Slitherine

No one has mentioned the fact that armour is not consistent over the time period, i.e. that the interaction between say a Protected Medieval and an armoured classical doesn't reflect reality?

Unprotected and Heavily armoured are probably not affected, but the suggestion that a Legionary was as better protected than a janissary or Almughavar is more than dubious.

azrael86 wrote:No one has mentioned the fact that armour is not consistent over the time period, i.e. that the interaction between say a Protected Medieval and an armoured classical doesn't reflect reality?

Unprotected and Heavily armoured are probably not affected, but the suggestion that a Legionary was as better protected than a janissary or Almughavar is more than dubious.

Are you having me on? What is the point in comparing them. They never met. We could always reduce points for older armour and increase it for newer armour, leave it about the same somewhere in the middle. But. The interaction could never mirror reality. It's not real.

azrael86 wrote:No one has mentioned the fact that armour is not consistent over the time period, i.e. that the interaction between say a Protected Medieval and an armoured classical doesn't reflect reality?

Unprotected and Heavily armoured are probably not affected, but the suggestion that a Legionary was as better protected than a janissary or Almughavar is more than dubious.

I've always been of the opinion that there are only 3 classes of armor - unarmored, some armor, or fully armored head to toe/barded. Roll protected & armored into a single armor class and a lot of the out of period arguments about the materials armor are made of goes away

stecal wrote:I've always been of the opinion that there are only 3 classes of armor - unarmored, some armor, or fully armored head to toe/barded. Roll protected & armored into a single armor class and a lot of the out of period arguments about the materials armor are made of goes away

But C1 cataphract scale/mail is not as good as C12 plate, which is not as good as C15 plate, but except in a game, where they cost the same points, they do not appear on the same battlefield so the argument is pointless.

rogerg wrote:What about making better armour a +1 on the cohesion test when losing a melee? (It would need to be 'better armour than all opponents' probably and include 'except against troops with heavy weapon').
Better armour would keep troops in the melee longer rather than making them hit better. This would make armour a protective feature which is what it should be.

This one is growing on me. Armoured knight become reasonable. Swarm armies of Roman average armoured auxilia are less tough. Armoured skilled sword legionaries are only a single plus against protected opponents, but can potentially sustain the fight longer. Armoured spear are inferior to pikes, but might hang in their long enough to hold them.

Any disadvantages to this?

A +1 in a waver test is pretty pants next to the full POA they get at the moment. It would also be messy to decide what happens where a unit is fighting 2 enemy units with different armour classes.

A +1 on the test is not as good for the better armoured as a +PoA, but isn't this the point?
The more I think about this the better it looks. More even melees, more death rolls, hence more advantages for larger BG's. Rear support becomes more meaningful in longer melees. The success in the charge of knights becomes more important rather than the swamping effect of their armour advantage in the melee.
I am struggling to think of a disadvantage to this change.

And a further thought, a +1 on a CT is not such a small thing. Given the dice probability distribution it is quite a distinct advantage. Even for those who don't want to do the maths, the 'just failed by one' comment is heard a lot.

rogerg wrote:And a further thought, a +1 on a CT is not such a small thing. Given the dice probability distribution it is quite a distinct advantage. Even for those who don't want to do the maths, the 'just failed by one' comment is heard a lot.

I like it. You could also have a +1 for the death roll. In both cases I'd only apply it in the melee phase.

philqw78 wrote:But C1 cataphract scale/mail is not as good as C12 plate, which is not as good as C15 plate, but except in a game, where they cost the same points, they do not appear on the same battlefield so the argument is pointless.

Au contraire, check your lists! Parthian cataphracts are definitively better armoured than Norman Knights.

azrael86 wrote:Au contraire, check your lists! Parthian cataphracts are definitively better armoured than Norman Knights.

Check yours, Parthians are heavily armoured, C12 Norman knights are heavily armoured. Who is better armoured. In game terms neither and because they never met it doesn't matter who was anyway. In reality it doesn't matter either because there was more than a thousand years between them. If you want a game where troops from different eras interact correctly play Traveller.

