Armour Values

Hey all,

I've been playing this mod for months now, trying out all kinds of factions though I've only finished one campaign so far. Great work. It's even replaced Broken Crescent as my favourite Total War mod.

However, I'm a bit confused about some of the armour values in the mod. Some seem odd. I've read that the team decided them based on historical evidence, but searching hasn't revealed any topics on this.

To take some examples: Camillan hastati seem to wear only a single bronze greave and a bronze helmet for protection. This nets them 7 armour, compared to an unarmoured Gallic Swordsman who has only 1. It seems a rather huge increase in armour for a unit which looks only marginally better protected.

A Cohors Reformata wearing a full coat of iron mail however only has 10 armour. This seems a comparatively small increase for wearing advanced armour instead of virtually none.

And then it seems Polybian Principes who have virtually the same armour have a value of 12 here. Is this because later Roman legions no longer wore greaves? It seems a pretty big difference. I can sort-of see how the greave'd help a lot in melee, but against archery in particular I'd expect the mail to make a much bigger difference.

Anyway, I imagine there has been tons of internal discussion on stuff like this on the team, but I don't know which. I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning behind all this.

The armour stat of any EB units is calculated via the same formula, based on the unit's equipment. The only exception I know is that barbarian units get an additional armour point for reasons of balance (and possibly to simulate that they would more often have supplemented their armour with captured equipment).

Although I don't know the exact formula, the basic idea is that a large shield will already cover most of the body, so armour on those bits that are not covered (the head and the leading leg) is going to make the biggest difference.

AFAIK, the hastati got calculated as if they have a chest plate.

I find that the EB armour system has some serious flaws, but it does balance out the game pretty well. One of the biggies to me is the apparent OP of helmets - a cheeked helmet gives +4 armour (compare bataroas with botroas).

AtB (Asia ton Barbaron, a mod for EB) will get a revamped stat system, though the fundamentals of EB stats (slow combat, lethality-based) will still dominate - values will definitely be tweaked.

I also don't get the Principes - Cohors difference.

How to explain that Bataroas take a lot more casualties when you bombard them with javelins than Hastati, who take basically no?

Why Goldberi Curoas have 1 more point of armor than Bataroas?

Because the Hastati have a bigger shield (great against missiles) and better armour to boot.

But no, it does not seem as if they are calculated as if they have a breastplate, because Polybian Hastati with a breastplate showing on the model have 9 armour instead of 7.

Which again seems weird, as this puts them just 1 point below a Cohors Reformata (Or other troops with medium-mail armour, I expect.)

And since the Cohors for some reason has a lower defence skill than the Hastati the Cohors has the same defence stat as Polybian Hastati even though the former is armed in chainmail and the second has just a bronze pectoral that would mostly be covered by the shield anyway, which as per Ludens' explanation above shouldn't really have given much of a boost.

I assume that the lower defence skill is because mail armour would encumber the soldiers more? Not quite sure I'd agree with that then since in a formation there wouldn't be much room for dodging and using mobility as a defence. I'd sooner expect the armour to affect stamina, which would in the long run also reduce defence skill as the troops get tired more quickly.

Yeah, it does seem a bit peculiar. Still, most troops do seem to perform roughly how I'd expect them to. And the slow combat makes battles better than almost any total-war game I've played.

(But if I were to tweak EB, I'd definitely switch a few of those armour values around a bit. I'd also make the weapons a bit more similar to eachother. Reduce lethality of longswords, remove AP from most weapons...In antiquity, or most pre-modern warfare, the deciding factor in combat was the coherence, discipline, morale and courage of the troops involved, not whether they had a straight sword or a slightly curved/weighed one that suddenly made them twice as effective against armoured foes, and combat usually saw relatively few casualties until one side broke and ran and was cut down in the pursuit. Making weapons less of a deciding factor might simulate this a bit better, I feel. Well, except the spectacular and unusual weapons we know did have a big impact on battles, like the Sarissa or the Falx.)

Oh, and thanks for the explanation, Ludens. I hadn't considered the redundancy reasoning. It makes quite a lot of sense, though it would have the effect of making the troops more vulnerable to missiles from the rear in-engine. Still, because they couldn't dodge then this does make some sense.

