lorica segmentata i wish!!!!

[QwertyMIDX]

I think he meant Lorica Plumata.

[BigTex]

Well, I've seen it said severla times in this forum, and above it says that LS units would have lower armour than LH.

LS should do better in almost any condition when compared to LH. I know on the history channel they've fired small scorpions at LS and it wouldnt even penetrate. Heavy segmented iron plates will stop pretty much any type of weapon. But it is far more painstaking to maintian then compared to chainmail.

[Zarax]

LH (elite) units could be represented with similar armour rating to muscled cuirass but dramatically higher upkeep to represent the high level of maintenance required for such units.
They also might be limited in their area of recuitment as LS wasn't used in many parts of the empire even later, I think someone referred to it as something like "garrison armour easily replaced by LH for use in long campaigns"

[keravnos]

About the Lorica Segmentata thing. It saw heavy use very long after EB timeline ended. It was coslty and required CONSTANT care, unlike chain mail, that's why it was abandoned later on. I don't see how it is possible for people to deny Imperial reforms (which happened) and then ask for an ahistorical presentation of Lorica segmentata (which never happened in the timeline of EB).



So, it may have been the "super-wonder", or the end-all be-all of armors in the ancient world, but it was out of our timeline, it is out of EB.

[Foot]

About the Lorica Segmentata thing. It saw heavy use very long after EB timeline ended. It was coslty and required CONSTANT care, unlike chain mail, that's why it was abandoned later on. I don't see how it is possible for people to deny Imperial reforms (which happened) and then ask for an ahistorical presentation of Lorica segmentata (which never happened in the timeline of EB).



So, it may have been the "super-wonder", or the end-all be-all of armors in the ancient world, but it was out of our timeline, it is out of EB.

Again this misunderstanding continues. The same people are not denying the inclusion of imperial reform AND asking for LS. That would be an untenable position, in my opinion, given the arguments against the inclusion of the IR. People have said that the arguments for the imperial reform can be used equally well with arguments for the inclusion of LS, as the development of the imperial army seems to have been followed shortly by the first use of LS, and whilst LS does appear much later in our time period (even outside it), the imperial reforms also appear very late in our time period, but their avaliability have been pushed forward to represent a dynamic inclusion.

Personally I don't see the connection so well and we can only represent so much with the mechanics that we work with. In either case, I still feel that the Imperial Reforms are too extravagant in EB, and that this issue does not belong in this thread, so lets keep it to the thread in which the discussion is taking place.

Foot