[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[antisocialmunky]

The Romans IIRC reinforced their helmets, ditched the LS, and added padding. They also added segmented sleeves so they wouldn't lose as many arms as well as greaves because having legs is a useful thing.

But as Burebista said, they were actually quite vulnerable before to cheap celtic swordsmen and other things.

[TheShakAttack]

The Romans IIRC reinforced their helmets, ditched the LS, and added padding. They also added segmented sleeves so they wouldn't lose as many arms as well as greaves because having legs is a useful thing.

But as Burebista said, they were actually quite vulnerable before to cheap celtic swordsmen and other things.

I agree completely. The falx neccesitated the response of adding addition armor during Dacian Conflict. Other weapons the roman army had encountered previously were not as noted for their AP capacity. To the extent that greaves and forearm guards were not part of stardard equipment.

I also agree with Robin that part of the reason for greaves and forearmguards (technical name escapes me) is likey to have been due to the curved nature of the falx which might have been able to (in a sense) “reach around” a scutum due to a falx's curved nature. However, this is not the point I will focus on right now.

A key fact is that the helmet needed to be reinforced. Therefore, one might safely assume that the previous helmet in use was not sufficiently strong. Further, Roman Armor was noted to be of very high quality.

In EBO, we play against “standard” armor, not the “reinforced” armor Trajan’s army was forced to adpot. The falx was clearly very effective against the “standard” armor of Trajan’s troops and therefore it should be reflected in game.

One might try to argue that adding more armor and/or reinforcing it stopped the AP quality of the falx (the fact that it could pierce “standard” armor does not matter) and therefore the falx should not be AP. In which event it is hard to see why an axe or a kopis is AP. Im sure you can reinforce armor to decrease effectiveness of those weapons as well. Further, as far as I know, Rome encountered many armies who used the kopis/falcatta and axe, but nowhere near the same fear is expressed with regard to these weapons as is with the falx (though it may be that this is because Trajan wished for this to happen for publicity reasons).

[antisocialmunky]

Actually, I would imagine that the helmet reinforcements were more due to the fact that the falx defeats energy redirection due to its tendency to 'hook' so you could probably jack up a helmet quite a bit through blunt force. Also note that they were strengthening the helmet with a simple brace rather than making it thicker and they added armor only to unarmored bits so it would counter the falx. So my feeling is that it was very good at getting a 'bite' and piercing tearing.

Kopis/Falcatta are swords that have heavy tips made to transfer impact and cut. Likewise, axes are smashing weapons with a blade unless you're referring to one of those Eastern dagger axes which are basically made for piercing..

[TheShakAttack]

Actually, I would imagine that the helmet reinforcements were more due to the fact that the falx defeats energy redirection due to its tendency to 'hook' so you could probably jack up a helmet quite a bit through blunt force.

If that is indeed why they did it (I am not an expert), then logic follows that if maces are AP, falx, though its ability to generate blunt force to the head, is also AP? (not that this is the thrust of my entire argument).

[gamegeek2]

If that is indeed why they did it (I am not an expert), then logic follows that if maces are AP, falx, though its ability to generate blunt force to the head, is also AP? (not that this is the thrust of my entire argument).

ASM and I are, if I understand correctly, pointing out the flaw in your position.

Adding armor to the arm does nothing against a mace because a heavy mace will break your arm regardless of what you are wearing. Same with a war-hammer or pole-axe. By its design the falx is excellent for attacking where armor can't be found, namely at the neck and arms. So rather you attack where the armor is not, rather than blow through it. This is the only way in which I see the falx getting AP, in its ability to hit where the armor isn't, but other weapons were doing that too; most slashing weapons were used to cut off limbs (typically unarmored), as slashing at the chest is simply less efficient than stabbing there. They were simply less good at it because you had far less control than you did with a falx. Thus we have falxes with higher attack, but which get worse as armor gets better, just like every other weapon.

[TheShakAttack]

I remain unconvinced by your argument. I have to emphasise, I am not a weapons expert, and you may well be right. However, the fact is, everything i have read about the falx (including the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) indicates it was a weapon which could cut into shields and armor (see quote above). If anyone could direct me to a source which backsup your argument, I will be much obliged. I might be laboring under a popular misconception.

Out of curiosity, why does Bastarnae retain AP while drapanai dont if you are advancing the historical/fact based argument that the falx was not AP?

PS. here are some futher links from very superficial research (google). Unfortunately only game sites feel the need to discuss the falx, lol.

http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=9989

"In combat the Dacians fielded a ferocious weapon of such brutality that the Romans were forced to issue extra armor to their troops to counter it. This was of course the legendary Dacian falx. Bearing an obvious resemblance to the earlier Thracian weapon, the falx was of similar construction: a two-handed sword with a down-sloping curved iron blade. Again, roughly 3-feet long, the falx featured a heavier blade than the rhomphaia, along with a sturdier haft. In combat the Dacians would swing the weapon with such power that it was able to cut through Roman shields and wound the man behind. Decapitations and amputations occurred with such astounding regularity that the Romans made subtle modifications to the standard legionnaire’s equipment. Helmets and shields were reinforced, while soldiers were issued greaves and manica to give them greater protection when facing the falxmen. Thanks in part to the devastating power of the falx the Roman Imperial Italic line of helmets came into production. "

http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/g...Truth_Fantasy/

"It was one of the few weapons encountered by the Romans which caused them to modify their current equipment. Upon facing falxmen for the first time, the Romans were terrified to see the weapon slice through helmets, or chop off arms with a single blow. The next time the Romans went on the warpath, they had bronze crosses reinforcing their helmets, and metal plates covering their shoulders and lower legs."

[vartan]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

[vartan]

Do recall that the romans placed more armor on themselves to defend against the falx.

You can't have a Roman have more armour against the falx and less against other units. And the Romans putting on more armour doesn't prove the non-AP-ness of the falx.

[antisocialmunky]

So... you put on armor on places that are not armored to defend from stuff that can easily defeat armor?

[TheShakAttack]

So... you put on armor on places that are not armored to defend from stuff that can easily defeat armor?

Obviously yes...if that's the best you can do.