An Easy and Realistic Way to Model Siege Engines...

[Khan7]

I know, I know, all the important game design choices have been made already, but maybe before it gets REALLY final all you devs should consider one last time this solution to the siege engine question--

During a siege, simply have siege engines do a certain amount of damage each turn, to walls and men, basically in the same way that people die in the castle each turn (or did in STW). If the enemy has the means to return fire, then take those factors into account, return fire being able to mitigate the damage done and even inflict some casualties.

So this way, in a siege with no engines, you would simply have to try and starve them out, and charge in the front gate whenever you felt it was time.

But with a few engines, you would do incremental damage to the walls each turn. Whenever you decided to take the field to storm the garrison, this damage would be reflected in the castle, i.e. if you had done enough damage to breach any walls or whatever there would be breached walls on the castle you attacked.

If your siege engines were powerful enough with respect to the strength of the castle, You might after one turn bring down the castle around their ears and force the garrison to surrender.

..

Of course, there would also be a certain amount of casualties that the siege engines would have a chance of causing among the garrison. And when you took the field to storm the castle, they would be there with you, ready to bombard the garrison.

..

Reasons this model is worth considering:

1: It is much more realistic. It allows you to more accurately model the way sieges actually happened. It would allow you to provide siege engines on the tactical battlefield with more ammo, and to reduce their rates of fire to more realistic levels.

2: It is much simpler. There are many, many fewer large and small issues to be considered and worked out with this model.

3: It is much more flexible. By using the model we currently see with the demo, you are basically hog-tying yourselves. It will come back to bite you when and if you want to expand or revise the simulation of siege engines and the like in the future. I invite you, sirs, to think long-term for a second..

Anyway, thank you for your time, and regardless of how exactly you guys do up the final product, it will be the game I buy if I buy ANY. I salute you.

Matt

EDIT: Minor grammatical fixes (oops).

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-05-2002).]

[theforce]

Very interesting man. Some said that the developers visit the forums for ideas.
I am of the opinion that if they have to work a bit more on the game to set thigns right and delay it a bit, l personaly don't care if the final product is of higher quality.
I didn't liked the way sieges are done either. It was surely fun but is not realisitc, lets say u take that castle in one day?

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Catiline]

Sounds like a good idea, after all castle construction took years, not months. certainly i'd lieto see the implemented aboving moving engines in the battle itself.

the only reason the system as is might be more realisitic is that it wqill i suspect provoke you into either taking the castle or breaking the seige if you're unsuccesful. Most seiges simply were'nt that long, anything above two game turns is likely to be highly a typical historically.You can only eat so many babies and rats afterall.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[JRock]

So are you saying we don't even get to actually USE the siege engines, the walls and men inside just automatically get damaged?

Sounds pretty lame if that's what you're saying.

I'd rather they just fix the more IMPORTANT siege engine bug- allow men from siege engines that are out of ammo to fill in at other siege engines that still have ammo but not enough men to fire.

[theforce]

JROCK l am sure that thing you ask ain''t hard to fix BUT this thing is serious. Imagine storming the walls of a huge city that in reality tooked months to conquer and at all that time artillery was firing, attacks were made to fall in your hands from the first day!!!


------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[JRock]

I guess you haven't played too many computer real-time strategy games before. See, games run on their own compressed time scale. Battles HAVE to be sped up to a certain extent to make them playable.

I love the real-time battle aspect of S:TW and M:TW. I want to be able to shoot the walls myself. You have to let go of the idea of "real-world timescale" when you play a computer game, especially one with a real-time battle component, because the term "real-time" does not equal "real-world timescale".

"Real-time" is just the term used to describe something that is not turn-based - in other words, things are constantly occuring.

The whole point of having the real-time battles in Shogun/Medieval is to have a fun, action component to the slow, chess-like strategy of the map-based, turn-based component.

