Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Getai secondary weapon issue

  1. #1
    Member Member NoHelmet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    89

    Default Getai secondary weapon issue

    I noticed that some of the getai troops (tarabostes, komatai, e.g.) do not have the AP attribute to their secondary weapons, even though the same weapons on other troops have that attribute, like the traikian peltasts. Is it due to balance reasons, or something else, and will i experience any bugs if i alter that attribute during my campain?
    My first baloon, generously given by Arthur, king of the Britons , for nice Casse and Pahlava empires

  2. #2
    Member Member WinsingtonIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boston, USA
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Getai secondary weapon issue

    Komatai and Tarabostes do not carry a rhomphaia like the Thracian Peltasts do. They carry a sica, which may look quite similar, but it is a smaller blade than the rhomphaia, and thus, you get less force behind it when you swing it and it is less able to pierce armor. I know that historically the sica did force the Romans to make some armor modifications, but the EB team has come to the conclusion that it was not enough of an armor piercing weapon to receive the AP trait, whereas they have determined that rhomphaia's were. So, I believe it is for historical reasons that sica-armed troops do not have the AP attribute.

    However, if you wish to add the AP trait, I do not think it will cause any bugs, changing unit stats isn't the sort of thing that causes crashes and the like. But, please, wait until someone more qualified than myself agrees with me on this before changing anything.

    Welcome to the forums, by the way!
    Last edited by WinsingtonIII; 08-05-2010 at 16:53.
    from Megas Methuselah, for some information on Greek colonies in Iberia.



  3. #3
    RABO! Member Brave Brave Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Assaulting your flanks
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: Getai secondary weapon issue

    You can change any sort of unit stat except number of men in a unit without effecting current games.
    From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
    x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
    From Brennus for wit.

  4. #4
    ‘Abdü’l-Mecīd-i evvel Member Kival's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    767

    Default Re: Getai secondary weapon issue

    But you should backup your files before altering them. If you mess up the files it's always good to have a backup.

    ‘Abdü’l-Mecīd-i evvel

  5. #5
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,014
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Getai secondary weapon issue

    Quote Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII View Post
    Komatai and Tarabostes do not carry a rhomphaia like the Thracian Peltasts do. They carry a sica, which may look quite similar, but it is a smaller blade than the rhomphaia, and thus, you get less force behind it when you swing it and it is less able to pierce armor. I know that historically the sica did force the Romans to make some armor modifications, but the EB team has come to the conclusion that it was not enough of an armor piercing weapon to receive the AP trait, whereas they have determined that rhomphaia's were. So, I believe it is for historical reasons that sica-armed troops do not have the AP attribute.
    I think the modification you mention was made because the sica could reach behind a legionary's shield, rather than because it was particularly effective against armour.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  6. #6
    Member Member WinsingtonIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boston, USA
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Getai secondary weapon issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    I think the modification you mention was made because the sica could reach behind a legionary's shield, rather than because it was particularly effective against armour.
    Yeah I think it had to do with the curvature of the blade and how the point could come down on relatively unprotected areas from above.
    from Megas Methuselah, for some information on Greek colonies in Iberia.



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO