Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Geffalrus » Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:34 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm
Why did the Dane Axe become popular if it had no advantage over the well established spear and shield? Two handed axe makes shield hard to use, it wouldn't offer an advantage against cavalry, and unless the axe offered advantage against lightly armoured opponents, then the only reason left is that it offered an advantage against other heavily armoured opponents.

If I have understood correctly, the use of Dane Axe among the military elite really started to decline when the military elite started fighting on horse-back where "heavy weapons" are generally not used.
The Dane Axe has a surprisingly thin blade that makes it lighter/easier to use, but makes it less effective against heavy armor because you're now missing the added weight and strength of that metal. So, no, it wasn't developed as an anti-armor weapon. The reach of the weapon, combined with the fact that it originates in a culture that did not have a large cavalry tradition, but - was - starting to face cavalry forces more and more. If you actually want to deal with heavy armor, you're better off using something that concentrates a lot of weight into a small, strong point.........like a pickaxe. The broad cutting blade of the axe makes them better at making big cuts in flesh, not in dealing with metal surfaces.

The spread of the Dane Axe was due as much to the spread of Vikings as mercenaries in search of employment beyond Scandinavia, as to it being any sort of endorsement of it's qualities. You employed the Vikings because they were a bunch of scary m-fers......the Dane Axe was just the weapon they brought with them.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22425
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:05 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm
Their switch to heavy weapons in 15th century in favor of spears implies there was an advantage to heavy weapons over spears. It surely wasn't an advantage vs cavalry or lightly armoured opponents which again just leaves the heavily armoured opponents.


Yep, heavily armoured. Not armoured. 11th-14th century dismounted knights were far more heavily armoured than 10th century troops.

If this advantage is true with both 10th century and 15th century armour...
Repeatedly asserting this supposed 10th century advantage does not make a fact. How about some actual evidence?
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:23 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:25 am
MikeC_81 wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm
We shouldn't be worried about what armour the HW unit has. If both are "protected" and one has HW and one doesn't, then the guys with HW *should* have an advantage here.
Why?

(Historical evidence not gut feeling)
I am not quite sure what evidence you need other than the progression of weapons used as partial and full plate harnesses became more prevalent through the High - Late Middle Ages. You pointed out yourself that the majority of troops armed on the late medieval battlefield used various concussive weapons and pollaxes which were designed to defeat armour and you want HWs to help with some unit differentiation. As in weapons other than longswords and spears.

If you have heavy weapons as a seperate catagory of PoAs, then a Knight unit with HWs should crush a Knight unit without. Maybe I am not understanding what your definition of HW is?
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MVP7 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:29 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:05 pm
MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm
Their switch to heavy weapons in 15th century in favor of spears implies there was an advantage to heavy weapons over spears. It surely wasn't an advantage vs cavalry or lightly armoured opponents which again just leaves the heavily armoured opponents.


Yep, heavily armoured. Not armoured. 11th-14th century dismounted knights were far more heavily armoured than 10th century troops.

If this advantage is true with both 10th century and 15th century armour...
Repeatedly asserting this supposed 10th century advantage does not make a fact. How about some actual evidence?
Other than the deduction based on the otherwise hard to explain spread of Axes and later Polearms, I don't have any "actual evidence".

I'm not sure what you are arguing against anymore. Are you saying that Anti-Armour weapon equipped unit having an advantage over similarly armored opponent without an anti-armour weapon is something that needs to be proven rather than the other way around?

If unarmoured Irishman can get a massive benefit from using Dane Axe against an Armoured Huscarl then why would an Armoured Huscarl using Dane Axe gain no benefit whatsoever when Fighting Armoured Huscarl spearmen?

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Geffalrus » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:39 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:29 pm
If unarmoured Irishman can get a massive benefit from using Dane Axe against an Armoured Huscarl then why would an Armoured Huscarl using Dane Axe gain no benefit whatsoever when Fighting Armoured Huscarl spearmen?
This is a very good point and a decent argument for why HW should decrease armor by X amount rather than removing the armor advantage. That relationship inherently prejudices in favor unarmored Superior class units that are already very cost effective while making expensive armored HW units largely pointless.

