[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="http://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_33_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Built in strategic and highly defensible locations, castles enabled lords to exert power over the surrounding populace and protect their lands against any would-be invaders. Towering parapets gave the defenders vantage points from which to rain down a hail of missiles on anyone foolish enough to try a direct assault, and thick, sturdy walls provided ample protection for those within.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/53
Dev Blog 29/03/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
hiul
Sergeant at Arms
i dont mind if they use that big crossbow ballista but it will be better if they improve/change it to the real one though (as i mention i dont know much about siege engine, so i dont know is that big crosbow ballista may actually exist in real life or not).
the same with other siege engine mentioned by innocent flower that it look rough and have a big gap hole, it will be better if they change or improve it or turn it into a unique feature for different faction culture or a result from bad siege engine skill.
and i dont see this ruin fun either, it just change the graphic or animation not gameplay, just like when tw improve the tree, which no one really care with the old one either, except one person nitpick and we end up got the beautiful believable tree, or the real mongolian horse actually look like.
the same with other siege engine mentioned by innocent flower that it look rough and have a big gap hole, it will be better if they change or improve it or turn it into a unique feature for different faction culture or a result from bad siege engine skill.
and i dont see this ruin fun either, it just change the graphic or animation not gameplay, just like when tw improve the tree, which no one really care with the old one either, except one person nitpick and we end up got the beautiful believable tree, or the real mongolian horse actually look like.
hiul said:
the classic ballista could be quite big and throw big rocks, but at the game timeframe with the mangonel and trebuchet it wouldn't be in use. The smaller ones (anti-personal) would, the ones for spears/darts. If you visit a source like Wikipedia you will notice they are quite bad as a reference, they mix names and pictures for weapons like the scorpio and ballista, and the earlier greek versions.
Wikipedia pics
Web has conflicting pictures for similar weapons. A complication of ancient designs, lack of historical references, and the variety used on different nations and centuries.
they could had used the Roman version for this weapon (small ballista with springs), but not a big deal IMO. The biggest issue with the game model is if it does too much wall damage, it would work better as a anti siege weapon (burn towers) and anti-personal (kill soldiers no matter if they have armor and shield).
Remember, siege engines can only destroy merlons and crenallations on the walls, not the actual walls themselves in the battle. It's only on the worldmap that damage to the walls themselves is possible
Wilhelmus Van Laecken
Regular
Roccoflipside said:
So I've heard, but this makes me wonder why they would bring trebuchets in as a in-battle model if we can't destroy walls with 'em, seeing as how that's its chief purpose.
I definitely agree there. Perhaps they are more effective at destroying the destroyable parts, i.e. one hit from a trebuchet takes out what it would take a mangonel 2-3 hits and a ballista 5. Additionally, I would think having a trebuchet would speed up the wall-destruction process on the world map, but that's something we'll have to wait and see about I suppose. Another possibility could be, as the trebuchet's payload would be bigger, heavier, etc. it would have more of an aoe effect rather than a spear from a ballista, which would only hit one, maybe two enemies. Hopefully, it won't be too much longer before we can figure all these nuances of the game out for ourselves.
Mithril♡Souls said:
Roccoflipside said:
in the siege video we saw they had fixed spawn points. We dont know if mangonel and trebuchets have different range, a key factor if you want to keep them away from the defenders own weapons range.
they also didnt talk about using them against the gates (instead of relying only on battering ram). Something common in Total Wars series.
Wilhelmus Van Laecken
Regular
kalarhan said:
Dunno if the maps are going to be big enough for that to be a real problem. I guess we'll just have to see... Gah, these kind of questions are what should have been addressed in this damned blog, instead of just telling us the friggin obvious. T_T
hiul
Sergeant at Arms
kalarhan said:hiul said:
the classic ballista could be quite big and throw big rocks, but at the game timeframe with the mangonel and trebuchet it wouldn't be in use. The smaller ones (anti-personal) would, the ones for spears/darts. If you visit a source like Wikipedia you will notice they are quite bad as a reference, they mix names and pictures for weapons like the scorpio and ballista, and the earlier greek versions.
