roman historical reform and others

[TITANAS84]

i stop playing the romans because i cheat(money,create_unit...) .okay with first reform but with others?find a general with required traits is like quiz.i suggest change requirements with original dates of historical reforms.
the other thing is battles,are very quick.
Nothing more for one of best mods.

[RedGuard]

for first reform i geuss you mean marian. As for the augustan reforms it's possible to change the requirements in the script(make a backup before you try this) so they appear earlier. one way you can do this is to copy the marian script's unconditional reforms and put them underneathe the imperial trigger in the script. change the counter roman 2 to counter roman 3 and you can change the settlement # to whatever you want.

[Roloc]

no, first reform ist the polybian one

[TITANAS84]

polybian is the first reform.i not touch the files because i fear crashes.i edit them if i see a good tutorial.

[Primative1]

Havn't tried it myself but check this out:

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...light=EBBS.txt

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

There are two ways of getting the Polybian and Marian reforms. If you don't want to or can't get the requirements, you can wait until the historical date of the reforms. Since the Augustan reforms were far from inevitable, they require you get complex objectives.

[TITANAS84]

ok thank for post primative.marcus i wait for historical dates in new game.last day i make marian reform but all units use chainmail no metal.i also play multiplayer custom battle for see the units and augustan too use chainmail.is bug?

[Primative1]

There is no Lorica Segmentata (metal) in the game - it wasn't in use during the period covered by EB.

[Ludens]

There is no Lorica Segmentata (metal) in the game - it wasn't in use during the period covered by EB.

Well, not entirely true. Segmentata has found in a site associated with the Teutoberger battle (9 AD), and elements of Segmentata suits may date to 10 BC. But the vast majority of Caesarean and Augustean legionaries would have worn chainmail, and Segmentata wouldn't come into common use until about half a century after the mods end data.

[TITANAS84]

i think segmentata use this age.EB and rtr dont have segmentata others have,bad because are best mods.

[Gaius of the Eagles]

what if u replace the "lorica hamata" to "lorica segmentata"?
ive done that and it looks good...

[Ludens]

EB is about historical accuracy. Historically, LS only appeared at the end of the time frame, and probably only in small numbers, so it won't be in the mod.

[Gaius of the Eagles]

What is your point here? Does Res Gestae historically inaccurate? Or the game only wants units to be more flexible than to be more invulnerable? By the way, what "time frame" are you talking about? May I know?

[Ludens]

What I mean is that the time-frame of EB runs from 272 BC to 15 AD. Lorica segmentata didn't become popular until about 50 AD, so I think the EB team was right not to include it in the mod.

[Watchman]

Plus the early patterns had some teething problems, AFAIK.

[Flyboy]

Personally on the segmentata issue I think seeing as that in M2TW units armor physically changes with their bonus. So if you put an armor upgrade of 1, then the armor on the unit actually changes. It's possible to implement something like this in maybe the late imperial era with some kind of special building or something. However segmentata is really no big deal, I could care less.

[Ludens]

Yes, it's possible, but as far as I know it's not going to happen. EB's most vocal Roman expert is convinced that Segmentata is something of a downgrade compared to hamata.

[Flyboy]

Yes, it's possible, but as far as I know it's not going to happen. EB's most vocal Roman expert is convinced that Segmentata is something of a downgrade compared to hamata.

How so? Ignoring all arguments as to it's implementation Segmentata I think was much more effective on all levels.

1st - It was easier to manufacture, making 30,000 steel or iron rings isn't exactly a quick process. However, for a blacksmith, shaping a few iron plates then hammering some straps in is nothing. And when there are hundreds of thousands of troops in the field you need to be able to equip and reequip them quickly.

2nd - Protection wise it was also more effective. Chain mail when you think about it is not designed to take a stab. When stabbing, all the force of the arm, which depending on form can reach close to 1 thousand foot pounds, is focused on one specific point. This would break small chain mail rungs easily. As such chain mail is only effective at preventing quick slashes from killing the wearer, as most strikes that get past a scutum are usually just that. However like said it cannot take a stab. Lorica Segmentata fairs somewhat better however. Being of a single thin plate, bent at an arc, it means that if the weapon in question is not completely strait when coming into the armor, it is more likely to bend off and become deflected.

3rd - Segmentata is less of a strain on the soldier. It's lighter and does not chafe like Hamata. Having comfortable armor is very important, rashes an pains can become very sever with enough chafing and rubbing. Furthermore it can be loosen/tightened accordingly and allows the soldier a bit more comfort.


The only problem I see with Segmentata is that it doesn't not have the re-usability of mail, as it is more likely to rust. Regardless though, I don't see that as efficient means of getting rid of it and I still wonder why Rome went back to mail armor.

[Watchman]

While I don't agree with the assessement Ludens is referring to, you're not exactly on the mark here.

1st - It was easier to manufacture, making 30,000 steel or iron rings isn't exactly a quick process. However, for a blacksmith, shaping a few iron plates then hammering some straps in is nothing. And when there are hundreds of thousands of troops in the field you need to be able to equip and reequip them quickly.

Um, no. Mail was expensive primarily because of the sheer number of man-hours that went into making it; but this was largely repetitive "grunt work" that didn't demand high skill. (In the Middle Ages some armourers apparently actually "subcontracted" this phase to the local peasantry.) And when the finished product was damaged, only a handful of new links were needed to repair the gash. It was also simple enough to maintain even in field conditions.

Conversely, given what kind of raw material period iron-production methods gave you, each and every single lame of the segmentata would have required as much skill and almost as much work as an entire iron helmet. On top of this there were the fairly numerous and intricate copper-alloy hinges and other fittings, which would have required a whole another set of manufacturing know-how. These were, arguably, in fact the major weakness of the design (and, indeed, are absent from similar laminated body armours much later encountered in at least Europe and Japan), being rather fragile and generally "over-engineered" and apparently had the unfortunate side effect of reacting with the iron to accelerate rusting.

