Slitherine

As we know,the armour evolutions of the Late Medieval not only including the nobles,but also the common soldiers.Not only from the manuscript illustrations,but also records.

I've seen in the 1.3.5 version of the game,the Late Medieval crossbowmen's armour rating was been upgraded to Some Armour from Protected,that's right,because according to a record of 1340,A crossbowman's equipments at the Clos de Galées in Rouen including a coat of plates,a corsset,bras de plate for arms and a gorgiere de plate for neck.In the same period,cross­bowmen from the Provençe expected to have a cervelliere or a bascinet helmet, and coat ­of plates,often with a gipponus (padded jupon) or pansiére(small mail hauberk).Many had plate faudes attached to the pansiére,plus a plate braconniére or mail gorgiére to protect the neck.Their protections were far more better than the crossbowmen from the last century,but some of the illustrations of the same period showed the unarmoured crossbowman,like in the Chroniques de France ou de St Denis, folio 137v,so give them the rating of Some Armour is the best way to represent such mixed unit.

The Late Medieval armoured spearmen,which represent the pavisiers in the game.The French Ordinance of 1351 specifies a pavisier's equipment as coat of plates,haubergeon,bascinet with camail,gorget,arm harness,gauntlets,sword,coustel,lance(spear) and pavise.And the Froissart was described when he wrote of the engagement at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359,where 900 French infantry armed with lances and pavises which were so strong the arrows made no impression on them,advanced on and broke through a line of English archers and put them to flight.Except of that,the illustrations in the Grandes Chroniques de France de Charles V showed they were well equipped as the ordinance.So the Late Medieval armoured spearmen's armour rating should be upgrade to Well Armoured.

The common Late Medieval spearmen(and the Low Country spearmen),which represent the non-brigans infantry,Libert Borrein,a middle-class militiaman from the Flanders,had a mail hauberk with a colletin additional collar and shoulder protection,a bascinet with a visor and aventail,a pair of gauntlets,and arm and leg defences made of hardened leather.In Bohemian,towns being supplied with some armours by the king,which the municipal authorities then added to,for the poorer citizens who can't afford the armours and the mercenaries.For example,Vysoke Myto,had 300 pieces of armour,and Hradec Kralove had 400,in 1362.The Albert V,Duke of Mecklenburg,ordered the all able-bodied men in his land between the age of 16 and 60 to be ready for service in the 1421.He specified that from every ten households one man should be chosen,the nine who remained were to look after his trade and supply his war service.The equipments including an eisenhut,body armour of iron or a jerkin,and gauntlets.But the manuscript illustrations showed there were still some of the men without the armours,like the illustrations in the Feuerwerkbuch.So I think change their armour rating to the Some Armour will fit them,just like the reason of the Late Medieval crossbowmen's armour rating.

The halberdiers/axemen,polearms-men,Scandinavian foot,which also need to upgrade the armour rating to Well Armoured.The archaeological excavation of the Visby had revealed large numbers of coat of plates and gauntlets,unusually,buried with the soldiers,which were died in the Battle of Visby in 1361,had shown the Scandinavian infantry was generally well equipped in the Late Medieval.About the others,some of them may already included in above,the others could be found in the manuscript illustrations and the effigies,some representive examples are:Sleeping soldier with an axe in the Musée de l’Oeuvre Notre-Dame Cathedral,Württembergische Landesbibliothek,Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,Sammelhandschrift zur Kriegskunst etc.I choose to leave the English billmen,because of their lacking of good armours compared to their peers in the Continental,even in the period of the War of the Roses,the muster on 4 september 1457 before the king's officials at Bridport,Dorset,shown that the standard equipment expected was a sallet,jack,sword,buckler and dagger.In addition,there was a sprinkling of other weapons like the poleaxes,glaives,bills,spears,axes and staves; and some odd pieces of armour,hauberks,gauntlets,and leg harness.Two men also had pavises.

The Burgundian mixed pikemen&longbowmen unit might need to change the armour rating to Some Armour,because a sketch in the Chateau de Grandson(Perhaps from the 1465-85),shown that the pikemen in the such unit wore the armours.And such unit in the Diebold Schilling the Younger's Lucerne Chronicle also depicted that the pikemen were armoured.

