Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[Mediolanicus]

Using the M2TW engine, you can actually depict the more advanced set of armour worn by your units. For example, a non upgraded unit may not wear any armour at all, however, if you bought some armour workshop and re-train those units, you can give them better armour.

This can be an accurate depiction as legionnaires do not wear that armour until the later part of the Roman empire, and that armour isn't that widespread.

So, by making the armour available when you have a high level armour workshop, you do not have so legionnaires wearing the LS, and you do have a chance to provide your troops with that armour until the late game period.

Even if you did manage to equip those units with the Lorica Segmentata, only a few legions can afford it.

This all very possible and true, but I don't see what it has to do with EB.
It is also possible to add musket units to all the factions. MTW2 engine has them, and the whole of Europe used them at some point in history. But I don't see what that has to do with EB either...

[antisocialmunky]

The armor system is messed up and LS isn't going to be in the game. Just wait for a LS mod.

[Macilrille]

Or someone extending the game into AD which is where the LS was taken into use. By Legions who were, BTW ALWAYS armoured, no unarmoured Legioaires, ever. Auxilia often wore lighter armour, Legions heavier.

Cut and Paste from Wiki, whose Roman series of articles is not bad at all.
During the time of its use, it was modified several times, the currently recognised types being the Kalkriese, Corbridge and Newstead types. There was, however, a considerable overlap between these types in use and the Corbridge and Newstead types are often found at the same site (e.g. at Caerleon [Wales], Carnuntum [Austria], Carlisle [England] and Leon [Spain]). It is possible that there was a fourth type, a hybrid of the banded armour together with scale shoulder defences. However, this is only known from a badly damaged statue originating at Alba Julia in Romania. The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (Leon). However, similar armouring techniques were used during the 16th century, employing sliding rivets and this was known as anima. Introduced in the early 1st century AD, the armor saw widespread use during the period of 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

[ray243]

I do not mean depicting the Legionaires as unarmored. I mean depicting an 'unarmoured' unit of Legionaires wearing Hamata.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

First of all, there will be no LS in EBII. Unless someone finds some sort of revolutionary find of LS use in the second century BC, the team will stick to "No LS".

I understand what you are suggesting, and yes it is possible to do as you say.

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

Also, it hasn't been decided yet, but armor upgrades may be used for something other than armor upgrades and may not be available for this purpose.

[antisocialmunky]

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

In the unit description it displays +1 but in the actual engine registers more than a +1 for many levels. If you look around, you can find the exact numbers. The only one I remember is that from unarmored to padded is +4.

[Macilrille]

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.