This game used to be fun

[Valthejean]

I was really looking forward to this game, but in spite of the cool new features that get added in, the game keeps compounding more and more frustrating mechanics no one asked for. Thunderstorms, crop blight, trebuchets...I'm just over it. I keep trying to get back into this game and end up losing interest when I'm reminded about these many little frustrations that keep adding up. Maybe I'll come back to it when the game fully releases, and they've finally fixed the annoyance that is settlers just not doing jobs because there's too many orders of one type. It's sad to say, because I was really excited for this...but I'm just so tired by this point.

[shadoshryke]

Elhazzared eredeti hozzászólása:

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

So, Looking at the way, and reason, for war machine/siege machines, this actually fits the logic. People made things like catapults and trebuchet to fire at building and demoralize, destroy walls/high places so they could invade. Technically accurate, if not functionally in the limited environment.

As for the splash damage, I can understand the point/intent. Thinking in the form of how we make our castles, and the materials, A suspended wicker floor is likely to get damage/destroyed if an outer wall gets hit. We don't see a specific for "how" it was damage, just a hitpoint rating, effectively. If you hit a wall with a trebuchet, the wall typically shifts. The "splash" damage can be representing the structural changes that would cause the floor to give way, the beams to break, and even the inside surface of a wall to crumble because of an imperfection that is not notice on the outside.

So, splash damage is one thing. They are trying to account for typical "collateral" damage in a way that works in the limited scope of the game design. That is a challenge, really. Historically, we have seen forts/castles bombarded by trebuchet and catapult during a siege, that had outer walls that took a lot of damage but still stood because of the way they were made. In some, the structural damage showed in cracks and even sections falling out of the wall on the opposite side from where they projectiles from the siege machines hit.
There has even been towers that survived an onslaught, where the roofs and floors caved in, killing most of the people inside, but the 90% of the outer walls stood after the assault.
This does happen. I know my issue was when I had a single person hit by a trebuchet in an invasion, while standing very near 4 others, and it was like the trebuchet had shot that one person and took most of his life. It was the Trebuchet, not an archer, because the enemy archer had not line of sight. The trebuchet was also 4-5 squares away and one below my settler, which is a near impossible use of a trebuchet, so when it happend on another villager a little later, I questioned the thing. That would be like firing a slingshot straight up in the air and managing to land the rock on a person, directly, just a couple feet from you...every time. Not likely with those tools.

So, Splash damage and structural issues.....yes. Spot/precise aim shots? No. No way.

Shall we mythbust this?

Let's start with the vague reference to catapults. They were almost none existant. Catapults are not something you can aim, they are too heavy to move around in any battlefield sense and it's equally time consuming to adjust the range on it. On top of that a catapult has low range. How low you ask? Less than an archer. That's why trebuchets were used and not catapults. You don't want your siege equipment to ever come into the range of the archers or the outcome is already pre-determined.

Now let's proceed with trebuchets. Do you know how long it takes to build one? Do you realise you need siege engineers to build a functional one? I will remind you that in this day an age no one has managed to build a trebuchet that could emulate the kind of range while firing the boulders of the size of medieval ones (heck, not even the same range with smaller projectiles). This alone should tell how much of a precise science this is and that no random joe can build a properly working trebuchet.

On top of that, can you imagine how heavy it is to bring the rocks to be used as projectiles? They are not exactly small and often needed to be chiseled to some degree to ensure they will be fired safely from the trebuchet.

Do you know how many people it requires to operate a trebuchet. Even if you're trying with the bare minimum of people, that's still gong to be 2 to 3 people so that there is even the capacity to carry the rocks but to efficiently man it you need the siege engineer who will be commanding things and telling people to add or remove weight from the bucket, there will be at least 2 people operating the handle to pull down the arm of the trebuchet and there will be 2 to 3 people just to carry rocks. Add another person just to be adjuscting the net/cup and ropes to receive the boulder it will launch.

Do you know how long, even with the ideal number of people it takes to fire a trebuchet? Let me tell you, it will be several minutes between shots. Not like in GM where they shot faster than archers.

Also I mentioned earlier but i think it bears meantioning again. You can't aim trebuchets. You deploy them facing a wall and then you only range in whether it needs to fire further or less. This is still discounting othr factors that make each firing have a slightly different trajectory. But you certainly don't rotate trebuchets left or right, you can only add more weight to the bucket or less. And you can also shorten or lenghten the release hook to give it a more flat or more arcing trajectory. Normally you want about 45º since the point is to outrange archers and high trajectories won't allow that and too low trajectories end falling short.

