Proposal for slingers

Doing some studies about slinging i came across and interesting article many of you might already know: The Sling by Robert Dohrenwend, published in Journal of Asian Martial Arts Volume 11 Number 2 - 2002.

In this essy Dohrenwend makes one espacially interesting remark about slings which is different from what we see in RTW and also EB 1.
He explains that there were "two very different tactical situations: (1) high trajectory "plunging" fire and (2) low trajectory "flat" direct fire." (page 37, Slinging ballistics)
Dohrenwend furthermore concludes that indirect fire was quite effective. But in EB and RTW slingers are portrayed as direct fire only units.

He suggests that indirect fire was used on a fortified postion and at the beginning of a battle (because of its superior range). (page 44, tactical considerations)
But the most interesting conclusion ist the following (same page):
Apparently there were two kind of slinger units:
1. The specialist slinger.
He has a cultural background of slinging and trained since his childhood (often herdsmen).
They fulfill a sniper role, using direct fire, hiding behind shields and moving in small units. Examples for such units are the famous Balearic and Rhodian slingers.
2. The untrained peasant
He uses the sling simply because he has not enough money for better equiptment. These low status levies have little training and are used for a hail of indirect sling fire, thus they need no protection (they couldnt afford it anyway) and are used en masse. An Example would be the Accensi from EB 1.


I hope this helps you developing EB 2 and that you consider changing slingers so that they portray one of the two types and, whats most important to me, make indirect fire with slings possible.

I post this because i repeatly read that slings can only be used in direct fire (i think there also was a slinging thread over at TWCFs.)

Very interesting post, Trve Leveller. We will certainly take a look at that article you mentioned.

Foot

thank you, i'd appriciate that.

keep the good work coming

This would be a very nice game feature.

Interesting read... the use as direct or plunging fire was already understood I think but does raise an interesting question of 2 different units using slings.

Untrained levees which could attain decent range but were limited in how heavy a projective they could release and low accuracy might be replicated in MTW2 but the more trained professional slingers are difficult to model as they were probably capable of even more extreme range and lethality releasing heavier bullets but also much more accurate in the short range.

Also the ability of slingers to out range archers would seem to be very impractical for game balance. It is easier to set the maximum effective range similar for the elite of both disciplines and let elevation make the largest difference as MTW2 already does with missile weapons.

Also I think the engine assumes slings are a direct fire weapon so using slingers to throw bullets over a wall or other obstacle isn't possible with much efficiency.

It does make me want to go out and try playing with slings again. I only tried using direct fire when I was younger because there was no incentive to try plunging fire and the difficulty of knowing precisely how far a stone in a grassy field had traveled was further disincentive. Now I'd love to try with gluing 4 paintballs together and trying to hit distant ranges. Quite light for a sling bullet even using 4 paintballs, about 14 grams with the heaviest paintballs but might be interesting.

That does sound interesting. Can you post a link?

I think this is the one he's talking about.

http://www.ipna.ie/documents/History...he%20Sling.pdf

yes, thats it

slingers could be made into indirect fire unit by merely gave their projectiles lower speed and more maximum angle (but not too low).

This might actually indeed be usefull.

of course, in fact, that works pretty well in RTW engine... you could see that pretty soon...

If this is put in the game, I will be using slingers more often.

Combining slinger direct fire and indirect fire in the same unit may not be possible in EB, due to units only having 2 attack modes, missile fire and melee - and not 3 attack modes, which is what we'd need to have 2 different types of missile fire.

How about having 2 different types of slinger? Direct fire slingers and indirect fire slingers.

Direct fire slingers have higher-speed missiles that do more damage (higher attack) and are AP (armour piercing). These are highly trained units like Rhodian slingers.
Indirect fire slingers have lower-speed missiles that do less damage (lower attack) and are NOT armour piercing - but they have a considerably longer range than the direct fire units. These are poorly trained units like Accensi.

well, thats basically what crossbows do in m2tw. If their is something in the way they point the crossbows almost strait up and fire in a huge arc. unrealistic for crossbows, but maybe this could be used for slingers as they normally shoots directly like crossbows. it is absurdly inaccurate when they fire up though, although that may be desired for the slingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

This would be a very nice game feature.

---

An impossible one, though, unless the engine in M2TW allows for a unit to have both weapon slots filled in as missiles (i.e. no dagger/melee weapon). In that case you could have both trajectories.

You will notice that in M2 TW archers and other missile units will arc their shots to fire over the top of engaged units. Therefore I think this is easily implemented. And yes, it looks stupid when crossbows fire almost 90 degrees upward to hit units underneath them on walls and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

You will notice that in M2 TW archers and other missile units will arc their shots to fire over the top of engaged units. Therefore I think this is easily implemented. And yes, it looks stupid when crossbows fire almost 90 degrees upward to hit units underneath them on walls and such.

---

Poor programming of Newtonian Physics perhaps?

What about giving all slingers a higher shooting angle. This way they can use indirect fire.
Unprotected, poor slingers now get big units and a projectile "peasant bullet", which has less accuracy.
Shield-bearing "snipers" get smaller, mobile units and a projectile with more accuracy.

So all slingers can use indirect fire but it will be more beneficial to use the "snipers" for direct fire.

This solution seems the most realistic one to me and its also 100% doable with the game's engine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trve Leveller

What about giving all slingers a higher shooting angle. This way they can use indirect fire.
Unprotected, poor slingers now get big units and a projectile "peasant bullet", which has less accuracy.
Shield-bearing "snipers" get smaller, mobile units and a projectile with more accuracy.

So all slingers can use indirect fire but it will be more beneficial to use the "snipers" for direct fire.

This solution seems the most realistic one to me and its also 100% doable with the game's engine

---

First and foremost, we all know that there are always two solutions to a trajectory problem: the higher and the lower. The higher trajectory causes the object to last longer above ground but the destination remains the same point.

I don't think trajectory is tied with accuracy in the Rome engine, especially due to the **** implementation of Newtonian Physics. Even if you're shooting at a moving target the units doing the shooting happen to know exactly where the enemy unit will end up by the time the bullet has reached its target. For this reason, even though the higher trajectory object lasts longer in the air, it still ends up at its target just about the same number of times as it would otherwise. Right?

I wonder if a skilled slinger could time on target multiple stones(fire many stones at different angles and have them all hit the same target at the same time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I wonder if a skilled slinger could time on target multiple stones(fire many stones at different angles and have them all hit the same target at the same time).

---

Assuming a non-quantum Newtonian basis, that's impossible. The time it takes to reach the target increases as the angle goes from right above zero degrees to nearing the limit of 90 degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I wonder if a skilled slinger could time on target multiple stones(fire many stones at different angles and have them all hit the same target at the same time).

---

Probably impossible for a slinger due to the time required to load and fire a second stone, I know this was a common tactic used by archers though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Assuming a non-quantum Newtonian basis, that's impossible.

---

No need to limit yourself to non-quantum physics, superpostion (and quantum effects in general) doesn't happen to objects the size of an arrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

No need to limit yourself to non-quantum physics, superpostion (and quantum effects in general) doesn't happen to objects the size of an arrow.

---

That's what I keep telling my friend! Some silly physicists. By the way, did archers actually fire consecutive arrows to land at the same time? Why would they bother?

Actually I was technically wrong in saying that, things like bose-einstien condensates and superfluids do exhibit such effects (quantised angular momentum etc), but yes an arrow certainly won't.

Yes some did, it was used in in massed archery to allow 2 volleys to hit the enemy at the same time. The idea being that it effectively doubled the punch of the archers and was much harder to defend against, as you have two volleys coming in at very different angles and so cannot use a sheild to block them completely.

Does that imply that EB archers fire more slowly than real archers would in the heat of battle since have that long pause between shots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Does that imply that EB archers fire more slowly than real archers would in the heat of battle since have that long pause between shots?

---

Seeing that he said "some did" and not that it was a universal phenomenon, I wouldn't count on it.

