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.
melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:01 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
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.

How much the HW Huscarl will be affected by shooting if its armor value goes from 100 to 90? I pure guess is not much. If HW Huscarl's armor is 90. Follow 75% rule, POA for HW Huscarl is 1.25 POA. Negligible. We can assume HW huscarl and spear huscarl about the same. Or do we deliberately want to make HW huscarl better than spear Huscarl? Or you don't want to have a unit labeled as 'armoured' but has 90 armor value instead of 100? I feel 25 POA is not a small number.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:41 am

melm wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:01 am
Or do we deliberately want to make HW huscarl better than spear Huscarl?
That is what some people appear to want. The issue won't affect the Medieval period much, as contemporary dismounted knights mostly used the same weaponry as each other. (And the design philosophy is not to try to make anachronistic matchups work "realistically" - if people choose to play anachronistic matchups it is fantasy anyway, so realism is moot). There is, however, a period when dismounted Swabian knights used HW while others would still be using spear.
I feel 25 POA is not a small number.
It doesn't have to be 25 POA, it could be as little as 10 POA. I am not especially sold on the idea that Axe armed huscarls had an advantage vs spear armed huscarls. As it is in doubt, 10 POA might be enough to satisfy those crying out for some advantage without needing any rebalancing.

It would of course be simpler (and hence more elegant) not to bother with this at all, as Armoured (or more heavily protected) troops of equal armour and quality with one side armed with HW and the other with Spear rarely met historically. But we do have the 950-1016 Saxons vs the Vikings, and also Scots thegns vs Vikings. Also Swabians vs other dismounted knights in the 11th-13th centuries.

So 10 POA as a nod to the theorists would be tenable.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:15 pm

I'd be perfectly happy with the 10 POA advantage in armoured-vs-armoured situations :).

The 75% armour reduction still sounds like quite a lot to me though. For example it would lower Well-Armoured unit's POA advantage vs Protected HW unit from 50 to 12.5 which seems like a huge drop. Would a halberd or a poleaxe alone turn plate armour from being a huge factor into a pretty small one just like that? Maybe 50% or 66% reduction to armour could be considered?

@RBS, For a point of reference, could you tell what armour ratings some 15th-16th century units would have?

>Mounted/Dismounted knight in full plate (Is there a difference between mounted and dismounted armour rating?)
>Infantryman in brigandine and heavy additional armour (From the heavy end of European mercenaries)
>Infantryman in brigandine, helmet and little else (Fairly light by European standards)
>Infantryman with shield, helmet and little to no other armour (Still heavy rather than light infantry, Militias, Indian foot etc)
>Persian/Turkish cavalryman in partial coat of plates or reinforced mail (Most of middle east and Asia seems to have stuck to this level)

Are the "Some-Armour" and "Well-Armoured" levels going to be used more often, so that relatively larger part of all units would be higher in the armour spectrum, or would the standards be raised so that a infantryman with a brigandine and helmet would only qualify as protected for example?

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:44 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:15 pm
I'd be perfectly happy with the 10 POA advantage in armoured-vs-armoured situations :).

The 75% armour reduction still sounds like quite a lot to me though. For example it would lower Well-Armoured unit's POA advantage vs Protected HW unit from 50 to 12.5 which seems like a huge drop. Would a halberd or a poleaxe alone turn plate armour from being a huge factor into a pretty small one just like that? Maybe 50% or 66% reduction to armour could be considered?
Note that the proposal is not a 75% armour reduction, but a 75% reduction in armour advantage. (As opposed to 100% with the present rules)
@RBS, For a point of reference, could you tell what armour ratings some 15th-16th century units would have?
Well we don't plan to do 16th century, so that is moot.

