Accuracy of Rome's unit strength.

[HuangCaesar]

Hey I'm campaign and noticed different units and in different reforms for the Romans.

I took at look at the stats and noticed the Triarii of the Camillian era was somewhat better than the Polybian era? And Legionaires don't improve greatly throughout the Marian and Augustan reforms. I have some questions before I continue my campaign.

Are Peditie Extradonarii stronger than Legionaires like Triarri? If so why are Mercenaries stronger than Legionaires?
What are Antegsegnani? Are than better than average Legionaires? Why?
Why is Praetorian Guard not as strong as Seleucid Elite Phalanx?
Why are Praetorian Cavalry skirmshers?
Rome did not have good cavlary in their early stages...why is Equite Extradinarii so good? Why are they the only lancer unit while German and Gaulic auxiliary cavalry of latter periods are skirmshers?
And why is Lorica Segmenta in the game? The game ends in 9 AD where Lorica segmenta was discovered in Teutoburg forest.

[yuezhi]

there is no LC ingame.

[Frtigern]

The Polybian Triarii have 1+ morale, but lower defense and charge, also lower mass, but their cost and upkeep is cheaper. There are differences though between a hoplite formation and the looser formation adopted later

Your right there isn't any difference between the Imperial Legionary and the Post Marian Legionary, but that doesn't mean their bad. They still have the best cost to attack than many units in the game.

Pedites Extraordinarii (PE) have the same defense, but 1+ morale than Camillan Triarii. The thing that makes PE better is their armor piercing sword, as swordsmen will usually defeat spearmen but Triarii can be set up on guard and will probably defeat PE head on. But in a battlefield situation I would pin the Triarii with another hoplite or pikemen unit and then send the PE around to attack the Triarii in the flank or rear. So, no PE are not stronger than Triarii from the front, but a charge on their flanks yes. PE are not mercenaries as you can recruit them from regional barracks in four regions in central Italy. They are Italic Allies. The Samnitici Milites are mercenaries and are inferior to PE. Triarii aren't legionaries, but they do form part of a legion.

Hellenic Elite Phalanx and Cohors Praetoriana are similar in melee with swords but the Phalanx is a pikemen unit and if the Praetorians can't get around them they are toast. That's probably due to the three or four pikes they have to navigate to get in close. Though, the phalanx is expensive.

The Eqvites Praetoriani do skirmish but having that ability means they are versatile. Sometimes its useful to have skirmishing cavalry. I don't know their history but someone must know here why they carry javelins. All I know is that Romans weren't known for their cavalry, so you won't find Roman cataphracts like you might find in the east. However, the Campanians did have good horses but they are allies not Romans. I wonder if the Campanians had contact with the Macedonians and copied their Companion Cavalry.

The Germans and Gauls were not known to have dedicated lance cavalry. Maybe general's bodyguards but most cavalry from those places were skirmishers. They come from infantry traditions so this makes sense.

Lorica segmentata may not have been as widespread as Lorica hamata. EB ends at 14 AD. So 5 years from Teutoburg forest, however it's said that Lorica segmentata was introduced by 9 BC. So it was in service less than 20 years with the legions, and I'm guessing maybe there were Lorica segmentata equipped legionaries at Teutoburg but the majority in the Empire was probably still armored with Lorica hamata.

[Entropy Judge]

Are Peditie Extradonarii stronger than Legionaires like Triarri? If so why are Mercenaries stronger than Legionaires?

Pedites Extraordinarii (PE) have the same defense, but 1+ morale than Camillan Triarii. The thing that makes PE better is their armor piercing sword, as swordsmen will usually defeat spearmen but Triarii can be set up on guard and will probably defeat PE head on. But in a battlefield situation I would pin the Triarii with another hoplite or pikemen unit and then send the PE around to attack the Triarii in the flank or rear. So, no PE are not stronger than Triarii from the front, but a charge on their flanks yes. PE are not mercenaries as you can recruit them from regional barracks in four regions in central Italy. They are Italic Allies. The Samnitici Milites are mercenaries and are inferior to PE. Triarii aren't legionaries, but they do form part of a legion.

Frtigern is pretty much right - Triarii and PE serve different purposes, one isn't "stronger" than the other. Just wanted to point out a couple things:
Roman spear-chuckers - Hastati and Principes - carry AP Pila, which are very useful. Samnites and Pedites, meanwhile, carry regular spears, although the Samnites are slightly better with them. However, Pedites are *Factional* units, not Regional ones. Samnites are available from the Regional Barracks.

What are Antegsegnani? Are than better than average Legionaires? Why?

Historically? Dunno. In game terms? They're elite Spearmen. Are they better than Cohors Reformata? No:
* They lack Pilum, only carrying Javelins
* They have a much smaller unit size (30 men vs the Cohors' 50)
* They have a lower Mass (1.15 vs 1.18
* They are much more expensive

Why is Praetorian Guard not as strong as Seleucid Elite Phalanx?

Because the Praetorian Guard is mostly a status job and not one that takes supermen, so it would recruit from the elites of the Cohors Reformata, while the Argyraspides is made up of the elites of the Pezhetairoi, and so the two would likely end up being very similar? That said, they probably would take out the Argyraspides in a melee fight if the numbers were equalized - melee is the same, but the Praetorians have a bit more Armour.

