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 10-29-2013, 04:04 AM   #31
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Well if you have a blunted lance that probably got a 0.5 DR multiplier so your talking 12 points damage that can be used to knockback without penetration, or even 18 using jousting plate
If it's blunted (crushing), it probably doesn't make sense for it to have a worse armour divisor than quarterstaffs, falling rocks, and crushing pressure of the depths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Also in a joust you're doubling the speed because it's "head on" (well not quite the hits were at an angle but there would be significant increase in total speed)
Why double? The calculations seem to assume a head-on collision by default. If not, could you point out the page/quote?
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:34 AM   #32
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
If it's blunted (crushing), it probably doesn't make sense for it to have a worse armour divisor than quarterstaffs, falling rocks, and crushing pressure of the depths.
I was thinking more blunted as in designed not to be weaponised, ala training weapons. But to be fair I'm guessing there's only so much blunting you can do to lance tip and still be historically accurate. I know they padded them in training but I don't think they did in the actually joust?

But basically a quarterstaff is designed to do damage despite its material, a jousting lance is designed with the opposite intention in mind. However not sure if this rather semantic distinction is worth a 0.5 multiplier!

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Why double? The calculations seem to assume a head-on collision by default. If not, could you point out the page/quote?
Does it? Sorry I assumed it was based on stationary target like the example in the slam rules, that's why the example on the mounted combat pg only mentions one move value. If was head on it would have to mention two move values.

or put it this way if it was head on and only has one move value factored in, how would it do a stationary target?

Also i'm guessing the most likely scenario is a stationary target* this so that what's the example was for.

However it's not 100% head on (otherwise you'd crash into each other). So assuming a 45deg angle I added a (Move+Move)*0.75 multiplier.

Actually given my jousting/real combat distinction made earlier, I wondering how common head on charging was in combat. I guess it must have happened, but it was my impression that the mounted charged was designed to break infantry formations even despite chivalric notions of knight charging each other in open field that jousting emulated.

*although if the target had taken a full move action I'd factor it in, especially if it he was running away so you have bonuses from rear attacks etc, etc.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-29-2013 at 05:57 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 06:11 AM   #33
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I was thinking more blunted as in designed not to be weaponised, ala training weapons. But to be fair I'm guessing there's only so much blunting you can do to lance tip and still be historically accurate. I know they padded them in training but I don't think they did in the actually joust?
Are we talking competition, training, or warfare? I didn't expect a padded lance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Does it? Sorry I assumed it was based on stationary target like the example in the slam rules, that's why the example on the mounted combat pg only mentions one move value. If was head on it would have to mention two move values.
The slam rules take collision velocity. Whether the target is stationary and the slammer is approaching the target at 5y/s, or the slammer is stationary and the target is approaching the slammer at 5y/s, has no bearing on the collision velocity. GURPS is based on (simplified for playability) real physics.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 06:29 AM   #34
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Are we talking competition, training, or warfare? I didn't expect a padded lance.
Well that's the point, I'm guessing jousting is half way between training and warfare!

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
The slam rules take collision velocity. Whether the target is stationary and the slammer is approaching the target at 5y/s, or the slammer is stationary and the target is approaching the slammer at 5y/s, has no bearing on the collision velocity. GURPS is based on (simplified for playability) real physics.

I'm talking about both of them approaching each other at the same time, i.e relative velocity, I think that's in the collision rules isn't it?

No one is stationary at the point of contact in the joust.

You're going to to do a lot more damage if your travelling at move 8, and your opponent is travelling at move 7 if you crash head on into each other (relative move 15). Than if you've slammed him while chasing after him (relative move 1)
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 06:43 AM   #35
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I'm talking about both of them approaching each other at the same time, i.e relative velocity, I think that's in the collision rules isn't it?

No one is stationary at the point of contact in the joust.

