Armor upgrades for units

[Toasty Fresh]

I just want to remind everyone of this small feature from Medieval 2. One thing I really loved about Medi 2 was that each unit could have some tiny level of customisation in armor levels. Eg. if you had a blacksmith or whatever in the city where the unit was developed, and trained a unit there, their armor level would increase, and in battles, when you zoomed in on the unit, they would have a different appearance based on their armor. For example if you got an Armored Sergeant unit and trained it in a city with a fully upgraded smith, on the battlefield they would appear in a full suit of plate armor. While this is a really small feature, in my opinion it really added a further motive for me to upgrade my troops. Not only did they have good stats, they then looked awesome.

In addition it adds a level of personalisation with your units and just adds more variety to the game.

I really hope CA adds this feature in Rome 2, given that it was omitted from the last few games (not 100% sure it wasn't in Shogun 2, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[complete noob:(]

I'm not sure about Shogun 2 either, but I don't think that many Japanese wore armor (at least on the scale of Europe). And of course armor was omitted from Empire and Napoleon, because no one wore metal armor during that time frame.

I am sure it will make a return in Rome (for the higher class soldiers at least)

[Toasty Fresh]

It was in RTW as well but as far as I know, based upon recent tests (I haven't played the game that much), there aren't any cosmetic appearance changes, which is what I'd really like to see.

[Yomamashouse]

I don't think armour was as varied back then for a given unit as it was in the Medieval era. I think smiths should give minor stat bonuses simply to reflect quality, not type.

[Toasty Fresh]

I don't think armour was as varied back then for a given unit as it was in the Medieval era. I think smiths should give minor stat bonuses simply to reflect quality, not type.

It's not that there needs to be different variations, just different degrees of armor. For example, in Medi 2, you could get a unit of peasants, which are originally in little more than cloth and leather caps, and end up having them in mail and leather with a helmet of some kind, or at least armor to a similar degree.

[Yomamashouse]

It's not that there needs to be different variations, just different degrees of armor. For example, in Medi 2, you could get a unit of peasants, which are originally in little more than cloth and leather caps, and end up having them in mail and leather with a helmet of some kind, or at least armor to a similar degree.

That was what I meant by variation, I am not sure whether or not the type of armour would vary back then the way it did for units in the medieval era, where some cities could have guys all decked in mail, while others only had leather.

[Geuvesa]

Later in the game this could apply for the Legions by upgrading from Squamata and Hamata to Laminata(if it would make sense historically)
IMO these would also be a very pretty aesthetic upgrade. This was one of my favorite features of MTW2 and would love to see it return.

[mcantu]

there should definitely NOT be visible armor upgrades

[Toasty Fresh]

there should definitely NOT be visible armor upgrades

Why not?

I think there should be armor upgrades in select situations, like for example, instead of making 2 legionary cohorts (early and regular, like in the original), there is only one legionary cohort, which with no armor upgrades have lorica hamata, and if upgraded a certain percentage switch to segmentata, the more upgraded they are, the more soldiers with segmentata

Brilliant idea. I'd love to see this happen.

i think if would be better if those upgrades just represented quality of equipment instead of certain armors...

Sure, why not. The main thing I really want to see is upgrade my units and have it affect units cosmetically ingame. I wouldn't even mind if it was just retextures or whatever.

[Raimeken]

I think there should be armor upgrades in select situations, like for example, instead of making 2 legionary cohorts (early and regular, like in the original), there is only one legionary cohort, which with no armor upgrades have lorica hamata, and if upgraded a certain percentage switch to segmentata, the more upgraded they are, the more soldiers with segmentata.

[Geuvesa]

I think there should be armor upgrades in select situations, like for example, instead of making 2 legionary cohorts (early and regular, like in the original), there is only one legionary cohort, which with no armor upgrades have lorica hamata, and if upgraded a certain percentage switch to segmentata, the more upgraded they are, the more soldiers with segmentata.

I like this idea! The arm protection for the sword arm would also be a nice touch for me.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I think there should be armor upgrades in select situations, like for example, instead of making 2 legionary cohorts (early and regular, like in the original), there is only one legionary cohort, which with no armor upgrades have lorica hamata, and if upgraded a certain percentage switch to segmentata, the more upgraded they are, the more soldiers with segmentata.

I agree to a similar idea, knowing that the heavy infantry of the Roman legions started switching from the Hamata to the Segmentata at around 10 BC, and from around 100-250 AD it seems to have been the most numerous type of armour worn by the heavy legion infantry. So obviously this change took time, and the time it took ofcourse depended on the amount of money poured into the project, something which should be reflected ingame as-well. The

As such you should be able to recruit new & re-equip existing legionaires with the new armour & equipment at either a cohort (480) or double centuria (160) level, requiring an instant cost of money as-well as an increase to the units' upkeep cost.

