Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Field of Glory II: Medieval

Moderator: rbodleyscott

Post Reply
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by Dux Limitis »

In the last month,I had posted a topic about the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Overall,the problem is the definition of these two armour ratings.I remember,one of the definition characteristics of the "Protected" is "mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men resulting in an equivalent average level of protection",so the "Some Armour" might be surplus,because if a decent number of men in the unit are armoured,then the game could just simply classify this unit's armour rating to Armoured,if not,then it should be downgrade to Protected,to represent the average level of protection.Regarding the "Well Armoured",It's hard to define that whose armours are more better relative to other contemporary troops in the same period,and sometimes it could be controversial.As in game the Lesser Men-at-Arms' armour rating is Armoured,and the Ottoman Guard Sipahis' armour rating is Well Armoured,but in the history their armours were on the almost same level,in the same period.So I think maybe the game should remove this armour rating,instead of that,simply replace it with Armoured.
edb1815
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by edb1815 »

What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy?
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by Dux Limitis »

edb1815 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:34 pm What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy?
I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it was rejected, and it was controversial.Then I took a look at the original Table Top rule book,I found to simplify the armour rating levels(if the ratings are close and not much difference between them,like the "Protected" and the "Some Armour",because in the explain of one of the defining characteristics of the "Protected" from the rule book is"mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men", therefore, the "Some Armour" is surplus."Well Armoured" does not exist in the original rule book,I guess it's the something between the "Armoured" and the "Heavily Armoured",but it's a really controversial rating)might solve this problem(in a top-down design philosophy).
edb1815
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by edb1815 »

Dux Limitis wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:46 am
edb1815 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:34 pm What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy?
I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it was rejected, and it was controversial.Then I took a look at the original Table Top rule book,I found to simplify the armour rating levels(if the ratings are close and not much difference between them,like the "Protected" and the "Some Armour",because in the explain of one of the defining characteristics of the "Protected" from the rule book is"mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men", therefore, the "Some Armour" is surplus."Well Armoured" does not exist in the original rule book,I guess it's the something between the "Armoured" and the "Heavily Armoured",but it's a really controversial rating)might solve this problem(in a top-down design philosophy).
Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by Dux Limitis »

edb1815 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:16 pm
Dux Limitis wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:46 am
edb1815 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:34 pm What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy?
I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it was rejected, and it was controversial.Then I took a look at the original Table Top rule book,I found to simplify the armour rating levels(if the ratings are close and not much difference between them,like the "Protected" and the "Some Armour",because in the explain of one of the defining characteristics of the "Protected" from the rule book is"mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men", therefore, the "Some Armour" is surplus."Well Armoured" does not exist in the original rule book,I guess it's the something between the "Armoured" and the "Heavily Armoured",but it's a really controversial rating)might solve this problem(in a top-down design philosophy).
Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Yes,I never said that the more armor rating levels are bad,like the "Fully Armoured" and the "Lightly Protected" which were not existed in the original rule book.The "Fully Armoured" can well simulate the Late Medieval Men-at-Arms' armour superiority,and the "Lightly Protected" can fix the gap between the "Unprotected"and the "Protected",to represent those who without the proper armours but have some substantial shields.But I think the "Some Armour" and "Well Armoured" are surplus judging by what I have said above.Or,some of the units' armour ratings need to be reconsidered and reset(like in the version 1.3.5 the Byzantine Klibanophoroi and the Cataphracts' armour ratings were reduced to the Heavily Armoured).
edb1815
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by edb1815 »

Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:10 pm
edb1815 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:16 pm
Dux Limitis wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:46 am

I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it was rejected, and it was controversial.Then I took a look at the original Table Top rule book,I found to simplify the armour rating levels(if the ratings are close and not much difference between them,like the "Protected" and the "Some Armour",because in the explain of one of the defining characteristics of the "Protected" from the rule book is"mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men", therefore, the "Some Armour" is surplus."Well Armoured" does not exist in the original rule book,I guess it's the something between the "Armoured" and the "Heavily Armoured",but it's a really controversial rating)might solve this problem(in a top-down design philosophy).
Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Yes,I never said that the more armor rating levels are bad,like the "Fully Armoured" and the "Lightly Protected" which were not existed in the original rule book.The "Fully Armoured" can well simulate the Late Medieval Men-at-Arms' armour superiority,and the "Lightly Protected" can fix the gap between the "Unprotected"and the "Protected",to represent those who without the proper armours but have some substantial shields.But I think the "Some Armour" and "Well Armoured" are surplus judging by what I have said above.Or,some of the units' armour ratings need to be reconsidered and reset(like in the version 1.3.5 the Byzantine Klibanophoroi and the Cataphracts' armour ratings were reduced to the Heavily Armoured).
Got it. Probably not a bad idea to review armor ratings when updates or DLC come out (AFAIK we are done with DLC for FOGM).

