Armor?

[Zoshonel]

Why is the armor so high in this mod? Archers are horribly ineffective for me, they are only good for hitting rams, and they still can't take them out. Can anyone explain to me why the stats on units are cranked up so high? It really doesn't make too much sense to me.

[AqD]

Heh it's not that high. Your archers are supposed to shoot from enemy's back, which means the HAs are a lot more effective than foot archers now due to their maneuverability.

PS: ancient infantrymen did wear armours for a good reason. Those "deadly" arrows shown in movies are just untrue I believe.
________
Washington medical marijuana

[kingsword]

Most of ancient armor only covered the body partially, like chest & shoulders & head. An arrow in foot or arm would take you out still. Not to mention most shields hardly stopped arrows due to being covered with just animal hides. At least EB isn't as bad as RTR in this aspect, (which had me build infantry and nothing else, EB isn't much different still but not as bad) eastern or Cretan archers are worth their cost but hardly worth taking the unit space due to being in low numbers per unit.

The only units who are ridiculously resistant are phalanxes with their absurd shield rating combined with high armor. The result is a unit which is hardly vulnerable to flanking as it should be because it has excellent defense stats even in sword melee. I don't see how linen armor can be more protective than chain mail and also baffle at the situation that phalangite bucklers are more protective than legionary tower shields which cover most of the body even when the phalanx isn't in formation or broken. The simulation of pikes blocking projectiles in this manner has awkward results because it's in effect unconditionally.

Also there are some weird cases like those naked guys who have 5-6 armor but in general, units have some consistency. Not all the time (like lorica hamata + greaves has the same value with just lorica hamata units) but in most cases.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The main problem for archers is the shield, not really the armor. Attack the enemy from the right side or behind and you will get a better kill rate.

If you are often going up against heavily armored enemies, hire some slingers and have them target those will heavy armor.

[Watchman]

The naked guys get their armour value largely from their helmets, through the exact same formula all units' armour values are computed with.

The phalangite shield values are an abstraction to account for the way the serried pike-shafts form an entangling obstacle to incoming missiles (and to help represent the formation's frontal resiliency in general); the side effects are an inevitable trade-off resulting from the limitations imposed by the engine.

Also, if you don't actually know the first thing about the stopping power of historical armour and shields, please adopt a different tone. People wore and carried that expensive and uncomfortable stuff for some pretty good reasons, and doubly so wherever the odds of being subjected to sharp flying objects were high.

[beatoangelico]

actually eastern archers are the most underrated units of EB. Just don't use them to frontally shot at phalanxes or guys with good chainmail and big shields.

[Kryzantine]

As mentioned, they should be used behind the enemies. Shield values are pretty high in this game.

And you should use archers on militia units, and send your infantry in to mop up. Cavalry should be reserved for better quality troops.

[Zoshonel]

Thanks for all the replies guys, but I still have to say, I do not see why archers are so unbelievably crappy. Archers, realistically, did not get behind enemy lines very often, and if they somehow did manage to, during the course of battle, it would not make any sense for them to shoot then, they would be killing their own guys too. A normal hoplite had a bronze cuirass, a standard "Corinthian" helmet, a round shield, a spear, and two bronze greaves. Now this is all well and good, but there is nothing to say that an arrow cannot peirce this. Thirty shots into a group of forty-two hoplites had to do some damage, getting hit by an arrow, anywhere but your shield would cause some serious damage. Arrows (and bullets for that matter) in the movies are severely downplayed, the idea that a man can take multiple arrow and still go on is ridiculous.
I do not also understand why shields are so amazing. This is ancient times. They were usually wooden with animal hide or a border of metal, to stabilize it. An arrow fully has the possibility of going through, mind it is a small one, but it is still there.
Why doesn't everything just get lowered? Bring everything down. I played the stainless steel mod for MII:TW, and was extremely happy when fighting was as it is. Everything (attack and defense values) was brought down to the single digits making the fighting harder and a bit more tactical, while longer. It also gave any unit the ability to at least fight. I understand that an archer has dismal chances against cavalry, but some cavalry should go down in the fight, be it through sheer stupidity or just dumb luck. I obviously, have no idea how this would affect gameplay, just what they did in SS. I have found, a bit sadly, that I really do not like fighting my own battles in this mod, which really brings down the fun. As it is the game seems a bit like the movie 300, hoplites are godly strong. The ancients did not fight like that. On a side note, why can't hoplites form a shield wall?

