shall wrote:
IF anyone has a simple suggestion for improving more subtle armour interactions I would be open to them indeed. We of course need to be mindful of all game interactions to make sure nothing is badly thrown off balance. And we do have a better view of that than most as we learned a great deal in vs 1.0 development of how deifferent levers we did not put in throw the system out of kilter.
Further thoughts? Proposals?
I think I mentioned thisin an earlier post: shooting and melee should be treated differently in some cases. Thus, some troops should have an armour classification different for shooting and close combat. The point I defended is that what in the overall the rule works well although I don't think the reason is merely the armour. In long standing combats it seems that the phalanx tended to fragment and when that happened then the legions exploited that, That is the interaction that the rule covers more than the armour itself. Therefore, I recall here what I wrote.
Going to my old example, we have Gaesati (currently classified as protected), Gallic warband (protected), Lybian phalanx (protected) and Roman principes (let's say armoured). From what I have read in the sources I would say that Gaesati can be perfectly protected as they stood in close combat but suffered from shooting (thus unprotected for shooting), and they did suffer more from shooting than the rest of Gallic warband in Telamon (being naked was not such a good idea!). Therefore the clasification of both troops as the same types seems wrong to me. Then I haven't read accounts of phalanxes suffering from shooting more than Romans or something similar, but it is true that in prolonged combats Romans were ahead most of the times so the extra PoA seems right to me (therefore, protected troops should be upgraded against shooting: I think Phil suggested an even easier way to solve this). Regarding hoplites, the changes between the first half and the second one of the IV century was the elimination of the breast plate. Does it mean that cupper protects better than lihothorax? Well, reconstructions made do not tell that story and I don't think that should be the criterion. In my blog you can see a video about this.
http://misminis.blogspot.com/
Thus, thorugh this example I see that all the combinations are possible. Some protected troops should remain as they are. Some protected should be classified as armoured or unprotected at least for shooting purposes. Some other troops should be considered armoured for shooting purposes but not close combat too. How do you solve it? There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.