You want to know other things that trebuchets don't do? They don't pinpoint target things they can't see inside the walls of a fortification. Heck they couldn't even fire at things inside the walls unless they wanted to get within arrow range. They also don't have magical projectiles that phase through walls and mountains just so it hits where they are aiming (which they couldn't see in the first place). And about that splash damage. While it may to some smaller extent try to simulate the way it shifts a wall, it does not justify hitting people with said splash.

All in all, trebuchets are EXTREMELY unrealisting in GM. Both in the way the operate as well as in the logic of them being used by half a douzen bandits. Trebuchets in GM operate like a satelited guided missile system and even those don't get to simply ignore the ground so they can hit the underground cold stockpiles.

Now that I have effectively mythbusted the trebuchet, let's talk about game mechanics for a minute. What do trebuchets acomplish, or rather, what are they meant to acomplish. They are meant to create a hole in the wall to allow invaders in a place that is not heavily fortified. Do they acomplish this? No, they never fire at wals to begin with. Would it solve anything to make it actually do what it's meant to do? Again no, because people will just dig a moat around the settlement instead and still prevent the enemies from being able to enter.

Trebuchets are not a counter to anything. They are not meant to be something that could cause any real issues. They are something meant to create an extreme level of annoyance in the players, much like most systems that the Devs have been adding as of late.

Continue to speak of balance. It makes no sense whatsoever that you are supposed to build a castle and walls to prevent invasions so that you can effectively defend yourself and not have deaths (or not easily if you made the castle right), and then let the enemy have something that completely negates that. That has no counterplay (I suppose the sacrificial pyre could count as counterplay if it still works but that is more of cheesing the AI than actual counterplay since counterplay means having actual game mechanics to counter it rather than knowing how the AI prioritises things and so you can cheat it, this is closer to exploiting the AI). And which then forces you to fight vastly larger numbers enemies than you have villagers.

No matter how you want to look at trebuchets, they have no place in this game. Fortunately, trebuchets are easy to deal with. Pyres used to work, not sure now as I haven't played ever since they had that idea of implementing seeds (and it's only been downhill from there). If for some reason it doesn't, it's easy to change the trebuchet file to give them 0 damage.

Wait. I thought this was a "mythbust".

Rebuilt/maintained trebuchets - in operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE54m0fojHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GplOCl53_Rw

I don't see a "Mythbust" here for what I specifically said. I see an attempt to mythbust a concept for their reasoning in the game, not the affect of how a large rock, thrown from a trebuchet, would impact a structure made of blocks of stone and wood. My comments were based on what we know of functional trebuchet - Restrictions on aiming and collateral damage, Attacking a castle with siege engines in the castle age was a long painstaking process. It wasn't a roll up, knock a wall down and go. Hence "Siege" - a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.

The bombardments were as much about demoralizing, which is why trebuchet's were known to be use to launch dead things into the castle/fort of an enemy. It often worked faster than throwing stones and other things at the walls.

The most damage was due to structural shifting, over repeated blows, not one shot one kill.

And trebuchets were not worth trying to use to kill individual people. That would be a waste of time.

My points were towards the splash/collateral damage, not the sudden appearance (and use of them to one shot people only feet away) nor use of them in game at this stage.

So, again, I am not sure how you mythbusted my review of the damage and use.

[Elhazzared]

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

Wait. I thought this was a "mythbust".

Rebuilt/maintained trebuchets - in operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE54m0fojHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GplOCl53_Rw

I don't see a "Mythbust" here for what I specifically said. I see an attempt to mythbust a concept for their reasoning in the game, not the affect of how a large rock, thrown from a trebuchet, would impact a structure made of blocks of stone and wood. My comments were based on what we know of functional trebuchet - Restrictions on aiming and collateral damage, Attacking a castle with siege engines in the castle age was a long painstaking process. It wasn't a roll up, knock a wall down and go. Hence "Siege" - a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.

The bombardments were as much about demoralizing, which is why trebuchet's were known to be use to launch dead things into the castle/fort of an enemy. It often worked faster than throwing stones and other things at the walls.

The most damage was due to structural shifting, over repeated blows, not one shot one kill.

And trebuchets were not worth trying to use to kill individual people. That would be a waste of time.

My points were towards the splash/collateral damage, not the sudden appearance (and use of them to one shot people only feet away) nor use of them in game at this stage.

So, again, I am not sure how you mythbusted my review of the damage and use.

The mythbusting is about, the catapults which despite a few having been built throughout history, extremely few were built and even less were actually ever used because they had no practical use. There was also some mythbusting regarding how a trebuchet works in reality and how what we have in the game is in no way, shape or form anything like a trebuchet, it has more in common with a rocket launcher with satelite guidance than anything else.