Why are Praetorian Cavalry skirmshers?

*Shrug* No idea.

Rome did not have good cavlary in their early stages...why is Equite Extradinarii so good? Why are they the only lancer unit while German and Gaulic auxiliary cavalry of latter periods are skirmshers?

Rome may not have had totally awesome cavalry in their early years, but their good cavalry were still comparable to other peoples' cavalry. Certainly at Heraclea in 279 they were threatening enough that Pyrrhus deployed his elephants to get rid of them.

As for Auxiliaries being skirmishers ... actually, the Gallic Auxiliaries are pretty great Shock Cavalry, what with the high Charge, Lethality, and AP. The Germans are also not too bad at straight-up fighting with other cavalry (assumption based on stats - I haven't played around with the units).

And why is Lorica Segmenta in the game? The game ends in 9 AD where Lorica segmenta was discovered in Teutoburg forest.

Where is it, do you happen to know? Looking at the Imperial and Marian units, all I'm seeing is Chain. Which units are depicted with the Segmentata? I was under the impression that the EB team wasn't using it specifically because it only showed up towards the very end of EB's time frame.

[The Kybrothilian]

The antesignani are supposedly the vanguard unit of the legions, being first in the combat.

[JaM]

The thing that makes PE better is their armor piercing sword

No sword should be armor piercing... Even if some says Falcata or Kopis could pierce Lorica Hamata, its just not possible. Based on tests performed with medieval and ancient weapons, good athlete could deliver 115 Joules with overhand (slashing) and about 65 Joules underhand (thrusting attack). Early Hamata was made with 4mm rings and leather (or linen) padding behind. Later versions had 7mm rings. even 4mm rings backed by padding could reliably protect against attacks up to 150 joules. Kopis and Falcata had optimal edge for cutting, thus were able to deliver tremendous damage to soft tissue. But, Chainmail provided extremely good protection against cuts. There is a reason why Chainmail was used for almost 2000 years... Armor should be more effective in EB.. right now its significance is reduced a lot due to many weapons having extremely high attack values..

Something about Lorica Hamata:

Lorica Hamata
According to Connolly, there are several statues of armoured warriors from Southern France and Italy depicting two different styles of mail. The first has what appears to be a short cape draped around and overhanging the shoulders. A bronze clasp was riveted to the shoulder sections of the mail and hooked together to hold the mail cape in place. The second style had wide straps coming from the back over the shoulders to fasten on the chest with no overhang (see Figure 10).26 The former style was Celtic in origin27 while the latter was Greek. Connolly speculates that due to the large shield carried by Roman legionaries and the low combat stance used for close formation fighting, the most accessible area to an enemy would be over the top of the scutum to hit the shoulders and upper back. He suggests that this may have been why the Romans added shoulder doubling to their mail.28 However, it is equally plausible for it to have been done simply because that was the current Greek fashion. It is likely that the Romans and the Greek colonists in Italy would have adopted mail from the Celts and modified it to conform to Greek fashion—hence the similarity with other types of Greek armour. There is a remarkable resemblance between the Greek linothorax29 and the Roman Republican hamata.

Fig. 10—Reconstruction of a Roman lorica hamata made of alternating rows of riveted and punched links. The overlapping shoulder sections provide two layers of protection for the upper body



The Romans used mail extensively, and today the generally accepted Latin term for it is lorica hamata. The term apparently refers to armour that has been "hooked" (or linked) together. However, there are very few instances of this term in contemporary accounts. The earliest occurrence of the term lorica hamata is in St. Jerome's Vulgate [1.17.5], written in 405 AD. Virgil's Aeneid (1st century BC) mentions armour in which rings, linked or hooked (hamis) into one another, were of gold [III.467, V.259, VII.639].30 Sidioius uses a similar phrase [Carm. ii. 322].31 Arrian [l.c], Polybius [6.23.15, 30.25.3], and Josephus [5.7.299] all use the Greek term, halusidotos, (ἁΛυσΙδωΤος) which refers to the armour being "made in chain fashion." The only Latin term used in most texts is simply lorica, which is a general term for any type of armour. Earlier period Roman mail seems to have had smaller links than later examples with inside diameters (I.D.) as small as 4mm. Second century Roman mail consisted of larger links with an I.D. of 7-7.5mm and a thickness of about 1mm. They were slightly flattened and riveted with round rivets. There are many similarities between various finds suggesting at least partially centralized production.

Once mail was adopted by the Romans, it quickly spread to the Aegean and the Middle East. By the 3rd century AD, mail was very common in Europe and the Aegean, throughout the Middle East, and on the Indian subcontinent. There is a misconception that when the Roman armour of segmented plates, called lorica segmentata by modern scholars, was developed in the last half of the 1st century BC,32 that it supplanted mail. This was not the case. Mail saw continuous use before, during, and after the period in which segmentata was being used.

