Why is Roman heavy infantry less well armored than many barbarian infantry units?

[antred]

For quite a while now I have noticed this trend to make Roman heavy infantry less well armored than many heavy barbarian or Greek infantry units. Before armor was nerfed across the board in one of the recent changes, this difference wasn't all that important, but now I feel it's getting a bit much. My principes, with full armor and weapons upgrades, have only 10 armor while there I see tons of barbarian infantry that have 10 or 11 armor even WITHOUT any upgrades at all. Is this by intention? I thought that one of the defining characteristics of Roman heavy infantry was that they were very well armored.

[Seljuq Prince]

Well many roman infantry has 9, 10 even some has 11..Some barbarians has 9 but mostly 6 7 8 .. That's what I seen from custom battles.

[KAM 2150]

Could you point out which units have it? Romans have HIGHEST armour of all units, they are actually only faction that gets top infantry armour. Also keep in mind that celtic metalurgy was on a high level and many cultures were able to have better armours than Romans but not on a scale as Romans. That being said, basic Legionaires already have equally heavy armour as best Barbarian infnatry units. Armienian Nahakars are probably one of few exceptions and few best Hellenic troops. Please provide info because as it is, what you wrote is just pure hyperbole for me that does not reflect the mod at all. To add to that, in last few barb overhauls, we took away many heavy units are decreased the ratio of heavy armour on their units. If anything, now Romans have even better average armour.

[gerfand]

Depends on which units are u comparing, a POL. Principes will get a bit less than a Oathsworn, but a Aug. Legionary will get the same ammount...
The reason is Principes are "professional" from a mid power, while Oathsworn are "Nobles", but Aug Legionary are "Professional" from a Super power