Off course its completly ahistorical. Even Geasatae have an armour rating^^
But I guess the EB Team had the problem with missile units, which always have Lethality 1 and atacks from the back making armour your only defense, so giving everybody reasonable armour ratings would have made EB more or less like Vanilla. And I am happy they didnt.

There's a good few 'barbarians' and other unarmoured troops with 1 or 0 armour.

Gaesatae -do- wear a helmet. So they're actually better protected than lugoae or gaeroas, lack of pants notwithstanding. Though I do agree with Gamegeek that 4 armour for a helmet seems a bit much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

I find that the EB armour system has some serious flaws, but it does balance out the game pretty well. One of the biggies to me is the apparent OP of helmets - a cheeked helmet gives +4 armour (compare bataroas with botroas).

---

OTOH, I've always interpreted it as if those Barbarian swordsmen (Bataroas, Xerunoudozez, Milnaht) occasionally had some irregular armour besides their helmet, upping their armour to 5 (helmet+basic clothing+factor x).

Quote:

---

I also don't get the Principes - Cohors difference.

---

Maybe the Cohors Reformata's value should be upped to 11? That way, they would almost be on par with Solduros (12). I say almost because I assume that Solduros, being genuine elite troops, would be more likely to get top notch equipment than legionaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qvintvs

How to explain that Bataroas take a lot more casualties when you bombard them with javelins than Hastati, who take basically no?

---

Shield ratings count twice against missiles. This means that any unit with a shield value of 4 has a pretty decent anti-missile defence from the front.

Quote:

---

Why Goldberi Curoas have 1 more point of armor than Bataroas?

---

That makes them more interesting to hire (they are also slightly more expensive, accordingly). Likewise the Cretan Archers.

You have to look at the actual unit performance to see if the stats make sense.

Take the Botroas versus Hastati example, with an armour rating of 1 the Hastati would be very vulnerable to missiles and individual unit combat. If they were not used en-mass to charge an opponent they would be slaughtered. By contrast this is very much the behaviour shown by the Botroas and actually supported by the offensive statistics. So while the armour value perhaps makes little sense in the context of the armour worn by the Hastati, it may well be the case that it exists purely to produce the desired combat behaviour and performance the unit is supposed to historically show. In this respect the game only has three defensive values to produce the directional defensive capability of a unit. The early scutum for example would be a far greater tool of defence than simply +4 to defence for front and left of a single man, but you would expect instead for the shield to be utilised more like a wall presented on all sides of the unit protecting the troops behind and being for all the world like row upon row of wooden barricades. I would therefore in this example consider the 7 armour rating to represent the defensive effect of each man in a maniple wielding a scutum. A large number of scutums in a maniple would inevitably boost the "armour" rating of the entire unit because of the sheer quantity and size of the shields being carried.

That might not be the reasoning, but the important factor is that the armour value of the Hastati allows them greater defence from multiple angles of attack, and therefore allows them to perform a line holding role.

I think when you get down to unit statistics, you cannot afford to try and equate armour worn to armour value or shields wielded to shield value, but instead must look for the statistics that generate the required combat behaviour effects. If unarmoured Hastati require a relatively high armour value in EB to actually produce the documented and known combat behaviour, then I would certainly do so rather than take statistical realism too far and destroy combat behaviour realism.

The final point is that perfect representation in the statistics would require that the fundamental game mechanics of combat are themselves realistic to the point where realistic values produce realistic outcomes. As things stand, while there may be discrepancies in values, and unarmoured units having armour values, the actual final result on the battlefield is something I am very happy with and it "looks right" to me in combat.

That is the second explanation I considered, and I agree that it actually would make a lot of sense to balance units according to their historical performance rather than just to what armour they are wearing.

But Ludens' explanation seems to contradict this, stating that the team uses a formula, with some few exceptions. Perhaps Hastati indeed are one such exception.

(Though in that case I would still wonder at post-Marian legionaries being weaker than Polybian legionaries, if anything I was under the distinct impression that the professionalisation of the Roman Army increased its fighting potential rather than decreased.)

There certainly are some unusual discrepancies.

