Armour-variation within a unit: A critique

[Poppis]

But still this is gamey and it dont feel right, as it dont represent the protection of the almost naked soldiers NOR the armoured soldiers correct.

You're right, it's not perfect. But how would one fix it? As far as I know there is a hardcoded unit limit in the game so you can't just divide all the affected units into two different ones(armored and nonarmored). Not that that would even be historically accurate.

[Yayattasa]

It doesn't represent them indivually, but on average it's still correct.

[LinusLinothorax]

You're right, it's not perfect. But how would one fix it? As far as I know there is a hardcoded unit limit in the game so you can't just divide all the affected units into two different ones(armored and nonarmored). Not that that would even be historically accurate.

Correct. Engine limitations and historical accuracy prevent splitting of every affected unit. In the case of eg. the Batairoi i would propose to split them though, as they are a wideused unit in the Mediterranean world. Light Gallic mercenaries which wear not much then thin clothing and a heavy mercenary unit which uses different versions of linothoraxes or atleast a helmet for every unit.

The engine limitations are a serious problem indeed and i can accept it of course if there would be exceptions like eg Egyptian phalanxes or Cretan archers, but this crass mixing of compeltly different kinds of armour like for the Gallic knights or the Indian lancers (Even if historical surces are rare, give everyone of them atleast a protective hairknot and the one more scale armour model like the charioters wear them) is just to much. I hope the teammembers understand me and the actual problem now. If not, i still have to live with seemingly barchested soldiers which aparently get protected by an invisible armour.

Btw. Sint, i am still waiting for my enlightment.

[Simonides]

But still this is gamey and it dont feel right, as it dont represent the protection of the almost naked soldiers NOR the armoured soldiers correct.

And as has been repeatedly explained, there is no way to fix this in the mod. You CANNOT have a unit that is both visually mixed and also represents the differing armor strengths of the individual soldiers in the game engine.

If this annoys you sufficiently, then you could work to build support for a submod that eliminates all visually "mixed" units, and changes their armor strengths appropriately (i.e. give all the soldiers visible armor and buff their armor values, or give none of them armor and nerf their armor values).

[Ballpoint202]

I disagree with the OP, in case the EB2 team are counting votes. IMO, the way it is done now is the most rational and reasonable way of handling the variance of equipment among ancient warriors.

[LinusLinothorax]

And as has been repeatedly explained, there is no way to fix this in the mod. You CANNOT have a unit that is both visually mixed and also represents the differing armor strengths of the individual soldiers in the game engine.

And because you cant you have to split these units into two units OR you just give them armour of the same class. Otherwise it is NOT REALISTIC. Average merits for naked soldiers and armoured ones are UNREALISTIC, GAMEY and FANTASY. This is my damn point.

IMO, the way it is done now is the most rational and reasonable way of handling the variance of equipment among ancient warriors.

If you call invisible armour rational, then you are right.

[Iguanaonastick]

I noticed this issue too.

My question: Okay, it's well documented that, historically, armour varied widely in "units" on the battlefield. But... would those with different armours really be distributed -randomly- throughout a unit?

We have documentary evidence of how people like the Romans arranged their battlelines. In a Roman phalanx, sure, some people had helms, greaves, and breastplates and some had nothing but shields and spears. But they weren't scattered at random. The heavily armed guys were up front, and the armour got lighter the farther you went to the back.

I don't know about the Greek hoplites for reasons of not having read up on them, but later Byzantine military manuals assert the same thing: the front ranks of the scoutatoi and such were supposedly armoured in mail, the rest only if enough armour was available. Ideally, at least the first two ranks ought to be armoured.

Is there any evidence of how tribal armies arranged themselves for battle? It makes intuitive sense to me that they too would have put the best-equipped warriors in the front ranks, the place of honour where these very important men could demonstrate their bravery.

Now, I know that in the Total War engine there is no mechanism to make the armoured guys in a unit appear (visually) up front, but if this was how they fought historically it does support putting the troops in different units. Just like we do for the Romans with their Hastati, Principes etc. In the case of the Romans, we have documentary evidence to prove they fought like this and therefore gave them separate units. But suppose for a moment we only had archaeology to go on. Then, maybe, we'd have ended up with a mixed "milites" unit that included hoplite-armoured Triarii standing next to a tunic-clad Rorarius. Much like the Gallic examples in this thread end up looking like.

Of course, there are only so many unit slots so it may not be possible to create "light" and "heavy" versions of all units, as Poppis already mentioned, but I'd still like to know what the team thinks about this as regards likely historical battle-line composition in Gallic armies and such.

[gustave]

It's funny how such small "issues" (I still fail to see the problem here) can make people mad.
"Make your own submod" is maybe a weak argument, but what do you want us to do ? We like our units this way and we think this is more realistic, do you think we're going to edit all our models just to please a few players ?

[alex86]

Well, what are you suggesting (@Linus)?