[daelin4]

I don't mind the all-upgrade system like they had for RTW- I just prefer if it was a little more expensive to simulate the diversion of resource and logistics. In RTW it was so cheap to upgrade that it barely made a difference to how you played: you didn't feel like you had to choose whether to spend more money and time and have them move away for the duration, or keep them there because the enemy might come around. It felt like it made little impact on the game.

I think a way to make it more worthwhile would be to not only make the upgrades more noticeable (both appearance and in battle) but also take longer. In RTW you could outfit up to ten urban cohorts with gold armour and weapons in one turn in a single city. Yeah.....

[JaM]

i think if would be better if those upgrades just represented quality of equipment instead of certain armors...

[JaM]

what i'd like to see is possibility to transform units into different one with only slight lose of experience. For example, Hastati could be upgraded to Principes if they gain certain level of experience, and then they could be upgraded to Triarii. Also, if there is a reform, it would be good to have possibility to transform old type of units into new units, again with small loss of experience.

[-FrOzeN-]

What I'd like the most is if armor upgrades work as JaM said (that they only improve the quality) and research changes what kind of armor types the units have. So that you'll have to research lets say the squamata and then after that it will appear on the units (after retraining)

[Aule_the_creator]

I'd like to see cosmetic armour changes depending on upgrades, but NOT through the blacksmith building, but through a research in the tech tree, like in Empire. You research said armour, and your units start wearing upgraded armour.

I would also like to remind CA that the Segmentata is inferior to the Hamata (mail), and was only switched to because it was faster and cheaper to mass-produce, and though they never completely abandoned the Hamata for the segmentata, they eventually switched back to the Hamata entirely. I should make a post about this.

[akkakk]

I would also like to remind CA that the Segmentata is inferior to the Hamata (mail), and was only switched to because it was faster and cheaper to mass-produce, and though they never completely abandoned the Hamata for the segmentata, they eventually switched back to the Hamata entirely. I should make a post about this.

And i would like to let CA know that what you said is complete rubbish.

Yes it was slightly cheaper and it was faster to make, it was the same weight (a big advantage) and had the same coverage.

However.

The Segmentata required high quality metal and took slightly longer (a few seconds longer) to put on and take off (the only real two disadvantages to this armour).

The Segmentata's defensive value was superior to that of the Hamata. Superior ranged defence and superior melee defence.

Arrows could easily pierce the Hamata, but they had a lot of trouble penetrating the areas protected by the Segmentata.

Also, the Hamata, being chain armour, was not particularly effective against impacts (whether it was a bladed or blunt weapon didnt matter). The Segmentata, due to its design, dissipated the impact from an attack, whether it was from missile weapons, a spear, sword, axe etc over the entire torso.

The Hamata didnt, which would lead to broken bones (especially ribs), winding and general disruption causing the enemy to get the advantage in melee.

The Segmentata was also superior when defending against piercing weapons due to its overlapping metal plates.

The Hamata, even though it was made up of multiple layers of chain, was less effective.



PS: The main reasons it was not given to all legions is because not all legions needed it

and, whilst nearly an identical price to the Hamata and also having a shorter build time, it required high quality iron (as opposed to the anything-will-do Hamata) and the articulation required master smiths to put together.

[RC-1136]

And again the Segmentata against Hamata-thing!

@akkakk
Do you have any sources or other verifications for your statements?
Why should a plain piece of iron be superior to a net of interlinked rings?
Why should an army equip itself with chain mail if simple plates of iron are so much better? Do you think the Celts and Romans were idiots?
Regarding the impact-thingy: That's why you should wear padding under your armour - under every metal armour!

EDIT:
Regarding Toasty Freshs upgrade idea I would like this idea very much:

I was thinking of an elite unit which gained their status through experience and not through recruitment (ingame).

In history there were legions which had a higher reputation than others. And I think you would have spotted that when looking at their equipment. It would either be ragged (long campaign, a lot of repairs etc.) or full of bling I would definitely chose bling for the game

[Sir. Cunningham]

Why should a plain piece of iron be superior to a net of interlinked rings?

Has been proved time and time again. Plate is far superior at protecting against thrusts and hacks than chain mail, and that because it disperses the force of the impact over a large area and doesn't give as chain mail does. Stab someone in chain mail and he's going down, do the same to a guy wearing plate armour such as the segmentata and he'll be smiling as he's burrying his sword into your neck.

Why should an army equip itself with chain mail if simple plates of iron are so much better? Do you think the Celts and Romans were idiots?

Simple ?? Ferrous plate technology was far more advanced than iron chain mail, which was old news and could be made by slaves, where'as the production of ferrous plate equipment demanded skilled smiths and a highly developed infrastructure.

In short you've got things completely backwards.

Regarding the impact-thingy: That's why you should wear padding under your armour - under every metal armour!

It is clear you have never been hit whilst wearing chain mail (with padding!), it hurts!