Does being armoured matter?

[Moggy]

Strange thought passed through my mind today.  Is having your troops armoured good for the army?

With the extra cost of having your close order infantry armoured of 7 for Aux troops and the average number of these units at probably around 4 that is the cost of a further 2 units of aux troops.

Once you consider that fighting is decided by number of hits rather than casualties there is nothing gained on this front. Yes, you still have to make saves to keep you pretty troops at strength and stop those dammed missile troops running down your bases but consider what those flank troops can achieve. They can be providing that important rear support for 2 dice, have a flank effect during morale even if they don't fight.

I appreciate that we are making use of "historical" forces so use what was the norm for the period/location.

But what about taking those options of being armoured?  Discussion?

Derek

[martin goddard]

The use of armour is to reduce casualties.

In CK reduction of casualties allows zones to fight for longer(multiple fights at effect) and not fall back as easily (fewer casualties).

During shooting there are quite typically hits against a zone from skirmishers.
If those hits can be saved by armoured on 3,4,5,6 (4,5,6 unarmoured) along with a couple on skirmishers then maybe a poor morale outcome mignt be avoided.  The difference between 3 , 2 and 1 fails is significant.

In a fight the armour might help toward keeping the zone effective for another fight.

If players consider armour expensive that is the intent.
CK should not reward the player with the best troops over the player with a more normal army.

So far I  use armoured troops in  Imperial Romans and Parthians. My German warband army relies on the initial shock of impact as losses from any lost fight really bring them  down .

In the period CK is set in, with very large armies armour is all about cost.

As a gross generality.
Mercantile  (trader/looter/city)(Parthian, Roman, Palmyran,viking,  successor) empires can afford it no problem. Poor folk (fighting on and for their own territory/unstructured commerce) (Germans , Gauls, Dacians) cannot afford it.

There are many games to go before the balance gets right.

CK will always suffer historically by having armies with an equal chance of a win and often pitched against non historic opponents.

For all that I hope it will fill many hours with challenge and enjoyment.

martin

[Moggy]

Always a trade off between armour and numbers. The further back in time it goes the fewer armoured units there are as well.

As the Russians said Quantity is a quality on its own. (or something like that)

derek