Bladeheart
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Bladeheart » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:53 pm

With respect to game mechanics, perhaps HW could reduce the maximum armour value.
The need for a heavy weapon is to redress the advantage of better armour. Then when a weapon is superior there is the push to develop better protection, and the cycle begins again; I believe it is called the 'arms race'.

Please forgive me if I am missing something, but is not worrying about the point cost of a unit not a 'bottom up' consideration.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Geffalrus » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:22 pm

I'd be interested to see if people think the Classical period featured a similar arms race between armor and weapons. You certainly see changes in armor use over time with an overall trend towards uniformity related to the proliferation of Roman legions. I'm less sure you see a coherent response to the increase in available heavy armor........

Bladeheart
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Bladeheart » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:02 pm

I see your point, but may I suggest there is a direct correlation between the advancement of production methods and the 'speed' of the arms race; as the pace increase do the changes. :)

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MVP7 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:36 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:34 pm
The Dane Axe has a surprisingly thin blade that makes it lighter/easier to use, but makes it less effective against heavy armor because you're now missing the added weight and strength of that metal. So, no, it wasn't developed as an anti-armor weapon. The reach of the weapon, combined with the fact that it originates in a culture that did not have a large cavalry tradition, but - was - starting to face cavalry forces more and more. If you actually want to deal with heavy armor, you're better off using something that concentrates a lot of weight into a small, strong point.........like a pickaxe. The broad cutting blade of the axe makes them better at making big cuts in flesh, not in dealing with metal surfaces.

The spread of the Dane Axe was due as much to the spread of Vikings as mercenaries in search of employment beyond Scandinavia, as to it being any sort of endorsement of it's qualities. You employed the Vikings because they were a bunch of scary m-fers......the Dane Axe was just the weapon they brought with them.
Axe still has it's weight concentrated in small area at an end of a lever so it has quite a bit of crushing force behind a two handed swing while a spear is thrust without lever effect and often with one hand. Neither weapon can outright "pierce" a decent mail and underlying padding but I think Dane Axe still has better chance of causing debilitating damage. Plate is completely different subject of course but it's not something that Dane Axe and earlier "Heavy weapons" would meet.

In any case I think the big question is why did Dane Axe becomes so popular? The Vikings only really started using it after running into more armour and cavalry than what they would have faced in their native Scandinavia and Baltic region. Spear being the penultimate weapon against cavalry (second only to pike) is one of the cornerstones of FoG2 balancing so assuming that spears were being replaced by axes for anti-cavalry role would really be rocking the boat.

Maybe Dane Axe was indeed an anti-cavalry weapon more than it is an anti-armour weapon. There are some examples of weapons other than spears and pikes being used specifically against cavalry like the Chinese zhanmadao. If Dane Axe was not for anti-cavalry or anti-armour, one remaining explanation could be that Dane Axe was simply superior to sword and spear in combat. However based on the previous discussion, making "Heavy Weapons" outright better than spears or swords seems to be especially shunned idea here. Maybe the problem is that Dane Axe is being bundled into the primarily anti-armour category of "Heavy Weapons".

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:29 am

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:34 pm
The Dane Axe has a surprisingly thin blade that makes it lighter/easier to use, but makes it less effective against heavy armor because you're now missing the added weight and strength of that metal. So, no, it wasn't developed as an anti-armor weapon. The reach of the weapon, combined with the fact that it originates in a culture that did not have a large cavalry tradition, but - was - starting to face cavalry forces more and more. If you actually want to deal with heavy armor, you're better off using something that concentrates a lot of weight into a small, strong point.........like a pickaxe. The broad cutting blade of the axe makes them better at making big cuts in flesh, not in dealing with metal surfaces.