How one views each armor class can make a difference as well. For example, the two noted above:

Well armored = Most troops have substantial .50% coverage metal armor protection and/or shields.

Some Armor = Most have partial metal armor and or shields. Later Xbows are a perfect example - Most had helmets, breastplate and pavise. Later longbowmen may have more armor but no shields, etc.
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by MVP7 »

Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:10 pm
edb1815 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:16 pm
Dux Limitis wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:46 am

I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it was rejected, and it was controversial.Then I took a look at the original Table Top rule book,I found to simplify the armour rating levels(if the ratings are close and not much difference between them,like the "Protected" and the "Some Armour",because in the explain of one of the defining characteristics of the "Protected" from the rule book is"mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men", therefore, the "Some Armour" is surplus."Well Armoured" does not exist in the original rule book,I guess it's the something between the "Armoured" and the "Heavily Armoured",but it's a really controversial rating)might solve this problem(in a top-down design philosophy).
Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Yes,I never said that the more armor rating levels are bad,like the "Fully Armoured" and the "Lightly Protected" which were not existed in the original rule book.The "Fully Armoured" can well simulate the Late Medieval Men-at-Arms' armour superiority,and the "Lightly Protected" can fix the gap between the "Unprotected"and the "Protected",to represent those who without the proper armours but have some substantial shields.But I think the "Some Armour" and "Well Armoured" are surplus judging by what I have said above.Or,some of the units' armour ratings need to be reconsidered and reset(like in the version 1.3.5 the Byzantine Klibanophoroi and the Cataphracts' armour ratings were reduced to the Heavily Armoured).
If I recall correctly Klibanophoroi and Cataphracts were originally Fully Armoured just because it didn't really matter in the Ancients as they had capped maximum armour POA against everything contemporary anyway. The reduction to Heavily Armoured doesn't really do anything outside of time warp.

Late medieval crossbowmen were upgraded to Some Armour because they went from no shields to having a pavise, not just because their body armor improved which also happened with longbowmen for example. A Common reason for Some Armour rating is a mixed unit with troops who would alone qualify as Armoured and Protected. Halberdiers count as Armoured despite having no shields which in some cases drops units a half or full armour level below what they might be based on just the worn armour.

In late medieval army lists there's Protected Spearmen that depict the worse equipped or second line troops while the Armoured Spearmen are the ones in more complete set of armour (which is also what you see more in art and on theoretical equipment requirements).

Armoured level protection is far more common among the commoner troops of late medieval lists than what they are with earlier European or contemporary Asian/North-African lists. The technical details of the armour are less important than the interactions between all the units. The armor value is not directly comparable between different eras or troops types but a relative modifier that serves a mechanical, not encyclopedic, role.

Unless there is clear evidence that the developments in armour resulted in clearly changed interactions between, let's say armoured spearmen and the other units, then there is no issue with the unit's in-game armour rating staying the same despite gradual historical improvements. On the other hand if there is clear changing interaction, like the evolution of knightly armour, then the armour values are changed to reflect that.

Let's consider the interaction between Middle Eastern Protected Spearmen and European Armoured Spearman in the 13th and 15th centuries for example. In 13th century the Armoured Spearman might have a kite shield, hauberk and helmet. That significantly limits the options of the Middle Eastern Spearman as the most vital areas of the enemy can't be easily damaged and he will generally need to aim at unarmoured areas. In 15th century that equipment might have been upgraded with a brigandine, gorget and maybe some extra hand and knee protection. The change in covered area isn't huge and there are still clear weaknesses in the protection. The question is, does that change result in a fundamental change in the tactical situation, or is the difference more a matter of personal protection (e.g. are you knocked out of combat by a minor rather than severe or severe rather than mortal wound)?

Consider a modern plate carrier or early Roman small pectoral plate. Neither piece of armour makes a unit equipped with them have a significant tactical advantage in combat over a unit that doesn't have them. The piece of armour does not make it significantly harder to deliver a debilitating wound to the man wearing it. However, that armor does reduce the likelihood of the individual soldiers being wounded in the worst places. On the other hand the changes in Knights' protection from partial mail coverage, to full mail coverage, to additional plate protection are more significant as they effectively render some weapons almost useless or require a completely different approach in their use.
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by Dux Limitis »

MVP7 wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:27 pm
Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:10 pm
edb1815 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:16 pm

Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Yes,I never said that the more armor rating levels are bad,like the "Fully Armoured" and the "Lightly Protected" which were not existed in the original rule book.The "Fully Armoured" can well simulate the Late Medieval Men-at-Arms' armour superiority,and the "Lightly Protected" can fix the gap between the "Unprotected"and the "Protected",to represent those who without the proper armours but have some substantial shields.But I think the "Some Armour" and "Well Armoured" are surplus judging by what I have said above.Or,some of the units' armour ratings need to be reconsidered and reset(like in the version 1.3.5 the Byzantine Klibanophoroi and the Cataphracts' armour ratings were reduced to the Heavily Armoured).
If I recall correctly Klibanophoroi and Cataphracts were originally Fully Armoured just because it didn't really matter in the Ancients as they had capped maximum armour POA against everything contemporary anyway. The reduction to Heavily Armoured doesn't really do anything outside of time warp.