Now as to the effects of a trebuchet being used to demoralise the defenders. I'd say that is quite speculative. Building a trebuchet is no easy feat. Having a trebuchet being fired requires having all your army on the ready least the defenders send some cavalry out to destroy it while you are unprepared to defend and lastly, you have a limited supply of rocks to use. All of this points out to one thing. You don't want to use that trebuchet unless you want to knock down that wall so you can send your troops in to take the castle.

If you merely want a castle to surrender you need only to encircle it and ensure that you have provision to outlast the defenders which would require not only that you keep a supply line working but also ensuring that no armies from several other nobles join up in a bigger force than yours and come to break the siege.

Also this idea of launching dead things over the walls. This has almost never happened in history. It happened a few times but people exagerate how often this was employed. It wasn't used that often and for a good reason. It didn't created enough of an impact to be considered worth doing.

This is a problem with people and history in general. People often hear things said and they just repeat it without actually knowing the veracity of it. This is why so much wrong information keeps being spread.

[Magic Bullet]

I've made quite a few similar posts about the updates, and how the game developers seem to be determined to add challenges that for me, at least, just end up as multiple frustrations. My posts never really got much traction and so I assumed what I want and like about the game (and I do like many aspects, especially the building part) is just not what most want. I hated the idea of the seed system, and still do now that it is implemented. It adds nothing to the game other than an necessary layer of complexity. Blight is a joke. Cold snaps (I have had seasons with 2, one one day 1 and one on day 12: joy), heat waves, swarms of wolves - I just don't see the point. They are not challenging, since they are trivial to overcome. They are simply annoying. The only real challenge is trebuchets when insist on firing at places that cannot be easily accessed for repair without huge rebuilds. Of course, players have no counters to trebuchets; why would they?
Add all the additional little extra jobs settles must now carry out - refuelling, hauling seeds and saplings, taming and training animals, together with blights, storms, heat waves and cold snaps and dealing with raids mean that settlers get very little time to build anything. My constructions seem to take forever now. And this is what I liked when I started playing: building a settlement.

[Elhazzared]

Magic Bullet eredeti hozzászólása:

My posts never really got much traction and so I assumed what I want and like about the game (and I do like many aspects, especially the building part) is just not what most want.

No, this is what most people want but Devs don't listen. They barely say anything in here anymore because they know exactly how unpopular everything they are doing is. But they seem hellbent on sabotaging their own game which is a shame, it looked like it was going to be way better than Rimworld. Right now I can only hope it at least manages to finish development and gets steamshop integration so other people can actually fix the game.

[shadoshryke]

Elhazzared eredeti hozzászólása:

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

Wait. I thought this was a "mythbust".

Rebuilt/maintained trebuchets - in operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE54m0fojHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GplOCl53_Rw

I don't see a "Mythbust" here for what I specifically said. I see an attempt to mythbust a concept for their reasoning in the game, not the affect of how a large rock, thrown from a trebuchet, would impact a structure made of blocks of stone and wood. My comments were based on what we know of functional trebuchet - Restrictions on aiming and collateral damage, Attacking a castle with siege engines in the castle age was a long painstaking process. It wasn't a roll up, knock a wall down and go. Hence "Siege" - a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.

The bombardments were as much about demoralizing, which is why trebuchet's were known to be use to launch dead things into the castle/fort of an enemy. It often worked faster than throwing stones and other things at the walls.

The most damage was due to structural shifting, over repeated blows, not one shot one kill.

And trebuchets were not worth trying to use to kill individual people. That would be a waste of time.

My points were towards the splash/collateral damage, not the sudden appearance (and use of them to one shot people only feet away) nor use of them in game at this stage.

So, again, I am not sure how you mythbusted my review of the damage and use.

The mythbusting is about, the catapults which despite a few having been built throughout history, extremely few were built and even less were actually ever used because they had no practical use. There was also some mythbusting regarding how a trebuchet works in reality and how what we have in the game is in no way, shape or form anything like a trebuchet, it has more in common with a rocket launcher with satelite guidance than anything else.

Now as to the effects of a trebuchet being used to demoralise the defenders. I'd say that is quite speculative. Building a trebuchet is no easy feat. Having a trebuchet being fired requires having all your army on the ready least the defenders send some cavalry out to destroy it while you are unprepared to defend and lastly, you have a limited supply of rocks to use. All of this points out to one thing. You don't want to use that trebuchet unless you want to knock down that wall so you can send your troops in to take the castle.

If you merely want a castle to surrender you need only to encircle it and ensure that you have provision to outlast the defenders which would require not only that you keep a supply line working but also ensuring that no armies from several other nobles join up in a bigger force than yours and come to break the siege.

