Armour-variation within a unit: A critique

[Eikki]

I don't have a problem with variations in the armies of barbarians like Celts and Germanics, but what put me off a little bit was the fact that Greek Machairophoroi and Thureophoroi have half of its unit wearing nothing but a tunic, not even a linothorax.

[Grobar]

We are always ready to learn. Please provide your proof that ancient soldiers of this era fought in units comprised of individuals with similar levels and types of armor. Not pictures of Poybian Hastati or Phalangitai please. In EB2 those DO have similar types of equipment. I want to see the others - the ones where we feature variety. And you will provide evidence that they didn't - which should be easy based on the bolded part of your post. Surely you wouldn't make such a blanket statement without evidence?

I didn’t say that ancient soldiers of this era fought in units with similar armor. I actually agreed that your units were historically accurate. My point is that its immersion breaking when you see one soldier in one unit with plain clothes that has the same armor rating as another soldier in the same unit with much better armor. CA tackled this by creating different units according to the level of armor and weapon type although they were not historically accurate units.
If you have already given a specific unit a high armor rating why would it be a problem to make all soldiers in that unit look like they wear good armor.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

1) think tactically based on the unit's overall stats, not the visuals and 2) understand that the visuals are meant to resemble the troops, not determine their stats individually.

from a purely game play perspective, yes. it shows just how imperfect the solution really is--an unfortunate limitation of the engine, which leaves us with several options, none entirely adequate. I run into the reverse problem with my SYW mod (for Alex engine) with armies lacking standard equipment.

personally, what I wish for is the ability to assign independent armor values to individuals based on what they wear, and affected by circumstance as well (simulating looting good armor, throwing away bad armor, local customs seeping into garrison from abroad, etc). Combat would otherwise mechanically be the same/similar.

But that would be one complex engine for rendering thousands of units on a battlefield (mount and blade struggles/crashes with even a 10th of the numbers). Which is probably in part why the feature of different equipment was introduced in M2TW, without a concurrent change in the way armor and weapon stats were calculated--a sensible decision in hindsight, even if imperfect, and a bit conservative.

Grobar[/URL]
]I agree with OP. Sure its historically accurate what EB team did but if you want complete historical accuracy then you should group soldiers with different weapons into one unit because that's how they fought in real life.

assuming I understood your post here correctly to mean one unit with many weapons: engine to my knowledge won't allow that--nice as that would be: even surmounting the problems with the EDU, animations might prove a stumbling block. maybe for closely related weapons, sure--and that is already done in the game (some carrying a kopis and some a xiphos, for example), but not elsewhere. Bear in mind: even animations can affect combat balance, as you guys saw first hand with the javelin units, and not just the aesthetics.

as to the issue raised by this thread being game breaking: perhaps. But any other solution might well prove equally inadequate at least (e.g. doing as was done in Vanilla), whether to the players, or to the modding team.

[Intranetusa]

So are for these units that mix elites with cool gear with peasants with pitchforks - are they cheaper to train than comparable units that have all of their dudes with cool gear? And how does the BAI factor in armored dudes with no armor dudes - if a unit is getting attacked by arrows, will all of the naked dudes die off first?

[Sint]

So are for these units that mix elites with cool gear with peasants with pitchforks

Ahm...that's not happening ingame you know?
And your second question was already answered in this thread on page 1.

[alex86]

So are for these units that mix elites with cool gear with peasants with pitchforks - are they cheaper to train than comparable units that have all of their dudes with cool gear? And how does the BAI factor in armored dudes with no armor dudes - if a unit is getting attacked by arrows, will all of the naked dudes die off first?

It's purely aesthetic. The game will treat all members of a certain unit class the same (excluding generals) and with the same stats, no matter what they look like they are wearing. The classification of "light infantry", "heavy infantry", etc is so the CPU knows what sort of things to do with them on the battlefield. And human players, too.

It does not mean "every member of this unit has standard or sufficiently heavy gear." As suggested, such level of organization existed for some soldiers (as reflected in game, too) but not all of them.

[Yayattasa]

And how often does this descriptions says, that they are wearing helmets and armour? It says that they are the heaviest cavalry that the Mauryans can afford. And the heaviest armour they weared was ...? Right, scalearmour and helmets, not this thin clothing like every bowmen wears.

Anyways, i expected that kind of answer from a dev. Still feels wrong then units, supposed to be heavy or medium, wear thin or no clothing at all.

You can't see the difference between heaviest and heavy? The heaviest cavalry the Numidians could afford was a bunch of guys on top of ponies! (yet, we all know their capabilities)

[Garbarsardar]

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.

[Intranetusa]

Ahm...that's not happening ingame you know?.

All I know is the picture shows a broke ass half naked dude in the same gang as an armored dude with bling bling up the wazoo.

It's purely aesthetic. The game will treat all members of a certain unit class the same (excluding generals) and with the same stats, no matter what they look like they are wearing. The classification of "light infantry", "heavy infantry", etc is so the CPU knows what sort of things to do with them on the battlefield. And human players, too.

It does not mean "every member of this unit has standard or sufficiently heavy gear." As suggested, such level of organization existed for some soldiers (as reflected in game, too) but not all of them.

kk thx

[WAD81]

The idea that different soldiers have different kind of armour is a very good and historically correct imo.
No problem at all. I like it a lot.