Late medieval crossbowmen were upgraded to Some Armour because they went from no shields to having a pavise, not just because their body armor improved which also happened with longbowmen for example. A Common reason for Some Armour rating is a mixed unit with troops who would alone qualify as Armoured and Protected. Halberdiers count as Armoured despite having no shields which in some cases drops units a half or full armour level below what they might be based on just the worn armour.

In late medieval army lists there's Protected Spearmen that depict the worse equipped or second line troops while the Armoured Spearmen are the ones in more complete set of armour (which is also what you see more in art and on theoretical equipment requirements).

Armoured level protection is far more common among the commoner troops of late medieval lists than what they are with earlier European or contemporary Asian/North-African lists. The technical details of the armour are less important than the interactions between all the units. The armor value is not directly comparable between different eras or troops types but a relative modifier that serves a mechanical, not encyclopedic, role.

Unless there is clear evidence that the developments in armour resulted in clearly changed interactions between, let's say armoured spearmen and the other units, then there is no issue with the unit's in-game armour rating staying the same despite gradual historical improvements. On the other hand if there is clear changing interaction, like the evolution of knightly armour, then the armour values are changed to reflect that.

Let's consider the interaction between Middle Eastern Protected Spearmen and European Armoured Spearman in the 13th and 15th centuries for example. In 13th century the Armoured Spearman might have a kite shield, hauberk and helmet. That significantly limits the options of the Middle Eastern Spearman as the most vital areas of the enemy can't be easily damaged and he will generally need to aim at unarmoured areas. In 15th century that equipment might have been upgraded with a brigandine, gorget and maybe some extra hand and knee protection. The change in covered area isn't huge and there are still clear weaknesses in the protection. The question is, does that change result in a fundamental change in the tactical situation, or is the difference more a matter of personal protection (e.g. are you knocked out of combat by a minor rather than severe or severe rather than mortal wound)?

Consider a modern plate carrier or early Roman small pectoral plate. Neither piece of armour makes a unit equipped with them have a significant tactical advantage in combat over a unit that doesn't have them. The piece of armour does not make it significantly harder to deliver a debilitating wound to the man wearing it. However, that armor does reduce the likelihood of the individual soldiers being wounded in the worst places. On the other hand the changes in Knights' protection from partial mail coverage, to full mail coverage, to additional plate protection are more significant as they effectively render some weapons almost useless or require a completely different approach in their use.
The reduction of the armour ratings of Klibanophoroi and Cataphracts do work outside the Time Warp,the current Byzantine Klibanophoroi's armour rating is Heavily Armoured.I had fought them with the Normans once.

About the others,I think we had been discussed about those in another thread.But I got it,what you've been said makes sense too.It's a really controversial issue,after all.
Last edited by Dux Limitis on Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dux Limitis
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Regarding the Some Armour and Well Armoured's definitions,or perhaps they should be removed or adjusted

Post by Dux Limitis »

edb1815 wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 8:56 pm
Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:10 pm
edb1815 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:16 pm

Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at some point as well. Top down design notwithstanding there have been adjustments made at the unit level for a variety of reasons.
Yes,I never said that the more armor rating levels are bad,like the "Fully Armoured" and the "Lightly Protected" which were not existed in the original rule book.The "Fully Armoured" can well simulate the Late Medieval Men-at-Arms' armour superiority,and the "Lightly Protected" can fix the gap between the "Unprotected"and the "Protected",to represent those who without the proper armours but have some substantial shields.But I think the "Some Armour" and "Well Armoured" are surplus judging by what I have said above.Or,some of the units' armour ratings need to be reconsidered and reset(like in the version 1.3.5 the Byzantine Klibanophoroi and the Cataphracts' armour ratings were reduced to the Heavily Armoured).
Got it. Probably not a bad idea to review armor ratings when updates or DLC come out (AFAIK we are done with DLC for FOGM).

How one views each armor class can make a difference as well. For example, the two noted above:

Well armored = Most troops have substantial .50% coverage metal armor protection and/or shields.

Some Armor = Most have partial metal armor and or shields. Later Xbows are a perfect example - Most had helmets, breastplate and pavise. Later longbowmen may have more armor but no shields, etc.
I'll ask Mr.Richard for the detailed armour level descriptions for the manual of the digital version later,strange that table top rule book has the descriptions of the armour levels but the digital version doesn't.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II: Medieval”