Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90

Thread: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Yes, but did he used authentic steel used in medieval times? NOPE. he used plate made from today's wrought Iron that is nowhere near the quality of actual armor used back then (strongly recommend reading Knights and Blast Furnace, which contains a lot of info regarding medieval armor metallurgy, its a 900 pages of detailed study..) . TV shows like the one Mike Loades is doing, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.. they are intentionally creating flame wars to attract viewers.. and same for a longbow, 250yards was not used to represent maximum range, but maximum effective range.. you can shoot flight arrows at double of that range, but they would do no damage to armored men..

    If you want to get realistic results, you need to use historically correct manufactured armors, from appropriate material, while your arrow needs to have authentic metallurgy warhead... not many TV shows care about such details... if any... i saw many youtubers who wanted prove their point to show how poorly mail works against arrows.. yet, all they used was cheap Mail replicas from India which can be bought for 300-400$ from amazon... real Mail, made by very few armoures today, with authentic manufacturing process, with properly made rivets, made from authentic metal will cost you over 30.000$... guess how many of those guys would be willing to spend such sum to make a youtube video... none.. it is like testing Airsoft replica ballistic vest against a 9mm pistol, then bashing the real deal ballistic vest to be worthless...
    Last edited by JaM; October 24, 2014 at 09:17 AM.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Problem is: in pre-industrial era, hand-made armours had huge discrepancy in quality. You have both top-quality plate armour that could stop even musket ball, and cheap armour that could be easily penetrated by arrows. Testing authentic armours from e.g. collections is a good approach but it tends to focus only on the good side, as no one would one to use a cheap set of armour for collection/ exhibition. We should not simply ignore written accounts of the Hundred Years war of how devastating British longbow was against French knights.

    The tests shown on TV by Mike Loades and others are not meant to be scientific. They were made for wide public audience and serve as illustration rather than evidence. It does not mean that such tests are nonsense, since I'm pretty sure that Mike Loades had done his research and thus design his "experiment" accordingly to prove his point.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Actually, there are plenty of munition grade historic armors out there.. in the summer, i was visiting Graz Armoury, which contains weapons and armour for 6000 men. Breastplates stored there varied from simple low quality pieces to incredibly ornamented pieces of highest quality. Dr Williams in his book had hundreds of detailed metallurgy analysis of historical armours used in medieval and renaissance periods, really recommend to check his book for details. He went into great detail.

    And besides, Knights at Crecy, were not using munition grade plates, they were supposed to be the best Knights France had.. munition grade plate was used during renaissance for simple infantry (front rank pikemen mostly)
    Last edited by JaM; October 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    Yes, but did he used authentic steel used in medieval times? NOPE. he used plate made from today's wrought Iron that is nowhere near the quality of actual armor used back then (strongly recommend reading Knights and Blast Furnace, which contains a lot of info regarding medieval armor metallurgy, its a 900 pages of detailed study..) . TV shows like the one Mike Loades is doing, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.. they are intentionally creating flame wars to attract viewers.. and same for a longbow, 250yards was not used to represent maximum range, but maximum effective range.. you can shoot flight arrows at double of that range, but they would do no damage to armored men..

    If you want to get realistic results, you need to use historically correct manufactured armors, from appropriate material, while your arrow needs to have authentic metallurgy warhead... not many TV shows care about such details... if any... i saw many youtubers who wanted prove their point to show how poorly mail works against arrows.. yet, all they used was cheap Mail replicas from India which can be bought for 300-400$ from amazon... real Mail, made by very few armoures today, with authentic manufacturing process, with properly made rivets, made from authentic metal will cost you over 30.000$... guess how many of those guys would be willing to spend such sum to make a youtube video... none.. it is like testing Airsoft replica ballistic vest against a 9mm pistol, then bashing the real deal ballistic vest to be worthless...
    Yep! Mikes a weapons archaeologist so he uses all the authentic equipment.

    Unfortunately, one of the problems with a lot of the amateur videos is that they do miss the point that if you are testing something then everything has to be authentic, otherwise the results are invalid. Even the quality of the powder matters when testing firearms.