Mail has many advantages over segmented plate:
It is more flexible and more comfortable than segmentata
It provides better coverage—segmentata cannot protect the armpits, stomach, groin or thighs the way mail can
Mail is easier to store, transport, and clean
It is easier to tailor to individuals—an arsenal would only need to stock a few standard sizes to fit the vast majority of legionaries
Mail is quicker and easier to don
Mail is less susceptible to damage—the fittings on extant segmentata are very fragile, to the point that reconstructions do not attempt to replicate them
Mail has a longer lifespan—there are many extant examples of mail that have been repaired multiple times with patches of different types of mail from different time periods33
In the field, all that is required to repair mail is a piece of wire—there are extant examples in which a piece of wire has been wrapped around the damaged section several times to hold it together. Even in the workshop, all that is required to make most repairs is some replacement links and rivets and a peening tool
Given mail's ease of repair and its long life span, it is reasonable to conclude that the reserves of Roman mail continued to grow during the period of the Roman Republic and later the Empire, and that more and more of it was available for troops to wear.

Segmentata does have advantages though:
It is less expensive and faster to produce than mail, which is probably why the armour was developed in the first place
Segmentata is lighter than mail—but it also provides less coverage. If mail was reduced so that it only covered the same areas as a segmentata, the weight difference would not be so great
Segmentata offers better protection against blunt trauma than mail. Many assume that it also provides better protection against other attacks, but it will be shown that this may not have been the case

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

(btw, check especially stats about mail resistance to certain weapons - swords, arrows, polearms,lances..)

So, instead of AP attribute, all units with Falcata or Kopis should have more DMG, so they will be more effective against lightly protected targets. They should be on pair with Longsword regarding their DMG, just should be less effective for parry, so they shouldnt get any bonus Defense points. THis way higher DMG would compensate for their efectivity against lighter armor, but not against Chainmail. Units in Chainmail (or in other forms of Heavy armor) should really be hard to kill on the battlefield..

The Eqvites Praetoriani do skirmish but having that ability means they are versatile. Sometimes its useful to have skirmishing cavalry. I don't know their history but someone must know here why they carry javelins. All I know is that Romans weren't known for their cavalry, so you won't find Roman cataphracts like you might find in the east. However, the Campanians did have good horses but they are allies not Romans. I wonder if the Campanians had contact with the Macedonians and copied their Companion Cavalry.

The Germans and Gauls were not known to have dedicated lance cavalry. Maybe general's bodyguards but most cavalry from those places were skirmishers. They come from infantry traditions so this makes sense.

Romans used auxiliary cavalry a lot, and they provided to them superior weapons. For example, standard light javelin used by cavalry was quite similar to light Pillum or Verutum, which also had long iron shank. That gave the cavalry quite a good projectile against armored enemies. Before Marius Romans used their Equites which were practically their Nobility serving as knights. They prefered shorter thrusting spears on horseback, which was superior weapon against other cavalry especially those armed with swords and/or long lances - thrusting spear was more wieldy, while giving cavalrymen good standoff distance vs sword. Another important fact is that cavalry fights were never like we have them in games, but most of the time one side turned and ran away, or after brief contact. Thrusting spear was perfect weapon for chasing, long lance was more suited for initial impact, but then they were too long to be anyhow effective in contact with enemy (that is why in EB lances have less DMG but AP atttibute and high charge)

here is some good info about ancient cavalry fighting style:

http://www.garyb.0catch.com/cavalry1/cavalry1.html

[Entropy Judge]

So, instead of AP attribute, all units with Falcata or Kopis should have more DMG,

There is no such thing as "Damage" in Rome.

just should be less effective for parry, so they shouldnt get any bonus Defense points.

Nor was I aware that any swords gave "bonus Defense points."

[JaM]

There is no such thing as "Damage" in Rome.

i meant Attack value every weapon has. (i rather call it DMG) Based on what i know about the engine, more Attack/DMG weapon has, more likely it scores a hit. At least this way it worked in M2TW which doesn't have lethality factor (its ignored)

Nor was I aware that any swords gave "bonus Defense points."

Nope, sword doesnt have any build in defense bonus, but if you want to simulate some weapons based on few stats that are actually available in game, you can use defense stat as an additional bonus added to unit (during the EDU creation) for having a sword of certain length - Longsword would be definitely more useful at parrying attack than short mace or one handed axe, therefore unit equipped with such sword should have some melee defense benefit because of that.

As i said - falcata was very effective against unprotected or lightly armored enemies. It had very effective shape of single edge. anyway even that edge, was not able to go through standard riveted mail. let say Falcata had attack 9 AP. this means it has average chance defeating 2x stronger armor =18. Agaisnt unit in heavy armor (let say 8/8/4, 9AP is very effective as it has to face 4/8/4, which makes it 9/16. but if you use same unit against light infantry with no armor,but let say 2/10/3 defense, it has to face 1/10/3, which is 9/14. Chance killing the lightly armored unit is only marginally better than killing the unit in heavy armor... Now imagine, Falcata would get Attack value of let say 12. against same heavy unit in 8/8/4 it will be 12/20, while against same light unit it will be 12/15 - so, suddenly, Falcata is more effective against lightly armored units, but not so effective against heavily armored units... much closer to reality...

[Boriak]

What do you think would happen if you take away the AP bonus but increase lethality of those weapons instead of attack?

