Do AP weapons only halve the armour value of the target, or do they affect the shield value as well?
Thanks
Printable View
Do AP weapons only halve the armour value of the target, or do they affect the shield value as well?
Thanks
It only halves the armour; the shield value remains unaffected.
WHAAAT!?! I have always thought that the AP weaponry halves the total armour of the opposing unit, that is its defence skill+armour+shield. Are you sure that AP weapons only cut the armor value with shield and skill remaining? Because if it is as you say, I have recruited 25 one experience and one weapons/armour units of Pedites Extraordinarii in the past 2 years all in vain, thinking that the numerous AS Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou can be easily countered by the AP bonus of Pedites Extraordinarii!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
AP only takes armour. I'm hard-pressed to understand how it would effect defense skill. As for shield, thats a deflection bonus so AP doesn't effect it. I'm just making the terminology up now.
Foot
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Your Pedites Extraordinarii will do fine against them, but Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou are the best dam*recruitable* infantry unit in game*stat wise* for a good reason. Don't expect any unit to fight them head on and come out unscratched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Armour always works, but is halved by AP weapons.
Defence skill only works against melee weapons, and not when being attacked from behind.
Shield works only to the front and the left side.
Wow. That sure was a swift response. Do you just prowl around the EB forums and stalk new posts? Just kidding :laugh4:, I do it too. Thanks anyway!
**cough**Quote:
Don't expect any unit to fight them head on and come out unscratched.
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u..._rhomphaia.gif
OK not exactly unscratched but they have a good liklihood of winning one on one.
As the Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou have an armour valua of 19, halving this is a welcom thing so yes armour piercing units should be recruited. You should try to pin them with a phalangitai or some heavy defence unit and attack them at the back with some thracian peltastai, the guys wielding the ropmhaias, or any other good AP unit.
well, defense skill isn't taken into account against missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Try blocking a volley of arrow with a spear or a sword. That ain't easy. A shield however makes it quite a bit more easy. And well armour always helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulp'
Also an amour piercing attribute having an effect on your enenmies defence skill wlould be a wierd thing.
AP only halves the armour points. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unless of course the AP weapon is a inflatable hammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Exactly. Especially if the TAB get a volley or two off at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
I have read that during the Roman conquest of Britain, the British warriors dodged and slashed arrows with their swords as well as catching javelins and pilum in flight and sending them back to their owners! I am not sure quite how much of this is true, but at least that's what the Roman historians said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
BRITISH MONKS!!!!!!!:laugh4:
im sure that the britons hearing stories of the romans using javalins before entering combat (plus the fact that this was a popular celtic strategy aswell) they taught eachother how to catch jav's. it probably wasnt an allround skill that most had but im sure quite a few knew how to catch a javelin. sword swiping arrows however... id have to see that.
are archers AP units?
nope, since they fly in an arc most simply to *plink* and fall off unless it's skin and flesh they're hitting. Linothorax infact, are very good at protecting one from arrows.
What about longbows? English longbows at agincourt decimated the French nobles. And in EB we have indian longbowmen... what units are they effective against?
is my only option javelins when it comes to combating armoured units?
agincourt was a turkey shoot, and it was the hand-to-hand engagement that did most of the slaughtering....and stupidity on the french's part mind you.
I'd be pretty stunned if someone could catch a war javelin that was thrown at them out of the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
id ban the bastard for cheating
*cough* Nasty AP weapons; plus skilled archers *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
*cough* Slingers *cough*Quote:
is my only option javelins when it comes to combating armoured units?
thank you, you filthy athenian! :chinese:
was that not down to the bodkin arrow though :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Most people overrate the longbows, especially the English ones. A regular Eastern composite bow had twice the range and penetration power of the longbow but required less strength to use it, and was definitely more compact (just imagine a horse archer using the longbow!).
A bit unrelated but fascinating fact: One of the most interesting materials to defend a man from arrow fire was used by the Mongols (I only read about Mongols using this method, but I am sure they weren't the only ones) was wearing a normal-thickness shirt made of silk. When an arrow would strike the wearer, the arrow would burrow inside the wearer's body without piercing the silk, making the extraction of the arrow as easy as simply yanking the arrow out. Of course, if a vital organ was hit, the wearer was dead, but the silk diminished the power of the arrow and prevented an arrow getting lodged in the body/creating an infection, which were the main problems with arrows.
they got that from teh song dynasty chinese after they finally overran them.
