Tired units and stats

IIRC, the later armour was actually better in many ways. It was better designed to deflect weapons and missiles also. This would make it's higher grade of protection feasible. Also it wasn't so much the weight of the armour in the desert that was the problem, moreso the material (steel) used. This would heat up tremendously under the desert sun and cause great discomfort and fatigue.

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

What really bothers me is this tacit assumption that 'better' armour meant thicker plate and hence greater weight - and it's the weight - as much as the 'oven' factor - that leads to the exhaustion.

There's a link in Cambyses II's Pocket Mod thread to a video demonstrating the level of agility achievable in full armour. (I have to confess I've not chased this link myself but that's because I don't need to see it, having seen what was probably the same bloke, doing much the same antics on a particular Time Team episode, although his did look to be quite an advanced set).

In modding terms, I would adopt one of two approaches.

i) Assume that Early armour is of makeshift design and gives protection mostly based on its thickness. Late armour has compound curvature and gives the *same* level of protection (if not better) but with thinner, lighter plate (by using steel, instead of iron). Therefore, level out the armour bonuses but make the primitive armour cause high fatigue rates (heavier) and advanced armour cause *lower* fatigue rates (lighter).

ii) Preserve the way in which more advanced armour confers better protection against missiles and adds to the defence stat but, this time, make the fatigue rates similar across the board, on the assumption that the wieght of armour never changed much, through the ages but the protection factor increased, for the reasons stated above.

In both cases:- Retain the armourer training requirements for knights.(*)

It would be tempting to tinker with the base-level armour ratings as well, to offset the fatigue problems, but this would upset the intended differences between un-upgraded units, for example, peasant-types, which cannot afford (or, by tradition, don't bother with) armour and (F)MAA or FS, who have maille or basic armour, that they own.


It certainly is bizarre that, for a game whose working title was "Crusader Total War", the very knightly troops you'd expect to be using for the task turn out to be next to useless, anywhere outside of the temperate climate zone. :wall:

---

Well, I can provide you with an answer about armors, on an historical point of view, then on a gaming point of view.

Historically, at least in France and England, and on a macro point of view, the armors went heavier and heavier with their upgrades, ending with the full plate armors you could see by the end of the hundred year's war. Only those armors couldn't stop a bullet, and swords like rapiers made them ill fitted, because the heavily armoured were slow and taking blows in the eyes and all,thus making those armor disappear.

Such things as new materials development and all were not that effective. Steel is not that different from iron btw (a few % of carbon in it only) and all armors were made of steel. The steel quality did improve during time, improving hardness and stamina (of the steel)

But you have a point though, there must have been some improvement when the guys faced the "turtle on its back" problems. But how significantly? And didn't tose improvements happen after 1453? We should have a look on the late 15th/16th century armors.. anyone?

When the crusaders went to the holy land, they were wearing their overwhelmingly heavy armor and were cooked in it. But the armor did give them a huge advantage, as they were not dying under the skirmishing tactics of the muslim armies (at least at first). So even if in gaming terms we would've appreciated that the knights could get rid of their armors, they didn't do it in the real world. Easier for the gaming programmers, and at the same time more realistic: two birds, one stone!

On gaming terms: puting in place some more realistic "armour design" tech tree, would add a lot to micro management. Might be something very interesting, but probably overwhelming in terms of gameplay. For instance, you could give some "experience points" provided by money and time to your smiths which would learn, in one province either to produce a better steel, or work better on the shapes, or build thicker plates... Each improvement giving specific bonuses. Really such a realistic thing makes me drool, but might drown the players... because if you do it with armours, you have to do it with weapons, farming, units...

Thanks for the informative post, Caerfanan :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caerfanan

We should have a look on the late 15th/16th century armors.. anyone?

---

I don't know too well from my own studies but (surprise!) there is a mod out there which deals with the time period: PMTW. In Early there (starting at 1480), ultra-heavily armoured units, especially cavalry, were quite common in Europe but as you mentioned they couldn't stand up to the threat of firearms, so they were gradually replaced by much lighter armoured soldiers - lighter horsemen and dragoons in the case of cavalry. Those provided the bulk of armies from there on, even of the cavalry. Although armours were also developed and actually afforded the bearer some anti-firearm protection (cuirassiers come to mind here) they didn't play a major role on the battlefields anymore, mainly due to economic reasons. They were expensive to develop and to construct and didn't fit too well into the general trend of recuiting massive, rather poorly equipped armies. In addition, the ever-increasing use of mercenaries across the period restricted the number of "core" or "home" troops for which sophisticated devices like bullet-proof armour were usually developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caerfanan

Such things as new materials development and all were not that effective. Steel is not that different from iron btw (a few % of carbon in it only)

---

Speaking in terms of the chemical composition, that is correct (technically speaking, steel is an 'alloy') but there's a world of difference in terms of the properties of the material, depending on the % of carbon.

Cast Iron: strong in compression (e.g. bridge supports) but brittle (tends to snap, rather than bend).
Wrought Iron : strong in tension (e.g. crane hooks, anchor chains) but malleable and ductile (will eventually bend, instead of snapping)
Steel: Given pieces of similar dimensions (which will be very similar in weight), it is stronger in tension, compression and resistance to bending than iron.

Sidebar:
If I remember rightly, freshly smelted iron ('pig' iron) actually has a higher carbon content than steel but the internal crystal structure is 'wrong' and its properties aren't good. It needs to be refined, by removing the excess carbon, until the composition is right. That was the nature of the 'black art' which took time to develop during that era.

Anyway, because steel is structurally stronger, it is possible to fabricate a piece that is *as strong as* an iron piece but use *less material* to achieve that, making it significantly lighter. That was the nub of my argument.


With regard to my comment about the tech tree, actually I was rationalising the reasons behind the existing tree and the length of time it takes to tech up to CK's, for example, not suggesting that it be made any more complex!