So besides work hours you'll also be adding the overhead that comes from the manufacture requiring quite skilled labour.

In other words, unlike Ye Goode Olde Maille the segmentata was very much a "high tech" piece of armour, and large-scale production of it was doubtless only possible in a rather limited number of particularly high-end manufacturies. Which is no doubt a major reason it never got even close to replacing the hamata and squamata in use.

2nd - Protection wise it was also more effective. Chain mail when you think about it is not designed to take a stab. When stabbing, all the force of the arm, which depending on form can reach close to 1 thousand foot pounds, is focused on one specific point. This would break small chain mail rungs easily. As such chain mail is only effective at preventing quick slashes from killing the wearer, as most strikes that get past a scutum are usually just that. However like said it cannot take a stab. Lorica Segmentata fairs somewhat better however. Being of a single thin plate, bent at an arc, it means that if the weapon in question is not completely strait when coming into the armor, it is more likely to bend off and become deflected.

Eh, you're rather exaggerating the vulnerability of mail to thrusts. It certainly isn't at its best against them, but its actual main weakness is blunt trauma - being very flexible as it is, it doesn't stop that very well.

In practice experiments have shown that a thrust needs to be pretty strong indeed to get through good mail - when this happens, what actually fails most of the time are the rivets holding the links closed. As fairly substantial "soft-armour" padding was invariably worn under mail (partly to absorbs blunt trauma, partly for comfort, partly as a "second line defense"), penetrating the actual body underneath to a meaningful degree is actually easier said than done.

Which said, logic already dictates that overlapping solid metal plates should have rather a bit more in the way of stopping power overall.

[Flyboy]

Um, no. Mail was expensive primarily because of the sheer number of man-hours that went into making it; but this was largely repetitive "grunt work" that didn't demand high skill. (In the Middle Ages some armourers apparently actually "subcontracted" this phase to the local peasantry.) And when the finished product was damaged, only a handful of new links were needed to repair the gash. It was also simple enough to maintain even in field conditions.

Exactly as you mentioned in the beginning it took a sheer number of man hours. Ignoring the skill involved, which I admit is small, a smith would be required to firstly either wire or punch out some ten thousand rungs, then painstakingly ring all of those rungs together. Sure this is relative brunt work yet it takes huge amounts of time. The fact is than no armor can be used forever, and mass producing chain mail, even if done in the contracting fashion you described, is an extremely long process. Eventually soldiers need to be reequipped and repeating this process every time is indeed plausible but not simple. Segmentata, even if requiring skill, can be reproduced much much much faster. True hamata was simpler to repair, however this does not mean that segmentata is by any means too difficult. It's really only a matter of replacing the damaged plates with new ones, and because each legion carried a contingent of blacksmiths this should not have been an issue.

Conversely, given what kind of raw material period iron-production methods gave you, each and every single lame of the segmentata would have required as much skill and almost as much work as an entire iron helmet. On top of this there were the fairly numerous and intricate copper-alloy hinges and other fittings, which would have required a whole another set of manufacturing know-how. These were, arguably, in fact the major weakness of the design (and, indeed, are absent from similar laminated body armours much later encountered in at least Europe and Japan), being rather fragile and generally "over-engineered" and apparently had the unfortunate side effect of reacting with the iron to accelerate rusting.

You mentioned that the amount of skill it takes to consistently fashion the steel to the proper specifications requires the work of a single helmet. Umm...no. Helmets were of high grade and thick iron, with rivets, curves and constantly bending proportions, to make a helmet with hand and iron takes an insane amount of skill. While I do not deny that segmentata does require a large degree of skill to consistently turn out the same armor making such a comparison is far from the truth. However, you mention the "subcontracting" in the middle ages on the quote above. There is evidence to say this was used in the creation of metals in Roman times as well. Sheets of metal (and as some archeologists are beginning to debate possible steel) could be shipped to smiths who would have to simple cut and bend the metal. Furthermore you mention the straps being weak and a catalyst for rusting. Rusting can be prevented with good treatment and cleaning with oil. Furthermore legionaries, if comparable to any modern soldier, would obviously have to keep all their equipment clean and effective, this obviously transfers to the armor.

Eh, you're rather exaggerating the vulnerability of mail to thrusts. It certainly isn't at its best against them, but its actual main weakness is blunt trauma - being very flexible as it is, it doesn't stop that very well.In practice experiments have shown that a thrust needs to be pretty strong indeed to get through good mail - when this happens, what actually fails most of the time are the rivets holding the links closed.

True, it does take force. I admit I over exadurated its vulnerability, however there is not question that a well placed thrust with a spear or sword, at the hands of full grown well conditioned man, could penetrate the mail. Though this happens with segmentata as well. the stab has to be dot on. If the angle is off then the tip of the blade will simply be guided off to the side.

As fairly substantial "soft-armour" padding was invariably worn under mail (partly to absorbs blunt trauma, partly for comfort, partly as a "second line defense"), penetrating the actual body underneath to a meaningful degree is actually easier said than done.

This likely would have been done with Segmentata as well. As for comfort I do agree that it defiantly lessens the chafing, however especially around the shoulders I can imagine what a pain hamata could be. Furthermore Segmentata was lighter, and could be dismantled for transportation and long marches (though I doubt that was common), making it over all more comfortable.




OMGZ another LS vs HS debate.
It doesn't really matter anyway, they both have advantages and disadvantages, hamata's biggy being flexibility and durability (I do admit segmentata could not compete in long term durability, as the rings and friction got rid of the rust).