Armour Values

[Randal]

That is the second explanation I considered, and I agree that it actually would make a lot of sense to balance units according to their historical performance rather than just to what armour they are wearing.

But Ludens' explanation seems to contradict this, stating that the team uses a formula, with some few exceptions. Perhaps Hastati indeed are one such exception.

(Though in that case I would still wonder at post-Marian legionaries being weaker than Polybian legionaries, if anything I was under the distinct impression that the professionalisation of the Roman Army increased its fighting potential rather than decreased.)

[SFraser]

There certainly are some unusual discrepancies.

As for your other point I wouldn't know how the EB team go about defining the values, but I would say in my experience that the fighting performance and behaviour of most units fits the decription rather than the individual statistics fitting the appearance of the unit. Camillan Hastati versus Botroas is an excellent example of how slightly confusing statistics individually produce an excellent variety of behaviour that perfectly suits the unit description and historical information given. I'm not saying that is the premise from the outset, but I would expect some "creative license" with statistics in order to produce the desired effect.

I think what is important is the effect of the statistics themselves rather than what they are supposed to represent in terms direct equation to equipment. An unarmoured unit like Milnaht or even Gaesatae that is supposed to be immense in close melee is not going to fare particularly well in close melee when they have zero for their armour statistic. According to EB the Jugundiz with no shirt have an armour of 0, Botroas with no shirt have an armour of 1, Milnaht with no shirt but helmet have an armour of 5, Bataroas with shirt and helmet have armour of 6 and Drwdae in their chainmail have an armour of 10.

Like others have said I don't think wearing a helmet warrants +5 armour when a chain shirt does the same, but I don't think the differences can be rationalised in this way. It is a similar issue with shields, does a cheap wooden buckler used by slingers honestly give half the protection of a scutum? In terms of pure defensive value, surely something like a scutum should be giving a higher protection value than any other piece of equipment in the game? What would you rather bring to the battlefield, a massive and well designed human sized board of reinforced wood held at arms length, or go naked but for a helmet?

The nature of large shields like the scutum is that they are "almost" omni directional in that you can "hide" behind them, and in large groups they present pretty much a wooden wall with sharp objects sticking out from the gaps. The game doesn't account for this, so omni-directional combat ability of soldiers + styles + equipment must be factored into the armour rating or defense skill etc.

I wouldn't go around thinking of armour equalling the actual armour worn, but the defense capability of the unit from multiple directions. Likewise when wielding a scutum, a high shield value would only work in two directions for a single man and would not represent the actual capability of an entire unit wielding scutums.

I could be totally off the mark here, but if I was involved in something like EB I would be considering the weaknesses in the combat engine for representing abilities on the field of battle, in order to produce a more realistic end result. You don't want your Hastati with their wooden walls dying like flies because they are engaged from the front and being pelted by slingers from the rear, so only ten men turn to face the slingers and their ingame scutums offer no protection to the other hundred men not yet engaged and completely oblivious to the death being chucked at them.

When this happens ingame currently, the armour value of the Hastati is actually higher than the value of the shield, so the unarmoured Hastati are actually better defended than if they had 0 for all stats and had a shield facing the slingers (not entireally true due to AP + shield boni but you get the point). I think this is a clear example of how the shield itself is not directly represented by the shield value, but is abstracted for the units defence as a whole. Ofcourse this will result in imperfect consequences in other contexts, but the fundamental game mechanics themselves are not perfect.

In future I would like see more variables or "bonuses" involved in equipment and defence values, for example different shield sizes taken into account (light and heavy for example) and providing additional defence to the unit as a whole, but that kind of thing is for the future.

[Randal]

If it works like you describe it would be a good system, I agree. You make good points.

However, AP weapons would rather confuse this issue. I already feel that they are far too effective in EB compared to our historical reports. (Is there any evidence, any ancient source that ascribed victory to an army's use of falcatas instead of gladii?) If armour values were meant as a more generic representation of a unit's melee-capacity, giving every unit with a curved sword or club the ability to halve this value would rather send historical balance flying out of the window.

[Duguntz]

randal : "(Is there any evidence, any ancient source that ascribed victory to an army's use of falcatas instead of gladii?)"

Yes, in Dacia, the roman had to modify their armour because they were being butchered by the rhompaia (or falx?) and it's curved blade and thus went to battle with their lorica segmentata complemented by a manica (inspired by the gladiators) worn on the sword arm... we can clearly see the depictions on the trajan column, between the two conflicts of dacia...