For 15th century:

Mercenary/retinue billmen/halberdiers - BodyArmour 100 (Armoured)
Militia billmen/halberdiers - 50 (Protected)
Galloglaigh - 50 (Protected)
Swiss halberdiers - 50 (Protected)
Dismounted Men-at-Arms - 300 (Fully Armoured)

So dismounted men-at-arms vs retinue billmen would have a gross armour advantage of 200, reduced by 75% by the enemy HW to 50, which is still 25 POA armour advantage. (The maximum armour advantage POA is 50 anyway, so their actual net armour advantage POA is reduced by only 50% - instead of 100% with the current rules).

The dismounted men-at-arms will usually be superior, the retinue billmen average, so overall the dismounted men-at-arms will have a 75 POA advantage (instead of 50 POA with the current rules).
would the standards be raised so that a infantryman with a brigandine and helmet would only qualify as protected for example?
The standards will be raised. You also have to be aware that Osprey-style books tend to show the men in the best armour (because they look cooler), and not the average standard of armour for typical contemporary units.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:52 pm

Thanks. I presume lot of the non-European units like the Turkish/Persian heavy cavalry* would only be rated Armoured? Will very lightly armoured units with mainly a shield for protection (that would have qualified as protected in earlier periods) be rated unarmoured even if they remain heavy/medium infantry or would all such units generally becomes mobs or light infantry?

* edit. If you have Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages Vol. 2 at hand, what I mean are basically units like the ones in drawings 8, 9, 17 and 32.

SnuggleBunnies
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:22 pm

Hmm I guess I'm not sure how I feel about giving HW an advantage over similarly armored Spears from a unit to unit standpoint -

1) Did separately deployed units of mostly axemen even exist? Or were they always an attention grabbing minority of a largely spear armed unit? I'm thinking about the Spear armed Huskarls vs Axe armed Huskarls.

2) Giving Thracians a 10POA advantage over Average Hoplites would perhaps make it so that using Thracians in the Open vs Hoplites is not a bad idea... which would seem weird, yes?

Maybe the weirdness comes from the fact that Spear and Heavy are of equal POA; when I originally made my point about similarly armored units I had been thinking about the interaction with Swordsmen.

Would a cost increase for HW be in order, as they would now have the advantage over similarly equipped Spears? Or not, as they would be at less of an advantage than they are now vs more heavily armored foes, making it a wash?

...lots of moving parts here.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:29 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:52 pm
Thanks. I presume lot of the non-European units like the Turkish/Persian heavy cavalry* would only be rated Armoured? Will very lightly armoured units with mainly a shield for protection (that would have qualified as protected in earlier periods) be rated unarmoured even if they remain heavy/medium infantry or would all such units generally becomes mobs or light infantry?

* edit. If you have Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages Vol. 2 at hand, what I mean are basically units like the ones in drawings 8, 9, 17 and 32.
Mostly these would be Armoured (100). Some guard units might be armour 150.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:32 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:22 pm
Hmm I guess I'm not sure how I feel about giving HW an advantage over similarly armored Spears from a unit to unit standpoint -
Hi Jack. I thought you were one of the ones asking for it. I did not know you meant vs swordsmen.
1) Did separately deployed units of mostly axemen even exist? Or were they always an attention grabbing minority of a largely spear armed unit? I'm thinking about the Spear armed Huskarls vs Axe armed Huskarls.
Valid point.
2) Giving Thracians a 10POA advantage over Average Hoplites would perhaps make it so that using Thracians in the Open vs Hoplites is not a bad idea... which would seem weird, yes?
They wouldn't get it anyway, because they are not Armoured.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:32 pm

Thanks, that sounds good! About the 75% reduction:
rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:44 pm
Note that the proposal is not a 75% armour reduction, but a 75% reduction in armour advantage. (As opposed to 100% with the present rules)
I did take that into consideration: (150 - 50)*0.25 = 25 armour => 12.5 POA. For Armoured vs Protected HW it would turn 25 POA advantage to 6.25 advantage which is pretty unnoticeable. If armor made such a small difference against the contemporary weapons then why would anyone have bothered up-armouring?