The spread of the Dane Axe was due as much to the spread of Vikings as mercenaries in search of employment beyond Scandinavia, as to it being any sort of endorsement of it's qualities. You employed the Vikings because they were a bunch of scary m-fers......the Dane Axe was just the weapon they brought with them.
This is not true. A small blade fixed to a long pole allows the user the ability to leverage the length of the polearm for superior angular momentum and impart as much kinetic force as a heavier weapon of a shorter length. In fact, it is preferable from a weapon design standpoint to increase the distance of the axehead away from the user's hand first rather than increase the weight of the axehead. The former method allows for greater reach and safety for the user and increasing the length of the shaft to deliver greater force uses far less weight than trying to increase weight of the axehead itself. As for the design of the blade, a bladed weapon remains more versatile than a pickaxe style weapon. Linen, Riveted Mail and Scale armour were still the primary forms of body protection in the Viking and Norman eras and there was no need to concentrate striking force as precisely as a spike. While it would not likely pierce or cut through riveted mail, the transfer of force would easily be enough to break bones and cause extensive bruising. Hence the use of arming doublets underneath mail to absorb the concussive shock. It wasn't until later in the 14th and 15th century when full plate harness was common enough to warrant the use of spikes or narrow hammer surfaces as the force transfer mechanism to defeat angled plate and their ability to deflect blades. The move towards pollaxes as the knightly weapon of choice during this transition supports this.

Form follows function in warfare and it is unlikely that the knightly class in Europe also adopted the long axe as a primary battlefield weapon if it wasn't advantageous. The Bayeux tapestry shows the Normans knights, Viking descendants who had settled in the area in the 10th century, using axes over a hundred years after their residency began in Normandy. The duke of Normandy is depicted using it himself. It saw widespread use well after the Viking age as well according to the chronicles of Froissart. King John is recorded to have been captured at Poitiers with an axe in hand until he exhausted himself and could no longer fight. There is no way to "prove" that Axes were used because of mail armour of the period but all evidence points to the fact that swords and spears were increasingly ineffective against well-armoured professionals that dominated warfare in the middle ages. Their widespread adoption occurs as a time when riveted mail became uniform among the professional fighting class, the physics of how angular momentum works directly translates to why it would be used along with supporting historical accounts showing even Kings using these weapons in combat, and the subsequent evolution of the long axe into the family of weapons which we call pollaxes occurs right as plate harness, designed to defeat such bladed attacks via deflection, became common enough to warrant such an evolution.

In terms of gameplay logic, MVP is totally correct and repeating what we have pointed out repeatedly in the betas, it makes no sense for HW equipped units to derive advantage from their weapon vs more heavily armoured opponents and for a heavily armoured HW equipped unit to derive no advantage vs that same opponent.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Geffalrus » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:41 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:29 am
This is not true. A small blade fixed to a long pole allows the user the ability to leverage the length of the polearm for superior angular momentum and impart as much kinetic force as a heavier weapon of a shorter length. In fact, it is preferable from a weapon design standpoint to increase the distance of the axehead away from the user's hand first rather than increase the weight of the axehead.
Against mail, yes, but the point at which I entered the discussion, we were mostly talking about heavy weapons from centuries later, and in comparison, the Dane Axe is not as effective against solid metal plate as the mace and poleaxe.

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:52 am

Geffalrus wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:41 am
MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:29 am
This is not true. A small blade fixed to a long pole allows the user the ability to leverage the length of the polearm for superior angular momentum and impart as much kinetic force as a heavier weapon of a shorter length. In fact, it is preferable from a weapon design standpoint to increase the distance of the axehead away from the user's hand first rather than increase the weight of the axehead.
Against mail, yes, but the point at which I entered the discussion, we were mostly talking about heavy weapons from centuries later, and in comparison, the Dane Axe is not as effective against solid metal plate as the mace and poleaxe.
No, but you did respond directly to MVP who asked the question of why the long axe gained adoption if sword and spear were just fine. The long axe came into prevalence along with the rise of mail and declined as mail became superseded by plate. Hence the argument that the long axe was not used for anti-armour reasons because it was not good vs plate is not valid reasoning.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Geffalrus » Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:35 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:52 am
No, but you did respond directly to MVP who asked the question of why the long axe gained adoption if sword and spear were just fine. The long axe came into prevalence along with the rise of mail and declined as mail became superseded by plate. Hence the argument that the long axe was not used for anti-armour reasons because it was not good vs plate is not valid reasoning.
That's nice.

