Your stance on wall-mounted catapults

[Lockcaps]

I assume everyone has seen "The Return of the King", and while reading about the new stuff they're adding in Rome2 i thought of the scene in that movie where the catapults on the walls of Minas Tirith wreak havoc(sort of) on the orc army - also, when a siege tower gets obliterated by a large rock, you really can't help but think of how cool it would be to do what in a Total War game.

The problem with this is realism - i have been unable to find any source of such a city having wall-mounted catapults. However i think this is pretty strange - why not? Ballistae were used for sure, boiling oil, rocks, why not catapults?

Anyway, my question to you is : Do you approve of catapults on walls? Either as a structure(the highest tiers of walls will have catapults on them) or being able to deploy your own catapults on the walls pre-battle?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I would be okay with this, I don't really care if it is realistic, it is physically possible to place catapults/ballistaes etc... on the walls. So why not have it as a fortification upgrade?

[The Noble Lord]

I would be okay with this, I don't really care if it is realistic, it is physically possible to place catapults/ballistaes etc... on the walls. So why not have it as a fortification upgrade?

I am all for it, but do we actually have historical evidence where Romans and their opponents used catapults on the walls and ramparts during the sieges??
Maybe Persians/Sassanids used it, they were master craftsmen when it comes to finer points of siege warfare!

[Shigawire]

First: I just have to say the poll is set up on the wrong premises, and is therefore a stupid poll.

Second: Some misconceptions about the terminology here in this thread.
Ballista = stone projector / gr: Lithobolos
Catapulta = arrow projector / gr: Katapeltikon

Ok.. That out the way, yes I really would like this in the game, because it is realistic and historic. But it would be limited to only a few Greek city states like Syracuse.

I am all for it, but do we actually have historical evidence where Romans and their opponents used catapults on the walls and ramparts during the sieges??

Yes, there is plenty of historical data for this. One example that springs to my mind is the fortress of Euryalos connected to the New Wall of Syracuse, on the west side of the Epipolai Plateau. This is after all where the catapult was invented. The katapeltikon (arrow projector) and lithobolos (stone projector). Later the Romans called them Catapulta and Ballista respectively. The fortress of Euryalos was built solely for the purpose of having stone projectors and arrow projectors on top of. This held the North of Syracuse safe until 212 BCE when Marcellus invaded it.



Other than Euryalos, there's been many more finds in Greek territories of walled artillery positions. Schramm excavated and analyzed the ruins at Ephyra finding the same. Washer-plates from catapults were found, and the walls were of sufficient width and volume that they were not just meant for soldiers.

Maybe Persians/Sassanids used it, they were master craftsmen when it comes to finer points of siege warfare!

No they weren't. But they learned quickly in their confrontations with the greek successor states. It was the Assyrians who invented siege warfare with the battering ram in the 9th century BCE But by the time of Rome 2, the Greeks were preeminent and without peer in the realm of siege warfare. The Romans weren't even close. The Sassanids did not have artillery in the sense of the Greek school of thought. I'm not saying they never got artillery, I'm just saying they didn't start out with it, but learned from the Greeks. Same with the Romans.

[Ichon]

First: I just have to say the poll is set up on the wrong premises, and is therefore a stupid poll.

Second: Some misconceptions about the terminology here in this thread.
Ballista = stone projector / gr: Lithobolos
Catapulta = arrow projector / gr: Katapeltikon

Yes, there is plenty of historical data for this. One example that springs to my mind is the fortress of Euryalos connected to the New Wall of Syracuse, on the west side of the Epipolai Plateau. This is after all where the catapult was invented. The katapeltikon (arrow projector) and lithobolos (stone projector). Later the Romans called them Catapulta and Ballista respectively. The fortress of Euryalos was built solely for the purpose of having stone projectors and arrow projectors on top of. This held the North of Syracuse safe until 212 BCE when Marcellus invaded it.



Other than Euryalos, there's been many more finds in Greek territories of walled artillery positions. Schramm excavated and analyzed the ruins at Ephyra finding the same. Washer-plates from catapults were found, and the walls were of sufficient width and volume that they were not just meant for soldiers.

I think the way you have defined ballista and catapult is too narrow and a bit misleading. Common understanding now is not based on the ancient Greek words so its going to be hell of confusing for people to read ballista and think stone thrower- really both or either of those could throw stones or wooden projectiles depending on the design. I don't expect CA to model the designs showing the very wide variety but as long as there aren't machines on the walls based on large onagers which I think most people understand as catapults larger then several men. Smaller machines scattered on the walls would be kind of cool but would need to be able to be damaged- several sieges mention the besieging force focusing fire on the defending engines on certain sections of the wall. Though in longer sieges most of the engines could be repaired or replaced if damaged the siege assault in TW seem to be a blend of the weeks/months of laying siege into a single assault.

[The Noble Lord]

First: I just have to say the poll is set up on the wrong premises, and is therefore a stupid poll.