[Randal]

I know. Which is why I later wrote "Well, except the spectacular and unusual weapons we know did have a big impact on battles, like the Sarissa or the Falx."

Though even there it remains in question how much influence these weapons and modifications actually had on the war. And I suspect psychological aspects also play a role. Those falxmen must have been truly scary to face, and having anti-falx improvements on their armour might just help encourage soldiers to stand firm in the face of a charge.

[ziegenpeter]

Its a bit OT, but maybe the helmet gives that much protection not because of the protected surface, but because of WHAT it protects. Those naked dude had a reason why they were naked except for the head...

[Cute Wolf]

Its a bit OT, but maybe the helmet gives that much protection not because of the protected surface, but because of WHAT it protects. Those naked dude had a reason why they were naked except for the head...

Seconded, you may be stabbed with spear at your torso, but as long as it didn't fatally pierce heart or backbone, you can still be alive... but nobody survive a head break...

[Apázlinemjó]

(Though in that case I would still wonder at post-Marian legionaries being weaker than Polybian legionaries, if anything I was under the distinct impression that the professionalisation of the Roman Army increased its fighting potential rather than decreased.)

Actually the Reformata legionaries aren't really weaker, as their moral (one of the most important factor in the stats) and soldiers/unit rate are higher than the Polybian Principes' and Hastati's. Also let's not forget that the Triarii maniples were the "cream" in the earlier armies, so they are a different story.

[gamegeek2]

That is the second explanation I considered, and I agree that it actually would make a lot of sense to balance units according to their historical performance rather than just to what armour they are wearing.

But Ludens' explanation seems to contradict this, stating that the team uses a formula, with some few exceptions. Perhaps Hastati indeed are one such exception.

As a member of the team, I can attest that they do use a formula, though exceptions are made for some units (namely barbarians).

I think what is important is the effect of the statistics themselves rather than what they are supposed to represent in terms direct equation to equipment. An unarmoured unit like Milnaht or even Gaesatae that is supposed to be immense in close melee is not going to fare particularly well in close melee when they have zero for their armour statistic. According to EB the Jugundiz with no shirt have an armour of 0, Botroas with no shirt have an armour of 1, Milnaht with no shirt but helmet have an armour of 5, Bataroas with shirt and helmet have armour of 6 and Drwdae in their chainmail have an armour of 10.

Barbarian melee units are given a +1 bonus to armour automatically.

In EB, shields have pretty low values compared to their historical effectiveness. Have you ever tried mock-fighting with a big shield, like a hoplon or scutum? The thing is invaluable protection. To represent this, AtB will give shields much greater effectiveness. Hopla will have a shield stat of 6, Thureoi 5 - much better than the 4 and 3 we see in-game.

Head-blows are by far the most lethal, but some of the hardest to carry out when you have a shield (a stab at the torso or slash towards the neck or limbs is much more practical) - plus, the other guy can just raise his shield to block. Against horsemen, a helmet is more effective because they would be striking down at you.

Also, I find falcatae and kopeis underpowered. They are much more lethal than the .11 lethality would suggest - definitely more lethal than a mace, which has .165 lethality. AtB will assign lethality based on how likely a hit from a weapon is to KILL you. Disabling isn't quite killing, though it's pretty good, but there's no way to represent disabling in the RTW system, so instead it will count towards lethality, but significantly less.

[athanaric]

Also, I find falcatae and kopeis underpowered. They are much more lethal than the .11 lethality would suggest - definitely more lethal than a mace, which has .165 lethality. AtB will assign lethality based on how likely a hit from a weapon is to KILL you. Disabling isn't quite killing, though it's pretty good, but there's no way to represent disabling in the RTW system, so instead it will count towards lethality, but significantly less.

Indeed, I think they should have stats more similar to maces - somewhat lower attack, but bigger lethality than other short/medium length swords.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Why is it that basic Celtic shirtless spearmen have an armor value of 1 while similarly equipped Nubian or Garamantine spearmen have an armor value of 0?

[Randal]

It's explained earlier in the thread.

It's a game-balance decision that has no basis in reality, merely meant to make the barbarian factions more viable in the game-engine despite their lack of armoured troops.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

So why are the Nubians unbalanced like that then? Saba doesn't get any real armored troops anyway, and those Nubian guys are often what they have to rely on in Southern Egypt for a while.