siege weapons

[Tomato_Sandwich]

i was just thinking. the movement penelty for siege weapons on the campaign map seems silly to me. because as far as im aware medieval armies didnt lug catapults and trebuchets around europe with them but instead had a couple of engineers and experts and constructed them while besieging the city, like you do with rams and ladders. am i right? im no expert. so wouldnt it be more realistic to not have the penalty. though i suppose its not possible to have it so you cannot attack the city till the 2nd turn with them to represent their construction. but is this not more accurate?

[Humakty]

Good idea, but how to disable them for field battle ? (as your engineers don't have time to build them)

[Tomato_Sandwich]

ah good point i hadnt thought of that Humakty. and you might be right Holy Winter. might have to do a bit of research...

[Holy winter]

I think they did lug catapults and trebuchets from one place to an other. If the distance was not too long.
If the distance was to long they simply didn't hade catapults and trebuchets.
They could make some when besieging the city, but I don't think that was always possible (in the desert are not many trees).

[HighLord z0b]

Well they did both. Sometimes the entire siege engine was built and then dismantled and moved to the site of the siege. Other times they were made completely on site, or some parts such all the metal fittings and rope were brought with them and the rest was made on site.

Either way a wagon load of siege parts would probably move at the same pace as the infantry as the infantry would also have to move with wagon loads of supplies (food, ammo etc.). So I think that siege units should have the same movement points as standard infantry.

[vimy]

Things were different by location and by need.

generally, heavy weapons, ie catapults, trebuchets etc were built on the spot,
it was all but impossible for large siege engines to be moved in an era where roads were muddy and infrequent. Often, armies had a lot of time before battles to build what they needed, even in open field contests, their was usually an attempt to negotiate peace before the engagement. Early western armies simply lacked the cohesion or discipline to drag these heavy unwieldy machines any distance.

Occasionally it would be deamed necessary to move the equipment for specific purposes. probably the best example of that would be the giant siege canons brough to destroy the walls of constantinople in 1453.
even then however, the barrel of the montserous bombards was brought, the gun was built on location.

It was simply not practicle to carry the heavy equipment.

[HighLord z0b]

I think there are references to the large, later period trebuchets being built, dismantled and then moved, but there are many more references to the siege engineers themselves building them on site.