Artillery unrealistic?

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
ralff55	Artillery unrealistic?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 64 09/18/08 00:24:08	Tags : ballista, artillery, unrealistic, change, changes I recently took part in a siege defence as a defender against 2 besieging armies. 1 with catapults and 1 with ballistas. Of course seeing the ballistas I thought to myself... Well they can't exactly do anything with those but snipe my men on the walls, but Ooo, the catapults, those can breach my Huge Stone Wall (yes, highest upgrade). So upon start of game I send out some men on a "sucidal" mission to destory the enemy catapults, granted they did all die, but they killed the catapult operators and most of a armoured sergents unit. However to my surprize when suddenly I get the "your wall has been destoryed" frame. My question about real ballistas is this... Since when can ballistas destory Huge Stone Walls? I obviously wasn't back in Medieval times but i'm pretty sure that at best, all they could do was catch a wooden wall on fire, and even then would be pressed hard to be lucky enough to do that. I find it obsurdingly unrealistic for ballistas to be able to do that to stone walls. How come in Rome Total war the Ballistas couldn't do that? Why start now? Last Edited By: ralff55 10/01/08 08:42:12. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Dane324		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1450 09/18/08 04:11:11	They probably give it 1 damage each time they hit the walls with the ballista, so they are also a threat to you.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Peacemaker EAF92		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4993 09/18/08 09:14:47	Agreed. They really shouldn`t destroy stone walls. Technically, they CAN destroy walls in reality, but it would take way too long. Not feasible. They are pretty easy to take out though once you realise the threat.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
ralff55		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 64 09/18/08 12:15:34	yeah, if it chips away a bit of stone each time, Though I think you may as well naturally wait for weither wear and tear before waiting on that... Point is it shouldn't crumble after several hits lol. I could see doing like what they did in Rome total war where you can hammer the gate with a balista, that'd be realistic enough, but crumbling a Giant stone wall in accouple minutes with a "giant crossbow" is pretty odd.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Thebonecollector		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 478 09/18/08 12:17:58	You are better off throwing rocks at the wall than shooting ballistas into it so I agree with ralff55
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Frank Dale		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 714 09/22/08 13:58:30 Knight	Definitely agree, should be like in RTW, ballistas should not even be able to target stone structures. A really big arrow going really really fast........is still just an ARROW. Against even a sturdy wooden wall made of thick logs, it would take a very long time to make a breach. For this tactics of sallying out to destroy siege artillery, ideally one should keep a few of the faster cavalry like Mailed Knights, that can still hit hard, then get out before they're overrun. I usually pull it off with less than 50% casualties, sometimes almost no casualties.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Dane324		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1450 09/22/08 16:09:19	Frank Dale wrote: Definitely agree, should be like in RTW, ballistas should not even be able to target stone structures. A really big arrow going really really fast........is still just an ARROW. Against even a sturdy wooden wall made of thick logs, it would take a very long time to make a breach. I disagree entirely a solid metal bolt say traveling at 150 mph and weighing about 50 pounds and being about 6 feet long would go straight through a wall of logs, although it would create little holes not gaps
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Frank Dale		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 714 09/22/08 17:00:14 Knight	Dane324 wrote: I disagree entirely a solid metal bolt say traveling at 150 mph and weighing about 50 pounds and being about 6 feet long would go straight through a wall of logs, although it would create little holes not gaps Ballista bolts were made entirely of metal? Even so, I can't imagine one 6 ft. long weighing in at 50 lbs.! If this is true then I could imagine them doing worthwhile damage to wooden structures, but still not worth using against stone, agreed?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
daelin4		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5594 09/22/08 18:14:17 Administrator	This problem has been around long before the patches. Does anyone know if the currently latest versions of MTW2 address this issue? In fact, I'll fire up Britannia and find out myself- at the expense of the English!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
ralff55		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 64 10/01/08 08:49:34	I have the latest updates for Medieval 2 and I'm still knocking down English walls with Scotish Balistas. I added a picture to the top showing the bolts being used against a large stone wall. Personally, that little bolt knocking down that large wall doesn't seem fesable, even if it is a solid steel (or raught iron) bolt weighing in at 50 pounds going 150 MPH, i'm sure it would only chip away some of the stone. Say if you had a nearly endless supply of bolts to fire at the wall, after several 1000 bolts, perhaps you could have powered through a small man sized hole. But I still don't find that a reason to knock down a wall with 15 shots with the ballista.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Angelmaker		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 272 10/02/08 02:28:22	ralff55 wrote: Personally, that little bolt knocking down that large wall doesn't seem fesable, even if it is a solid steel (or raught iron) bolt weighing in at 50 pounds going 150 MPH, i'm sure it would only chip away some of the stone. Say if you had a nearly endless supply of bolts to fire at the wall, after several 1000 bolts, perhaps you could have powered through a small man sized hole. But I still don't find that a reason to knock down a wall with 15 shots with the ballista. And even then the hole in the wall would be closed by the several thousands of shots that pluck in the Wall. Now it´s a hole in the wall - still it´s a very spikey one. Better of without the hole if you ask me. Yes, I agree, a ballista really isn´t the best Siege weapon against walls.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
