Armour-variation within a unit: A critique

[alex86]

That was very edifying. Thanks!

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Thx for buffing up the really armoured units. I'm happy that you found a 'historical reason' to buff them anyways. Logic would never be enough... 'shrug'

Logic has everything to do with it, but more important, but so does evidence: 1mm of bronze or soft iron isn't all that effective on its own: you don't just consider whether it will stop a sword cut or a thrust of a lance, but also its ability to withstand blunt trauma imparted by them and other weapons (which can hurt the person below, without drawing blood). RC considers this factor, as does this system: you're the one not using logic (or evidence) here, not the statter or myself. the numbers derived are based as close as possible on data available at the time the system was created regarding the materials, and are congruent as best as possible with the above situation. If you don't like how it worked out, tough . we know it is not perfect, and it will need work, but it clearly works better than you think when, having followed the evidence properly, the Hypaspist suddenly has 11 armor, to the hoplite's 7.

and yes, the implication is a fact: wearing plate directly on your body will be considerably less effective than wearing it with padding--even if it is better than layered linen/buffed leather at stopping cuts and thrusts (which was still reflected, in case you missed it: that +1 armor? entirely from the metal). If you don't believe me, look up a book on armor by anyone who knows anything on the subject (which you clearly don't--otherwise you would have considered this possibility): they'll tell you the same story--often in medieval context: you wear padding under even the best plate armor, to make it more comfortable, but also more importantly, to help cushion the blow, thereby massively increasing protection vs. blunt trauma, as well as from cuts and thrusts. an armor type is often part of a whole system, and rarely works in isolation. Sometimes it is worn directly over the person and his clothes--the assumption made initially for these units--and sometimes with padding or other armor: we have examples of both cases historically, as well as anyone ought to know.

the values and rules for armor in the system reflect this directly to the best of the statter's abilities, and various component materials are kept separate in order to allow for when there is only partial overlap (say the skirt of a mail shirt on a Roman soldier: no padding there, but padded above to cover the torso). There is no consideration for what one feels is the right answer, and no desire to do so: only to let the data guide as best as possible. It may not be perfect, and we have a ways to go, but at least its better thought even at this time out than this remark.

sorry, but I'm not going to hold back on the criticism: you make a stupid remark, you'll get called out for it, regardless of who you are, and with about as much emotion as I have when I swat a fly--that is, none. you think this is unique to here, just ask people at the IBFD forum.

[texoman81]

I'd just say if they aren't interested in historical accuracy, this isn't the mod for them, especially someone who put historical accuracy in quotes then shrugs it off. There a variety of mods to match any taste, this is one that aims to be authentic and there are those of us that love that just as some could care less.

[WAD81]

At JamesWolf:
I didn't like EDU as it lacks uniformity, clarity.
I'm very happy that you arrived at the conclusion regarding armour buff btw.
Also, as an educated, adult, busy man with a family I'd better leave that place for good.
My last pointers:
scutarii spearmen - hardened iberian warriors: attack 3
haploi hoplites - sedentary fisherman: attack 8, same weapon.

[alin]

If this cannot continue in a polite manner I will close this thread, first and final warning.

[Thuycidides]

that makes slightly more sense.

the way you did it earlier implied that you assumed they were without armor. But you're still leaving out one thing: the numbers are rounded to the nearest integer. the original number produced was less than 6--closer to 5.5. you can't put that in the game, so you round it. in fact, the hoplite's number is also a rounded integer (rounded down). I've been saying these are rounded numbers repeatedly. There are other details regarding the math that I have not the time to mention, but to suffice to say: it's not as simple as you think it is.

Can you share the equation then? At least one of these days when you have a few extra moments, I would appreciate it. I did believe that the math a weighted average of the sums of the armor components.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Can you share the equation then? At least one of these days when you have a few extra moments, I would appreciate it. I did believe that the math a weighted average of the sums of the armor components.

As mentioned previously, release notes are being considered. But to give you a clue, I suggest you look up the EDU_matic (which this replaced): it would be a good start. I'd rather not give away too much, until the time is right,

[Thuycidides]

Found, thanks! Some good reading there.