If you suddenly remove the ability to siege castles in real-time combat, you are moving the game back towards a classic turn-based wargame because now you are giving a specific damage done per strategy turn instead of real-time action damage from your cannons controlled in-game.

Essentially you're slowing down the game action-wise and making it more boring just to make the whole campaign go by faster by avoiding real-time siege battles.

I think you're forgetting this is why the game includes an Automatically Conclude the Battle option so you DON'T have to sit there for an hour and siege the castle if you don't want to.

I do. The whole siege component is a major draw to this game for me. That and the massive battles. If I wanted straight, turn-based strategy I'd play some chess or a wargame.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-05-2002).]

[Khan7]

You get to use the siege engines on the battlefield, but to attack troops, not walls.

JRock, I'm not quite sure as to what you're saying with the ammo/operators stuff. Maybe we can discuss this at greater length in the other thread on this general topic.

Matt

P.S.: JROCK, I think that somehow implying (or, in your case, blatantly stating) that TheForce hasn't played many computer games before.. is.. well.. at the very least.. EXTREMELY inaccurate. This dude is a serious gamer with broad tastes, from FPS on up.

I again suggest we move this conversation to another thread, so that things don't get too jumbled in here.

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-05-2002).]

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
You get to use the siege engines on the battlefield, but to attack troops, not walls.

JRock, I'm not quite sure as to what you're saying with the ammo/operators stuff. Maybe we can discuss this at greater length in the other thread on this general topic.

Matt[/QUOTE]

Very simple:

When one siege unit is too low on men to fire, and you have another siege unit that has exhausted all of its ammo (and the men are then just standing around doing nothing), allow the player to assign those men to the siege unit that is under-manned so that it can again fire.

Does that description make sense?
As far as I can tell, this simple and logical ability was over-looked.

edit to respond to your PS - Ah, my bad I didn't realize you wanted to talk about this elsewhere. We can do that.

About TheForce - I can only judge people by what I know of them, and I only know of him through his posts. And in reading his posts it sounds like he's never played an RTS game or that he wants to turn M:TW into another turn-based wargame. That is the impression I am getting and so that is what I am basing my reply on. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-05-2002).]

[theforce]

Thanks for the support Khan7. I have been playing strategy games for a long time now mate and from the time l tried Shogun l didn't get into other RTS games since this is the closest thing to reality.
Also by being able to win castles so fast will beat their signifigance. This is the correct way of how the siege engine should work.
You lay siege on a castle, city or whatever.
Now just like Shogun each turn men are lost due to hunger sickness etc. Now the attacker should have his siege army connected by a route to his army that sieges the city. If you army manages to capture a province and manages to isolate the army that is surrounding the city then the attacker would also suffer from hunger .etc Now each turn u could just rush the city with catapelts and such and rush the walls .etc
You pattern is so innacute. Like u have an army of 5000 men and u send 600 and die that day won't count as a defeat nor it was count as a defeat those days.
If you are defeated then the siege should continue if the other man has still men in the province.
In those times attackers would assult the castle gates, walls, openings in walls and most of the times those assults were unsuccesful. The objective of the general that was attacking was not to take the city from a huge attack.
I think if the siege engine works like that the game will be VERY playabe and more historically accurate.

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[JRock]

Too confusing and convoluted.

Read what I said on this page, since a good amount of it is relevant to your siege argument:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000461-2.html

[theforce]

Strategy is confusing, that is why so few men are good generals http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by theforce:
Strategy is confusing, that is why so few men are good generals http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[/QUOTE]

No, your post is too confusing and convoluted. You want to fix a simple problem with a complex solution. Heck it's not even a real problem.

[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 07-05-2002).]

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

JRock: Although heated exchanges on any subject regarding the game is more than welcome here, just be carefull not to slip into flaming individual patrons here because you disagree on something.

Thanks in advance

Kuma

------------------
La vie est un don.

