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.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:33 am

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:53 am
If we don't want to change too much the current mechanism, but allow a little armour advantage, I suggest to cancel 3/4 current armour value first,i.e. 75%, before puting armour into POA calculation. Currently, we cancel 100%. I think of canceling three quarters, instead of 50%, because it is closer to our current in-game unit performance without needing too many price changing.

So to answer the concern between Roman Legionary and Falxman, Irish Axeman and Huscarl.
1. Roman Legionary armour 150(as RBS said) vs Falxman armour 0, difference is 150. Falx cancels 3/4, giving Roman legionary 37.5 armour advantage, then half that giving 18.75 POA advantage. We can round it to 19 POA. Although it may not reach RBS's desire 25 POA, it gives Roman legionary a little edge than before in armour.
2. Irish Axeman vs Huscarl's case is about the same. The armour difference is 100, quarter it to 25, then half it. The result is 12.5 POA advantage.

The case between Dismounted Knight vs Retinue Billman. I don't know Billman's armour level. Suppose it is protected like Thureophoroi.
3. Dismounted Knight (300 armour) vs Billman(50 armour). Difference is 250, quarter it to 62.6, half it to 31.25 POA. Then Knight's armour offers it's master about 31 POA in advantage. I don't know whether people are happy with this result or not.

For the Hoplites vs Thracian Rhomphaia case,
4. The Hoplites and Thracian Rhomphaia has the same armour level. Difference is zero. So not change.

Correct me if I am wrong. I recall that we have already made the armour cheaper in the previous patches. We don't need to make armour very effective again against the armour price reduction change already done.

If we think cancel 3/4 is too much, we can try cancel 3/5,
cancel 100%
armour POA = 0 * armour difference

cancel 75%
armour POA = 1/8 * armour difference

cancel 60%
armour POA = 1/5 * armour difference

cancel 50%
armour POA = 1/4 * armour difference
That looks pretty good, though not offering the axe-armed huscarls any advantage vs spear armed ones. But we have no evidence that they really did have an advantage, and as has already been pointed out, the units weren't all axemen anyway. If you look at the list intros in the game you will see that HW units are ones with a majority of axemen, and vice versa. And we definitely don't want to give Thracians an advantage over hoplites.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:42 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:33 am
That looks pretty good, though not offering the axe-armed huscarls any advantage vs spear armed ones. But we have no evidence that they really did have an advantage, and as has already been pointed out, the units weren't all axemen anyway. If you look at the list intros in the game you will see that HW units are ones with a majority of axemen, and vice versa. And we definitely don't want to give Thracians an advantage over hoplites.
Axe may have advantage over very long spear or pike because axe can chop off the tips of the spear. Praecapta Militaria says to let Menavltoi protect skoutatoi's spear not getting chopped off by Kataphractoi. But I think there is no way that sword can't do the same job. So if we don't have the sword advantage over the spear, then I can let axe be so.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:47 am

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:42 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:33 am
That looks pretty good, though not offering the axe-armed huscarls any advantage vs spear armed ones. But we have no evidence that they really did have an advantage, and as has already been pointed out, the units weren't all axemen anyway. If you look at the list intros in the game you will see that HW units are ones with a majority of axemen, and vice versa. And we definitely don't want to give Thracians an advantage over hoplites.
Axe may have advantage over very long spear or pike because axe can chop off the tips of the spear. Praecapta Militaria says to let Menavltoi protect skoutatoi's spear not getting chopped off by Kataphractoi. But I think there is no way that sword can't do the same job. So if we don't have the sword advantage over the spear, then I can let axe be so.
HW already has that advantage (relative to swords) vs spears in that although shorter than spears, it does not get a reduced effect vs steady spears. Precisely because of the above.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 605
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 1:04 pm

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:42 am
Axe may have advantage over very long spear or pike because axe can chop off the tips of the spear. Praecapta Militaria says to let Menavltoi protect skoutatoi's spear not getting chopped off by Kataphractoi. But I think there is no way that sword can't do the same job. So if we don't have the sword advantage over the spear, then I can let axe be so.
Neither an axe nor a sword is going to chop off a spear head unless that spear is fully braced against the ground or something solid. A held spear will have to much give simply because the wielder will let their hand move slightly and that dissipates the kinetic force of the sword/axe below what is needed to cut through solid wood. Maybe if the spear was swung like a baseball bat and there was a direct hit from the axe/sword swinging in the opposite direction, then yeah, the spear shaft might receive enough concentrated kinetic energy for it to break in some fashion. But since most spears are jabbed/stabbed, not swung, that's a moot point.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 605
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 1:07 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:25 am
Why?

(Historical evidence not gut feeling)
Because if the HW is capable of piercing armor more effectively than the spear, then every strike against armor can hurt the spear wielder, unlike when the spear hits the armor of the HW wielder.

