Do you want to capture artillery in Rome 2?

[Petroniu]

Hi everybody,

I don't know if there is a thread about the way siege engines are going to be represented in Rome 2 but I was wondering if anyone knows if they are going to be able to be captured from the enemy. For example, the roman army didn't had access to ballistae until after the siege of Syracuse. Most of the early roman army siege engines were also captured from Carthage after the city was besieged in the second punic war. So, I wonder, will we have that option in the game? Can we expect to capture siege engines from the enemy like how it really happened?

EDIT:

You can capture them in Fots.

As it seems, I was unaware of this since I haven't played FotS. The purpose of this thread and its poll is rendered useless by this, but I will leave the poll opened so that people could see how much of a good idea this is - and until now it seems it is, because it's realistic.
As for the continuation of this thread, feel free to talk about this feature, if you like it and if you have any suggestions about how it could be improved in relation to Rome 2, if you feel it should be improved at all.

[Lord Baal]

The more complicated machinery would be represented in units as ever I think, the simpler or more voluminous like rams and siege tower should be represented as in the original Rome and Med 2. As for capturing them as you can capture say, ships, yes I'm all for it.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Siege engines werent used by the romans only after cartage was razed ...otherwise they wouln't even be able to raze or siege it... Siege engines knowledge was widespread among the classical mediterraneanworld , with the most advanced solutions in the hands of the greeks .... Especially southern greek italy and syracuse.

[Lord Baal]

Beyond the point of who had what. I think we should expect capturing, using in the battle map and then keeping as units in the campaign, machinery as ballistaes, meanwhile things like a ram would be capturable and usable on the battlemap, but not keep as units on the campaign.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Beyond the point of who had what. I think we should expect capturing, using in the battle map and then keeping as units in the campaign, machinery as ballistaes, meanwhile things like a ram would be capturable and usable on the battlemap, but not keep as units on the campaign.

Sure, as I can see barbarian troops capturing siege engines could be able to use ( if arenot requiring specially trained troops) them against otherfactions .

[Petroniu]

Well of course, siege engines that are related to one battle, like rams and siege towers are something that is a part of the battle map, but the siege machinery like ballistae and catapults should be able to be conquered, like ships are in the latest TW games. As for who had siege machinery in the ancient world, I meant that it was easier and cheaper for the Romans to use the ones they captured than build new ones.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I meant that it was easier and cheaper for the Romans to use the ones they captured than build new ones.

Bah I dont see this extremely relevant for romans in particular....they were famous to build Ad Hoc machinery and structures for special purpouses even for a single battle.

[Lord Baal]

But also is a lot cheaper to use the other guys things. That not only applies to Rome. And in fact could give the less technological advanced factions (on the field of sieging) a jump start to sieges on forts and fortified cities.

[Petroniu]

@Prometheus: That didn't happened only later after Syracuse and Carthage - cities who developed siege engines - were conquered. I don't want to be confusing anyone, but I was referring specifically to the early Republican army in terms of history, as in terms of game play, I think capturing siege engines like how the ships system is would be a great addition to the game.

[Lacedaemon]

I personally would like to see dirt ramps as a prat of sieges. Historically ( I believe) they were constructed in several sieges in which slaves would build a dirt ramp leading up to the top of the enemy walls and then the army would move up it. This I propose would be a tactic however that would take around 4-6 turns to actually complete as it is tons of manual labor.

[Petroniu]

@Lacedaemon: Yes, dirt ramps would be a great addition to the game, but please don't widen the topic.
I've renamed the thread to Siege machinery so that it doesn't confuse people and I have added a poll to see how much people would like the capture siege machinery feature in Rome 2. The poll is simple and it is meant to express the opinion of such a feature of those who are visiting this thread and are interested in the subject.

[Lacedaemon]

@Lacedaemon: Yes, dirt ramps would be a great addition to the game, but please don't widen the topic.
I've renamed the thread to Siege machinery so that it doesn't confuse people and I have added a poll to see how much people would like the capture siege machinery feature in Rome 2. The poll is simple and it is meant to express the opinion of such a feature of those who are visiting this thread and are interested in the subject.

Sorry, saw siege machinery and couldn't help myself. But yes, I would definitely like to see it as an option for retraining men on the siege equipment that you capture after a battle. It is fairly realistic and would be a really good addition imo.

[RGA]

I personally never really like the idea of having to transport siege machines thousands of miles from the capital to the battlefield. I mean siege machines were built on the field, not in some factories and carried to battle. Building siege machine was the job of the engineers corp, who are also responsible for building bridge, fortifications and other earthworks.

I would like to have a new kind of non-fighting character: the engineer, which can be attached to an army. Army with engineer has better speed of marching, faster build time of camp and of course access to various siege machines and other siege tricks.

About capture, how many times you heard about the use of captured machines in ancient time? Siege machines were very well protected, and often immobile. Gauls may capture some Roman ballistas, but even though they knew how to use them, they lacked the needed knowlegde to rebuilt them.

Another point is that time was not the only limiting factor of the building of siege machine. Material also played a very important role. Gallic forest may provide enough wood for buiding the whole new wall surrounding enemy wall, while the desert around Jerusalem makes building an siege tower already a difficult task. That should also be taken into consideration.

[Lockcaps]

This was in FotS. Or do you mean the ability to steal a ballista or something from a different faction, and you will then be able to build that particular ballista(as in, stealing technology)?

[Petroniu]

This was in FotS. Or do you mean the ability to steal a ballista or something from a different faction, and you will then be able to build that particular ballista(as in, stealing technology)?

I haven't played FotS so I don't know. What I meant is not related to stealing technology at all, I meant (as the poll question clearly asks) if you would like to be able to capture siege machinery from the enemy after a battle like how you are able to capture ships after a battle in the latest TW games.

[Drtad]

I haven't played FotS so I don't know. What I meant is not related to stealing technology at all, I meant (as the poll question clearly asks) if you would like to be able to capture siege machinery from the enemy after a battle like how you are able to capture ships after a battle in the latest TW games.

You can capture them in Fots.

[Petroniu]

You can capture them in Fots.

Oh, sweet!
Well, this is embarrassing. The entire purpose of the thread was killed by your statement.
But, I guess people could talk if they like the way it is in FotS and if they want some changes about this in Rome 2.

[Drtad]

Oh, sweet!
Well, this is embarrassing. The entire purpose of the thread was killed by your statement.
But, I guess people could talk if they like the way it is in FotS and if they want some changes about this in Rome 2.

Well in Fots the mechanic seems a little random to me... I would like it to be something that you can physically do with your troops if you can force their crews to rout.

[Shigawire]

By siege engines, you mean artillery. In that case, this should certainly be in the game. Prior to Vitruvius, Romans didn't construct their own artillery. They requisitioned the ones they had captured in previous engagements.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Well, this should certainly be in the game. Prior to Vitruvius, Romans didn't construct their own siege engines. They requisitioned the ones they had captured in previous engagements.

Sorry but that's not true , according to Vitruvius ( 70 15 BC ) himself , he befoure writing about , was a former artilleryman officer wich means that there were artillery offices even befoure him.... for not talking of the evidences of the uses of siege engeneering by the romans way befoure his timeframe that was mid 1st c BC .
by the time of the starting date of the game the Romans have already absorbed the Greek technology and have it at their disposal .