Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

  1. #1

    Default More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Hello folks, I'm playing De bello Mundi Mod again and I'm thinking that the Romans here have 3 different catapults. In times the giant crossbow, which is known from Roma Surrectum 2/3, as well as the Onager once as a normal model and once as an advanced one. Will you add additional catapults in a later version?

  2. #2
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,313

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    For which faction? We already have five siege engines, but no faction can recruit them all.

  3. #3

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Oh, what are the other four and which faction can use it?

  4. #4
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,313

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Rome and Carthage have the Scorpion and Onager. The Hellenistic factions, Pontos, Hayastan and post-reform Nabatu have the Oxybeles and two variants of the Lithobolos.

  5. #5
    Lusitanio's Avatar Decanus
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    After version 2.35 Carthage also got another siege engine, the Oxybeles I think.
    There is also one thing that you should take into consideration, mods like Roma Surrectum and DBM are not exactly know for their historical accuracy and at least one of the catapults De Bello Mundi has is a later, more advanced engine that Rome used in a time period after the end of EBII time.

  6. #6

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    I have Found it. Very Nice

    One of the DBM Catapults called "heavy Onager" looks like this from Attila

    https://10images.cgames.de/images/ga...la_2559259.jpg

  7. #7
    Lusitanio's Avatar Decanus
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Avarice1987 View Post
    I have Found it. Very Nice

    One of the DBM Catapults called "heavy Onager" looks like this from Attila

    https://10images.cgames.de/images/ga...la_2559259.jpg
    Nice pic, but like I said, I think that is a more advanced model from a different time period.

  8. #8
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,169

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Btw, I've got two questions:
    1. how historical is crushing the (stone) walls with artillery in the Hellenistic period?
    2. do you know if it's possible to UNable the possibility of a direct attack (ie without any turn of siege) even if there's a unit of artillery in the army?

  9. #9
    Lusitanio's Avatar Decanus
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Well, I'm no historian and I don't have much time right now to research about it, however, according to Mark Cartwright on Roman siege warfare:

    Stone throwers (ballista) had a single swinging arm and were known by the slang term onager(wild ass) for the violent kick when fired and scorpio (scorpion) because of its form. Stones were roughly circular and could weigh from 0.5 to 80 kilos, which allowed them to carve great chunks out of defensive walls and knock down fortification towers. Another type of artillery, much more accurate, was the carroballista or catapulta which fired heavy arrows, bolts or smaller stones and had two arms like a crossbow (and was also called a scorpio by some Roman writers). Bolts had iron heads and wooden shafts and fletchings and were easily capable of piercing armour. Another type of projectile was fireballs. Naturally, such weapons could be and were used to defend cities as well as attack them.
    For more information, see https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Siege_Warfare/

    Still, I don't think that artillery alone was sufficient to crush stone walls in the Hellenistic Period but would still do some damage to them, especially to the towers. EBII of course has do deal with the limits of what the game can or cannot do.

    2. Don't think it is possible since it seems like a game engine hardcoded limitation.

  10. #10

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Jurand of Cracow, the man who fights with his right hand tied behind his back while his left punches him in the face!

    p.s. who jacked up the forum again?
    Last edited by Rad; April 30, 2019 at 02:27 PM.
    I recommend a pugio rather than a spear, because in close quarters combat, a dagger will serve you better than a spear.

    Rad, 2016.

  11. #11
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,169

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    Still, I don't think that artillery alone was sufficient to crush stone walls in the Hellenistic Period but would still do some damage to them, especially to the towers. EBII of course has do deal with the limits of what the game can or cannot do.
    Thanks, Lusi!

    Actually, the starting point for my question was a read I've recently had on the 15th century AD black powder (gun) revolution. It's said there that it was the first time in history when the attackers could bring down the walls with missiles. Even this change occured only after the first 100-150 years of using gunpowder. Before, in 14th. and well into 15th century, the way to use the guns was just to hurl missiles over the walls to make damage to the city and menace the population. Exactly how it was throughout previous centuries (or millenia?).

    Diodor of Sicily does mention bringing down walls of Tyre by Alexander the Great. However, in this Osprey book it's commented as unprobable since the artillery at that time could not bring down the walls. Well, Diodor also says the Tyre's walls were more than 50 meters tall - it also looks fishy to me.

    This fragment of Cartwright hasn't convinced me either. Yes, 80 kg could theoreticaly carve a chunk of the walls, but was it used in such a role? In his description of a siege he doesn't mentions bringing down the walls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Jurand of Cracow, the man who fights with his right hand tied behind his back while his left punches him in the face!
    Yes, I'm proud believer in the Byg's Grim Reality reality.


    The thread looks a good place to discuss the use of artillery in the EBII - why to have more catapult variants if their use is not historical?
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; May 01, 2019 at 02:58 AM.