    The reason I'm not entirely happy with the sling videos I found is that the materials used are not really correct. The guy in the first video made his sling out of wool, which is fair enough, sheep existed in the Roman era. But apparently slingers made their slings out of hair not wool, and as he admitted himself the wool sling wore out really quickly and a different one made out of hemp produced even better results, so materials do matter. Likewise in the second video it was obvious that the stones hitting that metal plate had a lot of force behind them, but ideally that should have been a gelatine dummy wearing full padding and authentic armour to get a true result.

    The worse of course are the American Civil War enthusiasts who seem to think they are proving something by firing Napoleonic smooth bore cannon at oil drums and old motor cars. It might look spectacular but actually proves nothing.
    Last edited by Didz; October 24, 2014 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    Problem is: in pre-industrial era, hand-made armours had huge discrepancy in quality. You have both top-quality plate armour that could stop even musket ball, and cheap armour that could be easily penetrated by arrows. Testing authentic armours from e.g. collections is a good approach but it tends to focus only on the good side, as no one would one to use a cheap set of armour for collection/ exhibition. We should not simply ignore written accounts of the Hundred Years war of how devastating British longbow was against French knights.

    The tests shown on TV by Mike Loades and others are not meant to be scientific. They were made for wide public audience and serve as illustration rather than evidence. It does not mean that such tests are nonsense, since I'm pretty sure that Mike Loades had done his research and thus design his "experiment" accordingly to prove his point.
    Reproducing metal armor of various qualities is no big deal assuming the funds are available; cheap sets are rarely parts of collections, but they make up for it by being more common when digging up ancient garrisons. The real problem is testing non metallic armors (the real low end option) which didn't preserve half as well, meaning that reproductions are often forced to rely on guesswork.
    It doesn't help that metal armor was the exception, rather then the norm. The levies and tribals that formed the vast majority of armies throughout history could rarely afford it; cases like the Roman legions where every common grunt has access to mail or scale armor are few and far between.

    Also worth noting, even the best armor of the early modern era couldn't stop a decent musket (proofing against pistols was the standard, often with physical proof of shooting the armor with a pistol, which is what proofing originally meant), and the vulnerability of the French knights to longbows has very little to do with the quality of the knight's armor, and everything to do with poorly armored horses.

    On an unrelated note, its worth mention that slings have in recent decades undergone a resurgence in practical use, unlike pretty much every other ancient weapon. Slings are a favorite of rioters and violent protestors the world over, though lead bullets are practically unheard of, with rocks and Molotov Cocktails being the ammo of choice.
    Given this information, we can actually draw accurate data on the sling's effectiveness with stone ammunition and semi proficient users (consistent with most ancient levies, I'd say). It rarely kills anyone, and is defeated even by heavy winter clothing, never mind proper armor, but the odd hit to an exposed area can cause the fellow on the receiving end some grief, usually a fractured bone or a mild concussion. Not terribly impressive when compared to say, a bow and arrow, which would explain why ancient slingers would go to the extra trouble of using lead bullets.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

  6. #46
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Even cut rate armor like leather or linen would usually be enough to stop any penetration though, never mind a shield or proper armor like mail. And without penetrating, the blunt force trauma left over is less then impressive--it might hurt the morning after, but in the heat of battle, you might not even notice getting hit.
    The sling's primary use was to kill lightly armored enemies, meaning most skirmishers and levy troops, which actually constituted the majority of ancient armies. Up against heavy infantry or even well armored cavalry, a sling wouldn't do much unless it got a lucky hit into an unprotected area.
    Well one thing that many people forget is that :IF the sling was so effectiv agasint armored troops than why did it fell out of use when the troops became more and more armrored?
    techniques produced enough velocity to inflict a serious blow on the plate
    A thin unhardend,untempered and most likely low carbon steel plate ,from looking at it,.....and I didn't really see any damage.
    "This makes sense as any sling capable of throwing a shot 400m must be launching it at a pretty high velocity."
    Did you look at the range?That would do nothing at 400m and you would wear padding under any kind of heavy armor.