[theforce]

Kuma is nice to see new memmbers having a strong opinion on a subject that is about the game.
Anyway JRock u need to chill man.
Futhermore chating about something here won't make any difference cause the developers are the ones that are gonna do what they think is better for the game and in extension what will get em more $.



------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

Couple of things to throw into the pot:

The larger a castle is in a province the less damage is likely to be caused to any buildings within it when taken by force.


The tech tree is VERY long and take considerable time to get through (hundreds & hundreds of years literally). Taking the state of a castle down by "One notch" can cost you 20 years just to rebuild the castle.

You can and do stavre a castle out on the campaign map if you dont assault it. ONLY when you assault it do you engage in a fight (or if the garrison rally, another army comes to lift the seige)


Allies CAN lift your seige - the french were beseiged in Ille de France by the spanish - i was allied to the french and attacked, the spanish withdrew, province returned to the french and my army returned to starting province.

THe rate of attrition of men in a castle is dependent on how many there are in it, how big it is and what additional building are on it. THings like a barbican, curtain walls and different types of towers reduce attrition.... I had 200 men in a fortress stay beseiged for 14 years with only about 20% attrition before the AI attacked (it had no seige engines and tried to assault - failed badly and next move my 150 ish remaining troops rallied and beat won back the province)


(NB: What CA said about seiges: The damage in the battle section needed to be related to the development time of everything in the campagin game - loosing a fortress down to a wooden fort could mean loosing 300 years of building production in one turn - this was inherently unbalancing and an irrecoverable position for that province. SO even whilst we can knock down every tower and wall the "campaign effect" will be far less - perhaps one castle stage or addition)

[Khan7]

Well, the way it works in STW is that if you assault a castle and lose, your army still stays and sieges. I have seen no indication that there will be a change in this policy.

Therefore the only new thing TheForce is suggesting is that there be some involvement with supplies/supply routes, so that perhaps the attacker would also suffer from being in the field. This would not be very complicated, and would be entirely realistic, but it is unlikely that they will add it for this game (it would be a small hassle).

However the strategic siege engine thing is really pretty simple and easy.

Matt

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Sir Kuma of The Org:
JRock: Although heated exchanges on any subject regarding the game is more than welcome here, just be carefull not to slip into flaming individual patrons here because you disagree on something.

Thanks in advance

Kuma

[/QUOTE]

Don't worry man, I've been very careful to remain civil in this discussion.

[Khan7]

Hmm.. well I'm gonna hafta say it just FYI. I know forum etiquette can be a hard thing to get a feel for, but if you think you've been careful to be civil, you've got a great deal more learning to do. No hard feelings man, but you may want to pay a bit more attention.

Matt


Sorry for the bit that i have deleted Khan, i just don't have the time to handle a flame war.

[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 07-06-2002).]

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Jrock i have deleted some words here and there in your posts in this topic like retarded or anal something that do not respect etiquette as Khan has written (Because your directly calling names at patrons that do not agree with you).

It's not a big thing, i just want you to be careful. Like Khan has written, in the heat of the moment sometimes it's difficult.

Everybody can slip, i remember clearly the last time that i was out of line...

You can always re-read and edit yourself. The basic principal is no insulting or no calling names at a specific patron or a group of persons.

Other than that you can put forward any argument, opinion about MTW in this forum and are invited to do so.

Thanks for your patience of reading through this.

------------------
La vie est un don.

[Bohemond]

While I must admit that I still haven't played the demo yet, there is a point I have to make about the sieges in STW, because I'm afraid this will apply to MTW as well.

If the game mechanics remained unchanded in that only the besieged party suffers from attrition (and can therefore be simply starved out), it is horribly unrealistic and renders castles pretty useless.