  12. #12
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,189

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Thanks, Lusi!

    Actually, the starting point for my question was a read I've recently had on the 15th century AD black powder (gun) revolution. It's said there that it was the first time in history when the attackers could bring down the walls with missiles. Even this change occured only after the first 100-150 years of using gunpowder. Before, in 14th. and well into 15th century, the way to use the guns was just to hurl missiles over the walls to make damage to the city and menace the population. Exactly how it was throughout previous centuries (or millenia?).

    Diodor of Sicily does mention bringing down walls of Tyre by Alexander the Great. However, in this Osprey book it's commented as unprobable since the artillery at that time could not bring down the walls. Well, Diodor also says the Tyre's walls were more than 50 meters tall - it also looks fishy to me.

    This fragment of Cartwright hasn't convinced me either. Yes, 80 kg could theoreticaly carve a chunk of the walls, but was it used in such a role? In his description of a siege he doesn't mentions bringing down the walls.

    Yes, I'm proud believer in the Byg's Grim Reality reality.


    The thread looks a good place to discuss the use of artillery in the EBII - why to have more catapult variants if their use is not historical?
    I don't remember the exact passage, but there is an episode of the First Punic War related by Polybius where the Romans are besieging a city in Sicily defended by the Carthaginians, and they built stationary makeshift towers with walls mounted with artillery to fire onto the city. The Carthaginians likewise used artillery to try and destroy these towers. I think Polybius said something about the Romans breaching the walls of the town, while the Carthaginians sallied out to distract the Romans by burning some of their wooden walls connecting the towers that were becoming higher than the city walls and hence a huge nuisance.

  13. #13
    Lusitanio's Avatar Decanus
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    On catapults and other siege engines:

    Catapult/Ballista;
    It is interesting to note that the largest stone-thrower on record, a three-talent (78 kilogram) machine, was built by Archimedes.
    This light torsion catapult was the most common type of artillery during the Hellenistic period. With only slight modifications the weapon was employed still in the Early Roman Imperial period, up to ca. AD 100, when the Romans redesigned their artillery.
    The word catapult derives from the Greek katapeltÍs and means ‘against shield’; it is an antipersonnel weapon initially and most catapults remained that; they were not often fired at walls with the intention of knocking the wall down; they were fired at the top of walls to keep the defenders heads' down while a ram attacked the wall below. Stone-throwers were built from mid fourth century BC onward, but only after serveral stages of development the mature standard type of the palintonon appeared in the third century BC. The reconstruction sketch drawn after the text of Philon, Belopoeica shows a heavy palintonon for throwing 1/2 talent (ca. 13 kg) stone balls. The total weight of this weapon was about 3 metric tons, the weight of the elastic ropes of the two torsion springs alone ca. 330 kg. In contrast to the euthytonon the palintonon could easily be dismantled into the main components: the two torsion springs with their wooden frames, the long stock (table, ladder and slider) together with winch and pulley, also the carriage. Because of the heavy weight and the sheer size of the palintonon dismantling was indispensable, otherweise the machine could not have been transported over the often poor and narrow roads of Antiquity. The stone balls were fired generally in a flat trajectory, not in a high one as often mistakenly assumed in modern literature.

    Field artillery;
    The first reference to and possibly use of artillery in the field (rather than around a city in a siege) is in 354: Onomarkhos the Phokian deployed them against Philip II, Polyainos 2.38.2. These are ‘stone-throwers’; probably non-torsion like that designed by Charon (dates unknown) as described in Biton (C3? BC).

    Onager
    There is little evidence for the use of these before the C4 AD, but they are more simple in design and construction than most of what had gone before. It is suggested that the onager comes to the fore when the knowledge and skills required to make the sophisticated catapults of earlier centuries is lost. We are heading into the Dark Age by this time.Roman advances in the design, mobility, and firepower of artillery produced the largest, longest-ranged, and most rapid-firing artillery pieces of the ancient world. Roman catapults were much larger than the old Greek models and were powered by torsion devices and springs made of sinew kept supple when stored in special canisters of oil. As Josephus recorded in his account of the siege of Jerusalem, the largest of these artillery pieces, the onager, (called the "wild ass" because of its kick), could hurl a 100 pound stone over 400 yards. Vegetius noted that each legion had 10 onagri, one per cohort, organic to its organization. Smaller versions of these machines, such as the scorpion and ballista, were compact enough to be transported by horse or mule. These machines could fire a 7-10 pound stone over 300 yards. Caesar required that each legion carry 30 of these small machines, giving the legion a mobile, organic artillery capability. Smaller machines fired iron-tipped bolts. Designed much like the later crossbow but mounted on small platforms or legs, these machines, which required a two man crew, could be used as rapid-fire field guns against enemy formations. They fired a 26-inch bolt over a range of almost 300 yards. Larger versions mounted on a wheeled frame were called carroballistae and required a 10-man crew. These machines could fire perhaps three to four bolts a minute and they were used to lay down a barrage of fire against enemy troop concentrations. They were the world's first rapid-fire field artillery guns.