    Not quite what I was looking for, but this guy does seem to know what he's talking about
    Lindybeige has a very limited understanding of real figting and weapons,his "pike and shot video" was so bad it took me 3 to watch it complety.
    "The Roman shot were readily identified by the fact that they were manufactured, and often as the guy in the video says they have cryptic messages on them such as 'Take That"
    That was from greek shots found in Athens...
    old metal computer cases"
    Well I don't see what is soo impressive ,you can damage those things with nothing but your body.
    If it really took 300 Joules and it only got that much damage from the shot it was either not 300 Joule or that thing was build like extremly though and even than it would show that it is not that effectiv...
    Oh and a .44 MAgnum has between 1000 and 2000 J while having a speed of 404m/s(mach 1 is 340.29 m / s) ,so a stone with 300J?


    I remember Mike Loades making a little film to give a bunch of historians the finger. They had announced that they had done extensive computer modelling and analysis and concluded a) that the English Longbow could not have had an effective range greater than 250 yards, and b) that it could not puncture the armor plate worn by French knights. Therefore, the English history history of Azincourt and Crecy must be wrong, and the battle must have been won by superior skill at arms by the noble English gentry
    Link... I also remember him having a docu showing that 150lbs longbow wouldn't go through a gmabeson at long range....oh and 250 Yards are 228.6 m hell Myamoto Musahi even says that the japanese longbow(weaker but still)was not usefull after 40 Yards.Oh And one showing that it wouldn'r go through at short range through plate armor,so does he have a multiple personality disorder?The current world record for a accurate shot is 200m with a compund bow... so really are you just making that up?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoh0okQ6Ho
    "The bow is tactically strong at the commencement of battle, especially battles on a moor, as it is possible to
    shoot quickly from among the spearmen. However, it is unsatisfactory in sieges, or when the enemy is more
    than forty yards away.
    "
    Last edited by Sint; October 25, 2014 at 03:32 PM.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  7. #47
    craziii's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,247

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    this problem would 100% go away if ca made rome 2 shield function the same as the ones from rome 1. as long as a projectile is stopped by a shield it deals zero damage. This would also fix roman testudo + shield wall + heavy phalanxes. This makes flanking paramount. Horse archers would finally reign supreme like it should due to extreme maneuverability.

    In rome 2, I like the new hitpoint on units. I really, really hate the new shields.
    fear is helluva drug
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." freakin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” WWZ

    Have you had your daily dose of fear yet? craziii
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #48

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by craziii View Post
    this problem would 100% go away if ca made rome 2 shield function the same as the ones from rome 1. as long as a projectile is stopped by a shield it deals zero damage. This would also fix roman testudo + shield wall + heavy phalanxes. This makes flanking paramount. Horse archers would finally reign supreme like it should due to extreme maneuverability.

    In rome 2, I like the new hitpoint on units. I really, really hate the new shields.

    Im sorry to tell u this but it seems your understanding of how new shields works is completely wrong... i suggest u inform yourself
    War is Hell, and I'm the Devil!

  9. #49
    craziii's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,247

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fanest View Post
    Im sorry to tell u this but it seems your understanding of how new shields works is completely wrong... i suggest u inform yourself
    would you mind telling me how the new shields work? I really don't mind being corrected.
    fear is helluva drug
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." freakin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” WWZ

    Have you had your daily dose of fear yet? craziii
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #50

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fanest View Post
    Im sorry to tell u this but it seems your understanding of how new shields works is completely wrong... i suggest u inform yourself
    Shields can and do give three different types of bonuses in vanilla. The first bonus is melee defense, which does not affect how likely a missile is to hit the soldier. The second is armour, which neither affects how likely a missile is to hit a soldier - it does however reduce non-AP damage if a missile has hit a soldier. The third, however, is a missile block percentage, which as the name suggests provides a static per centage chance of blocking incoming missiles. So he's not entirely off. There is a major problem with the way shields work - shields have armour, meaning that a naked unit with only a shield, in a case where the shield fails to block the projectile, still gets the armour boost in spite of the fact that the projectile has already passed by the shield. You can probably see why that doesn't add up.
    Last edited by Sheridan; October 26, 2014 at 05:40 AM.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  11. #51
    chris10's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,239

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    I'm not sure how they were measuring this, but assuming the figures were accurate then its quite impressive.
    Laser pistol for measuring velocitys of objects and the rest is simple math.

    http://www.slinging.org/
    Sling shots and their calculations.

