Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-09-2016, 10:37 AM   #21
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
If that's the case, then LT has it wrong and should have plate cost less than segmented plate. Perhaps there are cases where a sufficiently skilled armorer can fashion plate faster than segmented plate, but the increased price of the former implies it is at the very least harder to do so (I'd imagine shaping a large plate into precisely the right shape is a good deal less easy than doing the same for smaller plates), which means it's what I would call "more work." Armor that has some "give" - a bit of flexibility - like segmented plate can probably be made to less-tight tolerances than armor with absolutely no give.
I would not hesitate to suspect Low-Tech of pricing for balance rather than for historical accuracy.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 10:49 AM   #22
Rasna
 
Rasna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
So basically my HR aren't so wrong.

What do you think about my new entries (Wood, Light; Straw, Light; Horn, Light; Mail and Plates, Light; Mail and Plates, Heavy) and about the Two-Piece Helmets rules and the modified Banded Mail rules?
Rasna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 10:55 AM   #23
Rasna
 
Rasna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
I'll preface this by noting you might want to pick up the armor design Pyramid articles, which take a slightly different approach (and have more materials) from Low Tech. "Low Tech Armor Design" is in Pyramid #3/52, while "Cutting Edge Armor Design" (for TL 6-9 armors) is in Pyramid #3/85.



I hadn't notice the scale issue. Yeah, that's a bad one. The armor design articles I linked above actually have scale being markedly better than cloth of equal weight (DR 4/3 scale made of good iron would weigh 18.5 lb for torso, while DR 4 layered cloth would weigh 28.5 lb for torso), but actually makes scale better than segmented plate both in terms of weight (DR 4 segmented plate made of good iron would weigh 24.4 lb) and cost (that scale costs $370, while the heavier segmented plate costs $915). Reversing the given CW* (but not CC) values would give you something more logical - DR 4 layered cloth is 28.5 lb, DR 4/3 scale is 24.4 lb, DR 4 segmented plate is 18.5 lb, DR 4/2* mail is 15.1 lb, and DR 4 plate is 13.5 lb. Interestingly, the scale and segmented plate values actually match up pretty darn close to what you've suggested (although they scale up and down a bit differently, due to Low Tech and the article using different assumptions).

*CW is Construction Weight, CC is Construction Cost; these are modifiers that the article uses to determine an armor's weigh and cost.



That's really quite generous. The values in LT are meant to be fairly realistic representation of the difficulty of making (and thus the rarity of) such pieces. Your prices are still high enough that better base designs (upgrading from brigandine to plate, for example) are preferable to using the lesser design and tacking on weight reductions.
What system do you use? I've read a similar system on a Pyramid Article, but if I remember well it tends to make armor even heavier, and GURPS armors are already heavier than historical ones.
Rasna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 11:59 AM   #24
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasna View Post
What system do you use? I've read a similar system on a Pyramid Article, but if I remember well it tends to make armor even heavier, and GURPS armors are already heavier than historical ones.
Yeah, "Low Tech Armor Design" (LTAD) has armor increasing completely linearly with weight, while the actual armors in Low Tech (LT) functionally get a "free" +1 to DR (I believe to account for deflection). The armors tend to be a bit off from each other, but in a proportional manner - if low DR armor is heavier in one system, the higher DR version will typically be lighter in that same system. For example, DR 3 plate for the Torso is 8 lb in LT and 10 lb in LTAD, while DR 9 plate for the same is 32 lb in LT and 30 lb in LTAD. This isn't always the case - note that LTAD reverses the trend for mail, for example (LT mail is 12, 15, and 18 lb for DR 3*, 4*, and 5*, respectively; LTAD mail made of good iron is 11.34 lb, 15.12 lb, and 18.9 lb, respectively). You typically hover around the same weight for a given amount of DR, although you'll want to swap the CW's for Scale and Segmented Plate.
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 04:14 PM   #25
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Yeah, "Low Tech Armor Design" (LTAD) has armor increasing completely linearly with weight, while the actual armors in Low Tech (LT) functionally get a "free" +1 to DR (I believe to account for deflection). .
Partially for deflection and partially for the underpadding. The padding isn't worth DR 1 but it isn't 0 either. Realistically, the protective capacity doesn't increase linearly with thickness. There is a graph near the end of Williams' book but I don't have a page reference right now. Doubling the thickness increases resistance to penetration by a lot more than double.
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting.

Last edited by DanHoward; 06-09-2016 at 04:18 PM.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 04:59 PM   #26
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
Doubling the thickness increases resistance to penetration by a lot more than double.
That would be measuring energy to penetrate, and GURPS damage isn't linear in energy. It's actually a tautology that DR for steel is linear in thickness, because damage is defined in terms of penetration of steel.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 05:29 AM   #27
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
Partially for deflection and partially for the underpadding. The padding isn't worth DR 1 but it isn't 0 either. Realistically, the protective capacity doesn't increase linearly with thickness. There is a graph near the end of Williams' book but I don't have a page reference right now. Doubling the thickness increases resistance to penetration by a lot more than double.