Second: Some misconceptions about the terminology here in this thread.
Ballista = stone projector / gr: Lithobolos
Catapulta = arrow projector / gr: Katapeltikon

Ok.. That out the way, yes I really would like this in the game, because it is realistic and historic. But it would be limited to only a few Greek city states like Syracuse.



Yes, there is plenty of historical data for this. One example that springs to my mind is the fortress of Euryalos connected to the New Wall of Syracuse, on the west side of the Epipolai Plateau. This is after all where the catapult was invented. The katapeltikon (arrow projector) and lithobolos (stone projector). Later the Romans called them Catapulta and Ballista respectively. The fortress of Euryalos was built solely for the purpose of having stone projectors and arrow projectors on top of. This held the North of Syracuse safe until 212 BCE when Marcellus invaded it.



Other than Euryalos, there's been many more finds in Greek territories of walled artillery positions. Schramm excavated and analyzed the ruins at Ephyra finding the same. Washer-plates from catapults were found, and the walls were of sufficient width and volume that they were not just meant for soldiers.




No they weren't. But they learned quickly in their confrontations with the greek successor states. It was the Assyrians who invented siege warfare with the battering ram in the 9th century BCE But by the time of Rome 2, the Greeks were preeminent and without peer in the realm of siege warfare. The Romans weren't even close. The Sassanids did not have artillery in the sense of the Greek school of thought. I'm not saying they never got artillery, I'm just saying they didn't start out with it, but learned from the Greeks. Same with the Romans.

Thanks mate, it's an excellent post! I was aware of the Greek expertise on the issue of siege warfare but for some reason I though that Persians were also well learned in these skills. Didn't they then invent tunnels under the walls to undermine them?? +rep for this.

[Ichon]

I can see ballista but catapults is more difficult as well as the scale. Such machines would be quite smaller than portrayed in previous TW games or hollywood movies and still launch relatively slow volleys.

[Alkaline Earth]

I can see ballista but catapults is more difficult as well as the scale. Such machines would be quite smaller than portrayed in previous TW games or hollywood movies and still launch relatively slow volleys.

You talk like Catapults are difficult to build. When I was in 8th grade I build a 6x6 ft model of a Trebuchet. The Romans, being able to build bridges ( Much harder ) should be able to build something as simple as a catapult.

[Ichon]

You talk like Catapults are difficult to build. When I was in 8th grade I build a 6x6 ft model of a Trebuchet. The Romans, being able to build bridges ( Much harder ) should be able to build something as simple as a catapult.

Not sure what you based that on. Scale was because walls are not so wide at the top and loading catapult on walls a bit more difficult than ballista, also more difficult to aim. Also given that Romans based theirs on previous Greek models and less easy to get materials than modern era and the distance and weight for a militarily useful catapult and relative.rarity I think you over estimate how easy it was.

[Alkaline Earth]

Not sure what you based that on. Scale was because walls are not so wide at the top and loading catapult on walls a bit more difficult than ballista, also more difficult to aim. Also given that Romans based theirs on previous Greek models and less easy to get materials than modern era and the distance and weight for a militarily useful catapult and relative.rarity I think you over estimate how easy it was.

You raise a valid point but have you actually ever look at how a catapult was built and the parts that go into it? I can imagine a skilled group of Engineers could design the parts and slaves could provide the wood? I mean, its not a matter of whether it can be done or not, it can.

Its a matter of how much it will cost and time, much like today

I guess we can agree then?

[IGdood]

If there are wall-mounted siege weapons, I hope they won't be as buggy as they were in ETW and NTW.....

[NikeBG]

I remember a case from the Middle Ages (beginning of the 13th century) where the defenders of Prosek were reportedly quite skilled in using their fortress catapults against the besieging Byzantine army (to the point that in the cases they couldn't get a clear shot, they aimed at the mountain/rocks right behind the enemy camp, with the projectiles crashing in the rock into smaller pieces which would rebounce against the enemy in the form of a shrapnel). I don't know how accurate it would've been in Antiquity though, but I certainly wouldn't mind it in R2 (at the very least because it would make it easier for its mods to have it)...

[Condottiere 40K]

Late Greeks were enthusiasts; question would be if it was a generic feature or faction specific.

[BJas]

I would like it as a wall upgrade

[stradar1]

Its possible I wouldnt mind it but wont be in the final build we all should know this.

[Condottiere 40K]

[Aanker]

Yes, it looks cool.

History should not be seen as a hindrance, rather something that sets the atmosphere.

[Irishman]

Ballistas would likely be more useful on the walls, being able to use accurate fire against catapults and other siege weapons as well as fitting in covered areas. I wouldn't mind seeing them, but I hope it isn't a straight upgrade system, like wall level 1=Ballistas and wall level 2= Catapults.

[Okuto]

I want it as a wall upgrade.....would actually make the wall upgrades more useful besides having it unlock tiers and make taller walls......

[krisslanza]

I'm pretty sure the siege weapons on the walls of Mina Tirth were trebutchets, not catapults. /nitpick

Still, it could work like the "Tower" buildings used in Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. This could allow you to reinforce a particularly important defensive settlement by giving it some better static defenses.