Gameplay-wise, Raw/Below-Average infantry is very cost efficient even without heavy weapons. If they also reduce armour advantage to negligible level, they would become even more cost efficient as the better units would be paying premium for their largely pointless armor rating (crossbows, longbows and guns are also going to be ignoring it). Heavy weapons are going to be very prominent in the late medieval so leaving the anti-armour effect too high will still make armour practically non-factor in most melees where it matters.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:36 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:32 pm
Thanks, that sounds good! About the 75% reduction:
rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:44 pm
Note that the proposal is not a 75% armour reduction, but a 75% reduction in armour advantage. (As opposed to 100% with the present rules)
I did take that into consideration: (150 - 50)*0.25 = 25 armour => 12.5 POA. For Armoured vs Protected HW it would turn 25 POA advantage to 6.25 advantage which is pretty unnoticeable. If armor made such a small difference against the contemporary weapons then why would anyone have bothered up-armouring?

Gameplay-wise, Raw/Below-Average infantry is very cost efficient even without heavy weapons. If they also reduce armour advantage to negligible level, they would become even more cost efficient as the better units would be paying premium for their largely pointless armor rating (crossbows, longbows and guns are also going to be ignoring it). Heavy weapons are going to be very prominent in the late medieval so leaving the anti-armour effect too high will still make armour practically non-factor in most melees where it matters.
But the only melee where it really matters is retinue billmen (or equivalent) vs men-at-arms.

This 150 - 50 case barely exists.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:48 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:22 pm
Would a cost increase for HW be in order, as they would now have the advantage over similarly equipped Spears? Or not, as they would be at less of an advantage than they are now vs more heavily armored foes, making it a wash?
With the reduced armour negation the HW are going to be losing a large part of their current power. Their base cost is already fairly high and without the suggested armoured-vs-armoured benefit the armoured units gain little to no benefit from the weapon (against cavalry they would be better off with spears).

The added POA advantage for armoured+ merely evens out the cost and benefit of heavy weapons for lightly and heavily armoured troops. The massive and unrealistic benefit gained by Unarmoured/Protected troops will be reduced and and the armoured troops who rarely get to benefit from the advantage-negation will get at least a some benefit against armoured units.

Rather than asking why Dane Axe armed Huscarls should have any advantage over spear armed Huscarls, you should ask why wouldn't they if unarmoured Irishmen get such a massive benefit from the using Dane Axes against spear (or axe) Armed Huscarls.

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:51 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:36 pm
But the only melee where it really matters is retinue billmen (or equivalent) vs men-at-arms.

This 150 - 50 case barely exists.
Yes, but the 75% reduction would still make armour rating extremely small factor in Late Medieval battles. The cost of armour would still remain the same so Late medieval units would be basically throwing away points in armour for minimal returns.

edit. Which naturally buffs the cheap spam units with heavy weapons and little armour.

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:41 pm

Since the interaction between Spear Huscarls and HW Huscarls seems to be such a major hang-up for many, here's some food for thought from the game:

Historically Huscarls used spears first and only later adopted Dane Axes in large numbers. In game the HW armed and Offensive Spear armed Huscarls have the same cost.

In the game there are two units that the HW Huscarls have an advantage against compared to spears: Varangian Guards and Klibanophoroi, both are low availability units from the Byzantine list. The only other advantage for HW is (if I have understood correctly) that they don't outright lose their weapon POA when fragmented (and let's be honest, that has little to no value).

There are countless units that the Heavy Weapon armed Huscarls are worse against: On impact, spear armed Huscarls have better odds against any shock cavalry which is common in this time period. In melee against cavalry other than the Klibanophoroi the spear armed Huscarls have massive advantage over the HW Huscarls (Against superior armoured horse the odds of winning are around 72% vs 32%). Unlike Spearmen, HW have no advantage against Swordsmen.

TL;DR: Heavy Weapon armed huscarls are objectively worse than the spear armed huscarls. They lose their edge against the widespread shock cavalry and are only better against couple extremely rare units. After the anti-armour effect is decreased to more sensible level, even the advantage against Klibanophoroi will be gone and the advantage against Varangians reduced.