@Vartan: I did not implied trajectory and accuracy are linked in the engine. I proposed to change trajectory and accuracy, as two different things to do.
And accuracy can be changed easily, I already did this for my personal modification (added 15.-17. century units) and it works. And IIRC trajectory is linked to speed in M2TW. (Have to confirm that later, I dont have m2tw on my pc right now, my external hard drive is dead).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trve Leveller

@Vartan: I did not implied trajectory and accuracy are linked in the engine. I proposed to change trajectory and accuracy, as two different things to do.
And accuracy can be changed easily, I already did this for my personal modification (added 15.-17. century units) and it works. And IIRC trajectory is linked to speed in M2TW. (Have to confirm that later, I dont have m2tw on my pc right now, my external hard drive is dead).

---

Oh well I wasn't referring to what you said, but alright. As for trajectory and how M2TW manages it, I don't know. I have never worked on M2TW. In fact, I've only played it a couple times. Trajectories of flying objects rely on initial launching force, launching angle of elevation, force of gravity, buoyant forces, and drag forces. I don't know whether or not M2TW physics engine includes some or all of these and I don't know which ones, if any, are modifiable.

Please do you a favour and don't take the cited article too seriously. The two firing modes are mere speculation. Perhaps interesting for a game however.

There is a big problem with this article, the sling ballistic performance on page 36 onwards as a base for the conclusions. Normally I don't use powerful words, but I have to do in this case: it is the greatest crap concerning ballistics I ever read in the last 20 years, I'm sorry to say. The statement alone that it takes an impact of 70 footpound to brake bones but 2 footponds to pierce the human body, is a horror to read for someone who has the slighest knowledge of terminal ballistics. Such statements make no sense for obvious reasons because the energy of a projectile is not the unit for measuring penetration power. Do you really believe that a soccer ball with 2 footponds energy would be able to penetrate the human body? You have to measure the energy per square footage to be able to say anything helpful for judging penetration capabilities.

Please believe me that a stone shot by a sling will never be able to reach the necessary energy to penetrate human tissue, let alone cloth or armor (it is nearly ridiculous to speak about such things). Why? Because a stone is a big projectile. You need 0,1 Joule/square-mm minimum of energy density to pierce human tissue. A simple cloth will multiply this. For example, a ball of 44 mm diameter will have an energy density of 0,085 J/square-mm when having an energy of 129 Joule (1 footpound is 1,36 Joule). Do you believe anything shot from a sling could penetrate with 2 footponds (2,72 Joule)?

That the article takes Hatchers RSP for judging sling bullet performance is as logical as irrelevant because the impact of a bullet has nothing to do with its effectiveness (ok, if you drive a car against a person, also the impact can be effective). All modern formulas use the energy as the factor for effectiveness.

A lead sling bullet could penetrate sometimes when it hit with an edge. Xenophon tells us about it. But don't thing that it could penetrate deep into the body and kill. Xenophon tells us too that it penetrates and disappears in the tissue. That means in many cases a superficial wound.

It is doubtful what energy a sling bullet could achieve. Data is very mixed, ranging from 30 Joule to 120 Joule. When we take the data of the article (two ounces bullet and 170 foot/second) we get an energy of about 63 Joule (with is in the range of an arrow shot by a heavier bow). Not nearly enough to penetrate deep into the body and not enough to kill an armored person. A normal .38 Special bullet has about 300 Joule, a .45. ACP about 500 Joule. That the author compares the sling with a .45 ACP pistol is only the peak of painfulness in this article.

Maybe you are not convinced. I sometime have the feeling that people like to have the sling as an ancient secret super weapon. It is not. There is a reason that slings were used only on small scales. Alexanders took with him javelinmen and archers from Crete but slingers were not explicitly labelled. Why, if it was an equivalent to modern handguns? There is a study of the U.S. Army Land Warfare Laboratory which gives us some data what non-penetrating projectiles like sling bullets can achieve, "dangerous injuries" between 40 and 120 Joule (f.e. contusions, broken ribs, blindness) and "severe injuries" about 120 Jolue (f.e. inner bleeding, broken skull). Look at the possible energies for sling bullets and you see that unarmored persons were in great danger. But add armor and shields ...

A last word: David was no ancient Jeff Cooper with a form of handgun against a dump ape named Goliath. He was a very brave young man, very good with his sling, and he hit his armored enemy at the one and only place that could win him the fight and save his live, the unarmored face of Goliath.

Edit: Unfortunately I don't have literature in English to cite. For those able to read German a look into Kneubuehl, Coupland, Rothschild, Thali "Wundballistik", 3. Aufl. 2008, S. 253 ff. would be helpful.

You're right geala, but there is one unfortunate fact regarding the Total War engines: they do not have an option for the modder to enter in impact area of projectiles. I don't even think it allows initial average velocity and average mass of projectiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Please do you a favour and don't take the cited article too seriously. The two firing modes are mere speculation. Perhaps interesting for a game however.

---

Not sure I would agree about that... there are only so many ways you can use a sling. There does seem to be fairly good evidence that at least some slingers could outrange some archers. How good the archers bows were is maybe more important than how good the slingers were but I very much doubt it was direct fire slings shooting further than even relatively weak bow.

The rest of what you said- probably right on. Lead bullets maybe puncture skin frequently but I thought most of the argument for the sling bullets was based on blunt force trauma, hence the talk about AP or not. Where an arrow might hit exposed surface and cause damage, a sling hitting even armor unless quite well made and sturdy beneath would pass on more energy to the person wearing the armour while an arrow being much more surface area loses velocity faster etc and causes less blunt damage.

The advantage of a slinger over an archer during the classical age was in his accuracy, precisely for the reason you gave: that it was usually fired directly (in a straight line) rather than indirectly (in an arch). An arrow could be heavily influenced by the wind or rain, whereas the sling was practically immune from conditions of use.

But as to your suggestion, there was no distinction amongst a unit of slingers besides experience. Yes, different types of slingers were better than others (i.e. Balaeric), but within that group (i.e. Balaeric) there was no distinction between elite and regular that I think you are trying to insinuate at. Even if there was, it is entirely a novel aspect of history that we managed to ascertain it and nothing else, and certainly not enough to warrant an "elite" slinger unit, such as Elite Balearics or Elite Celtic slingers. Slingers were considered elite by their cultural reknown and traditions, such as Balearic and Rhodisian, and because, face it, such peoples style of fighting was geared to that style. You wouldn't expect a Gaul to be as proficient as slinging.

It was the custom of the day, that when a slinger achieved distinction, he was promoted to the weilding of a spear or sword. These ranks, of true soldiers, was the area of distinction of the times.

Well, I don't know much about the historical use of slingers, but these have been my in game experiences with slingers and other ranged untis:

First of all, in M2TW, as others have said, archers and crossbowmen (but not handgunners) gained the ability to fire over obstacles in an extremely tall arc (pointing their bows or crossbows almost straight up as others have mentioned), something that actually rather does remsemble the "plunging" sling fire supposedly mentioned in the article. I haven't played that game in a while, but I remember this sort of fire being extremely inaccurate and I also recall having a tendency to go out of my way to ensure that my ranged units never fired on the enemy using this method (as to do so would, for the most part, would merely be wasting ammunition). I for one can't see any reason why slinger's couldn't be allowed to have this ability in EB 2, particularly when its impact on gameplay (from what I recall) is minimal.

Back in EB, meanwhile... I've been playing through a Makedon campaign lately and in my main army, two units of Cretians and two units of Spendonetai have been in direct competition almost the entire way throughout the campaign, the interesting thing being that there's almost nothing in it in terms of their effectiveness... Both the Cretians and the Spendos seem to get similar numbers of kills in each battle and three of the four units are on two silver chevrons (one of the Cretian units is on one silver). Additionally, in siege battles, by setting them up along the edge of the deployment area closest to the section of the town's walls I intend to assault with my rams, both the Cretians and the Spendos seem to have absolutely no trouble firing over Tier 2 walls (the bigger wooden ones) from that position... I don't know whether this indicates that slingers are overpowered in EB, but I think it may be something to consider...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Trek

Additionally, in siege battles, by setting them up along the edge of the deployment area closest to the section of the town's walls I intend to assault with my rams, both the Cretians and the Spendos seem to have absolutely no trouble firing over Tier 2 walls (the bigger wooden ones) from that position... I don't know whether this indicates that slingers are overpowered in EB, but I think it may be something to consider...