As for your other point I wouldn't know how the EB team go about defining the values, but I would say in my experience that the fighting performance and behaviour of most units fits the decription rather than the individual statistics fitting the appearance of the unit. Camillan Hastati versus Botroas is an excellent example of how slightly confusing statistics individually produce an excellent variety of behaviour that perfectly suits the unit description and historical information given. I'm not saying that is the premise from the outset, but I would expect some "creative license" with statistics in order to produce the desired effect.

I think what is important is the effect of the statistics themselves rather than what they are supposed to represent in terms direct equation to equipment. An unarmoured unit like Milnaht or even Gaesatae that is supposed to be immense in close melee is not going to fare particularly well in close melee when they have zero for their armour statistic. According to EB the Jugundiz with no shirt have an armour of 0, Botroas with no shirt have an armour of 1, Milnaht with no shirt but helmet have an armour of 5, Bataroas with shirt and helmet have armour of 6 and Drwdae in their chainmail have an armour of 10.

Like others have said I don't think wearing a helmet warrants +5 armour when a chain shirt does the same, but I don't think the differences can be rationalised in this way. It is a similar issue with shields, does a cheap wooden buckler used by slingers honestly give half the protection of a scutum? In terms of pure defensive value, surely something like a scutum should be giving a higher protection value than any other piece of equipment in the game? What would you rather bring to the battlefield, a massive and well designed human sized board of reinforced wood held at arms length, or go naked but for a helmet?

The nature of large shields like the scutum is that they are "almost" omni directional in that you can "hide" behind them, and in large groups they present pretty much a wooden wall with sharp objects sticking out from the gaps. The game doesn't account for this, so omni-directional combat ability of soldiers + styles + equipment must be factored into the armour rating or defense skill etc.

I wouldn't go around thinking of armour equalling the actual armour worn, but the defense capability of the unit from multiple directions. Likewise when wielding a scutum, a high shield value would only work in two directions for a single man and would not represent the actual capability of an entire unit wielding scutums.

I could be totally off the mark here, but if I was involved in something like EB I would be considering the weaknesses in the combat engine for representing abilities on the field of battle, in order to produce a more realistic end result. You don't want your Hastati with their wooden walls dying like flies because they are engaged from the front and being pelted by slingers from the rear, so only ten men turn to face the slingers and their ingame scutums offer no protection to the other hundred men not yet engaged and completely oblivious to the death being chucked at them.

When this happens ingame currently, the armour value of the Hastati is actually higher than the value of the shield, so the unarmoured Hastati are actually better defended than if they had 0 for all stats and had a shield facing the slingers (not entireally true due to AP + shield boni but you get the point). I think this is a clear example of how the shield itself is not directly represented by the shield value, but is abstracted for the units defence as a whole. Ofcourse this will result in imperfect consequences in other contexts, but the fundamental game mechanics themselves are not perfect.

In future I would like see more variables or "bonuses" involved in equipment and defence values, for example different shield sizes taken into account (light and heavy for example) and providing additional defence to the unit as a whole, but that kind of thing is for the future.

If it works like you describe it would be a good system, I agree. You make good points.

However, AP weapons would rather confuse this issue. I already feel that they are far too effective in EB compared to our historical reports. (Is there any evidence, any ancient source that ascribed victory to an army's use of falcatas instead of gladii?) If armour values were meant as a more generic representation of a unit's melee-capacity, giving every unit with a curved sword or club the ability to halve this value would rather send historical balance flying out of the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

(Though in that case I would still wonder at post-Marian legionaries being weaker than Polybian legionaries, if anything I was under the distinct impression that the professionalisation of the Roman Army increased its fighting potential rather than decreased.)

---

Actually the Reformata legionaries aren't really weaker, as their moral (one of the most important factor in the stats) and soldiers/unit rate are higher than the Polybian Principes' and Hastati's. Also let's not forget that the Triarii maniples were the "cream" in the earlier armies, so they are a different story.

randal : "(Is there any evidence, any ancient source that ascribed victory to an army's use of falcatas instead of gladii?)"

Yes, in Dacia, the roman had to modify their armour because they were being butchered by the rhompaia (or falx?) and it's curved blade and thus went to battle with their lorica segmentata complemented by a manica (inspired by the gladiators) worn on the sword arm... we can clearly see the depictions on the trajan column, between the two conflicts of dacia...