In case anyone is wondering what this is about:

EDU-matic Advanced: An alternative version of the tool, called "EDU-matic Advanced" has also been developed. It's main difference to "Basic" is that it has a new ArmourDefinitions sheet where the user may separately define armour sets and upgrades as well as multiple model variations for every one of those (which include armour and shield, and their frequency in the model can also be specified), and the tool then makes all necessary calculations of average armour and shield values, mass, armour upgrade levels, costs, hit sounds and any other relevant attributes for those, plus it automatically assigns armour upgrade levels in case max number is not reached and difference between intended armour levels is >=5 (in order to 'circumvent' the hardcoded +7/3 bonus per upgrade). The Advanced version is intended for M2TW/KGDM, but it can of course work with RTW as well, where model upgrades are not allowed and model variations after the first are ignored.

An excerpt from the tool documentation for the Advanced version:


3. Defining Armour Models

This is done in the ArmourDefinitions sheet. Each row contains the data for an armour model: the type of armour for each bodypart, the armour material, the shield type and the shield material. Things are simple in RTW since each unit only has 1 model and there are no visual model upgrades. However M2TW allows multiple variations per model (we will call these variations collectively a 'model-set'), and each armour upgrade changes the model-set as well.

It's possible to group multiple model definitions together into a model-set, by defining multiple models one right below the other, putting the model-set's name in the first column cell of the first model and leaving the respective cells of the other ones blank. The 'Instances' cell holds the number of times each model/variation appears in a unit's model-set. Armour upgrades can have their own separate model-sets, which can be defined in the same way anywhere on the sheet. When defining model-sets make sure you have named only the first variation of your model-set (you will need to name it when you have just 1 variation as well) and that you have not forgotten to name any sets, as the tool will group all models between two named variations in a single model-set.
The sum of this is that a unit can now have 20% fully armoured guys with tower shields, 30% naked guys with no shields, 35% guys with leather armour and bucklers and 15% guys with some metal, some leather, some bronze, some scale and some steel parts with medium shields, all the same time (thanks to m2's ability for multiple models per unit) and the unit stats will accurately reflect the average of all those people.
Plus, armour upgrades now don't necessarily mean that your unit's torso armour got a boost, but maybe just that the percentage of armoured men in the unit increased (and the one of unarmoured ones decreased) and therefore your unit is on average better equipped. This is all taken care of by the tool.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...eration-system

[LinusLinothorax]

How arrogant can you be....they see it.Just because you disagree with it ,doens't meant that have to jump and do what you want.
Ich meine hat man dir in der Schule nichts beigebacht,die Welt dreht sich nicht um dich.

Spiel dich nicht so auf. Guck mal eine Seite vorher, was Kull geschrieben:

Just so we are clear. The mod team does not see this as a problem. You do. Impasse.

Ob ich das wohl meinen könnte?
Andererseits bist du dir sogar zu fein, auf eine etwas polemisch formulierte Frage von mir zu antworten. Stattdessen kommst du lieber wieder dann an, wenn ich offensichtlich enttäuscht eingestehe, dass die Diskussion vorbei ist und wirfst mir Arroganz vor.

I dont see any arrogance in pointing out that the discussion got useless.

I also just saw the quote from the Indian researcher and if he even mentions that units of full armoured soldiers are unrealistic, then it shall that be. I would still presume to pep them up with the bronce armour, neated on read clothing, just like the charioters wear them.
Also, when i played yesterday in the evening, i made a custom battle with the Pritanoi and chosed their heavy cav. The description said, that they are not that heavy as their cousins from the continent. I compared them with Gallic knights and indeed, all in all they aren't. Sounds strange, but at this point i changed my opinion. I dont accept every design choice like giving a helmet and a bronce breastplate to the Illyrian light cav, but i think now, that the team decided for the more logical of two possibilietes: Mixing different classes of armour (Historical accuracy) goes over wasting unit slots and unhistorical, but gamey units (Just like Indian lancers full of armoured guys).

[SanderP]

Spiel dich nicht so auf. Guck mal eine Seite vorher, was Kull geschrieben:

Ob ich das wohl meinen könnte?
Andererseits bist du dir sogar zu fein, auf eine etwas polemisch formulierte Frage von mir zu antworten. Stattdessen kommst du lieber wieder dann an, wenn ich offensichtlich enttäuscht eingestehe, dass die Diskussion vorbei ist und wirfst mir Arroganz vor.

I dont see any arrogance in pointing out that the discussion got useless.