There is enough material about medieval sieges available to realize that the opposite was the case. Before retreating to the castle the besieged party would normally take away or destroy all supplies from the surrounding territories. As the siege progresses, the attacking army would suffer dearly from hunger, disease and constant harassment by the defenders (realize that the defenders can ambush at any time they chose, cut the attackers throats at night, burn their siege engines right after completion, and then retreat!), very often forcing them to give up and lift the siege. That is after all what castles were about, they were designed to give you a strategic advantage by securing the most favourable position possible. If you can simply be starved to death by the attackers without them losing a single man, castles are a disadvantage.

Instead I think it would be realistic if both sides were reduced at about the same rate, depending of course on various factors like the strength of the castle, the duration of the siege, and the relative size of both sides.

I always felt this was a biggest blunder in STW. Hope they realized that at CA as well!


[This message has been edited by Bohemond (edited 07-06-2002).]

[Khan7]

Yeah but we've been whining about that particular point since way back and it appears they never deigned to consider it. It is true what you say-- castles are just death traps. It is suicide to retreat there with anything more than a few units.. depending on the castle size, they will drop dead FAST if you've got alot, and there is no easy way to control the number you put in.

Matt

[Bohemond]

I thought they would change it.

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
Yeah but we've been whining about that particular point since way back and it appears they never deigned to consider it. It is true what you say-- castles are just death traps. It is suicide to retreat there with anything more than a few units.. depending on the castle size, they will drop dead FAST if you've got alot, and there is no easy way to control the number you put in.

Matt[/QUOTE]

Not really though it depends on upgrades and castle type. Evena full fortress - but with all additions, can last 8 years (8 turns)... i've seena fortress with 500 troops in it display "This fortress can only be taken by a direct assault" (or something like that)

Also remember that there are certain V&Vs that influence seige duration - "Expert Seiger" can knock up 4 years off a seige length - and theres an oposing one ((Cant remember its name sorry) that adds at least that to its duration.

You still cant decide what gets to go into the castle though - which is a shame. (at least not in the build i have)

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Sir Kuma of The Org:
Jrock i have deleted some words here and there in your posts in this topic [/QUOTE]

Okay well first of all I think you are a little confused as to what a flame is.

See, flaming is attacking the individual directly, which is also called an "ad hominem attack", for example someone saying, "You are a loser." This is very different than saying something like "that's a silly suggestion", which is just pointing out one's opinion of a foolish suggestion.

I guess you guys are all sorta new to the Internet, so maybe you can't handle the reality of Internet forums too well. That's okay, I don't mind being edited sometimes, even though it's silly to expect everyone to be 100% polite all the time. That's not reality nor is it how the better forums around the 'net work. On the other hand, some people would be quite offended if you just went around editing their words.

At most forums, people can handle some kidding around and only flames are not acceptable. See, they realize that life is not Happy La-La Land - if someone has a dumb idea, it's important to point that out because if we are accepting of dumb ideas, dumb ideas might turn into foolish changes to the game.

As I said, I don't intend to flame people, because that is not a good attitude to have on forums, however if something is stupid, there's nothing wrong with pointing out it's stupid. I've had stupid ideas - we all have. If someone can't handle being told their idea is stupid, they probably shouldn't be on the 'net because there are a lot more offensive things to be found than someone who disagrees with your idea.

But why are we discussing netiquette? Oh yeah, because you guys are a little uptight here I can see. That's okay, as I said I can handle that. I'll just have to remember that this forum is a little more uptight than most. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Btw, just for future reference - it's considered quite rude to just go and edit people's posts. Proper form is to request that they change their wording or tone or whatever, but you shouldn't just go editing someone else's words. That's just inherently wrong and that post is no longer representative of what that person wrote because you have changed it. On other forums such actions are called "nazi mod tactics" because it's very dictatorial-like to edit other's posts.

As I said, it's all good though, I understand you guys are a little uptight so I will just accept the fact that you want to edit our posts.

Peace.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-06-2002).]

[Catiline]

Mods are right. You're given far warning of the fact that we may edit your posts in hte rules you sign up to when you register. This is not the place to discuss whther it's rude or not to edit. Kuma's judgement is impeccable, if he felt hte need to edit he was justified.