    What everybody could tell just from watching these guys is that you dont want to be in the way of one of these stones...
    with or without armor

  12. #52

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sint View Post
    Well one thing that many people forget is that :IF the sling was so effectiv agasint armored troops than why did it fell out of use when the troops became more and more armrored?
    I think the answer to that question may be found not in the amount of armour being worn, but in the nature of the armour.

    As Mike Loades showed in his longbow tests, the effectiveness of the weapon is not only affected by the thickness of the armour and its strength, but also by it's design and the quality of the metal.

    My guess is that as metal smelting and working advanced the vulnerability of armoured warriors wearing it to blunt trauma diminished. At the same time the steady improvement of bow technology meant that bows using penetration missiles became more effective. A similar puzzle exists as to why black powder weapons replaced bows, when bows were more accuracy, faster to fire and more deadly. The answers to such questions are not always obvious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Symphony View Post
    A thin unhardend,untempered and most likely low carbon steel plate ,from looking at it,.....and I didn't really see any damage.
    As is the case with all blunt trauma weapons the goal is not to damage the armor, but cause injury to the3 flesh behind it. Therefore I was only interested in the force with which the plate was struck, not whether the stone damaged it. Although the later video did show that the force was enough to break wooden planks. Again I'm not happy with the quality of these tests, and I'm a bit disappointed that nobody seems to have done any proper tests of the effectiveness of the sling as a weapon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Symphony View Post
    "This makes sense as any sling capable of throwing a shot 400m must be launching it at a pretty high velocity." Did you look at the range?That would do nothing at 400m and you would wear padding under any kind of heavy armor.
    The point I was trying to make is that if the quoted 400m range for slingers is correct, and it was repeated in these video's, then the initial velocity of the shot when it leaves the sling must be high enough to carry it that distance. I'm not suggesting for a minute that a stone arriving on target at a range of 400m is still travelling at the same speed as it left the sling, and these video's are clearly not showing hits on targets 400m away from the slinger. The same is true of every missile weapon, and there are even reports of musket balls being stopped by think woolen clothing at extreme range, so I'm sure the same would be true of a sling bullet.

    As far as the long bow is concerned there is no point quoting the performance of modern compound bows as evidence for the performance or otherwise of an ancient warbow. They are completely different tools, and cannot be compared. Very few people today can even draw a warbow let alone shoot one and hit a target. The draw weight alone of a modern bow is far lower than that of a warbow, as is the modern method used by the archer.
    Last edited by Didz; October 27, 2014 at 04:58 AM.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    when bows were more accuracy, faster to fire and more deadly

    They were never more deadly.. arrows are much less deadly than a musket bullet.. they stay in the wound, therefore block the blood loss, which means they practically prevents victim to fall into hydrostatic shock. You need to hit the critical organ to reliably kill with a bow. With musket, bullet is practically blunt force entering the body, creating much larger cavity than diameter of the bullet (yes, you could use broadhead, but then your armor penetration will be even lower). Even if it doesn't hit the critical organ, following blood loss will make victim unable to continue due to tremendous blood loss. This is one of the main reasons why Medicine jumped huge steps in renaissance, as surgeons had to perform more and more complicated operations to remove bullets from body, even church which previously baned any kind of autopsies agreed to have them performed eventually to allow surgeons to improve in skill.

