Was there any accuracy in Vanilla?

[russia almighty]

About the units in general. Were there any that did exist with in the time frame that they put in the game and looked somewhat accurate to there historical description ?

[Bootsiuv]

Yeah...peasants probably looked like peasants.

I wouldn't go any further than though.

Of course, we all know about the Arcani and their crazy battlefield exploits, so CA hit the nail on the head there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes of course there was some accuracy, the Macedonians weren't too bad, the Romans, the Carthaginians. In a very broad sense CA got a lot right. It's just that a lot of details were wrong.

[Griever14206]

The Romans (of course) we're pretty well done. They had most of the classes, hastati, principe, triari, equites etc. The 3 family model also represented the civil wars of Rome very well.

[Sakkura]

The 3 family model also represented the civil wars of Rome very well.

Unfortunately it was highly ahistorical for everything apart from the civil wars.

[Spoofa]

Lorica segmentata

100% historically accurate.

the only fault in eb.

[iwwtf_az]

Lorica segmentata

100% historically accurate.

the only fault in eb.

[Cyclops]

A lot of good points here. It was a Rome focussed game, you had to play as a Roman just to unlock the other factions.

Vanilla was a computer game, not really a historical simulation. Its like Sid Meiers Pirates on the old Atari 800, but its not as bad as Pirates of the Carribean.

They wanted an interesting pallette of factions for an interesting and marketable game. I guess it was just after "Gladiator" came out so Rome was sexy, but frankly the decline and fall is less dynamic than the Rise of Rome era. there are less diverse factions (Look at BI: a bunch of krauts, a bunch of HA's and 4 Roman factions).

They chose a fine era to fight in, and managed to park reasonably diverse factions in strategically interesting places. They popped in lorica hamata dso fans of Russell Crowe would stay tuned.

Defintiely the Britons were dodgy but necessary from a marketing poiint of view: along with the Germans they have immense interst in the English speaking world as percieved ancestors.

The Egyptians were anachronistic: that was a marketing decision pure and simple, and I recall an embarrassed interview on that point.

Wailing women, incendiary pigs, well they are mentioned in the literature (although whether they should be believed is another thing) so they have some tenuous basis for some of their more criticised decisions. IIRC Hannibal used Incendiary Bulls on one occasion, I wonder why they didn't make the cut? I reckon a unit of Archimedes Artillery would be way cool too.

Its a decent engine and they dressed it up nicely, and it was a starting point for many people to taste ancient mediteranean history: a very good thing.

Best of all they have left bits open for tweaking by lovely crews like EB.

[Romano-Dacis]

I don't understand what everyone has against the Laurica Segmentata. I've always read that it was used between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. At least that's what http://www.loricasegmentata.org/ says. In fact, I read that at multiple sources. Wouldn't it be a pretty good guess to assume that by 14 AD there would at least be one unit with this type of armor about?

I mean c'mon, they're even depicted on Trajan's Column, they certainly can't be that far out of the time frame.

Segmentata 4 Life homies...

[QwertyMIDX]

Trajan's Colum was complete in 113 AD, that's one year short of a century past the end of EB, which is just shy of 3 centuries in length. I'd say 1/3 of the entire length of the game time period is pretty far out of the time frame. Anyway, there are like a thousand threads explaining it, just search and read a few of them.

[Thaatu]

I don't understand what everyone has against the Laurica Segmentata.

It's just that there's been so many demands to include them that it's getting a little boring. Nothing wrong with the armour.

[alatar]

Because the earlist EVER peice of LS found was in 18AD.

And I'm sure that http://www.loricasegmentata.org will present a fair and unbiased veiw.

[blank]

It's just that there's been so many demands to include them that it's getting a little boring. Nothing wrong with the armour.

actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)

[bovi]

I've always read that it was used between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. At least that's what http://www.loricasegmentata.org/ says.

It was first used at the end of the 1st century BC, and continued in service with the Roman army until the middle of the 3rd century AD.
http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/loricaseg/what.htm

If you wonder at the url, it is the real site that loricasegmentata.org points to.

The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (Leon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata

Romano-Dacis, if you always read what you say you do, perhaps you should try to read a little more carefully.

[overweightninja]

Oh dear don't start this again guys...

[Watchman]

actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)

I was always under the impression the main reasons it got dumped after a couple of centuries were economical and logistical, ie. the thing was too much of a pain to put together and then keep together on campaign. Mail has the comparative advantage of being easy enough to manufacture (making the links and putting them together is easy enough, but quite time-consuming; robot work basically) and not very demanding to repair and maintain, and scale even more so.

[Ignoramus]

I saw a documentary which showed that lorica segmenta could actually absord the impact of scorpian bolts. Rather impressive stuff.