I also just saw the quote from the Indian researcher and if he even mentions that units of full armoured soldiers are unrealistic, then it shall that be. I would still presume to pep them up with the bronce armour, neated on read clothing, just like the charioters wear them.
Also, when i played yesterday in the evening, i made a custom battle with the Pritanoi and chosed their heavy cav. The description said, that they are not that heavy as their cousins from the continent. I compared them with Gallic knights and indeed, all in all they aren't. Sounds strange, but at this point i changed my opinion. I dont accept every design choice like giving a helmet and a bronce breastplate to the Illyrian light cav, but i think now, that the team decided for the more logical of two possibilietes: Mixing different classes of armour (Historical accuracy) goes over wasting unit slots and unhistorical, but gamey units (Just like Indian lancers full of armoured guys).

Zwei Optionen; Quatsch dir noch ewig und drei Tage Blocktexte vom Ast oder laß es sein und komm klar damit daß sich nichts ändern wird. Was davon sinnvoller ist kannst du dir aussuchen.

[LinusLinothorax]

Zwei Optionen; Quatsch dir noch ewig und drei Tage Blocktexte vom Ast oder laß es sein und komm klar damit daß sich nichts ändern wird. Was davon sinnvoller ist kannst du dir aussuchen.

Eine dritte Option: Du gräbst nicht tote Threads wieder aus wo alles geklärt ist, bloß um was lustiges zu schreiben.

[Mementomoridc]

If it is historical that these types of soldiers would have such a degree of variation -- from significant armor to little clothing even among nobility -- then I don't really see a problem with it. Though it may be weird to internalize that this shirtless dude on the battlefield has +whatever armor. What we're being asked is to 1) think tactically based on the unit's overall stats, not the visuals and 2) understand that the visuals are meant to resemble the troops, not determine their stats individually.

I am guessing for units that were more professional standing army units with standard issue equipment, you would see much less variation.

THis isn't aimed "at" you I just couldn't read this thread any more at this point and just had to comment and leave lol
Anyway just chalk it up to the guy with armor is not as good at defending himself as the guy with no armor on, I know that would be defense skill and not armor but who cares just deal with it. If you wana complain about units explain to me why german heavy infantry gets their butts handed to them by levy spear men.

[Team Sleep]

To all who are sick of this tread...I'm sorry in advance.


I've spotted this thread when it first came out. I read all of the pages. But I did not comment at the time because I was unable. Now is the first time I will be doing so.

Before I get into the body of my post I will just let you know a disclaimer. My intention in this thread is not to ruffle feathers. I'm not here to take either side of the argument. I would like to just post some of my opinions for consideration by the audience. I'm not hear to directly discuss coding, game mechanics or any sort of number crunching. This is just an acute observation by an average history fan that has a love for EB title. And no...I have not played the game yet.


So I saw the pics of the OP. I also do think that it is a bit ridiculous. I will illustrate my view from 2 COMMON SENSE perspectives. From a game play aspect & a historical one. They both sorta tie into one another...please bare with me.

So the OP recruits the heavy units....puts them into an army and goes unto the battlefield with them. All throughout the unit cards, recruitment and even on the battlefield when the mouse is hovered, the word "Heavy" appears....and upon closer inspection...there appears to be individuals in the unit who are not wearing "heavy" garb at all. I can sympathize with the player 100%. Game breaking? No. Not at all. Immersion breaking?...yeah...I'd say so...quite a bit. I will best illustrate this point by my POV. When I recruit an army...I look at the task needing to be performed, I then select my recruits in regards to this. I expect any unit that is listed as "Heavy" not only to look the part...but also perform the role in which their "expertise" would be taken full advantage of. Now as because I did not play the game, I have no idea how the balance is with regards to heavy units and their ability to perform the roll. But when I look at the units who are going to be taking on the brunt of my enemy's forces, entering holes into walls, shocking flanked units...and I see men charging in with ....well....pants as armor....I say to myself....Really?...Historical??....no. I say..."I don't believe it!". It's simply not at all credible. Another small point from game perspective is...why bother differentiating from heavy/medium/light units if "light" individuals are going to be found in every tier? The ONLY thing that would justify this is if the unit can actually perform the roll of the heavy. (Which I don't have experience in EB 2). But if that's the case...why care what the units look like? Why not just make them lobster monsters or troop units composed of soldiers with alien blasters and force fields? The point that I'm trying to make is that if it didn't matter what they looked like then any fill in would be nice. Even those 2 silly examples I just gave.


