Ammunition and the effectiveness of slingers

[Joszen1]

Hello all, sorry if this is the wrong spot.

The thread is to discuss the feasibility and value of a suggested change to the way slingers are represented in EBII.

As I understand it slingers of the time where effective, more so against armoured opponents than archers in the west were. It strikes me that this would be true if the ammunition the slingers were using were the well-formed lead, stone or clay bullets. A pre-made lead bullet would be more deadly than the nearest (non-round) stone that the slinger grabs (correct me at any point where my logic is faulty). So perhaps slingers should be given two types of ammunition:
1. pre-made slingshot, high accuracy, high lethality type
2. at-hand stoney-things, lower accuracy, low lethality type

This could be represented using the 'fire arrows' function possibly. Where selecting the 'fire arrows' box turns on the low accuracy type bullets, and turns off ammunition use. Effectively this gives the slingers limitless poor quality ammunition. This could be even better if the option was only available to defending armies, representing the opportunity to gather and stockpile this type of ammunition just before battle.

Perhaps this is simply an unnecessary complication, but I believe it adds depth to the balance or ranged-unit use. In EBI it is all too easy for slingers to decimate armies, even against armoured foes. Perhaps they should be given only 10 'armour piercing bullets' to represent their capacity, but also the limitation of slingers in armies in general.

[Andy1984]

Nice idea, but I'm afraid the engine only allows for two weapons: a sling (missile) and a knife (or any other melee weapon). You can't give two kinds of ranged weapons and a melee weapon to a single unit.

[Foot]

This could be represented using the 'fire arrows' function possibly. Where selecting the 'fire arrows' box turns on the low accuracy type bullets, and turns off ammunition use. Effectively this gives the slingers limitless poor quality ammunition. This could be even better if the option was only available to defending armies, representing the opportunity to gather and stockpile this type of ammunition just before battle.

You cannot give two types of ammunition to the same unit. Fire Arrrows is hardcoded and simply adds predetermined fire bonus to the archers ammo. There is no secondary ammo for them to draw upon. In short, not possible. Additionally, slingers would often not be fighting on ground that had suitable material to be used as ammunition. Slingers are a product of the mountains, a terrain that is not suitable for large-scale battles.

However, I do believe that something can be done with the slingers to make their role on the battlefield more unique and specialised than it is currently.

Foot

[Joszen1]

I wasn't suggesting trying to give the slingers three weapons, I was suggesting converting the bonus given by fire arrows be changed to a 'negative bonus' or penalty, while at the same time reducing the amount of ammo used out of the pool by these shots. Eg. if total pool = 10, and each normal shot costs 1, and these poorer shots cost 0, so 10 good shots, limitless bad ones. But, as Foot says it is hardcoded, so I guess that is just too bad. Thanks for the clarification, I have no doubt that the mod is going to be awesome and wait patiently to experience it.

[ComteTallaFerroXIV]

I remeber in MTW2 that the trebuchet had three types of ammo: Normal missiles, fire missiles and carrion. The fire and the normal missiles got used up mutualy but, when they finished, you had a full supply of carrion ammo.

Is that only applicable on seige wepons?

[Cute Wolf]

I remeber in MTW2 that the trebuchet had three types of ammo: Normal missiles, fire missiles and carrion. The fire and the normal missiles got used up mutualy but, when they finished, you had a full supply of carrion ammo.

Is that only applicable on seige wepons?

it was listed in third weapon in EDU... but if there was no siege weapon attached, then it will be useless (but you can give cannons carrion shots too), and the EB team somewhat found the way to activate it, bet they'll use it for Cavalry Archer-Lancer-Swords first, rather than worry about slingers

[WinsingtonIII]

it was listed in third weapon in EDU... but if there was no siege weapon attached, then it will be useless (but you can give cannons carrion shots too), and the EB team somewhat found the way to activate it, bet they'll use it for Cavalry Archer-Lancer-Swords first, rather than worry about slingers

And considering I have never seen a mod make cavalry in that way, I kind of doubt it is possible... If it was possible I think someone would have already jumped all over it and we'd be seeing units with three weapons in a lot of mods.

[geala]

"No" to the TS.

I could start with my often repeated remarks that sling projectiles could not be much more devastating to armored people than javelins and arrows. That is just a matter of the physique involved. And many projectiles were often so light (20 to 30 g) that real danger for armored personal did not exist on normal distances. Please do not overestimate Vegetius, he, being no soldier, did not ever know exactly of what he wrote. But ok, let it be...