The problem wasn't extracting the arrow per se; just because western archery was not the best, it does not mean that they didn't have to deal with being hit by arrows, and more importantly, bolts. Removing arrows had become a routine job for campaign surgeons, and the post-op mortality rate was nowhere near the completely fantastical numbers sometimes given by historians. The problem was, like with musketry (though much more commonly), you would sometimes get as piece of fabric inside your body which could not be removed along with the arrow. That piece would then fester and create septicaemia. The advantage of silk, is that that situation simply does not happen - if it does rip, it rips cleanly and nothing stays there after you remove the arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
What I have read that arrows were often made so that the arrowhead got stuck in the flesh due to barbs and various other parts. The shaft was also specially crafted to break off and separate from the arrowhead when the entire arrow was being pulled out. This would cause the arrowhead to get lodged in the body with no hope of removing it safely.
Well then that depends entirely on the arrows. I'll remind you though that barbed or wide-bladed points would be virtually useless against an armoured foe, and were often used for either hunting, against horses or completely unarmoured enemies...Any serious fight would warrant the use of either short-bladed or pointed heads which could do double duty easily, bolts having practically no other shape for instance.
Longbow is often overrated, but don't make the opposite mistake! It was very effective on short distance against chain mail, that resisted very well the arrows fired by the composite shortbow of turkish horse-archers during the crusades, according to an arab historian (I don't know if Al-Dahabi or Baha'al-Din Ibn Shaddad) who states that arrows had no effect against the soldiers of Richard the Lionheart, so that they seemed iron porcupines!!!:laugh4: but they still were unharmed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Both at Agincourt and in the middle-east the best archers vs. cavalry tactic is the same : HIT THE HORSE!!
As we are talking about AP weaponry: what exactly is the reason for slings to be AP in EB? From my point of view an arrow of which the impact power is concentrated on one point should be able to penetrate armor better than a sling bullet the power of which is distributed on a larger area, thus allowing the armor to better dissipate the impact.
Please enlighten me, if i'm being deceived by my layman's line of thought.
Thing is, slings can penetrate armour quite easily, where as arrows have difficulties from a large distance. Even normal rocks in a sling can break bones easily.
ive always seen it as arrows getting stuck in or glancing off the armour whereas rocks dent and eventually break it. saves me from having to think too technically :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysimachos
Never mind my question, i've found a thread where it is discussed:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96094
I haven't thought far enough, but at least i haven't been totally wrong :)
Well, maybe that is the problem of the arrow's low weight and fragility. It is like comparing a dagger and a club. If you stab or slash a guy wearing maille, he will not get hurt at all, despite the fact that in the stabbing motion of a dagger, all of the energy is concentrated in that one millimeter point. There is simply not enough weight and momentum behind the dagger point to 1: pierce the maille and 2: to transfer shock waves significant enough to hurt the wearer. A club or mace on the other hand, can generate enough shockwaves to crush the body of the wearer, even without actually piercing the armour. Same is with the bullets and rocks launched from the sling. They never pierce the armour, but either shatter or severely dent it, at the same time pulverizing the flesh, bones as well as internal organs. It is very hard to pierce maille or plate armor with a kinetic projectile launched by physical means. Bullets can do it, but they are propelled by the force of a violent chemical reaction.
Think of it in large terms. A sword is more likely to cut exposed flesh. It's edge concentrates it's power for that purpose. A mace will not cut. But it will kill an armored opponent much easier, because it's purpose isn't to cut or pierce, it's to smash. Likewise, an arrow has a better chance of actually penetrating flesh, but steel shot will smash any armor it is thrown against. It doesn't have to penetrate to deal damage. Hitting the target is all that is required for damage to be done, whether to armor, or opponent, or both.
Isn't bare chain-mail bad against missiles? I read from somewhere that mail blocks incoming attack by distributing the pressure by the chain structure - it's much better to counter slashing attack but not thristing, since the thristing power on one point cannot be distributed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aper
chainmail is better against slashing, but it's not useless against arrows. It's not easy to break a ring of a good mail, and even if the missile succeeds in doing this, it usually has not enough energy to seriously injure the target. Don't forget that under the armor there always was some type of padded protection, that is perfect to dissipate the remaining energy of the arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by AqD
The best way to deal with a chainmail is 1) a blunt weapon, that however perform bad against the padded armor under the mail, or 2) a melee weapon with a point small enough to penetrate a ring
3) the best, to aim at an uncovered part of the body : an Italian swordmaster, Massimo Malipiero, has recently did a study about the most common wounds on the battlefields of northern Italy in late middle-ages, and it results that most of injuries was suffered at the face, the easiest to hit big uncovered spot in the whole body, usually
Hope it helps :2thumbsup:
The main purpose of longbow, though, is not to annihilate the opponent, but to help the cavalry or infantry by creating confusion and disorder - and to prevent the opposing archers from doing that.