Armour Values

[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.