However, armour value system, as has been argued in another thread, is NOT accurate.

In EB1 armour values reflected how the soldier looked on the screen. In EB2 not any longer.

I've been told helmet and cuirass and boots give you seven.
On another unit, all soldiers have: even better helmets, cloak, bronze breastplates, two bronze grieves, and have the value eight.

I mean +1 advantage? It means nothing in the grand scheme of EDU calculations.
Whats the point of amour then?

[k/t]

What do you mean by "cuirass"? Breastplate and backplate?

[WAD81]

leather tunic, standard for hoplites

[LinusLinothorax]

Allright, i really expected this argument "We orientated on historical sources" and stuff. And i appreciate that, because i love historical accuracy too. But there is one thing that is even more important then hsitorical accuracy: Realism.

What i mean is pretty simple. You see a a unitcard, you expect something heavy and you see: Only a minority is wearing the actual armour. Some examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This unit is obviously supposed to be heavy, just look at his armour-stats: 6 armour, which is one of the highest possible armour merits, but the half is wearing only a helmet and thin clothing. How can you justify 6 armour for them? They should have maybe 3 armour. But there are even better examples.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just look at this. 5 armour. And for what? Because maybe 5 of the 25 man wearing a chainmail. The rest weares thin clothing or is barchested (!!!). What justify 5 armour for an almost naked man? Get he protected by an armour of light or something? An invisible force? These guys will survive a lot of arrows, just because were are a very few soldiers which wearing a chainmail. THIS is unrealistic and THIS is immersion-breaking. If you want to represent, that only a minority wore chainmail armour make the units A) smaller or B)more expensive or C)less avaible in campaign or D)split them up in two units. Mixing these crassly different "armours" and still giving them a such high armour merit was a bad design choice in my opinion.

An other good example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Uh yes, the Gallic knights. The heaviest cavalry the Gaul can afford. 8 Armour. The max for a cavalry unit riding an unarmoured horse. And look how the description praise their chainmail, how well it does protect these elite-warriors. And then this: Again a minority actual wears chainmail armour, the others are wearing a linothorax (Acceptable, but of course no comparison to a chainmail armour) or again their thin clothing. Yes, of course its historical that some Nobles dont weared chainmail armour, but giving them 8 (!) armour is unrealistic. They will survive as much as their armoured companions do. And this is unrealistic. And what is unrealistic, breaks immersion.

[gustave]

Oh come on, the unit stats are still work in progress, wait for a balance patch, and if you're not happy with the team's design decisions you can still make your own submod ... It's not like you paid for it.

[LinusLinothorax]

Oh come on, the unit stats are still work in progress, wait for a balance patch, and if you're not happy with the team's design decisions you can still make your own submod ... It's not like you paid for it.

"Make your own sub-mod". A pretty weak, overused argument which you could use on every critique.
Except of that, the stats are not the main problem but that these mixed up armours make any stat ad absurdum. Eg. 3 armour seems to low for a guy armoured with a linothorax and a helmet, but to high for an almost naked guy. 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.

You can't see the difference between heaviest and heavy? The heaviest cavalry the Numidians could afford was a bunch of guys on top of ponies! (yet, we all know their capabilities)

Who cares for the Numidians now? We are speaking about the heaviest cavalry the Mauryans were able to field and that was obviously a soldier wearing a scalearmour and a helmet.

[Sint]

"Make your own sub-mod". A pretty weak, overused argument which you could use on every critique.

Considering that your critique is based on your incapacity to understand the reasoning behind the decision it is a valid answer.

Who cares for the Numidians now? We are speaking about the heaviest cavalry the Mauryans were able to field and that was obviously a soldier wearing a scalearmour and a helmet.

You still don't get it...

[LinusLinothorax]

Enlighten me, Sint. What do i dont get?

[malibu.stacey]

"Make your own sub-mod". A pretty weak, overused argument which you could use on every critique.
Except of that, the stats are not the main problem but that these mixed up armours make any stat ad absurdum. Eg. 3 armour seems to low for a guy armoured with a linothorax and a helmet, but to high for an almost naked guy. 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.

Linus, as far as I understand it, the stats are an average number for the whole unit. So one guy in a tunic (e.g. 2 armour) and one in mail (e.g. 6 armour) would result in a 4 on average.
And I think it´s pretty cool to have so much variety, especially for 'barbarian' units. Take celtic nobles, for example; historically, you would have a very varied composition:
poorer nobles, who could scarcely afford an helmet and maybe a sword, young ones, who maybe haven´t 'earned' the right to wear heavier armour, some may want to prove their valour by fighting without any armour and the older ones who have pretty much everything money can buy. Yet their social status allows all of them to fight in the same place on the battlefield.

[Kirila the Kitten]

Uh... I won't get in this fight so I must say that both OP and Kull have their right points.

However, the EB2 team really went overhistorical in some points and the game feels more like a simulator and less like a game. Which after all is EB2's purpose: to be an accurate ancient history simulator. Though it suceeds, it kinda lacks some of EB1's feeling. I don't know how to explain it.

[LinusLinothorax]

Linus, as far as I understand it, the stats are an average number for the whole unit. So one guy in a tunic (e.g. 2 armour) and one in mail (e.g. 6 armour) would result in a 4 on average.

I know that the armour-merits are the average merit of all armours within a unit. The mid of no armour and a linothorax might be 3. 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.