[Entropy Judge]

i meant Attack value every weapon has. (i rather call it DMG) Based on what i know about the engine, more Attack/DMG weapon has, more likely it scores a hit. At least this way it worked in M2TW which doesn't have lethality factor (its ignored)

Ah, Attack. Yeah, when you said "Damage" I assumed you meant "Lethality," on account of Lethality being the closest measure for damage that exists in Rome, while Attack has as much to do with individual Skill as it does with the weapon being used (which is why the Ambakaro have an Attack of 12 while the Iberi Caetrati have an Attack of 9).

As i said - falcata was very effective against unprotected or lightly armored enemies. It had very effective shape of single edge. anyway even that edge, was not able to go through standard riveted mail.

*Shrug* Apparently the falcata was perfectly capable of cracking through a helmet, so ....

4/8/4, which makes it 9/16.

What? What's the 9/16 business?

Chance killing the lightly armored unit is only marginally better than killing the unit in heavy armor...

No, the chance of killing the two units is identical, because the falcata has a Lethality of .11 - the chance of hitting the lighter unit is somewhat better.

[JaM]

Depends how you look at it. Lethality is more like post-penetration effect - if penetration of defense is achieved, it checks lethality if hit should kill or not. It has nothing to do with penetration against armor.

What? What's the 9/16 business?

simple thing (with one small error from my side, as i forgot that defense only counts for attacks against weapon side,but not against shield side of unit)

- Unit with Armor 8,defense 8 and shield 4 vs Falcata with Atck 12 => from front and shield side it is Armor + shield / weapon ATCK = 12/12, from weapon side its Armor + defense/Weapon atck 12/16
- Unit with armor 2,defense 8 and shield 3 vs Falcata with attack 12 => from shield side or front = 12/5(weapon over-matches the armor 12 to 5), from weapon side its 12/10

weapon had AP attribute:
- Unit with Armor 8,defense 8 and shield 4 vs Falcata with Atck 9AP => from shield side =9/8, from weapon side its 9/12
- Unit with armor 2,defense 8 and shield 3 vs Falcata with attack 9AP => from shield side 9/4, from weapon side 9/9

Which means that Falcata ATCK value of 12 will be more effective agaisnt lightly armored unit (score penetration more often), than Falcata using lower ATCK but wit AP tag.

*Shrug* Apparently the falcata was perfectly capable of cracking through a helmet, so ....

a BRONZE HELMET... Chainmail was not from bronze (at least not Lorica Hamata). Plus, cutting bronze plate would be easier than cuting through rivetted Mail.. Btw, all tests available on youtube with weapon tested against Chainmail, are done against butted chainmail.. Nobody used that type of chainmail in warfare, as it is inferrior and can be pierced by weapons. Rivveted Mail has much higher resistance, but ofcourse, its much harder to obtain it today, as most of those guys wont pay for proper chainmail and instead bought cheap butted replicas... Rivetted mail was impossible to penetrate with any blade or spear used by infantry. In ancient times, only weapons capable enough to defeat chainmail were heavy javelins, like Pillum or Soliferra. You could also pierce it with Lance during charge. But definitly not with any bladed weapon (Dacian Falx included - Falx was dangerous because it was used to attack from above where attack was directed against helmet ,shoulders or neck..)

[Entropy Judge]

[QUOTE=JaM;12085140]Depends how you look at it. Lethality is more like post-penetration effect - if penetration of defense is achieved, it checks lethality if hit should kill or not. It has nothing to do with penetration against armor.[quote]
Correct. Lethality is strictly whether or not the attack deals any damage, not whether the attack *hits*, as soldiers can be knocked down by an attack without being killed.

simple thing
...
- Unit with armor 2,defense 8 and shield 3 vs Falcata with attack 12 => from shield side or front = 12/5(weapon over-matches the armor 12 to 5),

I suppose I should have been clearer, but that's what I meant - I was wondering what the hell you meant because I couldn't figure out where you were getting the 9 from.

Which means that Falcata ATCK value of 12 will be more effective agaisnt lightly armored unit (score penetration more often), than Falcata using lower ATCK but wit AP tag.

Which makes a great deal of sense within the system, regardless of whether it's accurate for the falcata.

a BRONZE HELMET... Chainmail was not from bronze (at least not Lorica Hamata).

Cutting out the majority of this for a reason. I honestly don't know if you know this or not, but the EB creators did come up with the Armour values on a point system, and the Helmet actually gives quite a bit of value to that (see the Gaesatae and their 5 Armour). So it actually is a relevant point if the falcata didn't have trouble dealing with helmets. An 8-Armour unit doesn't really have that much protection, anyway.

As all historical evidences from ancient,medieval and up to Napoleonic times (last use of armor) suggest cuts and slashes were less lethal than piercing wounds (lets ignore arrows for now). and yet, in EB Celtic Longsword has the highest lethality of all swords, while Gladius, is just an average sword, not particulary effective...

I would think that it's partially that "Lethality" is not really the chance to outright kill someone so much as causing an injury severe enough to take them out of action. A gladius stab to the stomach is almost certainly going to kill you sooner or later, while a longsword would usually hit you in the arm or leg, which might cripple but not necessarily kill you. After all, units can recover from casualties taken in battle (I've had units go from 60 -> 0 -> 60 before!).

