Why are trebs lower strength than cats?

[jeffreyac]

This has to have been discussed somewhere, but I've never figured this out. Only thing I can think of is the +100% city attack trebs get to start would be overpoered if they were, say, strength 6, but I can't see why you wouldn't just make 'em strength 6 or so, and then just have them get +50% vs city attack...

OK, I know, historically trebs are huge and not very mobile, so I get that 'realistically' they'd be less effective against units and most effective against city seige - but I think there's enough examples in game to show that history and realism are not always that important vs. gameplay (cough:airships:cough) and it bugs me on some level to have a seige weapon for stackbusting (i.e. defensive) and not be able to get anything stronger than str 5 until cannons...

What do all you smart plaers do for stackbusting seige weaponry? Just build cats until cannons become available? Or am I the only one who uses them in this fashion?

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

You're supposed to build knights and horse archers against enemy catapults and trebuchets.

 

[pxpdoo]

I would theorize that it's because of the weight that can be thrown with each. The Catapault, made of logs, could (a.) support a much heavier counterweight and much more stress/tension (depending on the version you wish to look at), and (b.) could thus tolerate much heavier / larger rocks. Or dead cows, or plague-ridden corpses. Or heads. Whereas:
A Trebuchet, on the other hand, relies more on ropes and slings. So, while it could still have a nice heavy counterweight, the strength of the ropes/sling would limit the actual weight / size of its' ammunition. The Trebuchet was effective against citiy walls because of velocity, not weight.

 

[Supr49er]

You're supposed to build knights and horse archers against enemy catapults and trebuchets.

I think jeffreyac means how do you use your cats/trebs to bust stacks, not how do you bust them.

 

[AfterShafter]

Trebs are supposed to be city busters (IE - much more able to deal with nasty, nasty longbows than cats), but more vulnerable which they are in virtue of their lower strength paired with their bonus. Weaker in the field, giving cats a role still, but notably superior against cities.

 

[pxpdoo]

And, now that I think of it, flaming things could also be launched via Catapault that could not be from a Treb. (The sling/ropes would burn.)
So: Powerful Cats, specialized Trebs.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A lot of people think there should be a siege weapon between the cannon and treb. Especially since there were such weapons and they were the first gunpowder weapons, not muskets.

 

[pxpdoo]

Maybe add in a Ballista (Pretty much a giant crossbow) that has a bonus when attacking units, but a penalty when attacking cities? lol

 

[jeffreyac]

lol - yeah, ballistas, that would be it... I guess there's good balance there, but it does feel like there is room for another seige unit of some type in there. But I don't want to make this sound too much like the frigate-to-destroyer debate...

 

[MarkM]

One reason might be that siege weapons are already disgustingly powerful as it is. BTS actually nerfed them a bit, but trebs were added in Warlords, before that came to pass. Thank god they didn't make them give a bigger leap in effectiveness.

I'bm betting if you go back to forum posts from when civ4 came out, you'll find people saying how powerful cats & cannons are, but there was a period in between where city defenders were temporarily less bothered by cats. Trebs were then created in warlords to fill that gap. other posters may be right, there is still part of that gap unfilled though.

 

[ICNP]

I think as is its balanced. But yeah there really needs to be something to go between cats and cannons. Rifles and Trebuchets in a stack?!

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

There needs to be something between Cavalry and helicopters. Artillery enjoy a relatively huge time period where they have no counter. And are also disgustingly powerful against even infantry and machine guns.

 

[AfterShafter]

There needs to be something between Cavalry and helicopters. Artillery enjoy a relatively huge time period where they have no counter. And are also disgustingly powerful against even infantry and machine guns.

Infantry rocks artillery when the infantry is attacking... Machine guns are immune to collateral damage. I find artillery to be the least dominant type of siege engine, and not "disgustingly powerful" at all.

 

[lutzj]

There needs to be something between Cavalry and helicopters. Artillery enjoy a relatively huge time period where they have no counter. And are also disgustingly powerful against even infantry and machine guns.

The only realistic and historically accurate way to fix this would be to give MG's a medium-sized bonus against collateral damage (something in the 25-50% range might work).

 

[AfterShafter]

The only realistic and historically accurate way to fix this would be to give MG's a medium-sized bonus against collateral damage (something in the 25-50% range might work).

Urm... Aren't machine guns immune to collateral damage?

 

[pxpdoo]

There needs to be something between Cavalry and helicopters. Artillery enjoy a relatively huge time period where they have no counter. And are also disgustingly powerful against even infantry and machine guns.

See: WWI and WWII. Indirect fire has always been devastating. We can choose between historical, real-life (and death) accuracy, or wishful thinking...
I choose real life, personally.

 

[Rvil Plum]

I am not a historian but I don't think there are any surviving medieval designs showing how you actually build a trebuchet. There are diagrams and descriptions on record, but most of them date 600+ years after the first medieval ones were used, and I'm not sure how accurate / authentic they are. They may portray what later people thought a Trebuchet should look like, rather than what they actually did look like.

Historical narratives from the middle ages state that a Trebuchet had a counterweight and used a sling, but that's about it. It is however clear that they were cutting edge technology when they were first invented, and I read somewhere that very specialist engineers were needed to assemble them, whereas any military carpenter could knock up a catapult. These early engineers had to be "booked" in advance and hired out their services to different kings at different times, until such time as the technology became more widely known, at which point armies started building their own.