  14. #14
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,169

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    I've read the relevant parts of the books:

    Ancient Siege Warfare. PERSIANS, GREEKS, CARTHAGINIANS AND ROMANS 546–146 BC

    The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World

    The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World.

    and scanned a few other books.

    Nobody mentiones bringing down (or even damaging) the wall with artillery. Hundred of pages on how to take walls in the ancinet times and dozens of pages how to destroy the walls (ramming and sapping, or igniting if made of wood) but no one ever considers firing missiles at the walls, forget any hint that it could be a viable option. Artillery was used only to shell the city as the surrender was the usual goal of any siege.

    This, unfortunatelly, makes me to conclude: any artillery present in the EBII that destroys the walls is unhistorical.

    I'm waiting for a challenge to this conclusion.

  15. #15

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    I agree, maybe just give walls a large increase in hit-points. I think you can debate leaving the small wooden walls in small barbarian villages destructible. It may not be attested in the sources but it is somewhat logical. Also, the downside is that the AI may still try and assault cities with stone walls, not knowing that their artillery can't break through

  16. #16

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Some quotes from the Poliorketika of Philo of Byzantium, atrociously translated from the french by myself (People with weak hearts be warned):

    "The walls ten cubits thick have nothing to fear from the blows of the lithoboles, and those three cubits thick can be easily repaired if they are damaged." Poliorketika I, 15
    "In all curtains and towers, the part the most exposed to the blows of the lithoboles must be formed with stones as solid as possible, with one palm salient bosses, and sufficiently distant from each other to not allow the projectiles launched by the petroboles to reach the wall per se and thus damage it." Poliorketika I, 22
    "The upper part of the wall exposed to the enemy must be made up of two walls (strong enough) to not fear the blows of the lithoboles" Poliorketika I, 33
    About the advantages of the semicircular towers : "Projectiles ricochet on the tower surface." Poliorketika I, 40
    " That's with lithoboles and tortoises that the cities are the most easily captured. Hence, one will try to strengthen as much as possible the outer walls and pallisades, and make the ditches very broad and deep." Poliorketika I, 54
    From my point of view, some walls should not be breachable by lithoboles, but since the core buildings are showing the size of the settlements rather than the quality of their walls, that's a little vain to decide in the end.

  17. #17
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,169

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    The relevant page from the Philip Matyszak funny Legionary Manual. It concerns Roman warfare but if they'd be a shred of truth in bringing down walls with artillery, he wouldn't fail to mention it. It just complement the secondary sources I've mentioned in the previous post. I don't trust primary sources at all - the authors very often are uncritical of what they're writing (recently: Diodor of Sicily mentions walls of Tyrus to be 50+ meters tall (well, just try doing it without concrete)


    However, given that the other ways of bringing down the walls - especially sapping - are not available in the M2TW engine, I'd say we need to assume that the catapults making a breach in the walls are actually sappers sapping the wall, and carry on with playing.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; May 03, 2019 at 12:18 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    i wonder whether it is possible to limit heavy artillery to being able to demolish towers but not the stone walls? the towers usually need a concentrated fire and they seem to act as a largely separate entity from the walls: i.e. there is no interdependent damage calculation taking place between the wall and the towers afaik. if only towers are destroyable this could represent the ability to destroy the battlements that leavs the walls themselves standing.

  19. #19
    Lusitanio's Avatar Decanus
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    i wonder whether it is possible to limit heavy artillery to being able to demolish towers but not the stone walls? the towers usually need a concentrated fire and they seem to act as a largely separate entity from the walls: i.e. there is no interdependent damage calculation taking place between the wall and the towers afaik. if only towers are destroyable this could represent the ability to destroy the battlements that leavs the walls themselves standing.
    Or we could increase the strenght of the walls so that artillery would do less damage overall and could eventualy destroy a part of the wall but at least not decimate it entirelly.

  20. #20
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,169

    Default Re: More than one catapult variant possible in the future?

    Some further thoughts:
    The problem is: we'd limit the only way to break the walls. The other two ways: sapping and ramming (non-wooden walls) are not possible. Nor you can build ramps. On the other hand, the siege towers were probably very rare in the ancient times (and used rather for bowmen and slingers to pelt the enemy, less to make a landing on the walls - this was for the ladders).
    Furthermore, artillery had its uses for terrorising the inhabitants - something that is depicted in the Attila TW (siege escallation), but not in the M2TW engine.
    And I don't know how the AI would react (ie if it would be able to make right use of those changes).

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •