Quote Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
This isn't quite true, light armored troops get bonuses, and barbarians get special bonuses as well to make up for the fact they don't wear much armor but should be rather tougher than the system implies.
Yes, I noticed that you are giving several unarmored troops an armor rating. We are both trying to get to the same destination, but we are taking different routes. I really don't think giving unarmored troops a rating for armor is the way to go. You're making a fairly simple situation overly complex IMHO. Now these lightly armored, or unarmored units are going to have what little defense you've awarded them cut in half vs. ap units (including your falxmen).

Quote Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
He gets most of his armor from his greaves and helmet, not this pectoral.

4 from the helmet, 2 from the greaves, 1 from the pectoral.
I like the fact that your assigning armor values based on the equipment, but it seems a bit off to me to award 4 points for a helmet and only 3 for a large shield. If you had to face an archer at fifty paces, which piece of equipment would you rather have: An open faced helm or a full-body shield?

Also, I don't believe hastati wore greaves. The reason they wore that square plate on their chests is because they had to make it themselves. Fashioning greaves was expensive and a bit beyond them, if I'm not mistaken.


Quote Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description), looks like I did a good job eh? They do seem to have a sheild value lower than what is dictated by the system, I will have to check and see if they were tweaked intentionally.
Understood. I had a feeling they might have "slipped through the cracks" a bit and that you probably intended to give them a 3 instead of the 1. But I still say a 3 (or even a 5) isn't nearly enough.