06-09-2016, 10:37 AM | #21 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
06-09-2016, 10:49 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
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? |
|
06-09-2016, 10:55 AM | #23 | |
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
|
|
06-09-2016, 11:59 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
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.
|
06-09-2016, 04:14 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
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. |
06-09-2016, 04:59 PM | #26 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
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.
|
06-10-2016, 05:29 AM | #27 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
06-10-2016, 06:48 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
That's fairly common in looking at armor: body armor standards are usually "no more than X penetration or backface deformation", not "no penetration".
|
06-11-2016, 01:39 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-11-2016, 06:16 AM | #30 | |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Low-Tech Armor - Proposal for some modifications
Quote:
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. |
|
Tags |
combat, low tech, low tech armor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|