Some questions about game mechanics...

[Aper]

@ Watchman

Thanks for the info and the link, but about shortswords vs. longswords, I have some observations..

First, regarding maiming & cleaving, shortswords seem not inferior to long ones: you surely know the reports of ancient authors about the terrible wounds inflicted by slashing with a gladius hispanicus, a falcata or a kopis. This in EB is portrayed by giving to the last 2 weapons the AP attribute (a solution less than ideal IMHO, but anyway, it's not my mod..).

About the deadlyness of thrusting weapons, well, I think the wounds inflicted by the large blades of a gladium, celtic longsword or most spears (even celtic ones) are not comparable with the wounds from a rapier, that is almost "chirurgical", when large bladed weapons, even thrusting, cut large portions of flesh..

Regarding the reech of the longsword, I don't know how it matters when you have a tower shield behind you can hide, and change in a relative safe manner the distance from your enemy.. And surely it's easier to hit an enemy with a longsword but, if he is armored, stabbing is usually the best way to break a chain mail or hit an uncovered spot (not only in europe - according to an ARMA article even in japan, in popular culture the land of the cutting sword) and if he is unarmored no matter how you hit, if you have a war-sword
(not a rapier) the wound is usually incapacitating enough IMHO.

so why the longsword was so popular and romans in the end adopted them? I think simply because this weapons have the same features of a gladius, but slightly improved.. at a much greater cost (this is why romans used shortswords, and should say something to the people who think that the late roman army was a bunch of almost unarmed farmers + savage barbarians). With a longsword is also easier to use fencing techniques (usually not very useful on a battlefield, but they can come in handy..) than with a shortsword, weapons for butcher's work (like someone-a roman- said )