You can ask any weapon enthusiast or reenactor or martial art master (those who specialize on sword fight with ancient weapons) that Gladius was THE sword of ancient times. It was perfect sword for Roman tactics,

For Roman tactics, yes. Longswords were not group-friendly weapons, and trying to use a longsword in the Roman manner would not work because it's so large.

which was designed for type of combat Ancient times were full of.

??? That type being ... what, exactly? Did the Greeks not get in each others' faces and try to brutally murder each other with machaira and kopis swords? Did they just stand ~4' from the other line and poke at it with their spears?

situations. Gallic swords were just not suited for type of war Romans waged.

Which is probably why:
1) The Romans didn't adopt the Gallic longsword
2) The primary Gallic weapon was actually the *spear*, as swords were just a tad expensive for the ordinary man

which were not particularly strong, which means relaticly low kinetic energy.

What is it with you and your ridiculous obsession with kinetic energy? KE is not the be-all and end-all of combat, you know - just because I only exert 15 joules and you manage 2000 joules, if I've managed to slit your throat and you missed, I won.

[bobbin]

a BRONZE HELMET... Chainmail was not from bronze (at least not Lorica Hamata). Plus, cutting bronze plate would be easier than cuting through rivetted Mail.. Btw, all tests available on youtube with weapon tested against Chainmail, are done against butted chainmail.. Nobody used that type of chainmail in warfare, as it is inferrior and can be pierced by weapons. Rivveted Mail has much higher resistance, but ofcourse, its much harder to obtain it today, as most of those guys wont pay for proper chainmail and instead bought cheap butted replicas... Rivetted mail was impossible to penetrate with any blade or spear used by infantry. In ancient times, only weapons capable enough to defeat chainmail were heavy javelins, like Pillum or Soliferra. You could also pierce it with Lance during charge. But definitly not with any bladed weapon (Dacian Falx included - Falx was dangerous because it was used to attack from above where attack was directed against helmet ,shoulders or neck..)

The Kopis and Falcata did not need to cut the mail to do damage, these swords have a lot of mass towards their tips so they strike almost like an axe. The force of the blow would be transmitted through the flexible mail and into the body causing blunt force trauma.

I kinda don't understand some decisions made with Lethality settings in EB - weapons like Celtic Longsword were predominantly used for cutting and slashing, they were not capable of thrusting. As all historical evidences from ancient,medieval and up to Napoleonic times (last use of armor) suggest cuts and slashes were less lethal than piercing wounds (lets ignore arrows for now). and yet, in EB Celtic Longsword has the highest lethality of all swords, while Gladius, is just an average sword, not particulary effective...

Again you're forgetting about the effect of blunt force, longswords get a lot of momentum behind them, getting whacked full force by one of them would do a great deal of harm. As for the Gladius it gets a faster attack animation meaning soldiers using it can make more attacks than ones armed with longswords.

[JaM]

I kinda don't understand some decisions made with Lethality settings in EB - weapons like Celtic Longsword were predominantly used for cutting and slashing, they were not capable of thrusting. As all historical evidences from ancient,medieval and up to Napoleonic times (last use of armor) suggest cuts and slashes were less lethal than piercing wounds (lets ignore arrows for now). and yet, in EB Celtic Longsword has the highest lethality of all swords, while Gladius, is just an average sword, not particulary effective...

You can ask any weapon enthusiast or reenactor or martial art master (those who specialize on sword fight with ancient weapons) that Gladius was THE sword of ancient times. It was perfect sword for Roman tactics, which was designed for type of combat Ancient times were full of. Gladius allowed Legionary to conserve his strength behind Scutum, deflect all hits, and attack with quick thrusting moves against lover parts of enemy body. In such situation, Roman legionary could deliver 3-4 hits in time Gaul would need to swing his weapon against Roman's shield. Another huge advantage was that due to its length it was ideal in tight spaces, especially during shield push,when longer Celtic Longswords would not have enough of space to be used... Falcata and Kopis is very similar, but they could be also used for thrusting, which made them slightly more effective is tight situations. Gallic swords were just not suited for type of war Romans waged.

Spear at the other side is done exactly the opposite as I think it should be - it has large ATCK value, but low lethality... Spear combat in formation was consisted by relatively fast thrusting attacks against enemy (nowhere as fast as Gladius could be), which were not particularly strong, which means relaticly low kinetic energy. (underarm just about 60-70 Joules, overarm even less due to the fact that spear has to be held in the middle, which reduces the momentum of the thrust). But once it hit, piercing wounds were dangerous due to the type of spear head used.. they resulted in fast blood loss based on how deep they penetrated. So, i would expect them to have higher lethality but less ATCK value instead of opposite.