Also this idea of launching dead things over the walls. This has almost never happened in history. It happened a few times but people exagerate how often this was employed. It wasn't used that often and for a good reason. It didn't created enough of an impact to be considered worth doing.

This is a problem with people and history in general. People often hear things said and they just repeat it without actually knowing the veracity of it. This is why so much wrong information keeps being spread.

Again, I am not sure where you are "mythbusting" my original conversation point.

My entire point of my original post was the structural and collateral damage of a large thrown projectile against stone block walls. Stone block wall, might I add, that did not use metal reinforcement like modern days (rebar) but often were two wall layers that had building debris between the two layers. Not sure how many 11-14 century castle ruins you have visited, but this was a common case, and can still be seen in evidence today.

I really am not sure where you are getting your information, but catapults are known to have been used since the 7th century. There is a lot of historical evidence of this, including records of the viking siege of France in 885 to 886 AD.

Trebuchet's of varying sizes have been know to throw stones, poles, clay globes with "greek fire" in them an various other things. Including diseased/dead animals and people. One such siege was the assault on Crimea by the Tartars in 1345. It is documented in historical accounts.

Not modern adaptations of movies, but actual historical records of the time.

Trebuchet style weapons were first used in the 4th century, and continued to be implemented into the 14th century, until cannons took their place. Trebuchet is a term for a type of siege projectile weapon that used traction or counterweight (the most popular). The smallest record covers counterweight systems that launched projectiles of about 50-60 lbs, and the largest recorded were up to nearly 1 ton.

They were not "legendary" rarely used items. There were some that were as portable as an early cannon. But when cannons appeared on the scene, when they learned to make them large enough that they could fire more than one shot, they became the "modern" choice.

But, feel free to tell me I am full of it. You are fighting historical records world wide, not me.


There is a LOT of documentation on this. A lot of history throughout the world. They were not as rare as you seem to think.

[Elhazzared]

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

Again, I am not sure where you are "mythbusting" my original conversation point.

My entire point of my original post was the structural and collateral damage of a large thrown projectile against stone block walls. Stone block wall, might I add, that did not use metal reinforcement like modern days (rebar) but often were two wall layers that had building debris between the two layers. Not sure how many 11-14 century castle ruins you have visited, but this was a common case, and can still be seen in evidence today.

I really am not sure where you are getting your information, but catapults are known to have been used since the 7th century. There is a lot of historical evidence of this, including records of the viking siege of France in 885 to 886 AD.

Trebuchet's of varying sizes have been know to throw stones, poles, clay globes with "greek fire" in them an various other things. Including diseased/dead animals and people. One such siege was the assault on Crimea by the Tartars in 1345. It is documented in historical accounts.

Not modern adaptations of movies, but actual historical records of the time.

Trebuchet style weapons were first used in the 4th century, and continued to be implemented into the 14th century, until cannons took their place. Trebuchet is a term for a type of siege projectile weapon that used traction or counterweight (the most popular). The smallest record covers counterweight systems that launched projectiles of about 50-60 lbs, and the largest recorded were up to nearly 1 ton.

They were not "legendary" rarely used items. There were some that were as portable as an early cannon. But when cannons appeared on the scene, when they learned to make them large enough that they could fire more than one shot, they became the "modern" choice.

But, feel free to tell me I am full of it. You are fighting historical records world wide, not me.


There is a LOT of documentation on this. A lot of history throughout the world. They were not as rare as you seem to think.

Apparently you can't read well. let me reiterate. Catapults are a rare occurence throughout historical documents. Go look at how many historical documents exist mentioning catapults being used. Trebuchets however are not catapults. Trebuchets were indeed the main weapons of siege warfare. Catapults however were not. Neither in siege nor in field warfare because as I've said. They don't have the range, they are difficult to move and you can't even aim them or reload them fast enough. This isn't to say they don't exist. They do, but they were extremely rare. You have very few historical accounts and very few artwork depicting them by comparison to trebuchets.

As for what trebuchets were meant to fire. Primarely rocks. That being said, yes they can and have been recorded to shoot other things like animal carcasses, oil and whatnot. But once again and as I've said, these are rare occurences. Again go see how many records there are of this happening, cross with them just using rocks and you'll see that not only there is really no comparison to be had, it really is rare to find accountings of anything other than rocks.

You want to know another cool thing about trebuchets? They need to be built for purpose. If you build a trebuchet to throw things like animal carcasses, it won't have the power to throw huge boulders. If you build one to throw huge boulders and you load something like animal carcasses which is much lighter, there will be issues with the stability of the whole thing and it can break appart. It's not as simple as just removing some weight from the bucket. You need to build the bucket differently, you need a different lenght of arm and so on or the whole thing, especially the bucket will shake so violently from firing a much lighter load than what it's meant to that it could break appart.