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Au contraire, check your lists! Parthian cataphracts are definitively better armoured than Norman Knights.

Check yours, Parthians are heavily armoured, C12 Norman knights are heavily armoured. Who is better armoured. In game terms neither and because they never met it doesn't matter who was anyway. In reality it doesn't matter either because there was more than a thousand years between them. If you want a game where troops from different eras interact correctly play Traveller.

Now,now, I never said 12 cent Normans, did I? Plenty of Normans are only armoured.

Though Traveller is an excellent call. Particle accelerator weapon of choice, ACR or laser pistol.Those Zhodani can be tricky though. Worse than Ottomans.

azrael86 wrote:Though Traveller is an excellent call. Particle accelerator weapon of choice, ACR or laser pistol.Those Zhodani can be tricky though. Worse than Ottomans.

Meson Gun. Although with current technology a relativity(?) bomb is a far better use of energy

jlopez wrote:

rogerg wrote:And a further thought, a +1 on a CT is not such a small thing. Given the dice probability distribution it is quite a distinct advantage. Even for those who don't want to do the maths, the 'just failed by one' comment is heard a lot.

I like it. You could also have a +1 for the death roll. In both cases I'd only apply it in the melee phase.

I like it too. I was thinking about some kind of bonus for armoured troops in casualties rolls, but this solution seems fit better. Just one think more: why give a bonus for better armour? I think armour give to troops more 'weight', so they are harder to push back, not more strength to get a better push. I mean it's harder to push back armoured troops than protected whatever your armour class. But this, in effect, could be not easily adapted to FOG system which has 4 armour class, because this solution could be good with only 3 armour class (something like: bonus for armour = 0 unprotected, 1 armoured, 2 fully armoured in CT test; likely with a +3 you would change the melee balance too much). So probably your original idea is the simplest and the best compromise.

I rather like an increase in price of the armour or, better, a decrease in price of protected and unprotected HF ( and maybe MF)

Changing the points values doesn't really change how the game is played though. A few more ineffective troops still makes them ineffective. It also means the list books will need changing
I still haven't found any negative argument to making better armour a +1 on CT's

I still haven't found any negative argument to making better armour a +1 on CT's

Really ??
Romans will be at -- against steady pike, Knight will be at evens against long bowmen, Knight will be at evens against ghilmen, heavy Cav will be at - against any steady spear Etc...
How nice will be a +1 to CT if you lose every time?

Well is the Knight interaction with Protected Def Spear balanced?

Is the reason ther was so much protected defensive spear is, that is the beest they could manage historicallly or was it actually a bit more robust than the game currently portrays.

I am migrating to the armour is both a harder thing to adjust and not as certain that is where the fixes are needed.

I'm fine with the current armour rules. Though benefits of being Superior or Elite may probably be increased.

Romans will be at -- against steady pike, Knight will be at evens against long bowmen, Knight will be at evens against ghilmen, heavy Cav will be at - against any steady spear Etc...

The Romans v pikes is not a big problem. Double minus against average pike is not a huge negative. The pike are 3-6 as opposed to a 4-6. Not much more chance of losing. Given that the Romans are likely to lose anyway at a single PoA down, I think the +1 on the CT might be better for them. It does mean the impact for the Romans is more important.
Knights at evens v longbow is fine. If they don't win at impact, then either their superiority pulls them through or they break off and try again. Aren't knights supposed to be brittle anyway if their charge is unsuccessful. Cavalry at minus v steady spear doesn't seem so bad either. Cavalry rarely charge spear anyway because of the impact factors. Again, I would much rather see the cavalry break off in good order, which the +1 is a significant help to. This feels much better than the grind down effect of heavier armour over rounds of melee.

Armor may not be perfect, but the current set-up is too integral to the core rules to be changed easily. I would leave things relatively as they are and fix the AP. It may not be perfect but it isn't a useless fix either. If I can get enough protected lancers I can probably wear down your armoured cavalry...