The lighter and the lesser men at arms,which represent the varlets,esquires,coutilliers,mounted sergeants,and those who can't afford the more better armours fell into this class.But generally they were also well equipped.As the Phillip the Bold's review at Chatillon in 1364,the 108 men at arms out of 153 had full body protections,the others had no leg protections.The Du Costume Militaire des Francais en 1446 says:[.....]Each man(regular man at arms)must also be accompanied by a coutillier equipped with a salade(sallet),harnois de jambes(leg harness),haubergeon,jacque,brigandine or corset,armed with dagger,sword,and a voulge or demi-lance. Also a page or varlet with the same armour and one or two weapons.Also,the Angers Apocalypse Tapestry in Anjou and the Albrecht Dürer's Soldier on Horseback in 1498,also showed us how the lighter and lesser men at arms look like.Their armour rating should upgrade to Well Armoured,same as the mounted handgunners' armour rating.So do the French feudal pikemen,because they were retrained from the cavalry.

The gradual increase in armour during the Medieval period is certainly a well-known phenomenon. And we did of course give it much consideration during the original design of the game system.

The reason we have not explicitly represented it is that we are not attempting to classify troops on an absolute scale, but only relative to other contemporary troops.

From the overall simulation point of view, in a top down (as opposed to bottom up) design, the most important thing is to maintain the differentials between the efficacy of the standard troop types at any particular date.

We have no interest in trying to accurately simulate anachronistic matchups, so as long as the relative protection ratings of the main troop-types are maintained, their absolute classification is unimportant.

I appreciate that other design philosophies might see it differently, I am just explaining the design philosophy of FOG.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:28 am The gradual increase in armour during the Medieval period is certainly a well-known phenomenon. And we did of course give it much consideration during the original design of the game system.

The reason we have not explicitly represented it is that we are not attempting to classify troops on an absolute scale, but only relative to other contemporary troops.

From the overall simulation point of view, in a top down (as opposed to bottom up) design, the most important thing is to maintain the differentials between the efficacy of the standard troop types at any particular date.

We have no interest in trying to accurately simulate anachronistic matchups, so as long as the relative protection ratings of the main troop-types are maintained, their absolute classification is unimportant.

Some troops are indeed contemporary in the game,like the Late Medieval crossbowmen,which been upgraded to the Some Armour,and the infantry,but it's hard to say that the Late Medieval infantry don't have the same standard of equipments,like the records had revealed.The same theory can be used on the mounted handgunners and the lesser men at arms,it's hard to say whose protections are more superior,they're all in the same period,not in any different particular date,even in the philosophy of the top-down design,the armour ratings are still worth much consideration(so did the downgrade of the armour rating of klibanophoros few versions before).

And,the game is not only include the armies of the Europe,but also the other exotic nations,including the Oriental(which is in the rulebook),if we set a match between them in the same particular date,it's hard to simulate the Late Medieval European's armour superiority except of the men at arms,infact that the many Late Medieval common soldiers' protections are better than or equal to the best protections those nations can provide(which always been used on some of the cavalry and the elite part of the army).

In European context it's worth noting that as the armour developed, so did the weapons designed to counter the armour. Armour protection didn't become a clear battle deciding factor and we don't consistently see better armored armies dominating those with lesser armor.

Late medieval armoured spearmen don't really need better than armoured level protection since the increase in protection has gone up throughout the European armies, while the weapons have become increasingly optimized against the increasingly heavy armour.

Looking outside Europe both in-game and historically, the armour protection does generally stop increasing at roughly 13th-14th century European level. In FoG2 late-medieval European armies, armoured average infantry units become common while cavalry with protection lower than armoured becomes rare. In non-European armies even elite infantry units rarely have better than protected level defense while even their best cavalry tends to be well-armored at best with protected cavalry still being widespread. European massed longbowmen or crossbowmen are protected or have some armor respectively (with even raw units being protected or lightly-protected) while non-European massed archers are usually Unprotected.

Late medieval armoured spearmen don't really need better than armoured level protection since they already have a significant advantage against non-European units that haven't seen their armor rating change since high medieval.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 5:45 pm In European context it's worth noting that as the armour developed, so did the weapons designed to counter the armour. Armour protection didn't become a clear battle deciding factor and we don't consistently see better armored armies dominating those with lesser armor.

Late medieval armoured spearmen don't really need better than armoured level protection since the increase in protection has gone up throughout the European armies, while the weapons have become increasingly optimized against the increasingly heavy armour.

