Re: Congrats and comments
No!Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
My gosh, this is like pulling teeth...
Really, this would all be so much easier if you would just TRY what I'm saying. Test it for yourself! You're completely missing the boat here, Qwerty. Now for god's sake pay attention...
Currently we have the following:
Early Hastati Defense = 7, 9, 3
Frontal Melee defense rating: 19 vs. normal weapons; 15.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defense rating: 16 vs. normal weapons; 12.5 vs. AP weapons.
This is as per your current system. Looking at the above figures, it's easy to see that Hastati are nearly as well protected when attacked from the rear, despite the fact that all of their armor (excepting the helmet) is on the front of their bodies. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?
Now, changing shield values, et al... (as I rather patiently keep suggesting) gives you defensive figures that look something like this:
Early Hastati Defense = 5*, 4**, 9***
*Here I have awarded 2 points for a helmet, 2 points for their little square chest plate, and 1 point for a greave (as per your preference). That gives an armor rating of 5.
**If they were unarmored, they would get a defensive skill rating of 6, but since they have the plate on their chest, a helmet and greave, I knocked this number down to 4. Judgement call.
***9 Points for the shield. Could be 8, could be 10 depending on how good you think the shield is.
What this all adds up to in my system is this:
Frontal Melee defense rating: 18 vs. normal weapons; 15.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defense rating: 9 vs. normal weapons; 6.5 vs. AP weapons.
Now compare these figures with your own. As you can see, the Hastati's frontal melee defense remains basically the same as in your system. So, there is no real impact on frontal melee whatsoever. The only real difference now is that Hastati are much more vulnerable when attacked from BEHIND. This is as it should be!
______________________________________
Now, lets look at a high-calibre, unarmored unit. Currently:
Barbarian Gaesatae (Gaul) Defense = 5,14,4 with 2 hit points. Therefore:
Frontal Melee defense rating = 23 vs. normal weapons; 20.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defensive rating = 19 vs. normal weapons; 16.5 vs. AP weapons.
Sooo, in your system, the Gaesatae actually have superior defense when attacked from BEHIND than the Hastati have when attacked from the FRONT. This, despite the fact that Gaesatae can rely on little more than their ass hairs for protection!
By contrast, in my system:
Barbarian Gaesatae (Gaul) Defense = 2*,8**,10*** with 2 hit points.
* Helmet. No points for pubic hair.
** This would normally be a 6, but these are elite warriors. You could raise it to 10 perhaps, but that would be pushing it.
*** Nice, big shield.
Which means:
Frontal Melee defense rating = 20 vs. normal weapons; 19 vs. AP weapons.*
Rear Melee defensive rating = 10 vs. normal weapons; 9 vs. AP weapons.**
* Comparable to your figures. Also, your concern that unarmored troops would end up being "overly penalised" vs. AP units is, as you can see, totally unfounded. Unarmored units hold up better than armored units do against AP (e.g. Falx units), which is exactly what you wanted!
** Attacking these guys from behind now makes good sense.
So, as you can see (assuming you are still paying attention...), your fear that unarmored troops would "...end up with better defense in melee than armored troops" actually exists in YOUR system, not mine. Wow! How ironic is that??
Agreed. And IMHO you have surpassed that limit. For elite unarmored troops, I wouldn't go higher than a DS rating of 8 (and then only for exceptional cases). 10 would really be pushing it. But as you can see, your Gaesatae currently have a DS rating of 14.
Nevertheless, those bonuses WILL impact melee! And not just from the front, but from the rear...and right flank, too! I'm sorry Qwerty but there's no getting around it; in trying to address your missile problems, you are simply creating more problems.
Not true. When attacked from the front, point for point, the corrolation is precisely equal. The only exception is when the attacking missile has the AP trait. That's how it should be! This is a non-issue.
YES IT IS! In fact, it is EXACTLY that - a point for point relationship! The only mitigating factors are that the shield points are not counted when the unit is attacked from the left side and rear; the defensive skill is not counted when attacked by ranged units, and the armor is halved when attacked by AP units.
That's it! That's all there is to it. Why are you so determined to make this complicated? This is not rocket science.
Ok, I don't want to make this any more of a pissing contest than it already is. If you've been followed along at all, I think you must know by now that I understand perfectly well how shields function.
Qwerty, look: First you claim that high shield values cause problems with AP melee weapons. I think I have clearly proven that's not the case. Then you claim there will be problems with unarmored units being more powerful than armored units. Not only have I shown that you are wrong about that, but I have shown that very issue ironically exists in your own system!
And now you are claiming that my system only "exacerbates problems with AP and missiles". Alright, Qwerty, tell you what. If you are so sure that my system will create a missile and AP crises - then prove it to me. Show me exactly what these problems are. Stop making broad, generalized statements and start giving me specific examples.
To be perfectly honest, Qwerty, I already know EXACTLY what you're going to say, and I already know why you are wrong. The fact is, I'm too darn tired to go into it all right now - and anyway, I want to see if you can be bothered to take the time to reason through this and solve it on your own. I know you're a smart fellow, and I know you can do it if you apply even a minimal effort.
So go ahead, make your case!
Bookmarks