Now for a minor average historical perspective. I am going to quote Alin's quoted historical record in regards to the Indian heavy units/armor and give you an average reader and student of history's common sense position Please bare with me. I will highlight the parts I will focus on:


For example our most noble indian historian:
Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator
Armour was fairly uncommon in Indian armies, and seems to have been relatively dispersed. Hence, it would be very unusual to find large bodies of men in an ancient Indian army all wearing armour and helmets.



It does represent the heaviest cavalry fielded by native Indian armies, but this would at best be medium cavalry, and most likely, only a handful of these warriors would wear armour and helmets. The first time we do hear of Indian cavalry that is fully armoured is during the Gupta period, some 600-700 years after the start of our period.

1) Of course it would. I agree. However this sentence says Large Bodies of Men. We're not talking about an entire army in full armor. We're talking about a specific unit. A heavy unit. If I were a general in this time...and needed HEAVY cavalry to fulfill a SHOCK roll, and I was in charge of the composition and deployment and execution of my army's individual maneuvers, strategy & tactics...NOT 1...ONE...person in that unit would be without armor. And I mean seriously...if the unit is composed of elites in the upper classes of society where war is their profession...you're telling me they don't own ANY armor....a helmet at least?....no? You can bet your last dollar if I have a specific need to be filled on the battlefield, that I am fulfilling that roll with exactly the person I need to perform that roll and they're bringing the required equipment and skills to fill it. And FYI...if you're in my army...and even if you are a noble but can't afford armor...you can bet your buns I'll throw you in w/ the regulars or make you a glorified courier who isn't going to see much action.

2) I would be fine looking at my heavy units and seeing men with armor but no helms...and maybe even helms without armor...but neither...no...immersion breaking. I expect my individuals to look the part for which they are assigned. What could a noble without any armor be expected to do in heavy infantry or shock cavalry?


3) This portion can be confusing. Let's see. At this point we're talking an entire army in which ALL of the Cavalry is fully & properly armored. That's understood...but this is not the GUPTA period. And we're not as a player asking for all cavalry in our army to be fully armored...and that's exactly why all units are described accordingly (light/medium/heavy/etc). Now if a player chooses to field an army that is made up of fully armored heavy units, than that is his/her choice to play fantasy and in my opinion is just as unhistorical as having a "Heavy" unit composed of some individuals with NO armor.

I just think that the historical texts may have been read by the team as highly specific and less within a "general view". I don't mean to accuse I'm just thinking this is what helped contribute to the team's decision of the aesthetics of individual units. I also think that if a unit is to perform a roll as a "heavy"..they should all look like a "heavy".

And now...I wonder if anyone else still feels the same about their previously posted positions? Anyone sympathize? Anyone change their minds?

Final thoughts?

[krste]

Was that neon green text necessary?

[Team Sleep]

Sorry...I didn't realize the damage until it was already done. Needless to say it was not the effect I was going for.

[maurel]

I deeply agreed with "Team Sleep" it breaks immersion to a point i cant even express.

[Dago Red]

I enjoy the variety a great deal. The heart of any war game is its units, especially in a TW game where setting up and fawning over your forces before battle is the dream of every red-blooded boy (and some girls) and then you get to watch them fight, even direct them. Getting them right has always been a disaster for vanilla and its mods like EB that should really win internationally recognized awards not just for the history lessons, but the attention to details.

There are always a few minor grievances, but for me these are usually due to not enough variation, rather than too much (though I could do with a tinier minority of shirtless men in a heavy infantry group where most are armored).

[spanish_emperor]

Ah, this thread....

Ok, i think we are going around in circles here. Some of the things mentioned have already been addressed. If you are going to comment or resurrect a dead thread make sure you have read the comments, or at least those from the developers. Team Sleep, i understand your concern that the mixture of "light" and "heavy" warriors in units is immersion breaking for you. This has already been expressed before. What i would like to point out is that immersion is subjective. You are always willing to change the EDU stats on the units you think require change or even the models. Like has been pointed out, there are real concrete reasons why the stats or appearances of units are what they are. Just because the team has not shared their reasoning with the public does not mean they simply guessed the numbers or made their decisions based on suppositions or ignorance.

