Gameplay/Realism balance -a message to the developers

It seems that many people believe that having 100% realism in a mod for RTW does not detract from gameplay at all. This is simply not true, or at least not completely. I enjoyed playing RTR for a while but I became bored with the uniform unit roster of the Eastern factions. Historically, yes they were the successors of Alexander and used Greek hoplite tactics, but the problem with that is well...THEY'RE BORING!!! I wasn't a big fan of phalanx units in Vanilla RTW, but when RTR doubled or even tripled the number of them, I just tuned out and went back to Vanilla. So what if a faction is chariot based or something, like the "Egyptians" were in vanilla Rome? The variety was nice, and it really pissed me off that they pulled catapults (Onagers) from the game. Those were my favorite units. To me, nothing in the game was more fun than setting buildings ablaze during sieges using my Onagers. I was also bothered by the removal of Testudo formation from the Romans. How can anyone possibly think that none of these things will be missed? Another thing that bugged me about RTR was the sheer number of provinces in it. I got bored playing siege after siege and rarely fighting a battle on an open field.

That said, I am happy that mods like EB and RTR add a new level of realism to Rome Total War, but nothing is good when taken to the extreme. I don't enjoy first person shooters in which the player is killed with one shot either. There needs to be a balance of realism and fun. I've already stated my main complaints, but beyond that I agree that RTW needed to be much, much more realistic, and bug fixes were definitely in order. And yes, I am glad to see some of those dumb units like incendiary pigs, screeching women, and head hurlers removed and replaced with more realistic units.

It's your mod, and ultimately you guys can do whatever the hell you want with it, but I think if you heed my advice that you will attract many fans who were put off by RTR for the same reasons I was, and still satisfy most fans who are looking for a more realistic experience in Rome: Total War.

I hope you consider what I said here, but no matter what, you have my full support and I appreciate what you are doing for the Total War community.

In my oppinion EB is a mod from very experienced players or progamers for other players (or AI abusers like me :laugh4: )who miss the realism and challange in RTW. Even VH/VH in RTW was very easy not even to compare with EB in Medium setting.
I like this Mod very much. It gives me a little bit more challenge then RTW or BI. (Okey, the solution with 30.000 mnai per turn for the AI isn´t perfect and there are some problems with bribe and 1.2 AI) But at least it gives a challenge.
But I get some friends trying out the EB mod, too. And they think it is too hard, even on MD/MD. The AI sended stack after stack to attack them. In EB you have nealy 0 chance if you don´t rush the AI with your starting army. It is not made for common hobbie gamers (most players) in my oppinion.

Yes, but some people like apples, while others like oranges. I personally like both, so I eat a lot of fruit salads (aka play both vanilla and EB).

EB probably isn't the mod for you then. We're trying to make a realism mod, not attract fans. If vanilla is more your style than have all the fun with it you want, more power to you. If you want to make a personal mod and mix stuff from 20 other mods go for it, but EB will always be a realism mod first, and gameplay will only be secondary.

EDIT: (attrach is not a word!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

EB probably isn't the mod for you then. We're trying to make a realism mod, not attrach fans. If vanilla is more your style than have all the fun with it you want, more power to you. If you want to make a personal mod and mix stuff from 20 other mods go for it, but EB will always be a realism mod first, and gameplay will only be secondary.

---

Yeeyuhhh.

You see, EB isn't a multiplayer mod, so EB doesn't have to worry about attracting droves of fans in order to keep the game alive. And EB isn't a product for sale, so they don't have to worry about losing customer base!

Keep up the good work Qwerty!

Realism for life.

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9...tonyg4lyfe.jpg

EB is a multiplayer mod, or will be once we have the MP changes in our EDU. You'll see balance in that respect, because we can make the custom battle costs different from the in-game costs. And will, so that the costs reflect their battlefield impact, rather than the costs designed to have gameplay reflect history to an extent in the campaign.

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

---

With these realism mods, yea. These kind of mods are for history buffs and people in love with how the ancient world really was. It brings a sense of greater sense of immersiveness and authenticity.

This is where the word "sim/simulator" comes into play with computer games.

Operation flashpoint is a modern day infantry combat simulator, and in that game, gameplay does come second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

---

We'd rather it be right than fun, ie. no chariot mounted seige weapons, no matter how cool it might be. We don't seem to find the two incompatable all that often though.

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

We'd rather it be right than fun, ie. no chariot mounted seige weapons, no matter how cool it might be. We don't seem to find the two incompatable all that often though.