Looking outside Europe both in-game and historically, the armour protection does generally stop increasing at roughly 13th-14th century European level. In FoG2 late-medieval European armies, armoured average infantry units become common while cavalry with protection lower than armoured becomes rare. In non-European armies even elite infantry units rarely have better than protected level defense while even their best cavalry tends to be well-armored at best with protected cavalry still being widespread. European massed longbowmen or crossbowmen are protected or have some armor respectively (with even raw units being protected or lightly-protected) while non-European massed archers are usually Unprotected.

Late medieval armoured spearmen don't really need better than armoured level protection since they already have a significant advantage against non-European units that haven't seen their armor rating change since high medieval.

"In European context it's worth noting that as the armour developed, so did the weapons designed to counter the armour. Armour protection didn't become a clear battle deciding factor and we don't consistently see better armored armies dominating those with lesser armor."

If according to this theory,because of the weapons were designed to counter the armour in Late Medieval,so the more advanced armour was worth nothing.Why don't you just say the game needs to downgrade the men at arms' current armour rating to Armoured?And,even in the High Medieval,there were records to discribe how the armour protection became an important factor of the battle,though some were not decisive,but they're important.

As the Battle of the Standard which been discribed in the Annals of Roger de Hoveden and the Anderson Scottish Annals,said how the the Anglo-Norman knights' armours are more superior and how the Galwegians been repelled because they can't break the shields and the armours:"[...]Whereas you, during the time of peace, prepare yourselves for war, in order that in battle you may not experience the doubtful contingencies of warfare. Cover your heads then with the helmet, your breasts with the coat of mail, your legs with the greaves,and your bodies with the shield, that so the foeman may not find where to strike at you, on seeing you thus surrounded on every side with iron[...]After their(Galwegians)custom gave vent thrice to a yell of horrible sound,and attacked the southerns in such an onslaught that they compelled the first spearmen to forsake their post,but they were driven off again by the strength of the knights, and the spearmen recovered their courage and strength against the foe.And when the frailty of the Scottish lances was mocked by the denseness of iron and wood they drew their swords and attempted to contend at close quarters."

The Saladin's secretary,Beha ad-Din,discribed how strong were the crusader infantry's armours during the battle of Arsuf:"Their infantry drawn up in front of the horsemen stood firm as a wall,and every soldier wore a thick padded jacket and hauberks so thick and strong that our arrows had no effect."Because of the armoured infantry and the crossbowmen under their protect,so the Ayyubids failed to break the Crusader's line.

Another renown battle which the armour had played an important factor in one stage is the Battle of Benevento happend in the 1266,where the German knights dominated the initial stage of the battle by the coat of plates,until the French knights had found a weak spot under the armpit in the melee.

"Looking outside Europe both in-game and historically, the armour protection does generally stop increasing at roughly 13th-14th century European level. In FoG2 late-medieval European armies, armoured average infantry units become common while cavalry with protection lower than armoured becomes rare. In non-European armies even elite infantry units rarely have better than protected level defense while even their best cavalry tends to be well-armored at best with protected cavalry still being widespread. European massed longbowmen or crossbowmen are protected or have some armor respectively (with even raw units being protected or lightly-protected) while non-European massed archers are usually Unprotected."

That means,even the armour did stop increase outside the Europe,the European armour ratings need to stop on the same level of them?And as I had said,the spread of armours in the Late Medieval should affect the armour ratings of some units,like the crossbowmen,their armour rating was already been upgraded in the 1.3.5 version of the game,the common spearmen unit also needs to upgrade their current armour rating.I also had said that the Late Medieval European common soldiers' protections were far more superior than the armies outside the Europe,which could be bested or equal to the best protections they provided.The increasing of the normal armoured units can not reflect the increase of the level of protection.So some of the common units need to be upgrade to Some Armour,some of the armoured units need to be upgrade to Well Armoured,as the reasons been said.

"Late medieval armoured spearmen don't really need better than armoured level protection since they already have a significant advantage against non-European units that haven't seen their armor rating change since high medieval."

What if they encountered some others of the armoured infantry in the same period?Don't forget that we have the Oriental in the rulebook.Then we found the pavisiers' armour rating is as the same as the followers of the Kamakura-Muromachi Japan,that is ridiculous(even many of the samurai's equipments were no match to the armoured European infantry in the same period).