IIRC Wiliam's has the thickness to protection as an exponential progression based on ^1.6

However his figures are based on a combinations of plate and gambeson, and it not just based on penetrating but penetrating with enough force to remove the wearer as a threat. That said those last two are going to be less and less relevant to the maths as the plate thickness increases. Also as you say you already factored a bonus to initial plate thickness to take the gambeson's add on effect into account (and remove it again if you wear plate without padding).


Either way Williams certainly suggests that the gambeson add protective value of it's own to the overall system. And I'm beginning to think that maybe be we should give gambeson a DR of more then 0.

But I guess the point there is when it comes to gambesons worn under armour (and armour padding in general in all it's forms) though out history are not of uniform thickness or construction. So a thicker more protective gamebeson can just as easily be modelled with the textile armours already stated up*.


I quite liked this link I found for the recent bolt vs. mail thread, the gambeson in question is described as:

"This gambeson consists of two layers of felt (each layer approximately 12 mm thick) (fig. 7), coated by one layer of linen and quilted in vertical lines, resulting in an overall thickness of 12 (in the quilt seam area) to 22 mm."


Weather that's a likely thickness and construction for most gambesons designed to go under armour you are a better judge of than I. But I do think it's interesting that the gambeson by itself was pretty much halving the penetration of crossbow bolts at 10m (in one case completely stopping it),

*I might ignore the layering penalises for thicker gambesons and plate harnesses that have been specifically matched and tailored to work in combination (have the greater weight be the disadvantage of such a thing)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
That would be measuring energy to penetrate, and GURPS damage isn't linear in energy. It's actually a tautology that DR for steel is linear in thickness, because damage is defined in terms of penetration of steel.
So long as the progressions on either side are relatively close that shouldn't be an issue though, should it?

I.e if energy to GURPS penetration and resistance to penetrative force while both being exponential progressions are proportionally linear to each other, having a linear GURPS DR per inch vs. GURPS penetration works OK.

(begs the question though)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-14-2016 at 04:25 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 06:48 PM   #28
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
However his figures are based on a combinations of plate and gambeson, and it not just based on penetrating but penetrating with enough force to remove the wearer as a threat.
That's fairly common in looking at armor: body armor standards are usually "no more than X penetration or backface deformation", not "no penetration".
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 01:39 AM   #29
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
That's fairly common in looking at armor: body armor standards are usually "no more than X penetration or backface deformation", not "no penetration".
Yep and it makes perfect sense for practical experimentation and assessment where the job of armour is to save your life. But in the kind of discussions we have here though we tend to look at more specific results e.g. any penetration at all. I know I've often made the point that armour that reduces a potentially fight ending blow to an inconsequential* one, is armour that has done it's job. It's a distinction that IMO often gets lost in the more esoteric and theoretical contexts our discussions are often framed in.


However as I said as the plates thickness increases that bit of extra post penetration effect becomes proportionally less significant in terms of assessing the overall power required in comparison. I.e the kind of attack that could potentially get past really thick plate the actual penetration of underlying flesh is unlikely to be a limiting factor in all but the most fringe situations.


*of course what counts as an "inconsequential" in this context is it's own discussion

Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-14-2016 at 04:26 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 06:16 AM   #30
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
But in the kind of discussions we have here though we tend to look at more specific results e.g. any penetration at all. I know I've often made the point that armour that reduces a potentially fight ending blow to an inconsequential* one, is armour that has done it's job. It's a distinction that imo often gets lost in the more esoteric and theoretical contexts our discussions are often framed in.
One of the fundamental problems in RPGs in general is that damage is generally treated in an unrealistic way. We all know that in D&D the Hit Point is silly -- the house cat and all that. But even in GURPS damage is not scaled very well in regards to how armor is treated. This certainly because DR and it's metrics were pinned down in later books.

If using bleeding rules, a one hit point cutting attack causes bleeding, which can kill you. With HT 10, this probably won't happen, but a few failures and successes, and a critical failure can put you in bad shape in a few minutes.
If you use the Severe Bleeding rules in Martial Arts, a single one hit point cutting attack to the neck is HT-2 every 30 seconds. An average knife slash to the throat in this case can be fatal, even if the target is wearing proper armor.
In other words, in GURPS, a one point wound is severe! It's a potentially life threatening situation, regardless, considering the HT rolls for infection. There are no inconsequential combat wounds in GURPS. Every attack is potentially deadly, and the armor rules, no matter how correct the mm measurements and pounds per square feet folks try to get it, fail to consider the outcomes of the intersection between defense and wounding and fatality.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23.
My GURPS blog, Dark Journeys, is here.
Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
combat, low tech, low tech armor

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.