Understood. My point was that there is a difference between having one LS texture within an entire cohort wearing the LH, and having an entire unit equipped solely with the former cuirass. One is not inaccurate and the other is.
Everything you said is true...when spoken in regards to RTW. Not so when spoken in regards to M2:TW, for the reason expressed above. Doing what I suggested for M2:TW certainly does not require sacrificing historicity, in fact it could be argued that it enhances the game's accuracy by representing the introduction of a new form of armor. If it does not take another DMB spot, than it is certainly not over representing anyone to add another texture to a preexisting unit. I'm sure that every nook and cranny will be filled, just as it was with the RTW engine.The reasoning for not including a LS legionary is actually pretty simple. EB is about historical accuracy. Popular history doesn't count for anything, and nor do fan requests. The majority of Augustean legionaries wore chain mail, not LS, and nor was LS that common when it did become popular, so the standard Augustean legionary should wear chainmail.
Off course, another legionary could be added wearing LS, but there would be no functional differences between both units. The Romans are already overrepresented when it comes to units (engine constraints, alas, do count, as does the need to do all factions justice) and other factions don't get multiple versions of the same unit. I also don't recall any request for squamata-wearing legionaries, either.
Regarding the lorica squamata: I plan on getting an expansion soon, and the first thing I will do is add (the other) LS-equipped legionaries as AOR units for the Romani in the eastern provinces.
Bookmarks