Anyway, I went back into my archives to find the video that I was thinking about when reading this thread originally. I remembered that it was lighter than expected, but had forgotten the subsequent discussion about effectiveness vs. mail. My bad. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjjrCQiuO0

He has since acquired a big ole dane axe and the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op7aIg1bBj4

And here he is talking about medieval use of axes, particularly their relationship with mail, which backs up Mike and MVP's fundamental point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LM-kBOw920

melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:22 am

I think about the heavy weapon - armor interaction through the periods, and think that there could be modeled as linear decreasing function through the ages.

Below is my another proposal of HW-armour interaction

Falx against armor - very good. Falx can smash Roman shields and segmentata, forcing Roman to adopt additional armor.

Late Medieval Polearm against armor - very poorly. The prevalent plate armor worn by DISMOUNTED knights can defend Halberd. But Halberd has the advantage against MOUNTED knight as it can hook the rider off.

So, from this model, Dane axe should be in between.

Hence, I am afraid we have to work HW armor-cancel effectiveness as a step-wise function for different time period.
For example, falx can cancel 3/4 armor advantage of Roman legionary, Dane axe can cancel 1/2 of Huscarl armor advantage, then Billman's Halberd can cancel 1/4 of dismounted knight armor advantage.

However, the worst part is that FOGII don't have armor type currently. So if we play anachronistically, we may find that Dacian falxman can effectively combat with Late Medieval knight while Late Medieval Billman has very little or none advantage over antiquity Romans.

However, I still prefer my previous proposal because it already has the trend that Roman armor has very small advantage against falx(i.e. falx negates more) and knight armor has much larger advantage against Halberd(Halberd negates less). The trend presents because the better armor value jumps more towards fully armored. Unprotected to protected- 50, protected to armored -50, armored to well armored -100, welll armored to fully armored -100.

****
Back to the question that how axe Huscarl has no advantage from axe when combating spear Huscarl. The problem lies that before Viking age, the HW is usually in the armor inferior's foot hand. So the rule is to let it cancel the armor advantage. However, if the situation flips, that armor heavy unit now wielding HW, what shall we do then?

In Viking Age, the question is not too difficult. If Huscarl equipped two-handed axe, I admit that it has the power of smashing shield and armor piercing, which I mark it as advantage. However, he also can't equip shield, which I mark as disadvantage. Thus the aggregate advantage could be null. Perhaps the better way to do is to downgrade two-handed axe huscarl's armor because of lacking shield. Then the logic of canceling armor advantage could pass too. For single-handed axe, I doubt it has the same power as two-handed one for armor negating. So it may not have advantage against spear Huscarl.

But if the question goes to the period that how about a fully armored guy equipping HW? In this period, we say late medieval, shield is not that important and plate armor can defend well. I don't know that I can say again that two-handed HW gives inferior armor level. But if considering the knight equipped single-handed weapon can still equip an extra much smaller shield, maybe we can?