---

The perfect answer :2thumbsup:

Fun (gameplay) and realism are usually NOT mutually exclusive ~;), and many times are synergetic.

EB is not a mod for the masses. It's a specialized mod. It's not meant to unite all RTW players under a single banner, but rather rally the few who are in search of a more historically sound game. And heck, it may attract a few non-historical up-tights who just thought the game was cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

---

That's another way to put it. And yea, I follow the project reality mod for Battlefield 2.

i hav found that the added realism in EB is what makes it such a fantastic mod. i mean, look how much better the gameplay is in EB when all they were really trying to do is make the most realistic game possible using the engine. as far as i am concerned gameplay is directly proportional to realism.

Well, I play EB because it is the hardest, in my oppinion best Mod around.
Realism isn´t that important to me and I will still play EB if there were fantasy units integrated in the game (I like the thought of fighting Amazons as elite units very much and miss the easteregg in RTW a little :laugh4:).

Of course you can´t say that realism = fun in general but it is not so that you can say that realism is not fun either.

I like to play shooters too, especialy counterstrike and battlefield. But in these games it is still not realistic in extreme. You can still run and act normal with 1% heals as with 100% e.g. (Yes, they are still much more realistic than Unreal or Quake :P).

I like EB as it is now and the historic text infos are nice to read.
But Of course I still expect a much better gameplay with the next patches ^__^

BTW: Playing on VH battle settings has nothing to do with realism =)

Quote:

---

And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you.

---

Well I believe there needs to be a balance between realism and gameplay, in any game. I agree that it's ridiculous for fifty bullets not to kill the player, but on the other hand the player should not usually be instantly killed by a single bullet either unless it's in the head. If it's from a high-powered rifle, that makes sense if it's anywhere in the torso or head, since a rifle shot will typically penetrate all but the heaviest body armor. If shot in the arm or leg, it should cause some sort of handicap. But a couple rounds in the chest from a pistol, SMG, or even a shotgun should not kill someone wearing body armor. That isn't realistic either. Even if it was, it would be extremely frustrating in a singleplayer game, and probably multi too.
For instance, I enjoyed playing MOHAA online because I found it to have a perfect balance between realism and gameplay. You can get shot a few times and survive, but it doesn’t take a whole clip to kill someone either, especially at close range. Also, the frag grenade damage radius was quite realistic too. I’ve often found grenades to be nearly useless in multiplayer, but that wasn’t the case in MOHAA. They were quite lethal when used in the right situations.

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

---

haha, that would be a funny game.. i'd play it once at least!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

---

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

---

ditto qwerty, only i'm not an EB member. the shooter i had most fun with was ghost recon. the reason: if you got shot, you died, or at least were injured and unavailable for a little while. it actually required sound tactics to make it through a mission with your squad alive, unlike other games where as long as you can handle a rocket launcher decently enough you could dominate the game.

America's Army was good in this respect. A head shot = you're dead, but you might survive some other things, at least a couple of times. You died, you had to sit around and watch everybody else. Takes teamwork and tactics to win, not bunny-hopping and launching infinite rockets.

Flashpoint all the way when it comes to FPSs.

Quote:

---

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

---

Bleeding to death (if no medical attention is available) is an integral part of the ECP mod for OFP :grin:

Yeah, OFP is great! Was fun when an arm hit made it impossible to aim, or a leg hit forced you to crawl for the rest of a mission! I second whoever said it above (Qwerty I think) - REALISM = GAMEPLAY. Reality is so much more complex and interesting than dumbed down things, but dumbed down simulations can be interesting for training skills at more complex and realistic solutions. Realistic games/mods give both a possibility to learn stuff, forces you to think through your strategies more because of the extra complexity, and finally still maintains basic ideas of dumbed down gameplay versions such as spear beats cav, cav beats infantry, infantry beats cav, although here time, morale, fatigue and so on matters more than in RTW, and the difficulty level is higher.

Quote:

---

America's Army was good in this respect. A head shot = you're dead, but you might survive some other things, at least a couple of times. You died, you had to sit around and watch everybody else. Takes teamwork and tactics to win, not bunny-hopping and launching infinite rockets.

---

Yep it was good, but the problem with AA was that around 75% of the players would play it CS style, with all the jumps, rushs etc, thus getting killed in the 1st minute and ending the possibilities of any teamwork :inquisitive:

Jumping ist totaly overpowered in all shooters. Everyone is hopping like bunnies (Well, me too :sweatdrop: ). You are much harder to hit and often even move faster.