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:14 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:04 pm
melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:42 am
Axe may have advantage over very long spear or pike because axe can chop off the tips of the spear. Praecapta Militaria says to let Menavltoi protect skoutatoi's spear not getting chopped off by Kataphractoi. But I think there is no way that sword can't do the same job. So if we don't have the sword advantage over the spear, then I can let axe be so.
Neither an axe nor a sword is going to chop off a spear head unless that spear is fully braced against the ground or something solid. A held spear will have to much give simply because the wielder will let their hand move slightly and that dissipates the kinetic force of the sword/axe below what is needed to cut through solid wood. Maybe if the spear was swung like a baseball bat and there was a direct hit from the axe/sword swinging in the opposite direction, then yeah, the spear shaft might receive enough concentrated kinetic energy for it to break in some fashion. But since most spears are jabbed/stabbed, not swung, that's a moot point.
You'd better discuss it moot or not with Nikephoros Phokas. :wink:

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MVP7 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:19 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)
Axe armed Huscarls had an advantage over similarly armoured spear equipped Huscarls. Late medieval Knights/Men-at-arms fighting on foot against similarly armoured opponents used "heavy weapons" instead of swords or spears.

If it's specifically the protected and worse armoured units that you mean then I think shields are a key consideration here. "Heavy weapons" generally can't be used with a shield in hand while swords and shields are usually used with a shield. By downgrading the armour of HW units that still rely heavily on shields (like the Thracians who have little armour other than a helm) the current balance can be maintained for ancient units.

HW units like medieval Men-at-arms could be wearing armour from head to toe (including brigandine and other highly protective bits) and so would gain relatively little additional protection from using a shield instead of HW. This means a Man-at-arms with and without HW could both be rated as armoured without it being inconsistent.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:07 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:25 am
Why?

(Historical evidence not gut feeling)
Because if the HW is capable of piercing armor more effectively than the spear, then every strike against armor can hurt the spear wielder, unlike when the spear hits the armor of the HW wielder.
This is a prime example of how "bottom up" considerations can easily distort rules. What you say may be true, but it takes no account of the countervailing advantages of spear and shield.

A "top down" set of rules (such as FOG) attempts to avoid such distortions based on theoretical considerations, and needs actual historical evidence that overall in a fight between armoured axemen and armoured spearmen, the axemen had the advantage.
MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:19 pm
Axe armed Huscarls had an advantage over similarly armoured spear equipped Huscarls.
Based on what historical evidence?
Late medieval Knights/Men-at-arms fighting on foot against similarly armoured opponents used "heavy weapons" instead of swords or spears.
This is true of the 15th century, but up until the mid to late 14th century, dismounted knights often used spears. So if your argument holds true, it does not really hold true until the development of full plate armour.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Strategiusz
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:46 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Strategiusz » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:02 pm

For me the Armour Advantage bonus is not intuitive. It should be just a plain Armour bonus for each unit instead of just one bonus for unit with a better armour.
And after that change it would be possible to add a trait for weapon that will reduce opponent's armour points or level.
Maybe there should be two types of heavy weapon: short heavy weapon (one handed) and long heavy weapon (two handed). Because two handed an longer weapon can hit very hard. (I think I am a fan of from bottom to top design XD).

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 605
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 3:18 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm
This is a prime example of how "bottom up" considerations can easily distort rules. What you say may be true, but it takes no account of the countervailing advantages of spear and shield.

A "top down" set of rules (such as FOG) attempts to avoid such distortions based on theoretical considerations, and needs actual historical evidence that overall in a fight between armoured axemen and armoured spearmen, the axemen had the advantage.
Which is why if you actually addressed my rhomphaia comment, you'd see that I think some weapons that are considered heavy weapons currently in the game should instead be classified as Impact/Sword.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 605
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 3:20 pm

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:14 pm
You'd better discuss it moot or not with Nikephoros Phokas. :wink:
I just thing people are conflating woodcutting axes with war axes, when the two are designed quite differently.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:22 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:20 pm
melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:14 pm
You'd better discuss it moot or not with Nikephoros Phokas. :wink:
I just thing people are conflating woodcutting axes with war axes, when the two are designed quite differently.
It isn't even known what exactly the weapon carried by menavlatoi was.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:24 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:18 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm
This is a prime example of how "bottom up" considerations can easily distort rules. What you say may be true, but it takes no account of the countervailing advantages of spear and shield.

