Armor types and history

After looking at and reading all these previews for the factions, I've seen quite a few different types of armor. I assume that EB has some general idea of the rankings of the armor types? Such as chain armor vs that scale-ish armor (I think a few cataphract types appeared to be using it). So in other words is there a simple from worst to best list of armor types of that era? I don't think I'd ever heard of linen armor before, so that was interesting, especially since it sounds like it's actually worth wearing.

It's not quite as simple as best to worst; armor was modified and used various types of forms and shapes, as well as reinforcements. Chain, for example, wasn't just chain; we take into account the amount of rings within a ring (a higher ring-in-ring count creates finer, more protective chain); for example, I believe there's an eastern unit or a unit from Asia minor (I don't toally recall where) that has a very high ring-to-ring count, and would offer excellent protection. Some heavy Celtic chain (usually for heavy horsemen) had an additional layer of chain over vital organs. We have a list of properties we apply to the armor of a unit, and modifiers to those properties, to determine how protective armor would be; of course, it goes beyond chain. Leather, boiled leather, scales, bronze armor, etc. I'm pretty sure some cataphract has the heaviest, best armor of any individual unit.

that's nice. but also midn the variables against weapon types.
pezhetairoi reinforced their shoulders against the Falx.
projectiles, cuts, stabs, blunt attacks..all variables..but i guess that goes beyodn RTW. since all you can do is an : effective against armor-bonus. right?

Yep. RTW 'little men' just have hit points. Other modern games (air simulators, advanced FPS, racing games, etc.) include complex damage models that allow different parts to receive different damage and react as a consequence, but I guess that would be too much calculation with >1000 units in the field, so technology still needs a bit more power.

I guess we'll see this someday soon... if Total War series game type still exists. I'm not too confident about the future of minority genres as simulators and deep wargames...

Future is of the brainless consoles. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Future is of the brainless consoles. :no:

---

I dont think so; I'll grant you its a niche market, but niche markets often last longer than mass produced garbage due to the loyalty of the following versus the wims of the masses. War games have existed as long as war. Sorry im off topic

Games genres come and go.

Back in the day we had primitive "simulators", as time went by FPS and arcadey games took over the lead, then we had another golden age of simulators, a time period of many great sims, and today sims lost space once again, it's the natural cycle, game companies will focus on arcadey crappy games now, then once a brave publisher puts out a great new sim it's gonna be a hit, as "Silent Hunter III" was a hit for a simulator, thought the game is not perfect, it's a sim, and it's good enough compared to the other submarine options such as fantasy gallore Enigma: Rising Tide or shoot-em-up Steel Tide.

Maybe CA and Total War will perish to Sonic, yes, but as the Total War series had one or two poor copy attempts, the idea will survive, as you can't kill an idea, and one day we'll have a great tactical/strategic a-la "Total War" game.

It is inevitable, it is the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

Games genres come and go.

Maybe CA and Total War will perish to Sonic, yes, but as the Total War series had one or two poor copy attempts, the idea will survive, as you can't kill an idea, and one day we'll have a great tactical/strategic a-la "Total War" game.

It is inevitable, it is the future.

---

I sure hope you're right but I doubt it. People always laugh at me because I refuse to play games that are not historically accurate (except for Star Wars). When I point out something ahistorical or tell someone that things just aren't very fun when they aren't accurate people just laugh and say that history is boring or stupid or something. I just don't see game makers ever making good sims and historical games again. The Total War type game will soon be used for fantasy elves and dragons and leprechauns and crap. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. The only way to find out is to wait and see. This doesn't have much to do with armor, does it?

Sorry, the OT was my fault. :) I meant that sure future technology will allow hundreds of independent 3D models to have much complex damage models -hence allowing different armors to protect different body parts in many different ways. Only I hope the apply that technology in a TW-like game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

We have a list of properties we apply to the armor of a unit, and modifiers to those properties, to determine how protective armor would be; of course, it goes beyond chain. Leather, boiled leather, scales, bronze armor, etc.

---

That sounds promising - have you done something similar with weapons? I remember CA releasing an Excel file showing how unit stats were derived from numerical tables for weapons, armour, troop quality etc. with relatively few "fudge factors". I wonder if EB is taking such a systematic approach? I am really enjoying RTR 6.0 right now, but can't help feeling that some of the stats were pulled out of a hat. (It's not tying unit costs and upkeep to unit effectiveness seems particularly problematic.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

That sounds promising - have you done something similar with weapons? I remember CA releasing an Excel file showing how unit stats were derived from numerical tables for weapons, armour, troop quality etc. with relatively few "fudge factors". I wonder if EB is taking such a systematic approach?

---

Yes, but given our results so far compared to vanilla battle results, I would hesitate in comparing our approaches in any way. ~:cool:

so all armor is given a rating from 1-10..same for shields and weapons (per class)?
so is the falcata surperior to the galatian sword (hypaspistai)? what is the "best" armor of this era? etc...

sounds kinda like a difficult job to do.especially since you need to make comparisons with troops that never met.
another Q: what stats will be used to reflect training-quality..Morale only? or will hig-end inf wielding a Falcata have a better attack than the low-end inf?

Well, sure is that the Iberian falcata was one of the better swords of its time. It was made with iron of extreme quality, and Iberian blacksmiths used a technique that accidently included some organic in origin carbon particles in the red hot forged iron, thus obtaining a primitive steel that was famous both for its resistance and flexibility.

As for armors, well, all of them had pros and cons: chain and scale mail were very flexible and resistant both to piercing and slashing, but offered poor protection against contundent beats. Besides it was heavy and hard to make. Linothorax and leather were light and resisted most light slashes, but were easy to pierce and tore. Finally, plate mails, were very resistant to slashes and beats, but not completely immune to piercing, and were too rigid and heavy impeding movement to a large extent.

So, we should say, there's a weapon and armor for every task. What's the better? Obviously, the one that offered more protection without making the task harder.

ok.i see.

and what about training quality..i'm guessing EB has the same sort of spreadsheet:
falcata=+3 attack galatian swords=+2 attack hoplon=+7 shield etc..

but what will Training quality do? +morale (pretty obvious, i guess) but i guess a +1 attack, morale, defensive skill and charge bonus would be fair... how is EB doing this?