If Dane Axes really were such worthless garbage, why would the Norse have ever started using them over spears? Is the miniscule 10 POA advantage against armoured spearwalls really too much to ask?

If someone is really still hung-up on the 10 POA advantage, then how about this: Make it so that the 10 POA advantage only applies if unit has 100% heavy weapons. Make the Dane Axe armed Huscarls 50% Spearmen, 50% Heavy Weapons for half the armour negation and no equal armour bonus. This will make the HW Huscarls only slightly worse unit than the older spear Huscarls.

---

Honestly the entire premise of this discussion feels insane to me. The presumption that "Heavy Weapons" are some magical weapons that turn any armour that is better than the wielders armor into paper mache, while providing no benefit whatsoever for someone wearing similar armour, is outright ludicrous.

Unless there's some "actual evidence" of the magical relativity of heavy weapons that I'm not aware of, it seems like the original anti-armour effect of -100% armour was just tabletop convenience more than a result of some historical dynamic.

In that context I really don't understand why we have to fight and argue tooth and nail for every little concession to the obviously bonkers original 100% armor advantage reduction that is not only nonsensical from realism point of view but also a nightmare to balance with the systematic unit pricing that is used in FoG2.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:56 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:41 pm
Since the interaction between Spear Huscarls and HW Huscarls seems to be such a major hang-up for many, here's some food for thought from the game:

Historically Huscarls used spears first and only later adopted Dane Axes in large numbers. In game the HW armed and Offensive Spear armed Huscarls have the same cost.

In the game there are two units that the HW Huscarls have an advantage against compared to spears: Varangian Guards and Klibanophoroi, both are low availability units from the Byzantine list. The only other advantage for HW is (if I have understood correctly) that they don't outright lose their weapon POA when fragmented (and let's be honest, that has little to no value).

There are countless units that the Heavy Weapon armed Huscarls are worse against: On impact, spear armed Huscarls have better odds against any shock cavalry which is common in this time period. In melee against cavalry other than the Klibanophoroi the spear armed Huscarls have massive advantage over the HW Huscarls (Against superior armoured horse the odds of winning are around 72% vs 32%). Unlike Spearmen, HW have no advantage against Swordsmen.

TL;DR: Heavy Weapon armed huscarls are objectively worse than the spear armed huscarls. They lose their edge against the widespread shock cavalry and are only better against couple extremely rare units. After the anti-armour effect is decreased to more sensible level, even the advantage against Klibanophoroi will be gone and the advantage against Varangians reduced.

If Dane Axes really were such worthless garbage, why would the Norse have ever started using them over spears? Is the miniscule 10 POA advantage against armoured spearwalls really too much to ask?

If someone is really still hung-up on the 10 POA advantage, then how about this: Make it so that the 10 POA advantage only applies if unit has 100% heavy weapons. Make the Dane Axe armed Huscarls 50% Spearmen, 50% Heavy Weapons for half the armour negation and no equal armour bonus. This will make the HW Huscarls only slightly worse unit than the older spear Huscarls.

---

Honestly the entire premise of this discussion feels insane to me. The presumption that "Heavy Weapons" are some magical weapons that turn any armour that is better than the wielders armor into paper mache, while providing no benefit whatsoever for someone wearing similar armour, is outright ludicrous.

Unless there's some "actual evidence" of the magical relativity of heavy weapons that I'm not aware of, it seems like the original anti-armour effect of -100% armour was just tabletop convenience more than a result of some historical dynamic.

In that context I really don't understand why we have to fight and argue tooth and nail for every little concession to the obviously bonkers original 100% armor advantage reduction that is not only nonsensical from realism point of view but also a nightmare to balance with the systematic unit pricing that is used in FoG2.
There are too many points to go over so I’ll just say this is kind why I suggested maybe just ditch the armour negation completely, adjust the hw poa’s slightly if needed, but certainly cause a - cohesion modifier to any unit losing to a hw in melee. ( maybe impact too)? Thus Armoured hw get the better armour poa vs lesser armoured hw, and all hw troops get a “ unique “ bonus that only impact foot and Lancers get in impact...