You're going to to do a lot more damage if your travelling at move 8, and your opponent is travelling at move 7 if you crash head on into each other (relative move 15). Than if you've slammed him while chasing after him (relative move 1)
The collision rules tell how to do that (i.e. sum the velocity of the approaching slammer and the velocity of the approaching target), they just don't point out the relative velocity bit. So yeah, you should use the velocity of the collision (instead of the velocity of the slammer relative to the ground).
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 07:27 AM   #36
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
No confusion, the article may be talking about jousting, but our conversation is about couched lances in general. And as I said already I assumed the article was talking about tournament jousting with tournament horses and people who can do it, you know just in case there's still confusion
You stated the article was light on details in this particular instance. I was simply explaining that was because it didn't need to really explain itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Also none of these make those term being relative, unless you're saying that everyone in the Joust will have the same ST and all their horse will have the same ST?
Hardly. There will be a range of ST values, probably from ST11 (+Arm ST 1 to meet minimum lance requirements) to ST 15 or so for the people. As for horses, you're going to also see a range there, it's just that unless the jouster is rather overweight you're going to have horses on the weak end being able to carry them about as well as those on the strong end. They'll be slowed down a bit more, sure, but they'll be able to meet whatever the speed requirement for the joust is - and if all horses are moving at the same speed, the horse's ST doesn't matter (because its only contribution is in allowing the horse to continue moving at the requisite speed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yes and that's great given optimal everything and larking about in the lists, but again, in general terms it stops being relevant very quickly when sub optimal is all you have.
If you lack a horse that's good for jousting, your big issue is going to be that you lack a horse that's good for jousting. You can't expect to get results out of some nag you bought at a bargain.
If you have a light horse that's been trained for war but not for jousting (because if it's not strong enough for jousting, nobody's going to train it for that), you could probably manage decently well, although if you weigh too much for it you're going to be going at a lower speed.
My point is that speed is the only contribution the horse's ST makes to the joust. You don't average the horse and rider's ST in any sort of way - instead, you resolve the attack using the rider's ST and the horse's speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
You need a proper saddle etc to help transmit horse's force to the rider (or the rider goes flying)
The article's author thinks otherwise. As he's actually participated in jousts riding bareback, I'm inclined to agree with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
You need a reasonably high ST of the rider in order to use a lance that is strong (and therefore heavy) enough to transmit the force without breaking, the riders ST also adds theoretically adds to the system as well.
Certainly the rider needs some minimum ST to wield the lance (just as the horse needs some minimum ST to carry the rider), but the article makes it clear that it is the rider's ST that primarily functions as the limit on how much damage the lance can do (assuming said lance doesn't break).
You can disagree with the author here, but do keep in mind he has actual experience, while (unless I'm mistaken) we're all just making educated guesses.


EDIT: This being GURPS, I suppose it's possible you could have a rider with ST that is very close to (or even exceeds) that of the mount. In that case, you limit damage to rider TSTx1.5+(Saddle bonus) or mount ST, whichever is lower. This is because the rider is using his legs (and the saddle) to transmit some of the impact force to the mount, hence the reason he gets a nice little multiplier. So, that's a case where the mount ST comes into play other than in terms of encumbrance - but it's most certainly an edge case!

Last edited by Varyon; 10-29-2013 at 07:39 AM.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 08:06 AM   #37
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
well it's pretty heavy, and pretty fast certainly in terms of hand held weapons of the day.
The speed of a charging horse is fast in terms of the overland travel of its day, but is it fast in terms of weapon thrusts? I'd be surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
The article's author thinks otherwise. As he's actually participated in jousts riding bareback, I'm inclined to agree with him.
Between that and the claim that the critical technology for heavy cavalry to really rise was advanced saddles, I'm not sure I'd assume the bareback jouster is the one with the perfect historical relevance.
__________________
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 10-29-2013, 08:48 AM   #38
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Between that and the claim that the critical technology for heavy cavalry to really rise was advanced saddles, I'm not sure I'd assume the bareback jouster is the one with the perfect historical relevance.
Advanced saddles improve the lance charge, but aren't strictly necessary for it. I think historically we see the lance charge and such advanced saddles becoming prevalent at around the same time. It seems likely lance charges were in some use before the cantle was invented, the cantle was invented to make help deliver more force and prevent the rider from being unhorsed, and with this improvement heavy cavalry became more viable and thus more prevalent.

Of course, the discussion is about how a charge works, not necessarily how it was historically developed. Physics today aren't any different than they were back when jousting was a big deal, so if it's possible to use a lance bareback now, it was possible to do so back then.
All I'm saying is, if historians claim something was necessary for a lance charge, they're using incomplete historical data of what existed and was used when. If someone is actually doing experiments to determine what is possible, then unless the author is simply lying I'm inclined to agree with his conclusions over those of historians.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 08:58 AM   #39
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

I would note that lances clearly dd pose a significant penetrating damage risk, because if they didn't surely nobody would have needed specialized jousting armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Of course, the discussion is about how a charge works, not necessarily how it was historically developed. Physics today aren't any different than they were back when jousting was a big deal, so if it's possible to use a lance bareback now, it was possible to do so back then.
All I'm saying is, if historians claim something was necessary for a lance charge, they're using incomplete historical data of what existed and was used when. If someone is actually doing experiments to determine what is possible, then unless the author is simply lying I'm inclined to agree with his conclusions over those of historians.
Certainly anything the modern experimenter does would be possible at any point in history, provided equivalent equipment was available, but the modern experimenter is not actually trying to kill people with a lance on a TL2 battlefield. So there is room to question the equivalence between the experimental model and the historical problem.
__________________
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 10-29-2013, 09:05 AM   #40
Railstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
do you have a cite for heavy mail not being pieced by charging lances?
Mail Unchained
Railstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
alternate rules, couched lance, deadly spring, melee damage, pyramid 3/33

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 03:02 AM.


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