How is AP more effective against Armor than without Armor

**Budwise** · 02-22-2006, 10:26

I never understood this and maybe I am wrong and this isn't true but can someone answer?

How come my armor piercing arrows/bolts/polearm/axe are more effective versus armor units than without. How could something hurt MORE after going through armor instead of just piercing you. Does the arrow get stuck in the armor causing more damage while you move while you can pull out the arrow if it hits you? I don't know - can someone please explain this logic or is it just there for balancing issues?

**antisocialmunky** · 02-22-2006, 12:58

Are you factoring out the shields?

**L'Impresario** · 02-22-2006, 13:03

Well, in reality they aren't more effective per se; they just negate(the magic word being "negate" here) the armour bonus, so you hit home more often than just making nice dents on your enemy's plate.

**econ21** · 02-22-2006, 13:05

AP is not more effective against armor than without. It merely reduces the extra protection of the armour. I forget the exact formula, but it something like AP bonus = (Armour-3)/2.

Consider an unarmoured person - they get no benefit from armour.

An armoured person vs non-AP weapon - they get the armour stat added to their defense

An armoured person vs AP weapon - they get [Armour - AP bonus] added to their defense. This is always positive and so they are still better off than the unarmoured person.

**Ludens** · 02-22-2006, 13:07

AP is not more effective against a unit with armour. If all other stats except for armour are equal, an unarmoured unit will suffer worse from the attacks of an AP unit than an armoured one. It is just that an AP unit gets an attack bonus against armoured units, and this bonus is never greater than the defense bonus confered by the armour.

I would really like to know where this misconceptions stems from. It reappears every few months, and even made its way into Froggy's Unit Guide.

**drone** · 02-22-2006, 17:26

I think some of the misconception comes from various guides saying it is a waste to attack unarmored units with AP units. It's not that they are worse, it's just that they could be better utilized on an armored opponent. I think this got misinterpreted into "don't use AP units against non-armored ones".

**Ghost of Rom** · 02-23-2006, 09:58

I don't think armor piercers are more effective versus armored units than the same exact unit without armor. But when it come down to the best use of your florins, you do try to avoid matchups that give your enemy large bonus's. Ie (cav vrs halberd).

**Budwise** · 02-24-2006, 09:44

Originally Posted by drone

I think some of the misconception comes from various guides saying it is a waste to attack unarmored units with AP units. It's not that they are worse, it's just that they could be better utilized on an armored opponent. I think this got misinterpreted into "don't use AP units against non-armored ones".

I guess thats where I get it. Thanks for all the corrections