---

Thank you for that. I didn't know it and it's important for me. I'll consider it and keep it in mind.

A reason for two firing modes for slingers may be a note by Asklepiodotos, problematical as he may be. He wrote in the 1st c. BC, but at least partly seemed to have used older information.

He mentions one order for light troops as in the rear of the heavy troops (hypotaxis; Taktika Kephalaia, VI, 1). He mentions slingers as part of the light troops (I, 2) and says that the light troops sometimes shoot over the lines of heavy troops before them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Trek

Well, I don't know much about the historical use of slingers, but these have been my in game experiences with slingers and other ranged untis:

First of all, in M2TW, as others have said, archers and crossbowmen (but not handgunners) gained the ability to fire over obstacles in an extremely tall arc (pointing their bows or crossbows almost straight up as others have mentioned), something that actually rather does remsemble the "plunging" sling fire supposedly mentioned in the article. I haven't played that game in a while, but I remember this sort of fire being extremely inaccurate and I also recall having a tendency to go out of my way to ensure that my ranged units never fired on the enemy using this method (as to do so would, for the most part, would merely be wasting ammunition). I for one can't see any reason why slinger's couldn't be allowed to have this ability in EB 2, particularly when its impact on gameplay (from what I recall) is minimal.

Back in EB, meanwhile... I've been playing through a Makedon campaign lately and in my main army, two units of Cretians and two units of Spendonetai have been in direct competition almost the entire way throughout the campaign, the interesting thing being that there's almost nothing in it in terms of their effectiveness... Both the Cretians and the Spendos seem to get similar numbers of kills in each battle and three of the four units are on two silver chevrons (one of the Cretian units is on one silver). Additionally, in siege battles, by setting them up along the edge of the deployment area closest to the section of the town's walls I intend to assault with my rams, both the Cretians and the Spendos seem to have absolutely no trouble firing over Tier 2 walls (the bigger wooden ones) from that position... I don't know whether this indicates that slingers are overpowered in EB, but I think it may be something to consider...

---

In RTW you could mod projectiles and their trajects. So probably the issues could be fixed. As a max angle could be set IIRC. I don't know the details anymore as it's be quite a few years since I modded that.

Max and min angles can be set, so you can have quite a bit of control over trajectories.

and accuracy,...

@Geala:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Please do you a favour and don't take the cited article too seriously. The two firing modes are mere speculation. Perhaps interesting for a game however.

---

To a degree everything is speculation.
Those two firemodes are physically possible, make sense from a tactical perspective and are described by period sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Because a stone is a big projectile.

---

Slingstones actually arent. Thats why he talks about biconial sling stones. Their shape closer resembles that of almonds than that of a ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Do you believe anything shot from a sling could penetrate with 2 footponds (2,72 Joule)?

---

The 2 footpounds dont refer to the slingstone, thats a general number (although I agree it has to be linked to an area).
The article says, a slingstone has an impact energy of 82 footpounds (111,52 Joule).
So this is completly different from what you concluded from this part.
You concluded its says a round ball can penetrate the human body with 2 fp
when in fact it says a small biconial stone can penetrate human tissue with 82 fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Xenophon tells us too that it penetrates and disappears in the tissue. That means in many cases a superficial wound.

---

Maybe I am misreading your post, but if it disappears in human tissue, how can one conclude that this is a superficial wound?
I am not saying that a sling is a superweapon that goes through human bodies like a hot knife through butter but if a projectile completly disappears in a body, this is more than a scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

That the author compares the sling with a .45 ACP pistol is only the peak of painfulness in this article.

---

I am sceptical about this part as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

But add armor and shields ...

---

I agree on shields but not on armor. Most armour of the EB timeframe is flexible and thus blunt damadge will injure or kill an enemy without destroying his armor. And its also quite effective against non flexible armour. The Conquistadors really had a hard time fighting Inca slingers because their stones stunned and injured even those, who wore steel plate armours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

There is a reason that slings were used only on small scales.