But back to realism. I remember my friend buying a sniper game (don´t know the name now) where you could just sit and wait, often about 5-7 until anybody runs though your aim and get shoot and killed. Then you Changi Position a little, camping and waiting again...
Realistic? Yeah, a little bit. But in my oppinion boring as hell. (In real you often have to wait hours and more :dizzy2: )
He liked the game much, so there are always different tastes.

even if you don't liek EB's gamelay...just turn on custom battle and stare at the units....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9...tonyg4lyfe.jpg

---

good god...please tell me that's not you.....

haha, of course it's not jerry. just some random picture of the intarweb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

---

I agree. It would be dreadful if we really had to wait three months for a turn to pas. However, I like to play this game because I want to experience the kind of dillemas a Roman (or Seleucid or Briton or whatever) commander faced. It has to stay a game, but within that game I like realism, because for me it improves the immersion. An EB feels far more realistic than R:TW ever did.

Alright, enough of this. I'm just going to ask what I really want to know. Are there Onagers in EB or not? That's all I care about.

No. I honestly don't know what will make it into the final version though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

No. I honestly don't know what will make it into the final version though.

---

but onagers are out of timeframe, aren't they? they'll never be in EB, right?

I don't think so, but real-life onagers weren't at all as portrayed in vanilla anyway. This makes it seem much closer to what most gamers would think of a ballista, certainly. I don't know if mangonel-style catapults such as the vanilla onagers were used in EB's timeframe.

Mangonels didn't exist until the 13th Century AD. Orangers are also out of EB's timeframe, not by as much, but quite a bit none the less.

I disagree, onagers are within your time frame :laugh4: :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onager :2thumbsup:

No Onagers? Oh, well I simply can't play Rome: Total War without them. Damn, guess I'll have to find another mod.
Good luck in your competition with RTR though. Hope you kick some ass.https://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2156/punchout3nm.gif

So sad that some people are so dependant on woo effects and bells and whistles...
Thats why dumbing down is the rule in today PC gaming industry...
:no: :no: :no:

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyberRaptor

Alright, enough of this. I'm just going to ask what I really want to know. Are there Onagers in EB or not? That's all I care about.

---

Aren't you the same guy that kept spamming the RTR forums with your whining about onagers?

I never "spammed" any complaint, so probably not. I did mention it a couple times, but there were several people who were repeatedly bringing it up. Certainly you don't think I'm the only one who objected to them being removed from the game.

Orangers are within your time frame, as iirc, the Greeks invented them but they weren't the huge things in RTW and they sucked compared to Ballistae.

You have Ballistae, right?

CyberRaptor, Orangers were a poor man's artillary, since they only had one arm. The guys will probably give you two armed rock shooters (Ballistae), which are far better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I disagree, onagers are within your time frame :laugh4: :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onager :2thumbsup:

---

Yes... however, unless we do something rather quickly, the Critically Endangered four-legged onager will no longer be around within OUR time frame...

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/de...p?species=7966

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Orangers are within your time frame, as iirc, the Greeks invented them but they weren't the huge things in RTW and they sucked compared to Ballistae.

You have Ballistae, right?

---

IIRC they were invented around 50BC (so at the end of our timeframe) by the Romans. We will have Ballistae though yes.

Well I had thought they were invented 280 BC but I think I got confused with the catapult, which would have been known in your time frame. In any case the onager was vastly inferior to Ballistae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arman616

Operation flashpoint is a modern day infantry combat simulator, and in that game, gameplay does come second.

---

Flashpoint also quite conveniantly has the best gameplay ive ever seen in a fps =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Well I had thought they were invented 280 BC but I think I got confused with the catapult, which would have been known in your time frame. In any case the onager was vastly inferior to Ballistae.

---

You're probably confusing the terminology, it's very strange. The "Catapulta" was actually a spear launching machine. The Lithobolos used the same desgin but was bigger and fire stones.

No what I'm actually doing is forgetting the Greek name for their "catapults" and using the modern generic.:embarassed: I'm aware of what a catapulta and a ballista are.

Haha, that would cause confusion too :laugh4:.

Operation Flashpoint rocks!!
:thrasher:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyberRaptor

It seems that many people believe that having 100% realism in a mod for RTW does not detract from gameplay at all. This is simply not true, or at least not completely. I enjoyed playing RTR for a while but I became bored with the uniform unit roster of the Eastern factions. Historically, yes they were the successors of Alexander and used Greek hoplite tactics, but the problem with that is well...THEY'RE BORING

---

who said RTR was 100% historically accurate?

*runs away before the shit starts*

So I assume there will be no ranged weapons that can damage walls if the onagers are removed?