All of my knowledge doesn't comes from I think it's like this. I follow several people on youtube on a lot of this subject matter. Not just trebuchets of course, generally speaking medieval stuff and so on.

Tod's Workshop, really cool channel has been figuring out trebuchets and he has been discovering many things about them and running into many unexpected problems. One of them was that the one he is using was not meant to fire as light loads as he was innitially firing and he damaged the thing and had to fix it.

Shadversity, has a lot of good subject matter on a lot of medieval stuff and he did talk about what siege weapons where used in one of his vids and so on. He likes to debunk a lot of myths that are created and perpetuated by people who simply don't know better, they hear something and think it's true or that because it happened in isolated ocasions that it was wide spread when in fact it was the exception to the rule.

There are others I watch, but I especially recomend you those 2. They are very informative and show things from either experience as trial and error as well as doing a lot of historical research.

[shadoshryke]

Elhazzared eredeti hozzászólása:

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

Again, I am not sure where you are "mythbusting" my original conversation point.

My entire point of my original post was the structural and collateral damage of a large thrown projectile against stone block walls. Stone block wall, might I add, that did not use metal reinforcement like modern days (rebar) but often were two wall layers that had building debris between the two layers. Not sure how many 11-14 century castle ruins you have visited, but this was a common case, and can still be seen in evidence today.

I really am not sure where you are getting your information, but catapults are known to have been used since the 7th century. There is a lot of historical evidence of this, including records of the viking siege of France in 885 to 886 AD.

Trebuchet's of varying sizes have been know to throw stones, poles, clay globes with "greek fire" in them an various other things. Including diseased/dead animals and people. One such siege was the assault on Crimea by the Tartars in 1345. It is documented in historical accounts.

Not modern adaptations of movies, but actual historical records of the time.

Trebuchet style weapons were first used in the 4th century, and continued to be implemented into the 14th century, until cannons took their place. Trebuchet is a term for a type of siege projectile weapon that used traction or counterweight (the most popular). The smallest record covers counterweight systems that launched projectiles of about 50-60 lbs, and the largest recorded were up to nearly 1 ton.

They were not "legendary" rarely used items. There were some that were as portable as an early cannon. But when cannons appeared on the scene, when they learned to make them large enough that they could fire more than one shot, they became the "modern" choice.

But, feel free to tell me I am full of it. You are fighting historical records world wide, not me.


There is a LOT of documentation on this. A lot of history throughout the world. They were not as rare as you seem to think.

Apparently you can't read well. let me reiterate. Catapults are a rare occurence throughout historical documents. Go look at how many historical documents exist mentioning catapults being used. Trebuchets however are not catapults. Trebuchets were indeed the main weapons of siege warfare. Catapults however were not. Neither in siege nor in field warfare because as I've said. They don't have the range, they are difficult to move and you can't even aim them or reload them fast enough. This isn't to say they don't exist. They do, but they were extremely rare. You have very few historical accounts and very few artwork depicting them by comparison to trebuchets.

As for what trebuchets were meant to fire. Primarely rocks. That being said, yes they can and have been recorded to shoot other things like animal carcasses, oil and whatnot. But once again and as I've said, these are rare occurences. Again go see how many records there are of this happening, cross with them just using rocks and you'll see that not only there is really no comparison to be had, it really is rare to find accountings of anything other than rocks.

You want to know another cool thing about trebuchets? They need to be built for purpose. If you build a trebuchet to throw things like animal carcasses, it won't have the power to throw huge boulders. If you build one to throw huge boulders and you load something like animal carcasses which is much lighter, there will be issues with the stability of the whole thing and it can break appart. It's not as simple as just removing some weight from the bucket. You need to build the bucket differently, you need a different lenght of arm and so on or the whole thing, especially the bucket will shake so violently from firing a much lighter load than what it's meant to that it could break appart.

All of my knowledge doesn't comes from I think it's like this. I follow several people on youtube on a lot of this subject matter. Not just trebuchets of course, generally speaking medieval stuff and so on.

Tod's Workshop, really cool channel has been figuring out trebuchets and he has been discovering many things about them and running into many unexpected problems. One of them was that the one he is using was not meant to fire as light loads as he was innitially firing and he damaged the thing and had to fix it.

Shadversity, has a lot of good subject matter on a lot of medieval stuff and he did talk about what siege weapons where used in one of his vids and so on. He likes to debunk a lot of myths that are created and perpetuated by people who simply don't know better, they hear something and think it's true or that because it happened in isolated ocasions that it was wide spread when in fact it was the exception to the rule.

