Ballistas

[Oaty]

Well I've been playing for a while and quit training ballistas. Well I had bribed some rebels that came with a ballista crew but I had to fight the smaller stack in the territory to win it over. Well they retreated to the fort after a short battle and would last many years so obviously I assaulted it. Well I had that ballista and decided to try it on the wooden fort and quickly ripped through the wall along with my archers

It makes sense that they can rip through a wooden fort but the real kicker is I thought I'd try out a custom battle against a keep. I found out that they will hit those catapult towers with about 60 percent accuracy and do near the same damage as a catapult. I also used them against the stone walls of the keep and considering they hit the wall what seemed 100 percent of the time. I'm only guessing from what I saw but it seemd like those ballistas were doing more damage by the hit to damage ratio over the catapults since the catapults seem to miss the walls by about 50 percent. ( I like to place my siege weapons far back to minimize casualties, so those of you who place them close up probably get much different results)

I only tried them on a keep wall and don't know if the results would be greatly different on a fortress as the stone would be much thicker and better built (didn't dawn on me till now to check how they do on better quality of stone castles, so I'll give it a shot within a few days and post the results if I don't get beat to it.) Well anyways I think this may be an exploit in the game as the ballista arrows/spears have a trail of black smoke behind them wich does'nt make much sense and I think they were only meant for assaulting wooden structures but something in the programming was missed or skipped.

Well does anyone know if ballistas were used for assaulting castles. The only guess I have is I could see a ballista under its heavy force chipping away at the stone and getting off 10 20 or 30 shots before the trebuchet ever did and doing some damage over multiple shots. The other thing is on a lucky shot and wedging it between 2 stones so when the big rocks hit from cats and trebuchets it made it much more susceptible to crumbling

The other question I have on ballistas is has anyone ever used them with success on the battlefield as I never have. Unfortanetley I have seen the A.I have succes with once it as it started routing my army because they were low morale from a good runner general. But it seems to me success on the battlefield is very minimal with ballistas.

[BDC]

I think they do have uses, because they seem to cause fear, when an enemy army is all but broken, fire a single shot at approaching units and they will break and run. Which has its uses... Of course I play with MedMod so they only take a turn to build, I wouldn't bother in game otherwise.

[The_Emperor]

Ballistae can be quite good at killing generals on the battlefield, sometimes that stone projective can impale a leader in one shot...

Siege weapons like Catapults and Ballistae can be very useful in defence, when the enemy has no other choice but to approach your position while under fire.

[jLan]

On bridge battles ballistae are useful. I had them take out about 45 men in my last battle, among them like 15 boyars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Sir Chauncy]

Actually yes they were used very sucessfully in battle during the proper conquering of Britain by the Romans. There was a program on the TV about trying to reconstruct ancient 'things' using the technology of the day to see if they could do it. The Roman ballista was rapid fire (reloaded by a gravity fed chute over the machine) and could be continuously fired by a bloke winding a spiral shaped log to pull back the bow part of the weapon. They travelled pretty far and were incredably accurate (for the time). So accurate in fact that the program claimed this would have been a Bad Thing™ due to a lack of variation in the targets.
Anyway, the Romans used them to conquer the Iron Age hill forts that Britons used at the time. The range it had completely bypassed any of the forts' defenses and would have been an uncontestable weapon for Iron Age man at the time.
Against stone defenses I don't know how effective it was. If you read the description it claims that the Ballista goes back to the ancient Greeks and that even the Trebuchet was perfected by the Arabs in ancient times. I read into this that the Ballista was a bit rubbish at knocking down stone walls and they needed something with a bit more punch.
Hope this helps.

[hoom]

I understand they were quite effective at boring into mud-brick fortifications as found in the mid-east.

In M:TW though, they are not really any use.

Any other missile unit will get more kills.
Catapaults in particular are far more deadly vs troops & stone.
There is really very little point in knocking down wooden walls with artillery since units can knock them down quickly on their own.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, that's why I upped the power of Ballistae MOD THY GAME

[Hurin_Rules]

Ballistae and even catapultae were relatively ineffective at knocking down stone fortifications. They are torsion artillery, and its just mechanically very difficult to get anything based on tortion screws (made of sinew) to batter down stone. Their real purpose was to provide cover for siege assaults or sometimes battlefield artillery.

The rise of the trebuchet in the Middle Ages changed all that. Traction and later counterweight trebuchets really can smash down walls. They have been known to knock down entire towers with a single, massive shot.

So I expect in RTW that it will be very difficult to knock down walls (as it should be); there should be more assaults with ladders/towers/undermining etc.

[ShaiHulud]

I could be totally wrong, but, the only time I've ever read of a meeting engagement in which catapults were used was by Alexander, to force a river crossing. Other than seiges and Alexander's crossing battle, I can't think of a battle in which they were used as 'artillery'.

Because the weapons (ballistae, catapults) had to be constructed, it seems unlikely they'd have been available for the usual meeting engagement, particulary heavier models. I know the Romans carried some necessary parts but had to manufacture, on the spot, the major segments of these weapons. Their availability in game seems ahistorical.

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]So I expect in RTW that it will be very difficult to knock down walls (as it should be); there should be more assaults with ladders/towers/undermining etc.