Um, isn't it a lot easier to just use a battering ram? Or starve them out (because I never have enough infantry to assault a city...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Um, isn't it a lot easier to just use a battering ram? Or starve them out (because I never have enough infantry to assault a city...)

---

Gee, wonder why. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

So I assume there will be no ranged weapons that can damage walls if the onagers are removed?

---

The Lithobolos will be in, which is basically a stone firing Ballista.

Jerby, don't start, or I will hurt you.
:wall:

My favorite military style fps were GhostRecon and Operation Flashpoint. I enjoyed the realisticness.

Oh yeah, I also like Rainbow Six.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

So I assume there will be no ranged weapons that can damage walls if the onagers are removed?

---

I like how you ignored everything I said, not to mention Querty.

What? There was no mention of wall-destruction until I asked. I was wondering whether or not the, what was it, lithibolos or whatever would be able to knock down stone walls. I had no idea how powerful it (only that it threw stones) and its fellows would be, so I asked (I admit I was concerned or expected that pre-onager tech wouldn't be strong enough to shatter stone walls). I certainly didn't ignore anyone.

I don't understand this obsessive compulsion you have with onagers. I personally think the Palintonon devices look much more majestic. A palintonon has a symmetrical aesthetic design, and if big enough it can fire just as large stones as an onager can. A perfectly designed palintonon or ballista can throw the projectile far enough. The onager has the benefit of the sling-shot at the end, increasing range. The onager also has the benefit of being simpler to maintain, having only one washer. The main reason the onager was a natural evolution, was the fact that the palintonon/euthytonon designs were far too complicated to maintain easily. The more complicated something is, the more likely it is to malfunction. Murphy's law (or one of them..anyways..)

The Onager isn't mentioned until after Constantine.. It is first mentioned by Marcellus Ammianus, who lived in the 350s AD. Though it's a common assumption its invention came earlier, in the 1st to 2nd century AD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qwerty

IIRC they were invented around 50BC (so at the end of our timeframe) by the Romans. We will have Ballistae though yes.

---

The Romans only imitated the Greek designs, and then made up Latin names for all the components of the machine. "Oxybeles" became the "Catapulta" (arrow firer). The "Syrinx" became the "Diostra" (the slide-track). "Lithobolos" became the "Ballista" (stone-projector) - etc.

The fact that the Romans, especially Vitruvius, started making latin words for the greek artillery designs, shows their state of mind. They wanted to "romanize" this technology and make it their own. It was a thorn in their side that the Greeks had been attributed the invention of this marvel of technology. And indeed, Vitruvius and his men found ways to improve the Greek designs, increasing their ranges by at least 20 to 25%. And so the "Ballista" compared to the "Lithobolos" should look slightly different with regard to the spring-frame (though most people won't see the difference), and the "Ballista" should have a higher range and power. But it would also have to take more time for the Romans to acquire this technology, to reflect the fact that Romans didn't have much need for artillery, nor experience with it.

The first torsion devices were invented by Greek engineers working under Philippos II Macedonon, Alexandros' father. The first successful torsion-devices were the euthytonon spring-frames. Roughly around 354 BC.



Judge for yourself. ~;)

Lithobolos Palintonon
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/Palintonon.gif


Onager
http://198.144.2.125/Siege/OtherSieg.../OnagerPic.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

What? There was no mention of wall-destruction until I asked. I was wondering whether or not the, what was it, lithibolos or whatever would be able to knock down stone walls. I had no idea how powerful it (only that it threw stones) and its fellows would be, so I asked (I admit I was concerned or expected that pre-onager tech wouldn't be strong enough to shatter stone walls). I certainly didn't ignore anyone.

---

Well I told you the Onager was less effective than the Ballista. As Shigawire says the onager's main advantage is ease of maintainance, something that wouldn't have been an issue until around 300 AD when Rome came out of the Civil Wars with its coffers near empty and the training of its Legions having taken a nose dive.

A two armed torsion weapon has the advantage of two springs, which increases power and accuracy. So basically the Onager is a poor man's artillery.

Well then.....


Is there siege artillery in this era?


Will it be available generally, or constructed for sieges only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

A two armed torsion weapon has the advantage of two springs, which increases power and accuracy. So basically the Onager is a poor man's artillery.

---

You may have misunderstood me. The onager has superior range and power to the ballista, due to the sling-motion involved. There are no benefits of using the ballista over the onager, other than the fact that it's easier to aim with (higher initial accuracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is there siege artillery in this era?
Will it be available generally, or constructed for sieges only?