There are others I watch, but I especially recomend you those 2. They are very informative and show things from either experience as trial and error as well as doing a lot of historical research.

And you are still missing the point of my original comments.

Instead, you are turning into your great information from youtubers and debunkers that are........historical authorities? or.....are they just creating cool media for likes?

I referenced how a catapult or trebuchet would cause damage - this is basic structural engineering. What the "splash" damage (misnomer) would be a very basic "statistical representation" of in real life terms.

I reference how you didn't use a Trebuchet to attack a single human target.

But if you want to get really technical, when was a castle ever built in three years by 6-10 people? These settlers would be dying of overwork, malnutrition and poor health long before you got into the third year. And yeah, and local lord WOULD roll in with his "Impressive" doom squad to squash the attempt to create a new kingdom out of nothing. Not to mention, I have yet to see a merchant walk off with a bunch of unguarded stuff just lying around the camp because the settlers are all busy.

As for quoting "youtubers", even that favorite Mythbusters" TV show was debunked itself a few times by authorities. When you are doing something for "likes", a good portion comes down to personal opinion.

But, I will let you decide your own personal truth, because obviously modern man knows more about history from his back porch than those that actually lived it.

In many circles, people like Shadiversity (you missed an 'i" in there) , are seen as adjusting for likes, not a true definitive resource for history. Shadiversity has been debunked many times, but he is there for YouTube content and entertainment purposes. I think of him as more "fun alternative theories", but watching him mess with that longbow..... Whatever floats your boat.

Again. My original post was about representing structural damage as "splash damage" in a limited game environment. And the idiocy of firing a trebuchet at individuals (about as senseless as a motorized mortar M106 M being used to fire at a single person running across a field).

I am amused that you are too busy trying to push ideas of debunking catapults that have been used the world over - China to Portugal, Britain to the middle east - and are recorded with drawings in records of sieges, as "not really existing". Or the fact that back in the iron age, an army of 2-10k troops was an "horde" while today anything under 100k is all but a marching band.

Yes, that is an exaggeration for effect, since you arguments are effectively fighting with a straw man that you set up yourself.

[Elhazzared]

shadoshryke eredeti hozzászólása:

And you are still missing the point of my original comments.

Instead, you are turning into your great information from youtubers and debunkers that are........historical authorities? or.....are they just creating cool media for likes?

I referenced how a catapult or trebuchet would cause damage - this is basic structural engineering. What the "splash" damage (misnomer) would be a very basic "statistical representation" of in real life terms.

I reference how you didn't use a Trebuchet to attack a single human target.

But if you want to get really technical, when was a castle ever built in three years by 6-10 people? These settlers would be dying of overwork, malnutrition and poor health long before you got into the third year. And yeah, and local lord WOULD roll in with his "Impressive" doom squad to squash the attempt to create a new kingdom out of nothing. Not to mention, I have yet to see a merchant walk off with a bunch of unguarded stuff just lying around the camp because the settlers are all busy.

As for quoting "youtubers", even that favorite Mythbusters" TV show was debunked itself a few times by authorities. When you are doing something for "likes", a good portion comes down to personal opinion.

But, I will let you decide your own personal truth, because obviously modern man knows more about history from his back porch than those that actually lived it.

In many circles, people like Shadiversity (you missed an 'i" in there) , are seen as adjusting for likes, not a true definitive resource for history. Shadiversity has been debunked many times, but he is there for YouTube content and entertainment purposes. I think of him as more "fun alternative theories", but watching him mess with that longbow..... Whatever floats your boat.

Again. My original post was about representing structural damage as "splash damage" in a limited game environment. And the idiocy of firing a trebuchet at individuals (about as senseless as a motorized mortar M106 M being used to fire at a single person running across a field).

I am amused that you are too busy trying to push ideas of debunking catapults that have been used the world over - China to Portugal, Britain to the middle east - and are recorded with drawings in records of sieges, as "not really existing". Or the fact that back in the iron age, an army of 2-10k troops was an "horde" while today anything under 100k is all but a marching band.

Yes, that is an exaggeration for effect, since you arguments are effectively fighting with a straw man that you set up yourself.

I do believe you missed in my original post that I already addressed the point of of the AoE being a good way to simulate how the castle walls shift when a large boulder impacts with it and what I said was that the moment the AoE also hits your settlers it no longer is a good analogue.

You are also true that people didn't build a castle in a few years, certainly not half a douzen at least, that being said there are places were people can easily suspend their disbelief because it makes the gameplay smooth or enjoyable and there are places where it is just too jarring. I've always been the first to say that realism takes a backsit to game balance, but I am sure we can agree that the trebuchets do nothing for realism nor for game balance.