Doesn’t seem like theres much interest in possible solutions other than armour negation in some shape or form, so this will be my last “brainstorm” on this topic ;)

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:25 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:41 pm
In that context I really don't understand why we have to fight and argue tooth and nail for every little concession to the obviously bonkers original 100% armor advantage reduction that is not only nonsensical from realism point of view but also a nightmare to balance with the systematic unit pricing that is used in FoG2.
There is no need to get stroppy or be rude. Don't forget that I started this thread myself, so I am hardly closed to discussion.

The rules are as they currently are because that is how they were in the tabletop rules (mainly for simplicity) and in FOG1.

At this stage, any change to those rules merits proper discussion, and the first idea to be suggested is seldom the best, nor is one person the repository of all wisdom.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:11 pm

Revisiting memories from Fog1, I don’t recall hw’ s generating much controversy. I guess perhaps because there was no Viking dlc. Vikings causing mischief once again. Haha.

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 » Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:48 pm

I'm not trying to be rude, sorry if I came across more strongly than I meant. I'm just trying to point out that there's really no reason to threat the current HW implementation as some default value.

For example, there hasn't been a single piece of actual evidence that would point to heavy weapons being perfectly equal to spears either. Meanwhile the the emergence of Dane Axe and it's correlation with spread of mail and lack of better explanations is completely disregarded because there's no evidence.

It's accepted without a question that Irish Lumberjacks are just as effective against Protected Hirdsmen and Armoured Huscarls (and they still pretty much would be with 75% reduction). At the same time 10 POA token advantage for the objectively inferior HW Hirdsmen over earlier and overall superior Spear Hirdsmen is scrutinized extremely.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:09 pm

Everything is scrutinized extremely when it comes to changing rules 2 years after release. And whatever goes in will be tested in beta. And only then will it go live.

So there is plenty of time for discussion and no need to rush to a decision.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

oscarius
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by oscarius » Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 am

Anything to make Rhomphaia less garbage. Worse unit for cost in the game hands down. Loses to significantly cheaper medium foot and still too poor quality/armour to take on any sort of cavalry unless defending on rough terrain or flanking (but again this is just as true of medium foot that cost 10 points less). I'd argue making them significantly cheaper as I (and other players using Thracians I've noticed) never take any beyond the mandatory single unit. Just plain flat out bad.

Likewise Axe Huscarls are worse than Spear Huscarls in 99% of conceivable situations (I'd been reflecting on this lately and see MPV7 reached the same conclusion). Maybe make them a point or two cheaper? I still tend to take them just because you -need- high quality infantry to create opportunities for your shieldwalls. But they're so well-armoured that the heavy weapon bonus almost never comes into play anyway..

Falxmen seem about right. Can give legions a run for their money and fend off most cavalry but easy to shoot up due to their complete lack of armour. I've gotten good results out of them (though they also force you to take the offensive as you don't want them stationary in a battleline getting turned into pin-cushions) and also found ways to deal with them when facing them.

Haven't played as or against the Irish much so I won't comment on them.

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by edb1815 » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:21 pm

oscarius wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 am
Anything to make Rhomphaia less garbage. Worse unit for cost in the game hands down. Loses to significantly cheaper medium foot and still too poor quality/armour to take on any sort of cavalry unless defending on rough terrain or flanking (but again this is just as true of medium foot that cost 10 points less). I'd argue making them significantly cheaper as I (and other players using Thracians I've noticed) never take any beyond the mandatory single unit. Just plain flat out bad.
Isn't the main point of the Rhomphaia unit to face off against more heavily armored Roman infantry? I am not disagreeing with you as the benefit for HW armed Thracians is limited - I only take more than the minium if the enemy fields armored infantry units and that is not often.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”