---

Yes, as you could see in my last post. Though arrow projectors have little use in the game as it is. You see, arrow projectors' main purpose was to provide covering fire for regular siege operations. If "covering fire" doesn't make the enemy cower, then it's not technically providing "covering fire". Historically, the first ever catapult was made for this purpose, at the siege of Motya when the Syracusans attacked the Carthaginian main base on Sicilia, Motya.

I see that stoneprojectors will naturally still have a clearcut role, but it's different with the arrow projectors. I am not sure how this could ever be reflected in any way. Supressive fire cannot be reflected without having access to the sourcecode. They were particularly useful in Caesar's sieges for hindering repair-efforts on enemy walls. The Gaul wooden wall had caught fire at a point, and the Gauls started dousing the fire with water. Caesar directed many or all of his scorpios to that part of the wall, killing the Gauls as they came with the bucket of water.

Ideally, we'd have greek machines initially: Oxybeles (arrow projector), Lithobolos (stone projector)
Only buildable by the Greek and Carthaginian factions.

Almost everyone else (barbs, romans etc, NOT persians) would at this stage have to capture siege artillery manufactured by the enemy. We will script this..

It's also possible to make some of them mercenaries, since these engineers sold their services to the highest bidder often.

Later, the Romani will get the much improved Catapulta (arrow projector) and Ballista (stone projector), which are perfections of the Greek designs. This will require a high MIC and academia to reflect the time it took for the Romani to get started in the field of belopoiika..

As to your question of whether or not it will be built in general or before a siege.. I don't even think it's possible to build it before a siege. I think we are forced to use the system as it is. Hardcoded. So I think it'll be "in general". It is a bit ridiculous to bring a giant Lithobolos to a battlefield, but that's just something we'll have to live with I guess.

Oh, ok. I could have sworn the onager was inferior, pound for pound. Well never mind, I'll put Roman artillery on my to-read list.

wouldn't it be a good idea to have less provinces, when i first found out that there were less in BI i was annoyed, but now ive tried it it is actually more fun, you end up fighting more battles in the field which is more fun and realistic then siege after siege against huge stone walls you could use forts to represent smaller settlements, after all historically many conqusts happened by taking the capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shigawire

You may have misunderstood me. The onager has superior range and power to the ballista, due to the sling-motion involved. There are no benefits of using the ballista over the onager, other than the fact that it's easier to aim with (higher initial accuracy).

---

I think you forgot about "bullet" path - onager one is flying much higher and trus it's less likely to hit wall, but could destroy buildings insde city. Ballista "bullet" is flying low (or at least it could) so it is better in crushing walls.

You can actually make art buildable during siege - the tower is armed so you could replace arrow projector "inside tower" with balista or lithobolos creating sth like Helepolis.
this will probably be a problem as you want to make art slower spreading and siege towers are the same in every culture.

Will this in field art slowdown army carrying them, like in vanilia?
I think they shouldn't as those were either carried in parts or build in place so art should move on camp map as fast as infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

I think you forgot about "bullet" path - onager one is flying much higher and trus it's less likely to hit wall, but could destroy buildings insde city. Ballista "bullet" is flying low (or at least it could) so it is better in crushing walls.

---

This is incorrect. Firstly, the Onager is mural artillery. It is made to take down walls, and does it quite well. Nobody develops artillery in this era for the purpose of destroying regular buildings. Secondly, both the ballistae/lithoboloi and onagri can be adjusted a great deal and can achieve the same AOA. Although the Ballista is truly easier to adjust in order to fire at low angles of 5-10 degrees.
Thirdly, the default Exit AOA (Angle Of Attack) is almost identical between the Ballista and Onager. The optimum AOA for a stone-projector is 43.5°, for maximum range of 420 meters with a 30-mina stone-projector (13kg).
Unsurprisingly, the Onager uses the exact same optimum AOA of around 43.5°.

Besides. It doesn't matter, because in either case it's adjustable. On the onager, it is adjustable by the crossbar as well as by adjusting/replacing the sling, while on the palintonon/ballista it's adjustable by tilting the entire syrinx/diostra as well as the daktyl.

Then sorry. I was not aware that onager could be so easily adjusted.

What about my other questions?

Could you give lithobolos and balistae parameter that makes them less powerful in rain?

Well, the onager cannot "easily" be adjusted. Nor can the ballista/palintonon be easily adjusted. It takes a lot of effort on both. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

Could you give lithobolos and balistae parameter that makes them less powerful in rain?

---

I hope so, but I'm not sure.