Shadversity has tried to be debunked a few times true. Most of the times they failed to present actual evidence that he was wrong and the few times they showed evidence, Shad went and etiher took down the vidio or put a correction on it. That is why I watch his content. I can check his reference and I know that if he gets something that is actually wrong he will correct it later, otherwise I'd have stopped watching that channel long ago.

The whole longbow thing, Shad is absolutly right, there is tons and tons of historical evidence showing the bow being shot from both the right and the left. Even the text presented in no way expelicitly state that arrows are shot in one side or the other.

[Boo]

ppl keep mentioning Discord servers what is that?

[redstickermailbox]

I like peanut butter.

[Gentleman Driver]

I dont get why everyone is so salty. Yes, for me as a new player it is very hard in survival mode, not going to lie. I dont like the Trebuchets also. They appear in the 3rd incursion and thats way to early for me, especially in "Very Easy" or "Easy" difficulty.
I dont know how the game works, so give me some time to learn it. lol
Otherwise I am sure the devs will fix those balancing issues at some point. Maybe cavalry or tower artillery would be a nice way to counter trebuchets?
We have the basics for animal husbandry in the game right now. I am sure you can have light or heavy cavalry at some point. It should be possible. :)
This is the thing with Early Access titles. You cant expect that everything will go smooth during development, and that the game will not change.

I will now use the peacefull mode to learn the game, and maybe, at some point, when the full release is online, and the game is balanced out, I will try survival again. :)

Fun fact: Stone artillery was used by Alexander the Great in a battle against footsoldiers who were Illyrians. They built their war machines at night at the opposite site of a river, and at morning they fired their catapults or whatever it was (dont remember) on the hostile camp (which wasnt fortyfied). The Illyrians were so surprised by this that they fled in panic. This is known as the first artillery strike against infantry in history.

Of course nobody would bring a catapult against 5 to 10 settlers in a small village. lol. This would be quite expensive and not effective.

[shadoshryke]

Gentleman Driver eredeti hozzászólása:

I dont get why everyone is so salty. Yes, for me as a new player it is very hard in survival mode, not going to lie. I dont like the Trebuchets also. They appear in the 3rd incursion and thats way to early for me, especially in "Very Easy" or "Easy" difficulty.
I dont know how the game works, so give me some time to learn it. lol
Otherwise I am sure the devs will fix those balancing issues at some point. Maybe cavalry or tower artillery would be a nice way to counter trebuchets?
We have the basics for animal husbandry in the game right now. I am sure you can have light or heavy cavalry at some point. It should be possible. :)
This is the thing with Early Access titles. You cant expect that everything will go smooth during development, and that the game will not change.

I will now use the peacefull mode to learn the game, and maybe, at some point, when the full release is online, and the game is balanced out, I will try survival again. :)

Fun fact: Stone artillery was used by Alexander the Great in a battle against footsoldiers who were Illyrians. They built their war machines at night at the opposite site of a river, and at morning they fired their catapults or whatever it was (dont remember) on the hostile camp (which wasnt fortyfied). The Illyrians were so surprised by this that they fled in panic. This is known as the first artillery strike against infantry in history.

Of course nobody would bring a catapult against 5 to 10 settlers in a small village. lol. This would be quite expensive and not effective.

Great perspective. I agree. Using something like that against an army make sense, but 5-10 person settlement is on the edge of absurd.

I am amused at how some of the perspectives are going. All this in a game where a village of 6 people can build a full functioning fort/castle in less than 3 years, even in standard survival. I am currently in my second year in of standard, have taken out every incursion with with bows just by using bad and draw tactics and the terrain. The biggest hassle I find is finding that best tactical spot, to start, then it is survivable.

[Elhazzared]

Gentleman Driver eredeti hozzászólása:

I dont get why everyone is so salty. Yes, for me as a new player it is very hard in survival mode, not going to lie. I dont like the Trebuchets also. They appear in the 3rd incursion and thats way to early for me, especially in "Very Easy" or "Easy" difficulty.
I dont know how the game works, so give me some time to learn it. lol
Otherwise I am sure the devs will fix those balancing issues at some point. Maybe cavalry or tower artillery would be a nice way to counter trebuchets?
We have the basics for animal husbandry in the game right now. I am sure you can have light or heavy cavalry at some point. It should be possible. :)
This is the thing with Early Access titles. You cant expect that everything will go smooth during development, and that the game will not change.

