Slitherine

I was wondering what is the main reason for the "disappearance" of the Armoured Hoplites in the post-Immortal-Fire era army lists?

Did the Greek world decline so much that they could no longer maintain significant numbers of as well equipped Hoplites as they did in their prime? Did the wealthy Greeks move from phalanxes to cavalry or did the Hoplites get otherwise reduced to a low-priority troop type. Does the previously formidable Hoplite armor become so relatively weak in the later times that they no longer warrant the special "armored" status in the game? Are they simply not there because they were introduced in the expansion?

Regarding the decline of the renowned Corinthian helmet: Hoplite warfare was simple and not much tactical; Hoplites formed lines and marched orderly against the enemy. Later on though tactics prevailed, and smaller units needed to maneuver, so officers would need to be heard by their soldiers. The Corinthian helmet is wrongly accused that it restricted vision but it much did restrict hearing.

Regarding the bronze body armor; It was taken over by linen armor. Linen armor was much more resilient than most people think. It was also cheaper, and lighter (although heavier than it seems). But most importantly the later hellenistic world had much much more soldiers in it. While the earlier hoplite was a prerogative of the wealthy citizen, after Alexander and the constant warfare between his successors, the demand for soldiers was immense. Not everyone could afford a bronze armor.

Whilst there was a lightening of the average armour level of the hoplite over time,in game the change is as much about getting the interaction with contemporary troops as it is a reflection of the changes. The hoplite is still well equipped and could easily have remained as Armoured if the interactions had worked as desired. (I base all this on the discussions on this when developing the tabletop game which I believe still hold for FoG II)

nikgaukroger wrote:Whilst there was a lightening of the average armour level of the hoplite over time,in game the change is as much about getting the interaction with contemporary troops as it is a reflection of the changes. The hoplite is still well equipped and could easily have remained as Armoured if the interactions had worked as desired. (I base all this on the discussions on this when developing the tabletop game which I believe still hold for FoG II)

Even more so as there is far less difference in melee between Armoured and Protected hoplites in FOG2 than there was in the tabletop version. (+25 POA instead of +100 POA)

So it's a mix of gameplay and historical reasons then I guess.

As the game expands into the high/late middle ages, is "Fully Armoured" going to remain the top level of armor in the game or is there going to be something beyond that?

MVP7 wrote:So it's a mix of gameplay and historical reasons then I guess.

As the game expands into the high/late middle ages, is "Fully Armoured" going to remain the top level of armor in the game or is there going to be something beyond that?

Armour is treated as relative in the game, so even though full plate armour is obviously better than cataphract armour, both will be treated as "Fully Armoured".

This only matters if anachronistic matchups are being played, and such matchups are just a bit of fun. The game is not designed to find out what would really happen in anachronistic matchups.

rbodleyscott wrote:

MVP7 wrote:So it's a mix of gameplay and historical reasons then I guess.

As the game expands into the high/late middle ages, is "Fully Armoured" going to remain the top level of armor in the game or is there going to be something beyond that?

Armour is treated as relative in the game, so even though full plate armour is obviously better than cataphract armour, both will be treated as "Fully Armoured".

This only matters if anachronistic matchups are being played, and such matchups are just a bit of fun. The game is not designed to find out what would really happen in anachronistic matchups.

I thought so. Definitely the better way to go in the long run even if it produces some oddities like the Hoplite "downgrade".

The downgrade may not be an oddity. Its quite possible that only a minority of classical hoplites wore any armor besides a simple open faced helmet. It seemed that being able to field larger numbers of men armed with spear and shield was more important than making sure they were armored.

Lots of this stuff is petty hazy. One view is that aristocratic warriors of the archaic age fought heavily armored, not in a hoplite formation but surrounded by their lighter armed followers. Bronze had largely given way to linen armor by the Persian Wars, and by the Pelopponesian War most hoplites wore no armor. This would be both to enable cities to field more hoplites, and to allow them to have more mobility, to lessen fatigue and run down enemy light troops.

The wealthy few could show off their wealth more effectively as horsemen; just getting more men into the line was the main priority.

It arguably not really a practical downgrade anyways, even if a bronze cuirrass offered more absolute protection than a linen one( or none) As my sweet old classics professora liked to say, the majority of wounds in the phalanx were to the groin and neck anyways, areas never easy to armor. ( and the most ouchy)

I always believed that the disappearance of the heavier protection was to give the Hoplite increased mobility in the face of rapidly changing tactical systems employed by enemies less 'tied' to traditional' immobile shield wall type tactics.

I cite Iphicratids more lightly encumbered defeat of Spartan hoplites as the best (and probably first) justification of this

Of course I may be wrong

Its not certain if Iphikrates really innovated with this stuff. The battle of Lechaeum which you refer to was really jyst a typical case of a force lacking light troops and mismanaging its cavalry being defeated by a combined arms force.

Thanks for the answers. I'd still say it's a bit of an oddity since in reality switching the bronze armor to linen might have made a small difference in protection but also offered benefits in mobility. In the game it's just a reduction in combat effectiveness with no changes to mobility.

I'd imagine that the real oddities start turning up when the expansions get to the high and late middle ages. Army lists around 1100 AD aren't probably too far from the currents lists with most units using some mail, shields and helmets but by mid 14th century the current fully armoured would barely count as protected if directly compared. I do agree there's no harm in it since it won't matter in battles between contemporaries and it will also keep anachronistic battles interesting.

Speaking of relativity, are late crossbows going to be different from current bows in terms of range or performance or will they also remain relatively the same as the current bows?

MVP7 wrote:Thanks for the answers. I'd still say it's a bit of an oddity since in reality switching the bronze armor to linen might have made a small difference in protection but also offered benefits in mobility. In the game it's just a reduction in combat effectiveness with no changes to mobility.

I'd imagine that the real oddities start turning up when the expansions get to the high and late middle ages. Army lists around 1100 AD aren't probably too far from the currents lists with most units using some mail, shields and helmets but by mid 14th century the current fully armoured would barely count as protected if directly compared. I do agree there's no harm in it since it won't matter in battles between contemporaries and it will also keep anachronistic battles interesting.

Speaking of relativity, are late crossbows going to be different from current bows in terms of range or performance or will they also remain relatively the same as the current bows?

Im not sure how much more "mobility" one would have as the leg armour and shield and tight formation would preclude that. Possible effect on endurance/stamina during battle, maybe.

Crossbows are already coded ( just not in any of the offical expansion.) However you can use them in the Silk Road mod by Jomni to get an Idea on the effect. ( lessor penalities versus armour, but less effective verus unarmoured troops, same range as bows. No doudt cheaper than bows)

TheGrayMouser wrote: Im not sure how much more "mobility" one would have as the leg armour and shield and tight formation would preclude that. Possible effect on endurance/stamina during battle, maybe.

Crossbows are already coded ( just not in any of the offical expansion.) However you can use them in the Silk Road mod by Jomni to get an Idea on the effect. ( lessor penalities versus armour, but less effective verus unarmoured troops, same range as bows. No doudt cheaper than bows)

I don't mean mobility as in top speed and ability to dodge around but rather the tactical mobility of the unit as a whole. I'd imagine that reducing the total weigh of the equipment by something like 20kg would have significant effect in the Hoplites' ability to move for longer distances fast (through stamina like you said) and their ability to move over hard terrain but not at the level where FoG2 would model it.

I have played Silk Road and seen the crossbows but didn't know they were already a part of the game code rather than added by the mod. That bonus against armor sounds like a good way to differentiate them from the bows.