I hope so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Its really too easy to knock down castles in Medieval.

[solypsist]

Hmmmm...an interesting observation about using ballistas to take down caslte fortifications. the only problem is that the range of ballistas is quite short compared to the larger siege engines, which means you'll take losses from enemy garrisons while attempting to crumble gatehouses and walls. with the bigger catapults, you can shoot out of range of the garrison and not lose any engineers.

[Red Harvest]

I use ballistae for sieges at times (when they are all I've got.) They work decently at taking down stone walls if I have several working together. They take a lot of casualties but will take down the walls. Catapults are much more effective, since they can be kept out of range of return fire most times, and they cause far more damage per hit.

Valour/morale is a big part of using catapults vs. ballista. Ballistae rarely move up in valour because they rarely kill. Catapults rack up kills rapidly in non-siege battles. Higher valour and morale make them more accurate. A low morale ballistae is indeed more accurate than a low morale catapult and will often cause more damage. However, in practice I keep my general nearby (but out of return fire range) to boost morale. This aids accuracy and benefits catapults more than ballistae (partly because he is normally able to safely stand closer to catapults than ballistae.)

[Oaty]

Well I had a siege for a castle instead of a keep on my single player campaign and had some ballista, catapults and 1 mangonel. The ballista did very little damage to the stone walls of the castle so as the stone gets thicker the better artillery you need to take down the wall as the level of the castle gets better. 1 thing I noticed is that those stone walls have about 4-5 arrow slits verses the towers who have 1 arrow slit per side. All this time I thought all the arrow fire was coming from those towers til I took notice that those walls can do much more damage when facing them so I have come to ignoring those towers and knocking down the walls to 50 percent or more so they cant fire anymore after I have taken down 1 wall

[QUOTE]
There is really very little point in knocking down wooden walls with artillery since units can knock them down quickly on their own.
[QUOTE]

Yes troops can do this but I have found it much more effective to use the artillery if I have it as I can immediately charge some men at the wall while it is under fire and have it opened before my men reach it saving a few extra men for a future battles.

[hoom]

True & I use artillery on wooden walls if I have it there too.

Mind you, archers are more effective than ballistae at knocking down wooden walls...

[Nelson]

Ballistas are fine for reducing wooden forts, gates and helping to wreck anything else they can reach. I post them close enough to the castle to draw fire from other more valuable engines when the fortification is heavily armed. Better to get a ballista smashed than a mangonel or a treb.

[General Malaise]

On defense I use them as decoys and distractions. Stick one seemingly out in the open and as the enemy approaches (particularly human players) they'll get irked at being shot at (and since it's too tempting not to rush towards an open siege engine) they'll usually peel off a unit from their formation to destroy it. I then rush some cavalry towards the lone unit usually causing them to turn their whole army to face the cavalry that's been sent to protect the single ballista they tried to attack, heh. Then I rush my main force down flanking them. They're also good for lowering the morale of advancing troops so you have a slight advantage when the lines clash.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

Ballistas shoot straight I think, perhaps that is why they are more accurate, whereas catapults go arcing off in any old direction.

I have never found ballistas effective against stone, but the can take the gate down reasonably quick.

[RisingSun]

Dont you guys go telling ME that ballistae arent effective against stone walls I just was defending an assault today in a keep wih cutain wall and ballista towers, and the enemy had but three ballistas The ballitae baffled me as they knocke down almost all of my walls on the side being assaulted I lost the battleI was almost sure I would win. -__- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[katar]

i prefer catapults, especially on defence, you should try firing three of them into a mixed up advancing army, talk about carnage.

the emeny were advancing in column(more or less) and three of those rocks went bouncing happily along their direction of march, that three rock volley killed between ten and fifteen men per unit that was hit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

a quick charge as they reached my lines and they just ran for the hills, happy days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[jas]

Quote[/b] (katar @ Aug. 23 2003,20:58)]i prefer catapults, especially on defence, you should try firing three of them into a mixed up advancing army, talk about carnage.

the emeny were advancing in column(more or less) and three of those rocks went bouncing happily along their direction of march, that three rock volley killed between ten and fifteen men per unit that was hit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

a quick charge as they reached my lines and they just ran for the hills, happy days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Yeah, once I was sneakily attacked by the Novgorod in a steppe province (Volhynia?) after they had been my loyal allies for many years. The province they picked had only a small (6 unit) defensive army, but was also where I trained all my artillery. There was a stack or so of culverins waiting to be assigned to siege trains ahead of my planned offensive into Western Europe (I was the Danes, but had initially expanded mostly into Polish territory).

Anyway, my lineup looked something like: 2 feudal sergeants, 1 FMAA, 2 archers, 1 RK (general), and 10 culverins, which I placed on fire-at-will. With the camera low down amongst the enemy forces, all you could see was flying clods of earth with the occasional glimpse of enemy bodies when the debris cleared for a moment between volleys. Their casualties were only moderate but they never even reached my lines before they broke and ran: the morale penalty for marching into a Somme-like artillery barrage 700 years early must have been considerable

Also, I remember an old post on defensive artillery in which someone wrote the memorable line: "Once I fired a bombard down the length of a crowded bridge" .. I think that broke the fight up too.