(07-13-2020, 03:20 AM)Gary McClellan Wrote: Honestly, even 1 point of armor is too big an effect for too small an advantage. A "loss" is any horseman who is taken out of the fight, be it by death, injury or being unhorsed. Since the horses were not armored like that of a knight, they were still very vulnerable to getting shot, and so having the relatively small area of the breastplate confer a 10% advantage in combat is excessive. The thing may well allow men to live to fight another day, but we worked the advantages of heavy horse in other ways.
Hi Gary, my post was in jest insomuch as I know you guys ( ie JTS) dont change your minds very often!!
That being said I respectfully disagree with you in both real usage of armor historically and also in effects in game.
Based on the game mechanics 10% is quite small.. Take your average 130-150 cavalry squadron taking ONE shot of defensive fire from a typical infantry battallon . It typically takes from 50-70 men lost!!! do you think 5 or7 LESS men lost due to an armor bonus means much? The squadron is basically combat ineffective either way!
The reduction in melee losses wont be any where as pronounced but could give a cuirassier ( all other things being equal) a tiny edge over another heavy cavalry sans armor... Currently in game there is nothing that distinguishes a heavy cavalry cuirassier from a non armored "heavy horse".
I wont babble over the historical stuff but horse barding was quite rare in western Europe, and non existent by the 1540's or so despite ordinances by kings demanding nobles show up with it... Certainly you would include armor in a 30 years war game or ECW Title I would hope... Even in Napoleons time Nafziger notes the Saxon Cuirassiers suffered heavy losses in Russia BECAUSE they left their armor back in Dresden to save wear and tear on the long road to Moscow....
Anyways, love the game, looking forward to the next update!
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