Wikipedia pics
^ huge ballista (pre mangonel), not in the game
^ small ballista
older versions like the crossbow like version (has it own name Gastraphete), that could be mounted similar to the one in the game
Web has conflicting pictures for similar weapons. A complication of ancient designs, lack of historical references, and the variety used on different nations and centuries.
they could had used the Roman version for this weapon (small ballista with springs), but not a big deal IMO. The biggest issue with the game model is if it does too much wall damage, it would work better as a anti siege weapon (burn towers) and anti-personal (kill soldiers no matter if they have armor and shield).
ah..... from the example pict i guess tw ballista is part of the oxybeles type right ? i guess its still part of real siege then, sorry for the mistake then.
aged3 said:
You say that as if it is a joke and something that would never actually make it inot a blog... wait and see fella.
Maybe not this blog, or the next, maybe a blog in 2020 (because we all kniw this **** ain't being released in the next year or 2), but one day you will see a blog in some stupid **** like grass and bushes
Cale
Sergeant
Personally I don't love the idea that creating wall breaches on the campaign map creates casualties for both sides as, at least in Warband, the AI casualty calculations are always ridiculous compared to actually being able to fight a battle.
Still, might just happily use battering rams and ladders and leave the fancier stuff to theRomans Calradians.
Still, might just happily use battering rams and ladders and leave the fancier stuff to the
Mithril♡Souls said:So I've heard, but this makes me wonder why they would bring trebuchets in as a in-battle model if we can't destroy walls with 'em, seeing as how that's its chief purpose.
No, that was not its chief purpose. The chief purpose was to launch stuff over the walls. Spread diseases and stuff, make the defenders surrender. Destroying the walls was both hard, inefficent, and quite dumb since you'd then be open to attack by anyone once you took the goddamn castle. Not to mention that the rubble would effectively still form a wall.
There are very, and I mean very, few accounts of trebuchets ever breaking down walls. One account that exists states that even though they managed to break the walls, the rubble still protected it well enough and the castle was won by starving the defenders out in the end. The hole didn't do crap.
So actually, this part is pretty realistic. Yay for realism
hiul said:
It would have to be for campaign map sieges, because in battle, I doubt the morale would dissipate that quickly. Flinging disease was more a waiting game then an actual offensive maneuver. You just flung some dead stuff or fecal bits, waited for disease to kill a bunch of people and wait and see if the survivors surrendered.
EmjeR
Recruit
OOOH NOOES they gave trebuchets a fatal flaw in design. Either one of two constructions is necessary:
The reason for this is that the massively unbalanced weight of the arm creates a counter force on the frame of the trebuchet. If there is no space for free movement to catch this counter force, the trebuchet will topple over. There are YouTube videos about this. But either of the above solutions solves this problem.
I guess the devs won't read this post so we'll have to fix this with mods afterwards....
- The weight has an extra joint when joined to the arm, this allows it to swing
- The Trebuchet has wheels and can freely move forward and backwards.
The reason for this is that the massively unbalanced weight of the arm creates a counter force on the frame of the trebuchet. If there is no space for free movement to catch this counter force, the trebuchet will topple over. There are YouTube videos about this. But either of the above solutions solves this problem.
I guess the devs won't read this post so we'll have to fix this with mods afterwards....
the main issue with the oxybeles is that while it is real so is a Bren gun and when looking at the timescale the Bren gun is probably less out of place...
Cpt. Nemo said:
Aye but I've probably offended them with my general disdain for their orkish carpentry.
I'm not sure how one could implement biological warfare. Flinging **** and corpses is cool and all, but that creates a context where diseases and sickness are in general a mechanic. It's not a rewarding mechanic, especially when roaming parties like the player's are going to be huge carriers of disease. Medieval diseases weren't really an issue you could just throw coins at to cure.
Innocent Flower said:
Well yes, there's that too. Although the ability to fling dead soldiers, yours or your enemys', would be fun.