---

Yes there is. It is limited training. Towards history people always moved toward ranged weapons that require less training.
The earliest crossbows were weaker than contemporary bows, but still they replaced them largely. It only takes a week of training to achieve skill with a crossbow, but it takes years to become a good archer. The first handguns were weaker than crannequin arbalests, but still they replaced them because handguns require even less training than crossbows.
It might be a similiar case with the slingshot. It's use requires even more experience than that of the bow and if you are doing it wrong you can easily wound or kill your friends standing around or behind you.


I am not an expert on ballistics or physics, I appreciate your scientific concerns and agree that the sling is no secret super weapon, but I think your critique was too harsh and did this article no justice.


@SlickNicaG69:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

and certainly not enough to warrant an "elite" slinger unit, such as Elite Balearics or Elite Celtic slingers

---

I never talked about Elite Balearics or Elite Celtic slingers. I talked about skilled slingers which can act as sharpshooters (all Balearic slingers, herdsmen from different cultures who have some tradition of slinging) and slingers which are only slingers because they can't afford any other equipment (Accensi). They only get enough training to fire in a rough direction and not to shoot each other. But they have enough skill to project some stones into the sky to create a nasty hail. See the difference?

And because the skilled slingers need direct sight to make use of their skills, they will stand in front of other troops. Thus they will need shields, also they are not poor thus can afford shields and for example different slings for different distances.

I am not saying these slingers are "elite", their skills are a product of they work and daily life, and their military role is a product of their skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

You wouldn't expect a Gaul to be as proficient as slinging.

---

Thats true, but gaulish or british herdsmen would come somewhat close to that and definitly be better than british peasants or youths who just use slings because they have nothing else.
Also infact there was a bit of a Celtic slinging culture, just look at the sheer amount of sling projectiles found at Celtic forts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

It was the custom of the day, that when a slinger achieved distinction, he was promoted to the weilding of a spear or sword.

---

No balearic slinger would be transformed into a full time caetratius.
What you are referring to is younger warriors, which are forced to fight as skirmisher before they can become real warriors.
And those I would put into the Accensi category.

This discussion seens to raise again the old discussion of slings effectiveness while the original topic seemed to be about the possibility to use angles with slings units. Seems to me that if they are allowed to fire in higher angles they will become a superpower in terms of MTW2 engine, so, unless someone discovers how to mod the eficiency of angled shots I believe giving slinger this abilities would hurt gameplay... I already find archers too inefective to bother recruiting (at least in the west).

Interesting read. But I'm not sure I would compare Balearic Slingers with snipers. They were more like precision artillery. They were unique in the world in throwing very heavy rocks, weighing 250 gram. And they were used in large numbers, and were not necessarily carrying shields.

The battle of Agrigento, the battle was going poorly.. until Hanno deployed 1000 balearic slingers. Crushing the greeks' armor. This is no small unit, but a brute force artillery barrage.

I would like to add a couple of points to this thread from the perspective of a slinger.

Sling bullets could infact pierce tissue if fired properly using the right stone or lead gland. The optimal shape for this is a 'squished egg', compressed so as to not comprimise the longest side and also smaller than a full sized chicken egg. An expert slinger could actually fire this while imparting a rifling spin to ensure that it hits its target with the smallest footprint. Perhaps the size and shape of your thumb, thrust forwards.

As for reasons of disuse, training was one of the main as someone already mentioned. I believe this is also why the crossbow was preferred over the bow, when infact it was an inferior weapon in most ways. Other reason being that they needed more space to operate, you could pack more archers into less space.

As for direct and indirect fire, I believe what has been said is mostly correct but I would like to point out one important thing. The spin that is imparted on the bullet is vital and unavoidable. Indirect fire would most likely be done using an underarm throw with a drop spin, reducing the height of the bullet rapidly throughout its trajectory but also allowing it to be fired at a much higher angle. The direct fire could be done a few ways but almost certainly done overhand, this actually outranges the other throws due to the spins, which can be acending or rifling.

If the EB team has specific questions regarding slings, the fellas at slinging.org are reallife modern day experts with an eye for historical accuracy. =)

I remember learning about the Roman assault on Masada, and how the defenders had only slings to defend themselves with. i always thought, wow how pathetic!, but stuff like this and EB has taught me that slings were a very viable and effective weapon. Interesting how the evolution of projectile weapons have been maximizing ease of use