If we always make two-handed HW unit's armor inferior (or slightly inferior, I prefer slightly and the armor can continuously change) to its spear counterpart, perhaps the problem could be solved. Or if we think they are just using single-handed axe(like the model in FOGII depicts), then we can forget that such single-handed weapon should have armor piercing power.
Last edited by melm on Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

vakarr
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:57 am
Contact:

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by vakarr » Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:42 am

The Thracians with rhomphaia are rated as "protected" because they have a large shield, a helmet, and greaves, not just because they have shield. Other troops (such as your average barbarian mountain infantry or Spanish infantry) have less armour and get the same rating. I think their morale should be upgraded to "above average" if the heavy weapon effect is downgraded, since under the current game system there doesn't seem to be much reason why you would use them in preference to spear or sword armed medium infantry. There's also no fun with them and no chance of getting huge factors and the Mayhem prize with them as I once did at one competition (for causing the most casualties in one round - 2hCW+JLS vs unshielded light infantry and I rolled up). That's why I chose to use the classical Thracians in the current tournament, they are only good for charging elephants in the flank.

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:03 am

melm wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:22 am
ILate Medieval Polearm against armor - very poorly. The prevalent plate armor worn by DISMOUNTED knights can defend Halberd. But Halberd has the advantage against MOUNTED knight as it can hook the rider off.
This is not remotely close to being true. If you were at Crecy or Verneuil as a dismounted man-at-arms or knight on the battle line, and about to contact opposing dismounted men in full plate harness, anything other than having a polearm at hand almost assuredly means you are dead meat. Full plate is so good at protecting an individual against cuts and thrusts that if you did not have a multipurpose weapon that could deliver extreme amounts of concussive force on a small area you had almost no chance at incapacitating your opponent. If you say you only had a sword, your only recourse would literally be half-swording and trying to stab the guy in the face once visors come up. Meanwhile, the guy with a standard 5.5 ft poleaxe can deliver effective concussive blows at several times the range that you could half-sword, use the axe or bill-hook end to grab onto your plate and pull you out of line, or defend against your thrusts the cue while swinging the head down to hook your legs and send you prone on the ground. The entire development of the poleaxe and longer reach polearm weapons like a billhook or halberd was precisely to allow a man to defeat an opponent in full plate.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:25 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:03 am
melm wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:22 am
ILate Medieval Polearm against armor - very poorly. The prevalent plate armor worn by DISMOUNTED knights can defend Halberd. But Halberd has the advantage against MOUNTED knight as it can hook the rider off.
This is not remotely close to being true. If you were at Crecy or Verneuil as a dismounted man-at-arms or knight on the battle line, and about to contact opposing dismounted men in full plate harness, anything other than having a polearm at hand almost assuredly means you are dead meat. Full plate is so good at protecting an individual against cuts and thrusts that if you did not have a multipurpose weapon that could deliver extreme amounts of concussive force on a small area you had almost no chance at incapacitating your opponent. If you say you only had a sword, your only recourse would literally be half-swording and trying to stab the guy in the face once visors come up. Meanwhile, the guy with a standard 5.5 ft poleaxe can deliver effective concussive blows at several times the range that you could half-sword, use the axe or bill-hook end to grab onto your plate and pull you out of line, or defend against your thrusts the cue while swinging the head down to hook your legs and send you prone on the ground. The entire development of the poleaxe and longer reach polearm weapons like a billhook or halberd was precisely to allow a man to defeat an opponent in full plate.
It is RBS who doesn't want the dismounted knight's armor fully negated by billman's HW. And I say HW in Late Medieval is not as good as HW in antiquity age to smash armor. You statement also didn't say that HW in Late Medieval Age can smash or pierce armor like falx did but using other Halberd-ship ways to counter the knight. Which one is better presenting armor negating, smashing or hooking?

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:17 am

melm wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:25 am
And I say HW in Late Medieval is not as good as HW in antiquity age to smash armor.
How do you know that though? How do you define "not as good as?" Here is what I know. Falxs did not come to dominate the Classical era. The Romans didn't immediately switch weapons when they encountered the Thracians and Dacians. They still used the swords and spears right through to the Norman/Viking age. What I also do know is that plate armour was so good in Europe by the 14th century that no one carried a sword or spear anymore as a primary weapon by that era. But who cares when there is a logic hole in the game that you can drive a truck through right now.