    I would also not agree about longbows being more accurate. Early muskets were quite accurate at its effective range. Bullets used in Renaissance had to be very tight, as at that time, they were not patched. Tight bullet doesn't bounce from the barrel so much as patched one, which dramatically improves accuracy. Plus, with bullet having much higher effectivity on target (armor penetration and stopping power), musketeer only needed single good hit to take out armored opponent (even heavy Knight in heaviest armor) while archer would have to fire several arrows yet, he would have no chance to defeat Renaissance plate.

    Last myth, rate of fire is also controversial. Yet, in some situations, bowmen could fire much faster than musketeers, but, they were greatly impacted by fatigue from such firing. Men at campaign are usually more hungry than well fed, which means, unit of archers after few months at campaign, would be much less effective than they were at beginning. hunger would not impact performance of musketeer in any way.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by craziii View Post
    would you mind telling me how the new shields work? I really don't mind being corrected.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ombat-Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheridan View Post
    Shields can and do give three different types of bonuses in vanilla. The first bonus is melee defense, which does not affect how likely a missile is to hit the soldier. The second is armour, which neither affects how likely a missile is to hit a soldier - it does however reduce non-AP damage if a missile has hit a soldier. The third, however, is a missile block percentage, which as the name suggests provides a static per centage chance of blocking incoming missiles. So he's not entirely off. There is a major problem with the way shields work - shields have armour, meaning that a naked unit with only a shield, in a case where the shield fails to block the projectile, still gets the armour boost in spite of the fact that the projectile has already passed by the shield. You can probably see why that doesn't add up.
    yes i see why this can be a problem, still he forgot the third factor, thats why i gave him the link above
    War is Hell, and I'm the Devil!

  15. #55
    craziii's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,247

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fanest View Post
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ombat-Analysis

    yes I see why this can be a problem, still he forgot the third factor, thats why i gave him the link above
    doesn't the link you provided perfectly supports my original post? especially the part about having only a small chance at blocking(this was the entire point of my post = blocking a missile with shield = no dmg) damage completely? The shield blocked the missile, why the hell is there still a big chance for it to do dmg? even the heavies and tower shields maxing out at 50 to 55% I didn't even know shields adds a constant armor value to units, that is kinda stupid by design and it is by design. Sheridan said I wasn't entirely off, I would go a huge step further and say I was spot on. and what is this 3rd factor you are talking about? missile vs armor? I thought I was talking about shields.

    ****, it seems I am 100% correct. grats to me. "shakes my own hand"
    fear is helluva drug
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." freakin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” WWZ

    Have you had your daily dose of fear yet? craziii
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  16. #56

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    actually, it is issue of design.. Shield as it is, either blocks/deflects the missile without missile doing any damage, or it hit by missile, penetrated, and slowed down, so when it hits the body, it doesn't have full power anymore. Therefore, Block Chance, should actually represent chance to deflect the shot without damage, while shield armor value should represent amount of damage subtracted from projectile when shield is pierced. Some projectiles were better at defeating shields than others. Arrows would be practically completely stopped by shield, even if they penetrate, they would not do any damage once they holed the shield. Heavy precursor javelins like Pilum were different beasts altogether.. they would go in, then continue until they hit the body behind the shield, which was due to iron part being long enough to go in.

    Oh, and btw, shield armor is separate value, it doesnt automatically apply to armor. It only applies to armor from the front and left, so rear armor is not increased.

  17. #57
    craziii's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,247

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    actually, it is issue of design.. Shield as it is, either blocks/deflects the missile without missile doing any damage, or it hit by missile, penetrated, and slowed down, so when it hits the body, it doesn't have full power anymore. Therefore, Block Chance, should actually represent chance to deflect the shot without damage, while shield armor value should represent amount of damage subtracted from projectile when shield is pierced. Some projectiles were better at defeating shields than others. Arrows would be practically completely stopped by shield, even if they penetrate, they would not do any damage once they holed the shield. Heavy precursor javelins like Pilum were different beasts altogether.. they would go in, then continue until they hit the body behind the shield, which was due to iron part being long enough to go in.