I know. Which is why I later wrote "Well, except the spectacular and unusual weapons we know did have a big impact on battles, like the Sarissa or the Falx."

Though even there it remains in question how much influence these weapons and modifications actually had on the war. And I suspect psychological aspects also play a role. Those falxmen must have been truly scary to face, and having anti-falx improvements on their armour might just help encourage soldiers to stand firm in the face of a charge.

Its a bit OT, but maybe the helmet gives that much protection not because of the protected surface, but because of WHAT it protects. Those naked dude had a reason why they were naked except for the head...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Its a bit OT, but maybe the helmet gives that much protection not because of the protected surface, but because of WHAT it protects. Those naked dude had a reason why they were naked except for the head...

---

Seconded, you may be stabbed with spear at your torso, but as long as it didn't fatally pierce heart or backbone, you can still be alive... but nobody survive a head break...

True, but a gut wound or even a nasty blow to a limb would still disable the soldier for the duration of the battle. He'd have a much higher chance of recovering later, but I imagine that wounded soldiers would normally not fight on. (Barring scrapes) I do believe Caesar refers to wounded soldiers being taken out of the front ranks to the back.

I think the stats are just there to represent the various soldiers in battle accurately. You can't really look into them and expect to find any uniformity that makes sense, because everything was individually modified to make them work in the game correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

That is the second explanation I considered, and I agree that it actually would make a lot of sense to balance units according to their historical performance rather than just to what armour they are wearing.

But Ludens' explanation seems to contradict this, stating that the team uses a formula, with some few exceptions. Perhaps Hastati indeed are one such exception.

---

As a member of the team, I can attest that they do use a formula, though exceptions are made for some units (namely barbarians).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFraser

I think what is important is the effect of the statistics themselves rather than what they are supposed to represent in terms direct equation to equipment. An unarmoured unit like Milnaht or even Gaesatae that is supposed to be immense in close melee is not going to fare particularly well in close melee when they have zero for their armour statistic. According to EB the Jugundiz with no shirt have an armour of 0, Botroas with no shirt have an armour of 1, Milnaht with no shirt but helmet have an armour of 5, Bataroas with shirt and helmet have armour of 6 and Drwdae in their chainmail have an armour of 10.

---

Barbarian melee units are given a +1 bonus to armour automatically.

In EB, shields have pretty low values compared to their historical effectiveness. Have you ever tried mock-fighting with a big shield, like a hoplon or scutum? The thing is invaluable protection. To represent this, AtB will give shields much greater effectiveness. Hopla will have a shield stat of 6, Thureoi 5 - much better than the 4 and 3 we see in-game.

Head-blows are by far the most lethal, but some of the hardest to carry out when you have a shield (a stab at the torso or slash towards the neck or limbs is much more practical) - plus, the other guy can just raise his shield to block. Against horsemen, a helmet is more effective because they would be striking down at you.

Also, I find falcatae and kopeis underpowered. They are much more lethal than the .11 lethality would suggest - definitely more lethal than a mace, which has .165 lethality. AtB will assign lethality based on how likely a hit from a weapon is to KILL you. Disabling isn't quite killing, though it's pretty good, but there's no way to represent disabling in the RTW system, so instead it will count towards lethality, but significantly less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Also, I find falcatae and kopeis underpowered. They are much more lethal than the .11 lethality would suggest - definitely more lethal than a mace, which has .165 lethality. AtB will assign lethality based on how likely a hit from a weapon is to KILL you. Disabling isn't quite killing, though it's pretty good, but there's no way to represent disabling in the RTW system, so instead it will count towards lethality, but significantly less.

---

Indeed, I think they should have stats more similar to maces - somewhat lower attack, but bigger lethality than other short/medium length swords.

Why is it that basic Celtic shirtless spearmen have an armor value of 1 while similarly equipped Nubian or Garamantine spearmen have an armor value of 0?

It's explained earlier in the thread.

It's a game-balance decision that has no basis in reality, merely meant to make the barbarian factions more viable in the game-engine despite their lack of armoured troops.

So why are the Nubians unbalanced like that then? Saba doesn't get any real armored troops anyway, and those Nubian guys are often what they have to rely on in Southern Egypt for a while.