Polybian Principes VS Cohors Reformata Cost

[Ludens]

Is there some threads or links explain the EB-stats system?

Not that I am aware of. I know from comments by the EB team that the armour value is calculated by adding up the modifiers of individual pieces of equipment (+2 for a helmet, +2 for a greave, etc.). The same formula is used for all units (though unarmoured barbarian close-combat infantry get an additional +1 armour).

Lethality depends solely on the weapon used, but I don't know how the other stats are calculated.

[kidpacific]

Not that I am aware of. I know from comments by the EB team that the armour value is calculated by adding up the modifiers of individual pieces of equipment (+2 for a helmet, +2 for a greave, etc.). The same formula is used for all units (though unarmoured barbarian close-combat infantry get an additional +1 armour).

Lethality depends solely on the weapon used, but I don't know how the other stats are calculated.

Thank you, Ludens.
I'm not questioning you, but I want to know this system more precisely.
Would you pls explain the armor calculation (other parts besides the head and the leg) or list some links related to EB stats system.
Thanks forward.

[Ludens]

I'm not questioning you, but I want to know this system more precisely.
Would you pls explain the armor calculation (other parts besides the head and the leg) or list some links related to EB stats system.

That's the thing: as far as I know the EB team never explained their stat system. My knowledge has been pieced together from scattered comments by the developers in threads like this one.

[vollorix]

As i said: defence skill of a unit in game doesn´t reflect the actuall "defence skills" of soldiers back than. As does not the armour, to be fair, but in case of armour, it still serves as overall protection ( it protects against missiles too, but the lower values do not matter that much as those super high values of some civilized units, wich are simply "arrow proof" ). So, leaving barbarian factions with little to no armour simply means their doom ( and the Lusos in my example are therefore so strong against other barbarians, because their heavy units are armoured to the teeth; this is good, actually, so they can oppose the Romans and Carthies, and possibly also very historical accurate, but game wise it´s just unwise to balance units this way - it leads to actuall unbalance after couple of decades ). Of course, would the Arevaci been in EB I, and would they fight against Lusos with the same intensity as the Gauls do against each other, the "big picture" would look probably quite differently, but there are no Arevaki there... ). Maintaining historical accuracy at the cost of balance of power between factions doesen´t appear an ideal solution to me. That´s all.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Of course, would the Arevaci been in EB I, and would they fight against Lusos with the same intensity as the Gauls do against each other, the "big picture" would look probably quite differently, but there are no Arevaki there... ). Maintaining historical accuracy at the cost of balance of power between factions doesen´t appear an ideal solution to me. That´s all.

Agreed. In all my games, when the Lusotanns take any of Numantia, Pallantia or Vellika from the Eleutheroi, I use Force Diplomacy to take that city away from the Lusotanns and give it to the Arveni. I do the same with Arse, giving it to Carthage, and with Emporion, which I give to Koinon Hellenon. This makes life harder for the Lusotanns.

Some might think this makes the Arveni too powerful, but I disagree since the Arveni end up fighting a three-front war, against Aedui, Romani, and Lusotani, which only a strong faction can survive.