Which is why I said that worrying about "better or worse" or unit balance right now is putting the cart before the horse. Right now we have a unit capability called Heavy Weapon which has its own set of PoA interactions with everything else and has the defining characteristic of removing any armour bonus an opponent has. We have pointed out there is an obvious logical inconsistency with this game mechanic which used to be academic until WatG which manifests itself in the form of the naked HW Irishman somehow deriving a bonus using a Heavy Weapon vs an armored Huscarl by robbing him of his armour bonus while an HW armoured Huscarl vs a non-HW counterpart does not! How can this be? Either the HW is useful vs armour or it is not. It cannot be both. This mechanic is not logically or mechanically coherent in its current form. If we were to accept a definition that HW capability is awarded to units that carry in part or in total, weapons specifically superior to defeating armour common to its era vis a vis other common weapons fielded at the time then there is no reason for the current anomaly that has been described to exist at all.

So lets come up with an HW mechanic that is logically and mechanically coherent *first* and then *work backward* and fiddle with the PoA knobs and units stats to ensure things like Thracians vs Hoplites or Legionaries are correct or within the historical margin for error and/or remove HW capabilities from units that no longer meet the new definition of the mechanic. While we should definitely look at history and examine the "arms race" so to speak between weapons and armour, we also have to accept the fact that there will be a lot of conjecture because records are scarce and battles tend to be rare in history especially in the area of weapon and armour interaction. We have to rely on modern replicas and all the data points to the fact that if you were carrying an arming sword or a longsword as a primary weapon in the late medieval battlefield, you were essentially obsolete. I have seen videos of replica falxs puncturing through riveted mail but it feels nothing like the disparity between heavy weapons vs non-heavy weapons in the mid to late medieval setting.

If a flat -Armour rating penalty is unappealing, or you want a more granular system, maybe on the grounds that there are diminishing returns (ie. Having a poleax vs a man in full plate is a far bigger boost than having a poleax vs a man in regular mail and arming doublet) then you could have a fractional multiplier on the opponent's armour rating instead then. IE. Poleax (really really good at beating armour vis a vis a sword) can be defined as an 80% Heavy Weapon and it robs their opponent of 80% of their armour rating before the comparison in armour levels occurs. A danish huscarl with a one-handed axe and shield might have 20% HW capability and only rob their opponent of 20% of their armour prior to comparison for PoA bonuses. That way Heavy Weapons aren't just universally good at slaughtering everyone and players will want to target high armoured opposition units and leave lower armoured units to lesser units.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:19 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:17 am
I wish you'd better read all paragraphs before glancing at one sentence then start attacking. It's the basic forum courtesy. I don't expect any TLDR in this forum. You quote my post, so I do regard it as you are questioning which I've already given my point, not questioning someone else or general rhetorical question.

Now it sounds like that you are attacking me and stating falx is not more effective than halberd. Then you state halberd is effective against plate armor. What's your point? HW is effective against armor is already the current logic in FOGII. So what, repeating such logic? If you are stating anomaly for Axe Huscarl, I've already given my point. If you are stating the late Medieval mechanism, this is what RBS wants to change. I don't see any meaningful attack in your statement except some proposal in the last sentences.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22425
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:59 am

Thanks for all the suggestions. I am reading them and digesting them.

We don't want to reduce the protection value of Protected or Armoured units with HW because they mostly do carry shields, and only sling them on their backs for close combat, so should get full protection vs archery.

-----------------------------------------------

Here is what I am currently moving towards (though this may change).

1) HW removes 75% of enemy armour advantage.

plus

2) If armour is equal and both units are Armoured or more heavily protected, then the unit with HW gets +25 POA vs unit without. [We are not prone to small variations in armour rating at the higher levels of armour in the vanilla game, so we probably don't need a pro-rata POA value for units that are almost but not quite the same armour rating, but that could be done if necessary]

We need to think through all the possible historical matchups to see if the above proposal creates any anomalies.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”