    Oh, and btw, shield armor is separate value, it doesnt automatically apply to armor. It only applies to armor from the front and left, so rear armor is not increased.
    well in rome 1, at least the mods I have play, darth and EB(the mod I play the most) are the ones I recalled with the fondest memories, arrows and sling bullets doesn't do much from the front, only dmg is when they go through gaps in the shieldwall/formations. javs have 1/10 the ammo count but does superb dmg, from any direction, of course does even more dmg from the sides and back. it is why heavies with 2 javs were awesome just because of the 2 javs they carried. I would love it if that is the way it works in rome 2 and attila. heavy jav units would finally add another layer to the battles. when use right they are super dangerous. most factions have access to late game spear/skirmisher hybrids. they basically poon unless you got long range to deal with them, sending cavalries would be suicide as they got spears, heavies would get shot to pieces as they run in circles around the heavies. ca can also make light skirms that focus on the javs and ammo count and be total crap in melee. the elite skirms that has both! like the royal peltasts already in rome 2. the more layers the better.

    Rome 1 shields + rome 2 hitpoints system + rome 2 armor system would be great. CA finally fixed phalanxes, why not fix shields and add another layer with skirms.
    fear is helluva drug
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." freakin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” WWZ

    Have you had your daily dose of fear yet? craziii
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  18. #58

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by craziii View Post
    doesn't the link you provided perfectly supports my original post? especially the part about having only a small chance at blocking(this was the entire point of my post = blocking a missile with shield = no dmg) damage completely? The shield blocked the missile, why the hell is there still a big chance for it to do dmg? even the heavies and tower shields maxing out at 50 to 55% I didn't even know shields adds a constant armor value to units, that is kinda stupid by design and it is by design. Sheridan said I wasn't entirely off, I would go a huge step further and say I was spot on. and what is this 3rd factor you are talking about? missile vs armor? I thought I was talking about shields.

    ****, it seems I am 100% correct. grats to me. "shakes my own hand"
    Well if u reread your post u will see that there is no mention of that RTW2 also has this blocking chance when missile doesn't do any damage. Thats why i gave u that link... and yes third factor is this blocking chance shields have. So no you weren't spot on because u forgot to mention that RTW2 also has this blocking and mybe what u actually wanted to say is that if they were to increase this blocking chance of all shield then flanking would be even more important.
    War is Hell, and I'm the Devil!

  19. #59

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by chris10 View Post
    What everybody could tell just from watching these guys is that you dont want to be in the way of one of these stones...
    with or without armor
    Yes! I agree. The one message I got from watching these videos is that at lower ranges (under 100 paces) being bombarded by sling stones was NOT just an annoyance, even if you were wearing armor.

    What I haven't seen demonstrated so far is whether the effective range of slingers as depicted in Rome 2 is acurate. I've read claims that slings could launch a stone farther than a bow (up to 400 paces), but so far I've not seen any proof. Nor have I seen any testing of accuracy or effectiveness of the sling at those longer ranges. Likewise, I'm disappointed so far that I haven't seen any accurate testing of the effect of sling shot hitting men wearing armor, at various ranges. It looks like they should have been effective at the closer ranges, but that hasn't actually been proven in any of the videos I've found.
    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    Oh, and btw, shield armor is separate value, it doesnt automatically apply to armor. It only applies to armor from the front and left, so rear armor is not increased.
    My son and I were pondering this very point a few days ago.

    In Rome 1, attacking a target with missiles from the left, or rear, yielded much better results than attacking it from the front or right. This was because Rome 1 modeled the protective arc of the shields. What we were not so sure about was whether that concept had been carried forward to Rome 2, as we aren't seeing evidence of the same dynamic's.

    BTW: What I have noticed is that slingers seem to be heavily affected by line of sight. Much more so than javelin men or archers. I have mixed skirmish lines attached to some of my legions and I notice that slingers frequently stop firing when withdrawn behind the battle line, whereas javelins and archers happily fire over the heads of their own men into the press behind.
    Last edited by Didz; October 27, 2014 at 05:32 AM.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •