JaM2013 wrote:my main point is, Slings and arrows were actually used against completely different types of targets than javelins. both (slings and arrows) were ideal weapons against lightly armored opponents, therefore both were usually used to suppress the light troops.. but if in game they all have same damage potential against heavy troops, then it means tactical role of both slingers and archers is completely different than it was in ancient times
Yeah, IRL heavy armor is extremely effective against all weapons. Medieval chain armor (not what we're talking about here) was physically impossible for a human to cut through, so they only way to hurt people was to repeatedly bash them or have HUGE weapons that added a lot of mass and leverage to the blow (large pikes). Plate armor is even worse. The only way to take down heavy infantry, other than harassing, surrounding or exhausting them (not something that's possible or realistic in set-piece battles) would be other heavy infantry. There are all sorts of strategic and logistic and cost reasons to not use heavy infantry, but man-to-man, in combat, they are very dominant. The heavier the infantry, the truer this becomes.
God Help you if you have to fight heavy cavalry that also doubles as heavy infantry, like the Normans. The way to deal with them is to shoot them with guns.
Realistically, any commander without heavy infantry would REFUSE TO ENGAGE heavy infantry, because fighting them is bullshit and ineffective.
Most games don't depict how well heavy armor, heavy infantry functions. But the solution is not to make the heavy infantry weaker, it's to make huge armies of them so expensive and prone to rebellion that it's not practical. Logistics, cost management and large army control is simply too great in basically any game. IRL if you have 40k heavily armored knights, they are very likely to decide that they're not taking your orders anymore (see: Burgundy).
All the evidence, from Europe and even the Mongols, is that you want most of your troops to have as much armor as possible, assuming you can afford it and they're not inept and likely to get killed. In real life there were reasons this was not practical, but these are very poorly represented in games. There are situations where this might not be the best idea, but of course soldiers can always TAKE OFF some of their armor if it's too hot, etc. something which actual knights did which is not possible in games.
Not having heavy infantry when you have the option is like not using a machine gun in WW1 when you have the option. The only reason every soldier didn't have a repeating rifle is because ammo and precision manufacturing is expensive, not because having more shots is a bad idea or something.
Again, this is why operational-level games are probably the most realistic - you don't have convenient set-piece battles, and you can't game your country into an invulnerable cash cow.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying heavily armored heavy infantry is invulnerable, even in engagements with light skirmishers they sometimes took casualties or fell down a hill or got separated and beat to death. I'm just saying that, insofar as you are engaging in close combat with a formed troop and have already arrived at the battlefield, you obviously want your melee fighters to be as well protected and armed as possible.
)