[kingsword]

The naked guys get their armour value largely from their helmets, through the exact same formula all units' armour values are computed with.

The phalangite shield values are an abstraction to account for the way the serried pike-shafts form an entangling obstacle to incoming missiles (and to help represent the formation's frontal resiliency in general); the side effects are an inevitable trade-off resulting from the limitations imposed by the engine.

Also, if you don't actually know the first thing about the stopping power of historical armour and shields, please adopt a different tone. People wore and carried that expensive and uncomfortable stuff for some pretty good reasons, and doubly so wherever the odds of being subjected to sharp flying objects were high.

Sorry if I sounded undermining the efforts that was put in this mod, I thoroughly enjoy it save for a couple of things. But I really couldn't get the idea behind powerful linen armor. I can see how it performed good vs Persians but outclassing chainmail looks weird.

As for phalangites' shield class issue, apparently hoplites' shield class is 5 as well with short pikes. I guess that's due to having larger shields? In any case, it's a bit overkill IMO.

Thanks for all the replies guys, but I still have to say, I do not see why archers are so unbelievably crappy. Archers, realistically, did not get behind enemy lines very often, and if they somehow did manage to, during the course of battle, it would not make any sense for them to shoot then, they would be killing their own guys too. A normal hoplite had a bronze cuirass, a standard "Corinthian" helmet, a round shield, a spear, and two bronze greaves. Now this is all well and good, but there is nothing to say that an arrow cannot peirce this. Thirty shots into a group of forty-two hoplites had to do some damage, getting hit by an arrow, anywhere but your shield would cause some serious damage. Arrows (and bullets for that matter) in the movies are severely downplayed, the idea that a man can take multiple arrow and still go on is ridiculous.
I do not also understand why shields are so amazing. This is ancient times. They were usually wooden with animal hide or a border of metal, to stabilize it. An arrow fully has the possibility of going through, mind it is a small one, but it is still there.
Why doesn't everything just get lowered? Bring everything down. I played the stainless steel mod for MII:TW, and was extremely happy when fighting was as it is. Everything (attack and defense values) was brought down to the single digits making the fighting harder and a bit more tactical, while longer. It also gave any unit the ability to at least fight. I understand that an archer has dismal chances against cavalry, but some cavalry should go down in the fight, be it through sheer stupidity or just dumb luck. I obviously, have no idea how this would affect gameplay, just what they did in SS. I have found, a bit sadly, that I really do not like fighting my own battles in this mod, which really brings down the fun. As it is the game seems a bit like the movie 300, hoplites are godly strong. The ancients did not fight like that. On a side note, why can't hoplites form a shield wall?

Western bow & arrows didn't really have the penetrating power in ancient times. Skin, yes but chestplates? I don't think so.

[Zoshonel]

Western bow & arrows didn't really have the penetrating power in ancient times. Skin, yes but chestplates? I don't think so.

So you are telling me that an arrow could not pass through a simple thin bronze cuirass? I then see no reason why the 300 fell at Thermopylae and I certainly do not understand why the Greeks saw the bow as a cowards weapon, I mean isn't the reason that they are cowards the ability to kill from afar without endangering themselves.
Bronze cuirass wasn't that special, a good shot would easily pass through, into someone's chest, maybe not enough for a mortal would, but it would still be horribly painful. Also, bows did not have the range back then, therefore they fired at a much closer range, so the closer the bow is shot, the more velocity and power the shot has. It would still hurt a lot.

[Watchman]

At close ranges you can put an arrow thorugh about anything short of good steel plate armour, with a powerful enough bow and suitable arrows. (Archers normally carried mutliple different types of arrows for different purposes, to be used at different ranges against different types of targets.)

But it was rather rare for an archer to get more than one shot tops at such distances before the other guy was on top of him, and the damn shield so many folks carried didn't help one bit.

