Anglo-Saxon armour question . . .

[stockwellpete]

The Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen is represented as "protected" before 950AD whereas Viking huscarls are depicted as "armoured" from 790AD onwards. Is this a fair characterisation?

Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were very wealthy in comparison to their Scandinavian counterparts and I reckon that their "elites" would have had access to armour (chain mail byrnies) just as much as the Vikings. The record of the Anglo-Saxons in pitched battles against the Vikings was a reasonable one, particularly by Wessex "royal" armies, with several important victories. On the other hand, Viking raids were devastating and hastily raised local forces were often destroyed by them.

So I am wondering whether this should be represented in the Anglo-Saxon army lists before 950AD. Even if the hirdsmen were given a "some armour" rating then that would help a bit against Viking shieldwall units, even if not against armoured HW (axe) Viking huscarls. The Vikings already have beserkers that can use rough ground to their advantage whereas Anglo-Saxons have no MF at all. So an armour "tweak" in their favour might make for a more even match-up.

The odds in combat are as follows (Vikings get a +25 POA for armour according to the combat log) . . .

Viking huscarls (armoured, spear) versus Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen (protected, spear) . . . impact 15%-12%; melee 18%-9% when units remain steady in open terrain up to 899AD.

Viking huscarls (armoured, axe) versus Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen (protected, spear) . . . impact 15%-12%; melee 24%-6% when units remain steady in open terrain after 900AD to 949AD.

Berserker units have a 66%-0% chance against Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen on impact in open terrain (80%+ against the different types of shieldwall unit), but they are doomed if they do not disrupt the enemy on impact.

[melm]

The armour issue has been discussed before.

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=93601&p=801194&hi ... lo#p801109

Models having armor or not is one issue, but the source justifying that hirdsmen are less protected than huscarl is another. I am only curious about the latter.

Our main source was Ian Heath's Armies of the Dark Ages, which states, when discussing 7th-9th century Saxons: "Mail byrnies and helmets were both considerable rarities amongst the early Saxons, though, like swords, they became more common later on."

Given that the Hirdsmen unit is used in the game up until 949 AD, it would at least be arguable for them to be rated as "Some Armour".

[stockwellpete]

The armour issue has been discussed before.

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=93601&p=801194&hi ... lo#p801109

OK, I did look but couldn't find anything. I will read this later. Thanks.

[stockwellpete]

OK, so Richard thinks "some armour" for the Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen might be a reasonable change. When the next beta starts we can flag this up again then.

[pompeytheflatulent]

On a related note, aren't Byzantine Skoutatoi & Archers way over armored compared to what is described in historical sources? In Nikephoros II Phokas's Praecepta Militaria (c.965), Byzantine infantry are described as wearing nothing more than a shirt and a turban for protection. In the game they are rated 'some armor' with the graphics depicting metal helmet and metal lamellar armor.

[rbodleyscott]

On a related note, aren't Byzantine Skoutatoi & Archers way over armored compared to what is described in historical sources? In Nikephoros II Phokas's Praecepta Militaria (c.965), Byzantine infantry are described as wearing nothing more than a shirt and a turban for protection. In the game they are rated 'some armor' with the graphics depicting metal helmet and metal lamellar armor.

The front ranks wore armour as depicted, the rear ranks not. We can only have one model, so we depicted the prettier ranks, and treat the overall effect as "some armour", with an Armour Rating of 67, which is only 1/3 of the way from Protected (50) to Armoured (100). ("Some armour" potentially covers a range of actual in-game values, so not all units with "some armour" have the same amount of armour). The raw units are only Protected (50) anyway.

So essentially we are saying that approximately 1/6 of the Byzantine close order infantry are wearing metal armour, which seems to us to fit the evidence. No doubt the availability of armour varied with the ups and downs of the Byzantine state, but we don't need to get into such minutiae. The difference between armour rating 67 and armour rating 50 is only +8 Melee POA, which equates to a negligible 2.6% combat boost in melee only.

[melm]

The armour issue has been discussed before.

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=93601&p=801194&hi ... lo#p801109

OK, I did look but couldn't find anything. I will read this later. Thanks.

We may need a good FAQ list in the forum.

[pompeytheflatulent]

On a related note, aren't Byzantine Skoutatoi & Archers way over armored compared to what is described in historical sources? In Nikephoros II Phokas's Praecepta Militaria (c.965), Byzantine infantry are described as wearing nothing more than a shirt and a turban for protection. In the game they are rated 'some armor' with the graphics depicting metal helmet and metal lamellar armor.

The front ranks wore armour as depicted, the rear ranks not. We can only have one model, so we depicted the prettier ranks, and treat the overall effect as "some armour", with an Armour Rating of 67, which is only 1/3 of the way from Protected (50) to Armoured (100). ("Some armour" potentially covers a range of actual in-game values, so not all units with "some armour" have the same amount of armour). The raw units are only Protected (50) anyway.

So essentially we are saying that approximately 1/6 of the Byzantine close order infantry are wearing metal armour, which seems to us to fit the evidence. No doubt the availability of armour varied with the ups and downs of the Byzantine state, but we don't need to get into such minutiae. The difference between armour rating 67 and armour rating 50 is only +8 Melee POA, which equates to a negligible 2.6% combat boost in melee only.

I just noticed that thematic lancers&archers are only 1/4 of the way going from average to superior, while Varangian guard are 1/2 way between superior and elite. I always wondered why thematic cavalry seemed so affordable, while varangians seemed so overpriced. I assume the quality of thematic units will drop below average in the time-frame leading up to Manzikert?

Is there any possibility of the unit descriptions made to be more clear the exact quality or armor level? So that it's easier to tell at a glance? Like going from average --> average+ --> above average --> above average+ -->superior.

[rbodleyscott]

I would prefer to avoid this.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I would prefer to avoid this.

Is this because of a design intent of keeping some ambiguity - i.e. commanders don't know the exact quality of their own troops. Or is it because it's so far down the list of priorities as to not justify the time and effort needed to be spent on it?

[rbodleyscott]

I would prefer to avoid this.

Is this because of a design intent of keeping some ambiguity - i.e. commanders don't know the exact quality of their own troops. Or is it because it's so far down the list of priorities as to not justify the time and effort needed to be spent on it?

It is because we are trying to avoid unnecessary complication. Of course, opinions will differ as to what complications are "necessary" or unnecessary.

Also, it is clunky. "Above Average" already means "Average+", so it really ought to be "Slightly Above Average" and "Not Quite but Nearly Superior".

And even then, since it is a fully sliding scale, and there are only so many available words, you wouldn't know exactly what their rating was.

[stockwellpete]

I have just done a small test on my "Training Ground". 5 huscarl (armoured, axe) v 5 hirdsmen (protected, spear) circa 800AD contests, where combatants are separated from each other so that routed units cannot cohesion drops to other friendly units. Open terrain. The hirdsmen initiated contact.

After 5 turns (so 1x impact phase and 9x melee phases) the number of casualties were . . .

hirdsmen 976 out of a total of 2400 soldiers
huscarls 673 out of a total of 2400 soldiers

So the huscarls were killing the hirdsmen at about a rate of 3:2. At that stage (end of turn 5) all units remained "steady", except for one hirdsmen unit that was "fragmented". By the end of turn 9 (1x impact phase and 17x melee phases) the last pairing still fighting saw the hirdsmen unit finally rout. Overall the huscarls won 4-1 (units defeating their opponent did not join another melee as they probably would in a game).

I think that is quite interesting on a very small test. I wouldn't expect a larger test to produce significantly different results. What is striking is the durability of the hirdsmen units even though they were well beaten by the end. One pairing were fighting for 9 turns, which is over one-third of a game's duration.