As a rule we hardly ever edit, but we will do so without compunction if it seems necessary. This is a thread about seiges and catapults. The is no justification for flaming under such circumstances. You don't like our definition of flame? Tough.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[Catiline]

Oh

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[theforce]

JRock is new to these forums. With time he shall understand the rules etc.
Anyway man be quiet. We are funded by the 4th Reich :P

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Catiline]

I fear the man of only one book

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[theforce]

Why do l have the feeling 3 guys are same guy in here? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
What about the one who doesn't have nay books?

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Khan7]

JRock, just quit it. Making up different e-mails for your different names doesn't fool people.

You're, like, throwing a tantrum man. This is the assishness I was talking about (but got deleted by Kuma). Grow up.

Matt

[theforce]

Man stop calling names. This ain't gamespy.
Even if you aren't those 2 guys u shouldn't react like this!

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
JRock, just quit it. Making up different e-mails for your different names doesn't fool people.

You're, like, throwing a tantrum man. This is the assishness I was talking about (but got deleted by Kuma). Grow up.

Matt[/QUOTE]


Excuse me? I have one account here. I don't know who these other accounts are. Try checking IP addresses next time before you go accusing me of doing something so childish.

*sigh* More proof you're new to this whole Internet forum thing.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by theforce:
Man stop calling names. This ain't gamespy.
Even if you aren't those 2 guys u shouldn't react like this!

[/QUOTE]

Calling names? Who have I called names? I already mentioned calling names is something I DON'T do because that is considered flaming.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRock:

See, flaming is attacking the individual directly, which is also called an "ad hominem attack", for example someone saying, "You are a loser." This is very different than saying something like "that's a silly suggestion", which is just pointing out one's opinion of a foolish suggestion.

_____________________________________________

I agree with this statement. *That's a silly suggestion* would not have been deleted.

It's quite different when you use *retarded* or *the anal few* to describe the patrons that disagree with your point of view. These we're the words deleted and if i have to, i will do it again, calling me an uptight dictator won't change a thing, even if i am one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

As for the forum rules, you have *clearly* http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gifexpressed your disagrement with them, that's cool, you are entitled to your opinion but you are also expected to follow those rules if you want to post at the Org, no differnt than anybody else. This is not a public forum but a private one.

Yeah it was rude, you got a point, i could have shown more patience and get into a discussion with you telling that this part of your post is not acceptable, to change your tone, to edit your post, you replying that your tone is OK, that i'm just being uptight and showing my inexperience on the internet, that this is not how forums work,in the meanwhile the patrons you have insulted would have started flaming you, then i have to go and ask them to change their tone and bla,bla, bla, bla....Just isn't worth the energy and the time.

So that's my lame excuse for being rude, what's was yours?

Peace




------------------
La vie est un don.

[Hirosito]

sooooo siege engines i think khan's idea is great.

[Nelson]

Khan7 said:
Quote
You get to use the siege engines on the battlefield, but to attack troops, not walls.
[/QUOTE]

I would not encourage any change that makes engines of this period play more of an anti-personnel role than they already do. In the demo formations stand while stone after stone smashes through the ranks! Troops would disperse or simply watch the shots come in and get out of harms way. No one would stand for such a pounding. Early black powder weapons and ballistas could be used defensively against troops but that's about it.

[theforce]

It would be avoided but it would cause confusion among the ranks of an army. I mean in a way u can control the movement of a unit with it.

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Khan7]

Well, first of all Nelson, this wouldn't increase their anti-personnel role. It would simply move their anti-fortification role into strategic time.

As far as dispersal or moving out of the way, troops of this time period would not be at liberty to do that. The *whole formation* could go behind a hill or something, but other than that, the countermeasures you speak of would simply produce a deadly degree of disorder. Attempting this, even with the enemy out of melee range, would mean that your NEXT move would be to spend several minutes calling everyone back and reforming your lines. Doing it with enemy troops in any kind of proximity would lead to the destruction of your army.