The fact is, long-range archery against armoured targets wasn't terribly effective overall. Just quilted soft-armour already all but neutralised the damage, and the smooth hard glancing surfaces of more solid types were next to immune. Casualties produced came chiefly due to individual arrows randomly landing on faces and the assorted opening helmet faces couldn't halp having, and people rendered hors de combat by sufficiently solid but as such not critical peripheral injuries to unprotected parts like limbs.

The distruptive effect on unit formations and morale was a whole different story though. In a best-case scenario (for the archers anyway) the target formation essetially lost its nerve and became a bunched-up sitting duck covering passively behind its shields, and they had pretty much all the time they ever needed to cause as much damage to it as they potentially could without any fear of retaliation.

Should that saturation not finish the job, it certainly made it a whole lot easier for your own close-combat guys to mop up.

Sorry if I sounded undermining the efforts that was put in this mod, I thoroughly enjoy it save for a couple of things. But I really couldn't get the idea behind powerful linen armor. I can see how it performed good vs Persians but outclassing chainmail looks weird.

Err... for one thing, layered soft-armour defenses are good. Next best thing to the considerably heavier and/or more expensive metal armour really.

Second, since when did "lino" and equivalents outclass mail in EB ? 'Cause they don't. Mail/scale gives better basic armour values. Methinks you're getting confused by the sundry points granted by helmets, greaves and so on.

For a case in point, see the "early" and "late" versions of the Carthaginian heavier African infantry, and the basically identical Thureophoroi - Thorakitai.

As for phalangites' shield class issue, apparently hoplites' shield class is 5 as well with short pikes. I guess that's due to having larger shields? In any case, it's a bit overkill IMO.

(The non-pike phalanxes are getting generally rewoked incidentally.) It's partly to keep the units using RTW's "phalanx" special formation realistically viable in the face of enemy missiles, above all. The things move bloody slow and as such tend to take a lot of incoming fire. And IRL you will note for example Alexander's pikemen didn't get massacred by massed Persian archers and slingers, in spite of among other things being for the most part rather lightly equipped...

Arrows (and bullets for that matter) in the movies are severely downplayed, the idea that a man can take multiple arrow and still go on is ridiculous.

Not so (high-powered bullets nonwithstanding). Armoured fighters in particular are regularly cited in contemporary eyewitness accounts going around the battefield as veritable pincusions, without any appreciable drop in combat ability from the minor injuries sustained through the armour. Tests conducted on reconstructed armours support this as well.

I do not also understand why shields are so amazing. This is ancient times. They were usually wooden with animal hide or a border of metal, to stabilize it. An arrow fully has the possibility of going through, mind it is a small one, but it is still there.

And the arrow expends about all of its energy and momentum in the process, being left with nothing to drag its shaft and fletching through the penetration nevermind actually hurt the man behind - if the tip even got through in the first place. Tests conducted on light wooden round-shields of the Viking type (made up of fairly thin planks in single layer) suggest such resist even powerful axe blows fairly well; a hide or leather covering was found to noticeably improve resiliency.

Now imagine something like the thick, massive aspis (the very thin bronze sheet cover probably didn't really amount to much real protection, mind), or the three-ply, hide-faced ten-kilo scutum...
You should begin to understand why heavy throwing-spears such as the pilum developed now.

The Persians incidentally made their tall spara body shields from hide and osiers; and one of their biggest tactical concerns was enemy missiles, arrows in particular, plus spears and axes in close combat... the design outlived the Roman Empire, which ought to say a bit of its efficiency.

On a side note, why can't hoplites form a shield wall?

BI only special formation, plus it has weird effects on stats and whatnot.

The super-dense formation the EB hoplites use already largely fill that role anyway.

[Kryzantine]

Yeah, well, my archers have been very effective in my Saba campaign. Maybe it's just rebels, but my 4 units of archers usually annihilate the ranks of infantry during sieges. Of course, my spearmen still have to finish the job. I find them to be very useful, usually taking out half the enemy before the gates are down. But they're never enough to kill a unit by themselves.

I fought a siege where I literally pinned down an entire street by shooting anything that moved down it. That's the kind of things archers should be used for. They're just another way to break the enemy's morale.