vFrundsberg		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 10/02/08 09:00:52	It's the fault with the point system. You can also knock down walls with Ribalts! Might was well use muskets. Historically it was hard enough for cannon to breach walls. Old style castle walls were vulnerable to post 1500 cannon but could be reinforced with earthworks such as at Rhodes in 1522, Pavia in 1525 and Vienna in 1529. Latter forts designed to resist cannon could last almost indefinetly. The Forts at Malta proved nearly impregnable against the Turks in 1565. Only Ft. St. Elmo fell after a month long bombarbment. The small garrison still killed thousands of Turks. I might also add that assualting a narrow breach is risky business historically. In MTW2 the rubble magically disappears! In fact it is a serious obstacle to infantry and impassable for cavalry. Just take a look at the scene in "Kingdom of God" where the crusaders hold the breach against Saladin. Holding the top and supported by archers on the walls they could have stayed there all day. (Gravity is a great ally to the defender but it seems to have little effect in MTW) In "Siege Warfare" by Duffy there are period illustrations showing how a breach could be contained by erecting an earthwork around it inside the wall. Even the small palisaded forts are too easily taken. In Europe a "Fort" would be mostly an earthwork consisting of a ditch with the dirt piled up inside and topped with a low palisade. (like the defences on the Pavia map) Such an earthwork would offer some protection from artillery. Even a simple palisade would have firing platforms for archers and musketeers or loopholes in the walls. Being in the US I have seen seperiod reconstructions at Plymouth, MA and Jamestown, VA. Even in California there are several 18th Century Spanish Adobe forts with cannon ports at ground level. There is also a reconstructed timber fort near Ft. Bragg, CA originally built by the Russians in 1830 with two very solid wood block-houses with cannon. An adobe fort would be more likely for the Americas Campaign than a Palisade Fort - especially in the desert. Last Edited By: vFrundsberg 10/02/08 09:06:22. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
daelin4		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5594 10/02/08 14:20:29 Administrator	I think the game system makes all artillery units have the same base value, as an unintended side effect made all siege weapons have a rather large damage against walls. other untis like Monster Bombards obviously have higher damage.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
ralff55		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 64 10/02/08 21:11:20	thanks alot vfraundsberg, had alot of good information in it. Doing something like that I could see takeing a huge rework of the system though I'd really love to see that put into the game. In the very lest if they could come up with a fix where you couldn't knock down walls with balistas or espeically Ribalts, it'd be great to see. Yeah I saw that movie Kingdom of Heaven and yes seeing that huge stack of rubble there made me think of the nice clean little paths that show up in the game. Another thing I noticed is unlike in Rome Total war, units up against the walls don't get hurt by the falling rubble. It just seems to magicly pass through them.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
vFrundsberg	Artillery	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 10/04/08 09:16:35	Ralff55 - Thanks for your reply. I don't think it would be too hard for one of our Modders to prevent rubble from disappearing. It would also have to be impassable for cavalry and artillery. Perhaps a bonus for infantry defending on the rubble. That would really make a change in the game - the attacker would have to capture a gate to bring in his cavalry. It should not be difficult to change the skin of wood stockade forts to adobe. It would certainly look better for desert maps in the American SW, Spain, North Africa or Middle East. Lastly they really need to allow cannon to fire from inside walls through ground level gunports. Cannon units only have two guns so space should not be an issue. As it is now simple stockade forts are vitually POW camps (unless you have trajectory missile weapons) You may recall the scene in the movie "Zulu" where the hospital was attacked. The Brit soldiers simply dug firing loops through the wall with their bayonets. These changes would improve the chances of the defender - which is badly needed. A castlr of walled city is a major investment and it should be difficult to capture. Yes, these changes would slow the game but that is the point.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
mrbayazit		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 165 10/06/08 14:04:58	maybe they fired missiles with ropes and pulled the ropes smashed into the walls and tear down the walls?!? :P
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
ralff55		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 64 10/06/08 19:54:16	Perhaps against stockaids but not stone walls. Gun ports would be nice, perhaps they will add them in Empire total war? As for rubble yeah that'd be great! the only way calvery could get involved would give if the attackers could take gates to allow in the calvery. Perhaps if they wanted to make it a bit easier for the attackers, allow units to clear out rubble after pushing back the defenders. I could see how problems would accure with fortresses and citidaels as rams and siege towers would also basicly be unable to pass through the rubble as well.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Artillery unrealistic?

Artillery unrealistic?

Quick Reply