Congrats and comments

[Reverend Joe]

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

[Macroi]

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

I understand your concern here, but this won't be an issue if you just follow the formula that I lay out in my first post up top. Troops without armor, or with light armor, should get a bonus to their defensive skill rating (the middle number). Armored troops should have their defensive skill rating lowered to 2 across the board, then they can receive bonuses depending on whether or not they are elite. Tweak the numbers as you like, but to me this is a far more accurate way to model the situation.