It may be that the armies of which we know veyr little about arranged themselves in a mannar similar to the Romans, Greeks, etc. The heavy-armed may have been positioned at the front - perhaps due to prestige (being the richest) rather than tactics. We know that historically, the Celts would occasionally take off their armour in a show of defiance towards the enemy and bravery towards their compatriots. This may explain the decision of showing Gaulic nobles with bare-chests. Also, while it is presumed that the Celts and others divided their armies on groups with distinct weaponry we do not know for certain so that the difference between each soldier fighting side-by-side could have been enormous. Yes, having a unit with 6-8 or whatever armor but having some of them semi-naked may be inaccurate but as has been pointed out before it is a limitation of the engine. There are only several ways around: either all warriors in each unit are standardized somewhat so that the extreme cases of one being semi-naked while the other brimming with armour do not appear. This would mean a lot of work and honestly and greater historical inaccuracy. Or, the stats are tweaked somewhat lower but i don't know if this would be desirable or wouldn't create further problems. It is also a limitation of the engine in that one cannot choose to put the least armoured at the rear ranks - the engine doesn't even know they are lightly armed because it is simply an appearance. I would be great if we could and would solve the problem but unfortunately the EB team or any other Med2 team can't.

I expect any unit that is listed as "Heavy" not only to look the part...but also perform the role in which their "expertise" would be taken full advantage of.

.why bother differentiating from heavy/medium/light units if "light" individuals are going to be found in every tier?

This has already been explained. The reason is to assist the AI in their use in the battlefield but also in recruitment. Now you know, don't "expect" the unit to look the part but determine whether they are heavy, medium, or light based on their stats.

and needed HEAVY cavalry to fulfill a SHOCK roll, and I was in charge of the composition and deployment and execution of my army's individual maneuvers, strategy & tactics...NOT 1...ONE...person in that unit would be without armor.

Well, you would be wrong because at this age the cavalry did not fulfill the heavy charge you are imagining. The reason for this is the lack of grip (stirupps) and training afforded. Of course, unfortunately the engine does not reflect this accurately. Secondly, armour would not be a requisite for charging into the enemy. A deadly charge did not mean a heavier equipped cavalry. A heavier charge most likely meant a bigger horse, lance and training.

Likewise, armour would not be a requisite to be in the front lines or fight in close combat. The use of the terms heavy and light for this purpose is erroneous and a better use would be the terms "of the line" and "skirmishers". Light infantry could and indeed fought hand to hand in many circumstances and one shouldn't assume lightly armed soldiers functioned solely or even mainly as skirmishers. Of course, ancient warfare is still a mysterious subject. Some historians say the infantry of the line threw their missiles and then charged at the enemy, others say that the battles were mostly skirmishes between the infantry of the line, each trhwoing their missiles then hurling the missiles stuck on their shields or found on the ground so that the confrontation of they type might last dozens of minutes and possibly even hours. It certainly would be a preferred mode of battle by less disciplined armies that might be incapable of fighting in close combat. Certainly the Napoleonic armies, for all their discipline, training and their attempts to copy the Romans in this aspect, and with all their organization, professionalism and military manuals, still avoided charging at the enemy and preferred firing from the distance. Indeed, several times this happened the fights did not last for much longer and one of the two fled in panic. But this is deviating from the topic.

[saxnot]

Doesn't this also have to do with the level of military organisation? That is to say, empires like the romans, seleucids and ptolemies use uniformly armored and equipped standardised units, while celts fight as a tribe? As i understood it gaulish warbands were determined more by place of origin and tribe than level of equipment or social status in gaulish society as a whole. In that sense, units with varying levels of equipment makes sense, because they represent a groups of tribesmen of varying wealth more than formal military units with a specific role.

[Dago Red]

That is to say, empires like the romans, seleucids and ptolemies use uniformly armored and equipped standardised units,

Well careful there though. If you're talking degrees as in, "compared to the Celts," there's something to that. But otherwise men were not "uniformly" armored and equipped beyond the general idea of having men grouped into fighting units with the same general weapon type -- and sometimes very specific weapon type. Remember, little is truly uniform. Only later did Romans really try to standardize everything and even there there was a great degree of variance.