Why should a lead projectile of 50 g be more effective than a stone projectile of 50 g? The delivered energy is just the same (if the stone wouldn't split to fragments), if velocity was the same. The start energy of both projectiles ist more or less the same, because the weight, not the material or volume, is the factor that causes how much energy of the possible "weapon transfer energy" (here through the centrifugal movement of the lever, analogous to the spring energy for bows or chemical energy for powder weapons) is stored in a projectile. The lead bullet would of course have a longer range cause it would be smaller and more aerodynamically formed than a stone of the same weight. Cause it looses less velocity per metre, it looses also less energy and so would hit harder at greater distances. But this is no reason to give stone projectile slingers less lethality over all distances.

The diversity could be in the range and the number of ammunition. I changed my slingers from the beginning of EB in this way. Celtic slingers f.e. used probably stone projectiles (at least they are often found in Celtic fortresses). Same perhaps for Asiatic and the poor simple Greek slingers. Rhodian slingers on the other hand used lead bullets, so had a longer reach. Some aspects of this are already in EB. It should be similar in EB II.

[bobbin]

"No" to the TS.

I could start with my often repeated remarks that sling projectiles could not be much more devastating to armored people than javelins and arrows. That is just a matter of the physique involved. And many projectiles were often so light (20 to 30 g) that real danger for armored personal did not exist on normal distances. Please do not overestimate Vegetius, he, being no soldier, did not ever know exactly of what he wrote. But ok, let it be...

The lightest an average slingshot weighed was around 30-40g but this could easliy range up to 100g or more. Arrows weigh less and javelins travel much slower so your average slingshot would probably carry more energy. Vegetius isn't a bad source, sure he wasn't a soldier but he would have known many and so would be well aquainted with the effects of slings.

Why should a lead projectile of 50 g be more effective than a stone projectile of 50 g? The delivered energy is just the same (if the stone wouldn't split to fragments), if velocity was the same. The start energy of both projectiles ist more or less the same, because the weight, not the material or volume, is the factor that causes how much energy of the possible "weapon transfer energy" (here through the centrifugal movement of the lever, analogous to the spring energy for bows or chemical energy for powder weapons) is stored in a projectile. The lead bullet would of course have a longer range cause it would be smaller and more aerodynamically formed than a stone of the same weight. Cause it looses less velocity per metre, it looses also less energy and so would hit harder at greater distances. But this is no reason to give stone projectile slingers less lethality over all distances.

Stone is less dense therefore a 50g bullet would be much bigger than a lead one, conversely you could say that a lead bullet could mass more for the same size as a stone, the advantages are pretty clear.

If we are to stick to 50g bullets the lead one will be much smaller and experience less drag (assuming that your average slinger was firing at a target ~100m away this is a big bonus) and when impacting a surface will transfer its kinetic energy over a smaller area therefore increase its penetrating ability.

Also stone are very likely to shatter when striking something hard like armour, this has a major effect on its penetrating power (some modern bullet proof vest work on a similar principle), the lead bullet on the other hand stays whole allowing better energy transfer.

To recap, while both would leave the sling at the same speed the stone bullet would lose energy quicker due to drag and be less effective when striking the target.

[Joszen1]

Also, my idea was that prepared bullets (of whatever material; stone, lead etc.) would be more round and of the optimum weight than hastily gathered 'bullets' of the same material because of irregularities in shape etc.

[geala]

The lightest an average slingshot weighed was around 30-40g but this could easliy range up to 100g or more. Arrows weigh less and javelins travel much slower so your average slingshot would probably carry more energy. Vegetius isn't a bad source, sure he wasn't a soldier but he would have known many and so would be well aquainted with the effects of slings.

The most findings of glandes or the Greek equivalence have weights between 20 and 50 g, 100 g is an exception. 20 to 50 g is exactly the weight of arrows used by antique war bows, when we can judge from the findings of arrow tips. Medieval arrows could weight to 100 g. Javelins travel much slower than arrows and sling bullets but are heavier, so the energy at effective range was quite similar. Slings were not used against foes who were very near, so you cannot compare the E10 of a sling bullet to a E10 of a javelin.

I sling myself and I like the sling very much, it is a marvellous weapon, but I would still by very pleased if only one trustable ancient report could be quoted that shows devastating effects of slingers against armored foes. I know the events at the battle of Eknomos where the Balearic slingers crushed the Greek shields and alledly saved the day. However, to crush a shield you really need the one mina stones described, a projectile that is quite unusual and would have a very minor range.