I will now use the peacefull mode to learn the game, and maybe, at some point, when the full release is online, and the game is balanced out, I will try survival again. :)

Fun fact: Stone artillery was used by Alexander the Great in a battle against footsoldiers who were Illyrians. They built their war machines at night at the opposite site of a river, and at morning they fired their catapults or whatever it was (dont remember) on the hostile camp (which wasnt fortyfied). The Illyrians were so surprised by this that they fled in panic. This is known as the first artillery strike against infantry in history.

Of course nobody would bring a catapult against 5 to 10 settlers in a small village. lol. This would be quite expensive and not effective.

The major problems with the game are not the difficulty posed by trebuchets. While they have no place in this game they are mostly ignorable. Raids are not hard to deal with either if you know how to set up defenses.

The problem is all the annoyances that have been added over time like winter having no counter mechanics, amount of people needed for farming, seeds, fuel usage for brasiers and torches and so on.

You spend too much time dealing with annoyances and on top of that your villagers do not have time to work on expanding the settlement at all because all they have time for is farming and hauling.

Oh and winter it's a case of, set them to sleep for 18 hours and have 2 breaks of 3 hours for food and recreation because no amount of clothing helps.

[Xehlwan]

To return this thread a bit to the original topic: I think the real problem is not the new systems and challenges - but the complete lack of QoL features to handle them. This leads to immense micromanagement, which isn't fun.

For temperatures, everything is controlled manually despite temperature being dynamic. We should be able to set desired temperatures for rooms. The settlers should then automatically use the furniture and items we have built to try to keep that temperature. Also, a cold settler should automatically try to equip better winter clothes; and vice versa.

For storage and workbenches, we need much more tools to quickly copy and apply settings to all furniture. When we duplicate a building, we should also be duplicating all the settings that come with it. A simple example is to look at Oxygen Not Included for how they handle this exact feature.

Incursion damage to the settlement - while not perfect - would be alright if we didn't have to manually rebuild and configure everything. If structures are destroyed, automatically place new blueprints in their place. These blueprints should, of course, also remember all the settings and recipes we have already set up. For this, Factorio is a great example.

Other disasters, like crop blight, should have simple one-click commands for your settlers to handle them. Having to manually order every single settler adds nothing but tedium.

These are just some examples of the type of features this game needs to eliminate tedium while adding challenges. We are playing to plan and strategize, not to babysit.

(I'm an EGS user, so lack the owner mark on Steam)

[Valthejean]

Xehlwan eredeti hozzászólása:

To return this thread a bit to the original topic: I think the real problem is not the new systems and challenges - but the complete lack of QoL features to handle them. This leads to immense micromanagement, which isn't fun.

For temperatures, everything is controlled manually despite temperature being dynamic. We should be able to set desired temperatures for rooms. The settlers should then automatically use the furniture and items we have built to try to keep that temperature. Also, a cold settler should automatically try to equip better winter clothes; and vice versa.

For storage and workbenches, we need much more tools to quickly copy and apply settings to all furniture. When we duplicate a building, we should also be duplicating all the settings that come with it. A simple example is to look at Oxygen Not Included for how they handle this exact feature.

Incursion damage to the settlement - while not perfect - would be alright if we didn't have to manually rebuild and configure everything. If structures are destroyed, automatically place new blueprints in their place. These blueprints should, of course, also remember all the settings and recipes we have already set up. For this, Factorio is a great example.

Other disasters, like crop blight, should have simple one-click commands for your settlers to handle them. Having to manually order every single settler adds nothing but tedium.

These are just some examples of the type of features this game needs to eliminate tedium while adding challenges. We are playing to plan and strategize, not to babysit.

(I'm an EGS user, so lack the owner mark on Steam)

I think this sums it up rather nicely. The game is compounding more and more tedium to the point where it isn't fun anymore. I still think things like thunderstorms and crop blight (and hailstorms for that matter) just have no place in the game, but I would certainly be more willing to tolerate them if we had some means of addressing them. We USED to have a means of protecting our crops from hailstorms, but then they removed that option, so now it's just back to frustration. It's things like that which make me worry about the game. We found a creative solution to deal with hailstorms, and the devs didn't like that so they removed it. That, to me, signals that they WANT the frustration and tedium. Why else would you remove that option before you had whatever means you're supposed to address that issue with? The only thing I can surmise is that there IS nothing in the works and they want it that way, which doesn't imply a good future for the other elements (or even future ones they'll add in.)

The recent update to thunderstorms also highlights this. So it doesn't spawn in peaceful...uh...okay? So we have to disable half of the elements in this game (crafting equipment and raids) just to not have random dice rolls destroy our buildings? I LIKE raids (without trebuchets) I shouldn't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.