Though I can see how dealing with the very Command and Control lenient STW could lead you to think in this way.

Anyway, the Romans would fortify their camps with artillery, of a variety of sizes, specifically for anti-personnel use. The Mongols used their artillery offensively, bombarding the enemy lines before moving in, and even keeping up a rolling barrage to push the enemy back. I think historical evidence is sufficient for all of the more smallish artillery in MTW to have an anti-personnel role. (Obviously a Trebuchet would be constructed on the spot, facing in one direction, to strike one target, and fire only a few rounds a day.)

Matt

P.S.: Actually, as long as we're in the the erstwhile Shogun forum, I might mention that the Mongols used their artillery against the Japanese, and it is recorded as being one of their most effective weapons, inflicting heavy losses on the Samurai.

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-07-2002).]

[Nelson]

This was my fear before seeing the static artillery: anything remotely resembling a battery of French 75s moving forward, however slowly, and blasting enemy troops with the antipersonnel effectiveness evident in the demo. This would be bogus as all hell. That's what would happen if the engines (as currently presented) could move. Field battles would become very ahistoric artillery duels. Nobody wants that (I hope!). I would not like to see the game evolve to where siege engines are used frequently in the open field to great effect. They were not, at least not until the late 15th century. And so long as engines remain immobile, they won't be.

I agree that ballistas and small early era field guns could be effective antipersonnel weapons but these needed to be used in a static manner. i.e. on defense. However few medieval armies were into castramentation like the Romans where the ballistas could do good work. Some did use static positions tactically as a matter of course though, the Hussites and Turks for example.

BTW and FWIW, Bert S. Hall's 1997 Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe is the best study I have seen on early gunpowder weapon evolution and use. It's from the Johns Hopkins University Press and a must read for anyone interested in the era.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Sir Kuma of The Org:

So that's my lame excuse for being rude, what's was yours?
[/QUOTE]


I was never rude to you, I only provided you with information regarding one small part of the rules you have here. You read way too much into my comments.

Quote calling me an uptight dictator won't change a thing, even if i am one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]

I never called you an uptight dictator, I just let you know that a policy that includes editing people's posts without using more passive means of forum regulation is seen as being a dictator by most Internet users. Just a simple comment.

Quote you are entitled to your opinion but you are also expected to follow those rules[/QUOTE]

But of course! I have never stated I would do otherwise.


As for siege engines, well I already posted my opinion of this whole fiasco. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Khan7]

Well, the Mongols employed artillery in such a way as to be a versatile and very effective weapon, attacking or defending, in open fields or walled cities. They basically used it in an analagous way to modern, or at least WW2, howitzers.

This example alone is sufficient for my point. If you wish me to dig up some sources, I shall.

It will be the example I focus on, as all the information I have for other potential examples is spotty and jumbled, and will require further research. I guess I can say that there's an awful lot of mention with Alexander the Great using field artillery, the Romans using field artillery, various Greeks as well.. but that it does not seem to have been much used overly much in the Dark Ages. But I'm not going to go digging everything up on all that right now.. the Mongols are sufficient for my limited point, anyway.

Matt

[JRock]

I do believe you can find some good scenes of Romans using field artillery at the beginning of Gladiator (although it might be argued they were sort of in a fort).

Either way they WERE using it to bombard troops, not a castle.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-08-2002).]

[Loras]

but those were the romans, who were just cooler than everyone else. i don't think they used them during medieval times. i think the only way to allow siege machines to move, and a "whoever has the most catapults wins" deal from starting up, it to make them have a very long load time, as to make them ineffective against onrushing troops, and very inaccurate (they pretty much are already though), just enough to make targeting troop units hard, but not enough so you miss whole wall sections.

