 30 shots! They are so inaccurate, they even miss towers in a lot of cases. That shouldn't be the case.

[Ceres]

A bit OT here, but the same applies to ships.