[russia almighty]

Yeah but it would have been like body armor pre-insert days . Would have stopped the bolt but there could be an energy kill still.

[NeoSpartan]

Dang it can I can't find the OLD OLD thread about Lorica segmenta vs lorica hamata..

we had guys from romanarmytalk forums come over and drop some info, and me and watchman were arguing like creazy. I stopped being a "peaceful guy" after that thread

[blank]

I was always under the impression the main reasons it got dumped after a couple of centuries were economical and logistical, ie. the thing was too much of a pain to put together and then keep together on campaign. Mail has the comparative advantage of being easy enough to manufacture (making the links and putting them together is easy enough, but quite time-consuming; robot work basically) and not very demanding to repair and maintain, and scale even more so.

from what i hear the only thing the segmentata was better at than chainmail was stopping arrows
And yes, you would have to take the armor apart after every battle, hammer the damaged plates back into shape (or replace them), and then put it together again

[Ritterlichvon86]

it's also harder to keep the rust off of it. needs steady maintanence..


apart from that I would like to see it in EB. After 50 years in EB nothing is historical anymore anyway ;) We're playing history and build castles bigger than reality has ever seen.

[Thaatu]

actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)

Obviously, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that no-one harbors any deep hatred towards the armour itself. But about the armour's usefulness, it must have been pretty impressive in parades.

[Sakkura]

actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)

I think it's a bit wrong to say that. It must have had some use, or the Romans would have just stayed with lorica hamata alone; but segmentata seems to have been used to some degree for over 200 years.

The reason segmentata isn't in EB isn't that it was bad, just that it wasn't used until the last few years of the game period.

[MerlinusCDXX]

I think it's a bit wrong to say that. It must have had some use, or the Romans would have just stayed with lorica hamata alone; but segmentata seems to have been used to some degree for over 200 years.

The reason segmentata isn't in EB isn't that it was bad, just that it wasn't used until the last few years of the game period.

I don't think anyone is saying that LS was bad armor, only that issuing LS to the main body of line troops wasn't really cost-effective (it's like issuing Stradivarius violins to a military orchestra that has just been drafted out of high school).

[Tellos Athenaios]

Quite so.

If you've seen replica's of the stuff in real life the first couple of things you'll notice is the fact that you would be able to break it really easily. And the armour isn't very useful at all when you are fighting well drilled; heavy infantry with sharp & pointy things. Also, considering that the Lorica Hamata offers more protection in the sense that a larger area of the body get's protected (most notably a couple of well known "bleeding-to-death-spots" ) ...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Lorica Segmentata was much better than Hamata at stopping arrows, but then any legionary using it should have known that the Scutum wasn't enough to protect from an arrow shot from a Parthian Composite Bow, except in lucky situations. Or a scorpion bolt. You would get your arms or feet nailed and suffer the consequences.

Plus LS was too valuable to be given to raw recruits. It's not unreasonable to assume most of them wore Lorica Hamata, and many legions (especially in the East) kept Hamata because it was cheaper. Only the crack troops and legionaries with good training and experience would be allowed to wear LS, during the Imperial period.

But then, if the first fragment was found in 9BC, then we can deduce it must have already been in an experimental phase during the late 1st century BC. If the Cohors Imperatoria is in the game, and they were only used from 30BC onwards, then why not LS? Bot just cover a tiny fraction of the game period, yet the Cohors Imperatoria is in the game. Just my thoughts.

[keravnos]

I blame EB and its NON Pharaos...

WHERE ARE THE PHARAOHS EB?

nOT,...

[Watchman]

Lorica Segmentata was much better than Hamata at stopping arrows, but then any legionary using it should have known that the Scutum wasn't enough to protect from an arrow shot from a Parthian Composite Bow, except in lucky situations.

...you mean like at Carrhae, where the Romans spent a good part of the day just standing there gathering Parhtian arrows on their shields ? Arrows have a problem with obstacles.

I would imagine Legions in the East tended more towards the Lorica Squamata, or scale armour. Relatively cheap and simple as metal armour goes and the local infrastructure had a millenia-plus of tradition with the stuff, and better against arrows than mail...

And the armour isn't very useful at all when you are fighting well drilled; heavy infantry with sharp & pointy things.

That seems like a rather counterintuitive statement, as well as one rather disputed by the fact historical warriors had this funny habit of tending to load up on armour - especially for close-order infantry fighting, as there's little room to dodge and maneuver there.

[Pharnakes]

There is little room to doge and manouver when you are wearing heavy armour, no matter where you are.

[Watchman]

If it kept you from moving, it was "horsemen only" armour to begin with. Are you quite aware of the kinds of moves people regularly pulled in full plate ?

But the gist is, when you know you won't be able to move too much to avoid blows anyway, it's better to be armoured so they won't kill you nearly as readily.