- That the game treat different individuals of a unit differently? It doesn't, that isn't possible with the game engine and wouldn't make sense in the "armies of units" model of Total War.
- That the mod doesn't mix no armor with linothorax for ___ unit type, and instead have them with more similar armor? I'd have to defer to the EB team's research on this one.
- That the game have separate units for ___ unit, one with lots of clothes and one without? That doesn't make sense to me on a number of levels (limit to # of unit types, the idea that an ancient army would separate soldiers that serve the same function based on clothing, unless they had standard issue equipment)

I think that this type of criticism is to be expected since the base game either overemphasized uniformity (RTW) or generalized types of variations (M2TW - if there is one example of impressive looking ornamental helmet, everyone has to wear this ornamental helmet - case in point: Ritterbruder). For my part I applaud the aesthetic choices of the EB team, and I believe that those actually add to the necessary level of immersion.

Indeed, I'm a fan of how the troops look.

And as for breaking "realism", again, the organization of armies into units of different types with hundreds of men having the exact same stats and abilities is an abstraction choice of the engine. This isn't a serious problem, it's a Total War paradigm and completely sensible.

[alex86]

Iguana, I don't know about randomly, but "side by side" doesn't seem off the mark. The comparison with Roman military organization and later Eastern Roman Empire doesn't seem apt, as these armies were more organized and regimented than others (I think; I am not a historian). And in the game, as mentioned previously, you can see differences in your hastati and principes and phalangitai but they are all equipped very similarly.

That said, if someone wants to jump in and describe Gallic battle lines, well, I'm always up for reading!

[Kull]

A naked guy which survives blows as he wuld wear an armour. This is the problem and i am wondering why you dont see a problem in this too.

Just so we are clear. The mod team does not see this as a problem. You do. Impasse.

[Intranetusa]

Not sure if this has been answered yet but...
Is there any way to edit the game file to increase the % of armored dudes and decrease the % of unarmored dudes in the unit?
Alternatively, if that can't be done, what about getting the unit to remove the unarmored unit models (or flood the unit with more armored models so unarmored ones become rare)?

[alin]

Is there any way to edit the game file to increase the % of armored dudes and decrease the % of unarmored dudes in the unit?

No.

Alternatively, if that can't be done, what about getting the unit to remove the unarmored unit models (or flood the unit with more armored models so unarmored ones become rare)?

You have to modify the model files.

[LinusLinothorax]

I have the feeling that the team is too conservative for bigger changes ("We made a decision and we will not change our minds"), so i am out of this discussion. I will continue my support for this mod though.
Have a nice day.

[Yayattasa]

Okay, having a separate "front line" unit with more armor than a "second line" variation makes sense, but it would cost many EDU slots.
You can actually increase the likelihood of a kind of armor appearing in a unit by creatig more body parts variants with armor than without armor, but I'm not sure if the EB2 units use all the available body parts numbers (is that hardcoded btw?).

[Sint]

I have the feeling that the team is too conservative for bigger changes ("We made a decision and we will not change our minds"), so i am out of this discussion. I will continue my support for this mod though.
Have a nice day.

While would they change it just becasue you want it?I don't have a problem with it.
You can't except everyone do do what you want.

We have documentary evidence of how people like the Romans arranged their battlelines. In a Roman phalanx, sure, some people had helms, greaves, and breastplates and some had nothing but shields and spears. But they weren't scattered at random. The heavily armed guys were up front, and the armour got lighter the farther you went to the back.

Ok I will try to say ths a polity as I can :Read!Said by a dev in this thread:
.

Not pictures of Poybian Hastati or Phalangitai please. In EB2 those DO have similar types of equipment

What you want would either cost too many units slots or is simply not possible using the engine

The heavily armed guys were up front, and the armour got lighter the farther you went to the back.

Oh and weren't the Hastati(lighter) in the front with the heavy troops Trarii in the back?

[LinusLinothorax]

While would they change it just becasue you want it?I don't have a problem with it.
You can't except everyone do do what you want.

Mhm, i expected that your enlightment would come earlier and with more impact.
Now i am really out as i everything said.

[Iguanaonastick]

Ok I will try to say ths a polity as I can :Read!Said by a dev in this thread:
.

I know. I read that.

I was -asking- if there was any evidence or known descriptions saying the Gauls and such people did -not- do what the Romans did. I was asking whether it would be logical to assume that the very early Roman militia army and a Gallic tribal army would do the same thing and put their best men with the best equipment up front.

There probably is no such evidence, considering the paucity of written sources describing battle lines in any detail and the annoying tendency of ancient authors to be vague about what they did describe. But I'd love to see someone more knowledgeable than I speculate on what a Gallic army would have looked like. Armoured troops scattered throughout the line, or concentrated near the front?

Oh and weren't the Hastati(lighter) in the front with the heavy troops Trarii in the back?

No. That's what the later Roman Camillan and Polybian army did. I'm talking about the very early Roman citizen levy, before they fought the Samnite wars, which presumably would have resembled a tribal army much more than the later armies did.

[Ballpoint202]

I have the feeling that the team is too conservative for bigger changes ("We made a decision and we will not change our minds"), so i am out of this discussion. I will continue my support for this mod though.
Have a nice day.

Maybe they sincerely disagree with you and it's not a matter of being "too conservative" (whatever that means in this context).

[Ballpoint202]

Mhm, i expected that your enlightment would come earlier and with more impact.
Now i am really out as i everything said.

Really, truly out! (This is the tricky "double mic drop". Few can carry off with such aplomb.)