I also remember reading that Edward II refused to accept the surrender of Sterling castle, because he had just built a new trebuchet to help win the siege, and having gone to all that effort and cost, he wanted to see his new Trebuchet in action. Sounds the sort of nuts thing a medieval king would do.

There was a one off TV documentary a few years ago about a team of guys who set about building a full size one for real. The team included historians, engineers, carpenters, etc, and they made a "best guess" at what they thought a Trebuchet should look like.

The first few versions they built didn't work at all, or tore themselves to bits when fired, but eventually they put together a "Civ" type Trebuchet, and it really did the business. It was amazingly accurate, and had a hell of a long range, (certainly better than the early cannons).

That said, the rate of fire on the one they built was rubbish, because they had problems with the counterweight, but it worked well enough to hint at how destructive the real Medieval ones must have been.

There's no doubt that Trebuchets were castle killers, but they were huge machines that had to be built or assembled on the spot, requiring very specialist skills, and although widely used in siege warfare, they were not as commonplace as the humble cannon. Cannons were obviously far more mobile, didn't need to be built / assembled on the spot, and like all gunpowder weapons could be used by noob troops with a minimum amount of training, (assuming said troops had some basic understanding of trajectory).

Theoretically the Castle age should really have ended the minute the first Trebuchet was fired in anger, but as we all know it was the cannon that finally did for the castle. I wonder why medieval Kings didn't make wider use of the Trebuchet? The machine could and did kill castles, but there must have been a reason why the armies of the day didn't send 20+ of the things into battle at the same time. Perhaps it was quicker and cheaper for them to expend thousands of peasants to scale the walls / mine the walls, etc.

Unusual really, because new military technology as powerful as the Trebuchet should have been quickly adopted in a completely over the top fashion by all Medieaval armies and yet they seem to have been used quite sparingly.

Does anyone know why the Trebuchet wasn't more widely used?

Regards - Mr P

 

[jlwzap]

there is a counter to artillery- MARINES +50% vs siege weapons I always keep some in a stack even if it is a landbound situation to keep from getting ground up by cannons and arty!

 

[jlwzap]

Urm... Aren't machine guns immune to collateral damage?

YES! and historically accurate (via WWI)

 

[pxpdoo]

I am not a historian but I don't think there are any surviving medieval designs showing how you actually build a trebuchet. There are diagrams and descriptions on record, but most of them date 600+ years after the first medieval ones were used, and I'm not sure how accurate / authentic they are. They may portray what later people thought a Trebuchet should look like, rather than what they actually did look like.

Historical narratives from the middle ages state that a Trebuchet had a counterweight and used a sling, but that's about it. It is however clear that they were cutting edge technology when they were first invented, and I read somewhere that very specialist engineers were needed to assemble them, whereas any military carpenter could knock up a catapult. These early engineers had to be "booked" in advance and hired out their services to different kings at different times, until such time as the technology became more widely known, at which point armies started building their own.

I also remember reading that Edward II refused to accept the surrender of Sterling castle, because he had just built a new trebuchet to help win the siege, and having gone to all that effort and cost, he wanted to see his new Trebuchet in action. Sounds the sort of nuts thing a medieval king would do.

There was a one off TV documentary a few years ago about a team of guys who set about building a full size one for real. The team included historians, engineers, carpenters, etc, and they made a "best guess" at what they thought a Trebuchet should look like.

The first few versions they built didn't work at all, or tore themselves to bits when fired, but eventually they put together a "Civ" type Trebuchet, and it really did the business. It was amazingly accurate, and had a hell of a long range, (certainly better than the early cannons).

That said, the rate of fire on the one they built was rubbish, because they had problems with the counterweight, but it worked well enough to hint at how destructive the real Medieval ones must have been.

There's no doubt that Trebuchets were castle killers, but they were huge machines that had to be built or assembled on the spot, requiring very specialist skills, and although widely used in siege warfare, they were not as commonplace as the humble cannon. Cannons were obviously far more mobile, didn't need to be built / assembled on the spot, and like all gunpowder weapons could be used by noob troops with a minimum amount of training, (assuming said troops had some basic understanding of trajectory).

Theoretically the Castle age should really have ended the minute the first Trebuchet was fired in anger, but as we all know it was the cannon that finally did for the castle. I wonder why medieval Kings didn't make wider use of the Trebuchet? The machine could and did kill castles, but there must have been a reason why the armies of the day didn't send 20+ of the things into battle at the same time. Perhaps it was quicker and cheaper for them to expend thousands of peasants to scale the walls / mine the walls, etc.

Unusual really, because new military technology as powerful as the Trebuchet should have been quickly adopted in a completely over the top fashion by all Medieaval armies and yet they seem to have been used quite sparingly.

Does anyone know why the Trebuchet wasn't more widely used?

Regards - Mr P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet

Trial and error, Survival of the fittest, and: Would any ancient/medieval ruler, at any level, share military techniques that could be used against his or her people? I think perhaps we have a too-romantic notion about the realities of early human civilizations...

Have a nice read.