[JaM]

Cutting out the majority of this for a reason. I honestly don't know if you know this or not, but the EB creators did come up with the Armour values on a point system, and the Helmet actually gives quite a bit of value to that (see the Gaesatae and their 5 Armour). So it actually is a relevant point if the falcata didn't have trouble dealing with helmets. An 8-Armour unit doesn't really have that much protection, anyway.

that is exactly what i'm trying to point out - Naked unit that only has helmet has armor 5, but unit in Hamata with helmet has armor 8? isnt it kinda too low? Mind you, Armor is used for every attack, but mostly its important agaisnt ranged attack from rear. unit in high enough armor wont take casualties if hit in rear. But of course, Gesatae, that dont have 80% of body covered in armor because of armor 5 given by helmet are pretty much resistant to low damage ranged weapons... makes no sense ( yes i know they were on drugs etc... but! they already have 2HP, i think thats enough to actually simulate their pain resistance...)

What is it with you and your ridiculous obsession with kinetic energy? KE is not the be-all and end-all of combat, you know - just because I only exert 15 joules and you manage 2000 joules, if I've managed to slit your throat and you missed, I won.

Kinetic energy is the only variable you can sort out how effective certain weapon was. Of course its not all deciding, as also momentum and shape of striking point matter, but its not that problematic to actually measure the weapons to get actual KE values - energy needed to penetrate armor... I agree that its more important to actually hit, than just making the strongest blow, but game itself doesn't use such system where it would consider such things. Instead it uses point system for attack and defense/armor, to which you could translate the KE output of weapons. Anyway because there is still 9 levels of experience, actual weapon Attack values will get increased up to +9, so in the end you will end up with units using weapons that overcome armor anyway... What is important is actual balance of combat that should resemble the reality, instead of such crazy things as we could witness in vanilla game. For me it was first time I saw English Longbowmen completely wipe out units of German Knights in full Gothic plate like they wore a butter... Goal of all my mods and submods was to actually keep the realism balance between weapons vs armor vs tactics etc.. to eliminate such craziness... (and its probably also a leftover of my Tanker past )



It is exactly why I prefer variable experience for units. Instead of having all unit starting with 0 EXP, my approach is to divide units based on their experience and status.

- Units that were recruited en mass from low grade recruits start with 0 Exp. Their weapon proficiency is basic, which means they doesnt know how to use them to overcome certain armors or tactics..
- Units that were recruited from pool of men with some training, start with 1 Exp, thanks to which they have +1 ATK, +1 DEF and +1 Morale advantage over previous category of troops. Its nothing significant, it just portray slightly more experience those men have (due to training or some combat experience). First group of men could match those after some combat experience, and thats exactly how it should be.
- Third tier of troops in my mods are regular troops. Those men are recruited from men that had some combat experience from previous wars,and/or recieved daily combat training. They start with EXP 2
- Next ones are reenlisted Veterans of previous wars. Practically all the Elite troops were from this group. start with Exp 3
- Last group are exceptional's. Units that were best of all. They start with 4 Exp points.

All those units would have very similar weapon stats, differentiating just by faction bonuses and different weapon types. But, Group 1 troops if they keep fighting long enough and gain experience, they might get more effective than freshly recruited veteran unit - thanks to their combat experience they became the Elite unit! Its pretty natural - combat experience is not linear, if you take experienced man and complete rookie and those two will fight 10 years in battles, their battle experience after 10 years will be similar. former rookie will be almost identical to former veteran. This is the only way how to portray this. with Every unit starting with 0 Exp, your green unit can improve +9, but elite unit will improve another +9... so former green unit never catches in experience to that elite unit...

[Entropy Judge]

that is exactly what i'm trying to point out - Naked unit that only has helmet has armor 5, but unit in Hamata with helmet has armor 8?

Hmm ... "unit in Hamata with ... Armor 8." Dunno which unit you're referring to, to be honest. Hamata makes me think chain, and specifically post-Marian Roman Legions ... but they have Armor 10 (12 for the Evocata), so you're going to have to be specific about which unit you're talking about. Also, Gaesatae were pretty rich Mercs, so their gear is going to be top-class.

isnt it kinda too low? Mind you, Armor is used for every attack, but mostly its important agaisnt ranged attack from rear. unit in high enough armor wont take casualties if hit in rear.

That's ... kind of the whole point of armor, you know? To protect you in case you can't defend yourself another way or avoid the attack. When attacked from behind, you can't interpose your Shield, the best defense against missiles, so Armour is the only thing you can use.

But of course, Gesatae, that dont have 80% of body covered in armor because of armor 5 given by helmet are pretty much resistant to low damage ranged weapons... makes no sense

Hmm ... let's look at the crappiest archer in the game, the Toxotai. Missile Attack of 3. 3 vs 5 is not that bad, and it's only going to get better, either from better Archers or from XP. Sure, there are some units with lower missile ratings - and they're Slingers, tossing AP ranged attacks that are hitting a lower Armour anyway. In fact, ranged attacks are the easiest way to take out Gaesatae, because you get to ignore nearly all their defense anyway .... (Side note: I'm pretty sure that only 4 points of armour are coming from the helmet, though I'm not completely certain. Most, if not all, "unarmoured" barbarian units did get a free +1 Armour value for balance purposes, IIRC.)

Anyway because there is still 9 levels of experience, actual weapon Attack values will get increased up to +9, so in the end you will end up with units using weapons that overcome armor anyway...

And XP represents the skill of the user increasing, so he's "overcoming the armour" by hitting unarmoured areas or weak points.

