Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
1. Because people died to spears.
|
They did, but not necessarily because spears reliably went through the full thickness of their armour (i.e unarmoured location's, or thinner areas of armour)
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
2. Because you need a way to hurt opponents in a game.
|
Well that's a game concern rather than relevant to how spears interacted with armour in RL. But even then the system allows you way to deal with armoured opponents. However I take your point, it's just we're now on a different (albeit related) subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
3. Because against most opponents in most situations against most armor, the game works fine, particularly with a (.5) AD for cutting weapons.
|
I agree with that to an extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
4. Because the quality of armor was highly variable and the force imparted from a sharp point will overcome quite a bit (stab a kitchen knife through a tin can).
|
Well poor quality armour is represented by lower than the norm DR for that type of armour, and tin cans are not armour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
But most important for me is point 2. I just don't see how the game plays out if armor is 100% realistic. Unless nobody has armor (which would also be realistic in most eras), but if you do that, what's the point? ...
|
Ok well IME such games are work out like this. Armour is a huge advantage, and the most effective ways of dealing with it are fighting in some combination of:
Hitting where it's not (full coverage armour was quite rare historically)
Hitting were it was weak
Fighting in a way that doesn't involve penetrating armour with force