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.