What is important is actual balance of combat that should resemble the reality, instead of such crazy things as we could witness in vanilla game. For me it was first time I saw English Longbowmen completely wipe out units of German Knights in full Gothic plate like they wore a butter...

And that's pretty much impossible in EB, so your problem is ...? I'm not snarking at you, I'm simply saying that EB is already very balanced, both in terms of playability and usefulness (so Romans don't win because ROMANS, and you can't simply LOLARCHER FTW).

It is exactly why I prefer variable experience for units. Instead of having all unit starting with 0 EXP, my approach is to divide units based on their experience and status.

That ... seems needlessly complicated and complex. You'd also have to cut down the number of units in the game to 1/5 the current number, because EB is at the cap already IIRC.

[JaM]

That ... seems needlessly complicated and complex. You'd also have to cut down the number of units in the game to 1/5 the current number, because EB is at the cap already IIRC.

nope, not really... its actually easier to keep track, due to the fact all units in EDU are practically same level - there are no elite units, differences are mostly by the weapon, armor type and faction. All the difference is made by Experience, that is set in EDB.. You only need to know the level of training/ experience units should have, so you can assign them correct EXP.. for that, i just use the (great) EB unit descriptions. One big benefit is that AI is more capable with more experienced units, especially if you play with Alex EXE as it is able to retrain spent units. Battles against high chevron AI armies are slightly more challenging..

Hmm ... "unit in Hamata with ... Armor 8." Dunno which unit you're referring to, to be honest. Hamata makes me think chain, and specifically post-Marian Roman Legions ... but they have Armor 10 (12 for the Evocata), so you're going to have to be specific about which unit you're talking about. Also, Gaesatae were pretty rich Mercs, so their gear is going to be top-class.

8 or 10, its still not enough especially if standard spear has DMG 14-18.. Gaesatae could be rich, but still, they fought naked... hard to do anything about that no matter what money you have (except some bioengineering or something like that).. Human skin is human skin, it wont deflect arrows ,rocks or javelins just because you are stoned... Yes, you might not feel it, but body will stop working... 2 HP are more than enough to simulate their status... or, give them 3HP, just remove that additional armor they have...

btw, crappiest archer with DMG 3 would have huge problem penetrating their shield.. shield value is doubled against ranged attacks, so arrow dmg 3 is not enough to go past the small buckler.. large shield Gaesatae have (4 if I remember correctly) actually protects them quite well.. and there is additional +5 armor... so in the end their resistance against DMG 3 arrow from the front is 4+4+5=13... so very little chance. (which would still be fine with armor 2 (helmet) and shield 4 = 2+4+4= 10 vs 3

[Entropy Judge]

8 or 10, its still not enough especially if standard spear has Attack 14-18..

Except that the spear isn't going *just* against the armour, it's also going against the Shield/Skill, which is 4 (Roman Shield) or 7+ (Roman Infantry Skill). Granted, Spears have an exaggerated Attack value, but even then it's not like the attack is guaranteed to hit - hell, I've had P Principes fight their way through the front of Pezhetairoi without being reduced to less than a score of men, so it's obviously not as big a problem as you're making it out to be.

btw, crappiest archer with DMG 3 would have huge problem penetrating their shield..

Yes, Shields were the best defense against Ranged attacks. In case you missed it when I first brought it up in my last post. Because I did.

And obviously when I said that it was 3 vs 5, I was thinking that whoever was using the archers had a brain capable of realizing that shooting into the front of the giant shields was a bad thing, and was attacking from the rear, where the shields weren't. I would have thought that this would be obvious from the context.

[JaM]

Blunt force trauma is fine, thing is how engine works - such attacks would only seldomly kill you (you need something much heavier for that), they were more wounding than killing.. therefore those those should have lower lethality stats (they should knock down more) Gladius attacks if they penetrate, they wont knock down... (stabs into belly, wont cnock you down)... Kopis or Falcata might have optimal edge, but their mass would not deliver same level of trauma as heavier axes.. so they would broke few ribs, but not kill you with blunt hit..

One thing that is often overlooked is that Chainmail was always wore over some garment.. Romans often used leather or linen garments. such protection is even harder to defeat and it even reduces amount of trauma delivered. Plus, human body is not flat, you never hit it completly directly, there is always some curve which would make rivetted chainmail beter deflect the attacks...

read this article about chainmail:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

you would be surprised how good it actually was...

Manufacturing Mail
Riveted mail links are fashioned from wire. The most common method of making wire is by means of a draw plate but there are other ways. Williams describes two of these: "[1] Small fragments of iron (perhaps from an imperfectly consolidated bloom) can be hammered into swages, or [2] strips cut from flattened pieces and then twisted."17 Some have argued that wire drawing was not known until the Middle Ages because it is first mentioned by Theophilus in his 11th century text, On divers arts.18 However, the dimensional consistency of Roman mail, a thousand years earlier, suggests that at least part of the Roman process of making wire involved the use of a draw plate.19 This device consists of a block of stone or metal with a series of tapered holes. Each hole has a slightly smaller diameter so that the diameter of the wire gradually decreases (and its length increases) as it is pulled through successively smaller holes. There have been at least two draw plates found that date to the Roman period. One was found at Vindolanda in Northern Britain and the other at Altena near Dusseldorf in Germany.20 Microscopic analysis of the slag alignment in mail rings also suggests that Roman mail was made from drawn wire. The wrought iron used for wire drawing must be of a high quality. Too many large slag inclusions will cause the wire to break continually during the drawing process. If the slag is finely distributed throughout the iron, breakage is less likely to occur.

