Quote Originally Posted by Cybvep
AP just ignore half of the armour value and do nothing else, so if shield value is high, unit will have very good protection against AP-weapons, which is ahistorical.
Whoa...what makes you think that is that ahistorical?

Body armor is pressed right up against the body. Obviously, piercing body armor, more often than not, should result in a casualty. That's why the RTW team modelled it the way they did. Given the limited constraints of their model, I think they were right to do so.

But a shield is held out in front of the body. There's a buffer zone between the shield and the man. Just because a shield is pierced (or even destroyed) doesn't mean the man dies. But you're saying that it's more historically accurate if he does die - every single time (these guys only have one hit point, so one hit equals death).

The current system is tremendously unfair towards units that have no armor, and rely solely on a shield for protection. In reality, the large shields that barbarians carried would have afforded excellent protection against missile attacks - but the way it's currently modelled, they're not getting it.

Check this out:

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?