------------------
-All knowledge is worth having-

[DrNo]

From the gameplay point of view, siege weapons doing damage to castles at strategy map level is just not on in my opinion.

Firstly the game mechanics rebuild each castle every turn. Yes you could say that if the province is owned by someone else then don't rebuild the castle.
However this would lead to people going into real time battles pounding the castle and men within, then retreating and having a go next time.

Also the AI would be difficult to handle. Deciding if/when to do a full on assault or simply wait for castle to fall.

The devs have to draw a line somewhere on what the game can and cannot do. For instance men on walls, resources etc..

The game could be improved dramatically but at what cost... would you wait another 6 months, 2 years, 5 years to get a much better version?

Personally I think everyone should try to accept MTW in it's release form and not go too deep into 'Why didn't you do this or that?'.

MTW appears as though it's moved along nicely from STW, adding much of the diplomacy and other stuff that people complained about STW lacking.

So the next version in the series will no doubt deliver much more.

[theforce]

JRock, l love that scene in Gladiator. The poor Germans just stand there while they are thrown a shitload of projectiles.
1. Those things were just big containers, filled with oil, works even better in woods http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
2. Huge arrows to destory their lines, regular arrows and a shitload more things.
Anyway the wooden constructions there were to provent a direct rush to the artillery there.
It was more used to prevent cav rushes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness

[Catiline]

THose opening scenes in Galdiator are about as historical as the Life of Brian. Probably less so. They get just asbout evewrything they can about the Roman army and its tactics wrobg, those napalm devices being high up on the list. It is great cinema, an excellent film, I love it, but nothing in it can be used to support the argument we're having here.

The Romans did on occaision use artillery tactically on the Battlefield, they had mobile cart mounted ballistae for example, but they were light weight pieces, not more than suped up crossbows. They did not hurls big pots of fire at barbarians. The large pieces were pretty much exclusively used in seiges.

Medieval artillery was nothing compared to what the Romans used for most of its existence. It simply wasn't used on the battlefield, with the exception of bombards later, and in terms of their impact on battles you could leave them out and noone would notice.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[Nelson]

Agreed on all counts, Cat. That opening Gladiator battle was entertaining despite being scraped from the stable floor.

Matt, the Mongols were likely exposing many enemies to gunpowder for the first time, profiting from the flash bang fear factor. They enjoyed advantages thereby analogous to earlier era first exposure to elephants. It would also be tough to separate the terror they instilled by themselves apart from whatever weapons they fired. Sometimes they could have pushed baby carriges ahead and cause a rout!

As a battlefield killer no 13th century firearms amounted to much especially if they were small enough to push around a battle field. If you had mobile artillery in the game you would wind up with every army having at least one battery of catapults etc for open field use. The engines in the demo are such great antipersonnel weapons that they would radically distort medieval combat if they could move. Perhaps much weaker AP engines than we have seen could appear rarely from time to time with some measure of mobility but they would add little IMO.

I am curious about the Mongol sources as always but don't sweat it as it must be pain to dig it out. Failure to produce same will not rebound to your discredit. My own understanding of history is maleable and always subject to change in the face of what for me is new data. Jeremiah Curtin's The Mongols A History and David Nicolle's The Mongol Warlords did not reveal, IIRC, the rather modern style of artillery use on the field that you suggest. However they are but two sources. Hardly exhausting I admit. I appreciate that this discussion has not become a pissing contest of sorts. We are merely students of the past seeking the way. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Khan7]

Yes, Nelson, you have me right, I am not a studious scholar. And my passion for this sort of thing is in a low phase right now anyway.

I can tell you the two places I heard of the Mongol Artillery-- one day I was researching the Mongol Invasion on the internet, came upon an apparently scholarly source, and it mentioned the use of artillery, to great effect, against the Samurai. Mind you these were small catapaults, wheeled around in carts, probably lobbing naptha (the TBs/Naphta throwers as I understand them are basically historical crap.. a substitution for the historical use of such projectiles from small catapaults).

In a description of a battle vs. the Hungarians IIRC, might have even been on MagyarKhan's Mongol info site, it mentioned the Mongols using a rolling artillery barrage as a component in their attack.

And, in a generally unsuccessful Google search for info on this very topic, I came across a site for some sort of table-top game where they mentioned the Mongol artillery, how they learned it from the Chinese, used it to hurl Naptha, and wheeled it around in little carts.. and the game stats etc.. not a great source I admit.

Gimme a sec, I'm gonna check the National Geographic Mongol feature if I've got lying around..

..well, no mention of battlefield artillery use that I can see. Shucks. Maybe it is a controversial theory. I dunno..

Scoured my other various sources. Basically people like to throw around the mention of field artillery, but there are few specifics. In an article on ancient Greek artillery, it talks about Gastraphetes (bellybows.. like a crossbow), and the original catapaults (shield-piercers) that grew out of them (original catapaults were more like ballistae, with a torsion-driven arm on each side and a string connecting.. orinally propelled bolts, later, stones.)

Annyway, it talks about Alexander driving back Scythian horsemen from a river with his bolt-firing catapaults.. can't find any more examples there.

In another article, on Caesar's Gallic campaign, when talking about the Roman fortified camp, it mentions the towers on each flank to hold arillery, and that they "probably" contained a wide variety of bolt and stone throwing devices, right on up to the "boulder-hurling onager or 'wild ass', the heavy howitzer of the classical era".

So.. here is my conclusion on anti-personnel artillery based on rethinking all my sources--

- Artillery of various sizes was of course very desirable on defense. This seems to be rather irrefutable.. everyone used it to defend cities, and the Romans used it to defend their fortified camps.

- Small artillery pieces, which were designed to be easily dissasembled and transported by two-wheeled cart, probably saw a moderate amount of use. Well actually, the fact is that these weapons were designed to be anti-personnel in the first place, indeed the progression from gastraphete to catapault would suggest that perhaps the firts catapaults were just field artillery. The Greeks are even recorded to have developed a fully-automatic 13-shot crossbow (gravity-fed hopper) (later built by one of Kaiser Wilhelm's engineers just to prove the possibility). The Chinese had a 12-shot repeating crossbow that was used until the 19th century.

And spotty mention of Mongol use of field artillery leads me to believe that indeed they did use it and that it was quite effective. How much they borrowed directly from the Chinese and how much was their own innovation.. I have no idea.

I can even recall that in one or two of the battles from the Great Battles table-top-converted-to-computer-game series, they had field artillery for the Romans. I thought this was odd at the time, but it seems to make sense now. I do recall that in the game notes they mentioned that there is a severe pittance of info on this topic.

Indeed, every source I've got complains about a severe pittance of info on this topic, now that I come to think of it. Which is probably why alot of this may have slipped by you, Nelson.

Anyway, as far as the types of artillery we're using in the game being used for anti-personnel... absolutely not. What rubbish. You were right. There's nothing small enough. If the slow rate of fire and difficulty of aim didn't save you, all you'd have to do is fall back to the next hill, or even just advance suddenly. You'd have to pin your enemy (like, say, in walled city?) before you'd hit him with these kinds of devices.

So you are right about the game, but I would encourage you to dig deeper into the Classical use and especially the Mongol use of small pieces on the field.

Ok, I learned something today. Indeed I had always thought of personal missle weapons (bows, crossbows, slings, guns, even javelinsto some degree) being analagous to modern field artillery.

What an interesting dicussion has been provoked here. Of course, I doubt anyone will read this whole gargantuan, rambling post. Aw, c'mon, I bet Nelson will, this dude's gotta have the attention span of, um.. the ever-patient praying mantis, or something http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-09-2002).]

[Khan7]

oopsiedaisy

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-09-2002).]