no 100% true there are severeal historical battles were are pults used but pults not trebuchets. There is for example a battle of christian Crusaders and osmans were the crusader won cause they placed pults which fired all the time on a point close to a bridge were the osmans need to get through.catapults were never used in field battles at all, afaik.Cannon were though. And smaller bore cannons are actually more effective, because you can fire them more rapidly, and the ball experiences less air resistance (so you can stay closer to direct fire). (The difference in hitting power against non-wall targets is pretty much non-existent too).IMHO, Catapults of the size used in this game would never have been used on a fluid battlefield only in sieges. Smaller, far less ranged man-powered machines are reasonable, but they have far less strength and area coverage. This applies to the siege mortars as well. But, we have these big impressive and expensive models that GW put out for us so what can we do about these unrealistic engines we are now stuck with?
Well we could make them less powerful as well as less expensive to include in the army lists.
While the models might be siege mortars, the strength is pretty low. Seems reasonable for a field mortar.
In latest battles of the "german order" there were also used many so called "field trebuchets" to hold constant fire on opponents and break there disciplines. Long time the German order don´t used bows or pults but in last years as knight orders they used them more and more. In same momemt the Knight order also used more and more trained foottroops and less dogs of war.
Failure is not an option.