Once the wire is of the desired diameter, the next step is to wrap it around a cylindrical rod called a "mandrel" to form a coil. According to Erik D. Schmid,21 the individual links were then cut off the coil with either a hammer and chisel or with a pinching-type hand cutter. During this process, the iron had work-hardened, so it needed to be normalized before any more work could be performed on the links. Normalizing was performed by stringing the links on a length of wire and laying them in a bed of hot coals until they were of a yellow heat and allowed to cool slowly. Once softened, the links had their two ends "lapped" with a pair of tongs and either the entire link or just the lapped area was flattened with a hammer. This flattened area is needed in order to pierce the link with a highly tapered and hardened drift to make a rivet hole. The flattened and pierced link was then placed into the mail weave and a rivet was inserted into the hole. A special set of tongs with a dimple worked into one side of the jaws was used to peen the rivet and close the link. The rivet-hole could be different shapes, depending on the type of rivet used to join the link. Roman mail utilized round-sectioned rivets in round holes. So did early Medieval mail. Later, in some regions, such as in Germany between the 13th and 16th centuries, wedge-shaped rivets were inserted into ovoid holes. Some types of mail made use of two rivets in adjacent holes through each link to increase the strength of the link.22 Other rare examples of mail links are closed by means of a U-shaped "staple" that passes through an elongated hole and is folded over.23

So as you can see, Roman chainmail was quite high quality, and it matched the early Medieval type of chainmail... quite interesting fact considering they were using this technique more than thousand years sooner...

[bobbin]

Blunt force trauma is fine, thing is how engine works - such attacks would only seldomly kill you (you need something much heavier for that), they were more wounding than killing.. therefore those those should have lower lethality stats (they should knock down more) Gladius attacks if they penetrate, they wont knock down... (stabs into belly, wont cnock you down)... Kopis or Falcata might have optimal edge, but their mass would not deliver same level of trauma as heavier axes.. so they would broke few ribs, but not kill you with blunt hit..

Well the game doesn't really represent battle "deaths" as real deaths as you can recover casualties afterwards (if victorious), they represent the soldier becoming incapacitated. Having your ribs broken would be enough to put a lot of people out of action, let alone suffering injuries like broken arms or collar bones which would be more likely in combat.

A quote from the site you linked.

Even against mail-clad opponents the sword could inflict injury by striking at areas that were not covered with mail (such as the face) or through the infliction of blunt trauma. Because mail is flexible, it does not stop the impact of a blow. Some of the force of an attack is carried through the mail and padding to the wearer underneath. The wearer is especially vulnerable to attacks against hard, exposed body parts including the shin, knee, elbow, shoulder, clavicle, and skull. Many recreationists today attest to the ability of a blow to one of these areas breaking the bone and incapacitating the wearer even when the mail and padding is not compromised.

As for your point about the Gladius that site has this to say.

Regarding sword and knife stabs, Dr. Williams presents a convincing argument that it was far more difficult to thrust a blade through mail than many assume.95 He tested two samples of mail (placed over padding) and found that the energy required to compromise either sample exceeded the maximum amount of energy that a person can generate with a one-handed thrust—even over-handed. He tested the amount of energy required to penetrate his samples with a simulated halberd blade, a lance head, and a bodkin arrowhead. The halberd and lance required more than 200J to penetrate the first sample; the bodkin required only 120J to penetrate. Against the second sample, the halberd required 170J, the lance 140J, and the bodkin 120J. From this, it would seem that a bodkin-shaped spike is the most efficient design to compromise mail, which is consistent with other experiments.

Williams also cited an experiment by Horsfall et al.,96 who concluded that the maximum energy a person could deliver in an over-arm stab was 115J and an under-arm stab only 63J. If the data from the two experiments are combined, it seems that it was not possible for a person to punch through mail (at least the two samples tested by Williams) with a single-handed thrust—even with a spike that was optimized for the task. A lighter variant of mail or an extremely strong person may result in the armour being compromised with an over-arm stab since there is only 5J between the two sets of data, but from the available evidence it seems to be virtually impossible to penetrate mail with an under-arm thrust.

To be honest I'm not very convinced by this argument as if stabs against mail were as ineffective as they theorise the Romans wouldn't have gotten very far considering there preferred fighting style was underhand stabs.

One thing that is often overlooked is that Chainmail was always wore over some garment.. Romans often used leather or linen garments. such protection is even harder to defeat and it even reduces amount of trauma delivered. Plus, human body is not flat, you never hit it completly directly, there is always some curve which would make rivetted chainmail beter deflect the attacks...

Yes, the Romans called them subarmalis (at least that is the most commonly accepted function for the garment), they certainly helped but weren't perfect.


We have not even got round to the fact that there are plenty parts of a soldier that were not covered in armour btw, at blow from a gladius to a limb would do some nasty damage but a blow from a Kopis or longsword would be much worse.