A "top down" set of rules (such as FOG) attempts to avoid such distortions based on theoretical considerations, and needs actual historical evidence that overall in a fight between armoured axemen and armoured spearmen, the axemen had the advantage.
Which is why if you actually addressed my rhomphaia comment, you'd see that I think some weapons that are considered heavy weapons currently in the game should instead be classified as Impact/Sword.
I did read and note your comment. There are certainly differences between rhomphaia and some other weapons classified as "heavy weapon", but grading them as Impact Foot, Swordsmen would simply iron them out of the fabric of the game, as many of the armies that have them already have warbands.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Strategiusz
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:46 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Strategiusz » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:26 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:20 pm
I just thing people are conflating woodcutting axes with war axes, when the two are designed quite differently.
I think it is even worse. People think that axes, hammers and swords from RPG games and illustrations are a real thing.

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by melm » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:46 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:20 pm
melm wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:14 pm
You'd better discuss it moot or not with Nikephoros Phokas. :wink:
I just thing people are conflating woodcutting axes with war axes, when the two are designed quite differently.
Well. My point is that we don't need to make axe better than spear although it MIGHT be better(from the description in Praecepta Militaria. Nikephoros talks about the enemy's kataphractoi can smash the spears of skoutatoi. What can a kataphractoi rider use? Mace or Lance of course can't smash the spear. Then only sword or axe can do) because axe is already better than sword when used against spear.
Last edited by melm on Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nosy_Rat
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Nosy_Rat » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:50 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:24 pm
I did read and note your comment. There are certainly differences between rhomphaia and some other weapons classified as "heavy weapon", but grading them as Impact Foot, Swordsmen would simply iron them out of the fabric of the game, as many of the armies that have them already have warbands.
If anything, it would iron out warbands. 42 point maneuverable medium foot (scutarii, dailami) are just so much better than warbands.

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by MVP7 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm
MVP7 wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:19 pm
Axe armed Huscarls had an advantage over similarly armoured spear equipped Huscarls.
Based on what historical evidence?
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.
Late medieval Knights/Men-at-arms fighting on foot against similarly armoured opponents used "heavy weapons" instead of swords or spears.
This is true of the 15th century, but up until the mid to late 14th century, dismounted knights often used spears. So if your argument holds true, it does not really hold true until the development of full plate armour.
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. If this advantage is true with both 10th century and 15th century armour then why would it not be in between? It's not like the dismounted knights before 15th century never used heavy weapons and not all their opponent's would be on foot.

It wasn't only the plate armoured knights who shifted to using heavy weapons either. Less armoured infantry started using heavy weapons as well. Most of their opponents would be similarly well armoured but not quite in full plate. If the main reason was fighting against better armoured knights/men-at-arms who would often fight on horseback, then why would they switch from spears that we presume to be better against mounted opponents? The logical explanation seems to be that the heavy weapons offered advantage against similarly armoured opponents.

If we maintain the presumption that the wide category or "Heavy weapons" primarily offered an advantage against armour, then why would that advantage suddenly get completely negated in a fight between two equally armoured opponents where only one side is using heavy weapons? I think a better question is, why wouldn't it offer an advantage over a weapon that is less effective against armour?

Personally I think it would be best to establish a set of rules that works best in the medieval times where heavy weapons are most prominent. It's easier to individually adjust the rare heavy weapons of ancient times to interact correctly with their contemporaries than it is to try and come up with a rule set that works perfectly for both the ancient and medieval "heavy weapons".

Gaznak
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by Gaznak » Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:16 pm

It does seem a little out of character that the reason I take thracians is mostly to defend hilltops, since they don't pursue.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 605
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 5:23 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:24 pm
I did read and note your comment. There are certainly differences between rhomphaia and some other weapons classified as "heavy weapon", but grading them as Impact Foot, Swordsmen would simply iron them out of the fabric of the game, as many of the armies that have them already have warbands.
So? Spanish armies have Scutari (a unit that this new Thracian would currently resemble) - and - warbands. Impact Thracians would still be fairly distinct from loose order warbands for two reasons:

1) They'd cost less.

2) The warbands are unmaneuverable.

Impact Thracians would be a more cost effective flanking/rough terrain unit than loose order warbands, but a less potent frontal charge unit. So the player has situations where one or the other makes more sense.

Furthermore, the Thracian Rhomphaia already overlap heavily with either Thureos Spears (in Diadochi armies) and Thracian Spears in the Thracian Triballi army. The units are functionally identical except that the spears are better in most cases, the exceptions being when facing Thorakitai (a rather rare unit) and Cataphracts.

z1812z
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 9:29 pm

Re: Heavy Weapon anti-armour effect revamp

Post by z1812z » Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:32 pm

Bladeheart wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:32 pm

As the various points in the posts above have been raised I do wonder what is the definition of Heavy Weapon and, given that we are discussing the late Dark Age, Feudal and beyond, whether it should now be divided into 2 classes; perhaps one as it stands an another more suited to increasing predominance of heavy weapons in these later periods?
The above seems quite sensible but did not receive much attention.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”