Normally missile troops were used against missile troops, in many ancient reports about the ritualistic clashes of the light troops at the beginning of the battles you can read about the indecisiveness and uselessness of these fightings. I never read however that slingers were especially used against armored elite troops, a task they should have had if they had been the ap beasts of EB.

Stone is less dense therefore a 50g bullet would be much bigger than a lead one, conversely you could say that a lead bullet could mass more for the same size as a stone, the advantages are pretty clear.

If we are to stick to 50g bullets the lead one will be much smaller and experience less drag (assuming that your average slinger was firing at a target ~100m away this is a big bonus) and when impacting a surface will transfer its kinetic energy over a smaller area therefore increase its penetrating ability.

Also stone are very likely to shatter when striking something hard like armour, this has a major effect on its penetrating power (some modern bullet proof vest work on a similar principle), the lead bullet on the other hand stays whole allowing better energy transfer.

To recap, while both would leave the sling at the same speed the stone bullet would lose energy quicker due to drag and be less effective when striking the target.

I wrote more or less the same. But your and my argument indicate that at certain distances the stone and the lead projectile of a sling had the same energy and so the same effectivity. A projectile of the same weight, stone or lead, would have more or less the same velocity and therefore energy at the start of its trajectory. At f.e. 50 m the lead bullet still had an energy of 70 Joule (just examples, the exact performance of slinsg is a mystery), the stone bullet of 50 Joule, because the velocity dropped faster for the bigger bullet through air resistance. But that means that the stone bullet somewhere, let's say 30 m, the stone had an energy of 70 Joule. But if EB II would give stone bullets less killing power, that would mean less killing power over the whole trajectory, and that would be wrong.

[bobbin]

Normally missile troops were used against missile troops, in many ancient reports about the ritualistic clashes of the light troops at the beginning of the battles you can read about the indecisiveness and uselessness of these fightings. I never read however that slingers were especially used against armored elite troops, a task they should have had if they had been the ap beasts of EB.

I recall something about Alexander the Great using them to attack the Persian heavy cav at Gaugamela, not definite though. I agree slingers in EB were too powerful and they will probably be toned down for EBII.

I wrote more or less the same. But your and my argument indicate that at certain distances the stone and the lead projectile of a sling had the same energy and so the same effectivity.

Yes that is true but then you have to take into account the physical properties of the bullets, the lead ones were better at transfering their energy to the target.

A projectile of the same weight, stone or lead, would have more or less the same velocity and therefore energy at the start of its trajectory. At f.e. 50 m the lead bullet still had an energy of 70 Joule (just examples, the exact performance of slinsg is a mystery), the stone bullet of 50 Joule, because the velocity dropped faster for the bigger bullet through air resistance. But that means that the stone bullet somewhere, let's say 30 m, the stone had an energy of 70 Joule. But if EB II would give stone bullets less killing power, that would mean less killing power over the whole trajectory, and that would be wrong.

It would much more wrong to give them equal killing power over the whole trajectory considering that for the majority of it the lead bullet would be of higher energy.

A simple calculation to prove my point:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Assume each bullet is 50g and spherical.
Density of stone (granite in this case) = 2.75 g/cm3, Density of Lead = 11.34 g/cm3

Therefore: Volume of Stone bullet = 50/2.75 = 18.18cm3, Volume of Lead bullet = 50/11.34 = 4.41cm3

Using Volume of a sphere =

we get R(Stone) = 1.63cm, R(Lead) = 1.02cm

can use this to calculate the cross sectional area of each projectile: A(Stone) = 8.04cm2, A(Lead) = 3.27cm2
and input into this equation for drag resistance.

for simplicity p (air density) and Cd (drag coefficient) are taken as = 1 as both would be the same for each projectile
set velocity (v) to 30m/s

F(Stone) = 3618N, F(Lead) = 1472N (note these are not the actual forces its just done to compare the ratio of forces felt)

From this we see that the air resistance on the stone is almost 2.5 times greater than the lead bullet and so would slow down quicker.

Edit: Perhaps ignore that bit of maths as it really doesn't prove that the stone bullets move slow as the air resistance factor could be very small. The main point still stands though.

[geala]

I concur with your math and arguments. But imo the inferior effectiveness of stone bullets still could be best and very simply simulated by less range for slingers who used presumably stones in the ancient times. Because with the other method, which is more difficult to realize, we will not get a totally satisfying system too.