Detailed armour level descriptions for the manual of the digital version game

[Dux Limitis]

To solve the problem of the classifications of the armour levels,I've seen there're armour level descriptions in the table top rule book,like:

Armoured:
Metal armour at least for the head and thorax – combined, in the case of foot, either
with a substantial shield or with additional metallic protection. Horses may or may
not be armoured – if armoured, usually with leather or textile armour. Also, cavalry
with extensive non-metallic armour for man and horse.

Protected:
With a minimum of at least a moderate sized shield and/or leather or textile armour.
Foot with a limited degree of metallic protection but lacking shields. Also mixed
battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men resulting in an equivalent average
level of protection.

Could the digital version of the game add a similar chapter to the manual?As well as the POA table(like: Protected:up to +25 POA vs less well-armoured foot unless these have heavy weapon,up to +25 vs less well-armoured mounted,0 vs artillery,chariots or elephants).Many thanks.

[rbodleyscott]

Armour Ratings are relative to other contemporary troops, so fixed definitions would not be appropriate.

[Dux Limitis]

Armour Ratings are relative to other contemporary troops, so fixed definitions would not be appropriate.

Even relative to the other contemporary troops but there's still need the definition standards,or how do you classify their armour ratings(same as the types of unit)? Probably the conditions could be more loose and flexible(and from my point of view the characteristics of the Protected meet those two). Also, one of the defining characteristics of the Protected(Mixed battle group of unarmoured and armoured men which hard to distinguish resulting in an equivalent average level of protection), which is still been represent by some units, like the Hoplites, Handgunners, Longbowmen etc.

[Dux Limitis]

Armour Ratings are relative to other contemporary troops

No offense, but relative to other contemporary troops might be a bit subjective. At least should give some kind of classification standards(based on the former), or theories, which will make the results more convincing.

[MVP7]

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units.

- Unarmored: no shield, no armour.
-- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour.
-Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour.
--Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for mixed units or special cases that fit neither protected nor armoured category.
- Armoured: Shield and significant armour coverage, or no shield and extensive armour coverage.
-- Well Armoured: Generally reserved for special cases that don't fit Armoured or Heavily Armoured.
- Heavily Armoured: Almost complete armour cover. In addition there may be some plate cover.
- Fully Armoured: Complete armour cover with extensive plate coverage.

Unarmoured, Protected and Armoured are the most common classes and are basically determined by the contemporary European use of armour. Heavily Armoured and Fully Armoured are used to depict the evolution of the full(est) suits of best armour in comparison to the partial protection of Armoured. The others classes are there mainly to help with edge cases that wouldn't interact correctly if they were in the common categories.

Then there are some systematic exceptions like light unit armour being generally rated below their massed counterpart. This is likely because these units take ranged damage differently from non-lights, and armour isn't really a tactical factor in melee for them since they lack the numbers and cohesion to fight non-light units in linear manner. (Basically, for them it's more about not getting swarmed than gaining an upper hand over the course of extended, linear, melee brawl.)

In early medieval the Armoured can mean shield, hauberk and nasal helmet. In late medieval it could be cuirass, open helmet and arm/hand protection with mostly unprotected legs. A 15th century halberdier might have counted as Well Armoured in the 13th century and Lesser Men-at-Arms would likely have counted as Heavily Armoured in 13th century.

[Dux Limitis]

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units.

- Unarmored: no shield, no armour.
-- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour.
-Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour.
--Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for mixed units or special cases that fit neither protected nor armoured category.
- Armoured: Shield and significant armour coverage, or no shield and extensive armour coverage.
-- Well Armoured: Generally reserved for special cases that don't fit Armoured or Heavily Armoured.
- Heavily Armoured: Almost complete armour cover. In addition there may be some plate cover.
- Fully Armoured: Complete armour cover with extensive plate coverage.

I can almost figure it out, I think the Protected still represent the mixed battle group of unarmoured and armoured men,like the Longbowmen, Handgunners(which armour rating had been changed to Protected under my suggest,the Handgunners' armour rating was Unprotected in the beta version of the Storm of Arrows)etc. Because their armour varied widely,from none to gambeson, mail, up to brigandine and plates.Such a mixture as equivalent to Protected(so does the large unit like the Pikemen, the variety is too big).So there are still the definition standards,even relative to the other contemporary troops.I hope Mr.Richaed could add them to the manual, maybe the format could be like this:

Armoured:
Metal armour at least for the head and thorax – combined(...)-relative to other contemporary troops.

[MVP7]

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units.

- Unarmored: no shield, no armour.
-- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour.
-Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour.
--Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for mixed units or special cases that fit neither protected nor armoured category.
- Armoured: Shield and significant armour coverage, or no shield and extensive armour coverage.
-- Well Armoured: Generally reserved for special cases that don't fit Armoured or Heavily Armoured.
- Heavily Armoured: Almost complete armour cover. In addition there may be some plate cover.
- Fully Armoured: Complete armour cover with extensive plate coverage.

I can almost figure it out, I think the Protected still represent the mixed battle group of unarmoured and armoured men,like the Longbowmen, Handgunners(which armour rating had been changed to Protected under my suggest,the Handgunners' armour rating was Unprotected in the beta version of the Storm of Arrows)etc. Because their armour varied widely,from none to gambeson, mail, up to brigandine and plates.Such a mixture as equivalent to Protected(so does the large unit like the Pikemen, the variety is too big).So there are still the definition standards,even relative to the other contemporary troops.I hope Mr.Richaed could add them to the manual, maybe the format could be like this:

Armoured:
Metal armour at least for the head and thorax – combined(...)-relative to other contemporary troops.

Protected can indeed represent whole unit in uniform protected level equipment or a mix of higher and lower levels. Any of the armour classifications (other than the extremes of course) can represent a mix of equipment from the other levels, with the front line equipment typically being weighed a bit more since those would be the fighters most active in combat.

In Ancients the Warbands are all rated protected but in practice each would have an armoured elite at the very front and practically unarmoured men in the rear. The early Armoured Knights and Sergeants might have a few wealthy knights in more extensive armour but many of the sergeants would be only lightly armoured.

The thing is, trying to write brief but misleadingly exact definitions in the manual would ultimately cause more confusion than it clears. People are not going to find answers to a peculiar armour ratings from a list of rough guidelines but will instead point to the definitions and ask "why isn't this unit at this rating because the model looks like it". In reality that specific unit's model might represent the high end rather than the average, it could be one of the many special cases like the crossbowmen's pavise, it could be approximate model that was chosen from the limited selection allowed by the budget, it could be a wider historical trend (like the many Byzantine units with Some Armour rating), or it could simply be a result of some individual balancing decision.

[Dux Limitis]

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units.

- Unarmored: no shield, no armour.
-- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour.
-Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour.
--Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for mixed units or special cases that fit neither protected nor armoured category.
- Armoured: Shield and significant armour coverage, or no shield and extensive armour coverage.
-- Well Armoured: Generally reserved for special cases that don't fit Armoured or Heavily Armoured.
- Heavily Armoured: Almost complete armour cover. In addition there may be some plate cover.
- Fully Armoured: Complete armour cover with extensive plate coverage.

I can almost figure it out, I think the Protected still represent the mixed battle group of unarmoured and armoured men,like the Longbowmen, Handgunners(which armour rating had been changed to Protected under my suggest,the Handgunners' armour rating was Unprotected in the beta version of the Storm of Arrows)etc. Because their armour varied widely,from none to gambeson, mail, up to brigandine and plates.Such a mixture as equivalent to Protected(so does the large unit like the Pikemen, the variety is too big).So there are still the definition standards,even relative to the other contemporary troops.I hope Mr.Richaed could add them to the manual, maybe the format could be like this:

Armoured:
Metal armour at least for the head and thorax – combined(...)-relative to other contemporary troops.

The thing is, trying to write brief but misleadingly exact definitions in the manual would ultimately cause more confusion than it clears. People are not going to find answers to a peculiar armour ratings from a list of rough guidelines but will instead point to the definitions and ask "why isn't this unit at this rating because the model looks like it". In reality that specific unit's model might represent the high end rather than the average, it could be one of the many special cases like the crossbowmen's pavise, it could be approximate model that was chosen from the limited selection allowed by the budget, it could be a wider historical trend (like the many Byzantine units with Some Armour rating), or it could simply be a result of some individual balancing decision.

I don't think so, models are not important for this, and I clearly understand that the budget problems caused the limits, so I didn't mention them in the discussion about the armour ratings. I only judge their armour ratings by their historical effects, not models(handgunners etc.). And I did suggest about the next title can retrieve the style of the Pike&Shot.