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 05-07-2017, 05:06 PM   #31
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasna View Post
I suspected that the sample tested by Williams wasn't very strong, and in fact I was unsure if it may figure as GURPS light mail or fine mail. If I'm not wrong, the arrow required 80 J to pierce the light mail and other 20 J to pierce the padding underneath. A longbow arrow, depending its weight and the draw weight, has up to 140-150 Joules of energy at close distance: enough to pierce light mail, gambeson and inflict a serious wound to the wearer. I don't figure exactly how "GURPS-like fine mail" would perform against the same bow/arrow used in the test: superficial penetration and/or some blunt trauma, or no damage at all for both armour and wearer?
These tests are good at telling us how much energy is required to compromise the armour but not so good at telling us how much damage the wearer takes. The main problem is that they are never placed on a target that is as mobile, flexible, and resilient as a human being. We seriously underestimate how much more effective armour is when it is worn by a human.

The point of armour is to get destroyed. Every joule that goes into deforming the armour is a joule that isn't going into the wearer. Anyone who comes out of a battle with their armour undamaged is going to get accused of not pulling their weight, if not of outright cowardice.

The most common threat on any battlefield for the best part of three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All body armour for all of this time was designed to stop these weapons. We know from the primary sources that some types of mail were considered completely arrowproof. What we don't know is which types. It seems reasonable to assume that they were the variants made from a combination of heavy links and denser weaves.

This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

There are dozens of different types of mail. Low-Tech took all of these and created three generic categories, but more realistic modelling isn't possible so long as we rely on the current ST-damage table.
__________________
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; 05-07-2017 at 05:28 PM.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 05:09 PM   #32
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
The point of armour is to get destroyed. Every joule that goes into deforming the armour is a joule that isn't going into the wearer. Anyone who comes out of a battle with their armour undamaged is going to get accused of not pulling their weight, if not of outright cowardice.
Nothing wrong with your armor only suffering temporary deformation rather than permanent deformation.

Except that making it sturdy enough for that means more material with the attendant drawbacks.
__________________
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 05-07-2017, 05:31 PM   #33
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Nothing wrong with your armor only suffering temporary deformation rather than permanent deformation.

Except that making it sturdy enough for that means more material with the attendant drawbacks.
Bah. Temporary deformation is for wimps. A real warrior will get his armour completely destroyed and still continue to fight.
__________________
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.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2017, 03:57 AM   #34
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
Bah. Temporary deformation is for wimps. A real warrior will get his armour completely destroyed and still continue to fight.


I don't want a knight in shining armor.
I don't want a knight in scuffed armor.
I want his helmet to have dents. I want my knight to be real, and dark and savage. I want my knight to be a survivor. Someone who's been tested and got through his trails. Not some ***** in gleaming metal.

Noted medieval historian Belle Aurora ;-)
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2017, 10:12 AM   #35
Rasna
 
Rasna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
Default Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
These tests are good at telling us how much energy is required to compromise the armour but not so good at telling us how much damage the wearer takes. The main problem is that they are never placed on a target that is as mobile, flexible, and resilient as a human being. We seriously underestimate how much more effective armour is when it is worn by a human.

[...]

The most common threat on any battlefield for the best part of three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All body armour for all of this time was designed to stop these weapons. We know from the primary sources that some types of mail were considered completely arrowproof. What we don't know is which types. It seems reasonable to assume that they were the variants made from a combination of heavy links and denser weaves.

This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
I read your article on MyArmoury some time ago and I noticed that - very rarely - the mail could fail (because poor maintenance or because a strong hit on a weak point, maybe either one or more bent/bad manufactured/rusty rings and rivets). This could be represented in game with a critical hit.

Regarding the results of the test of Williams, 140/150 J (longbow arrow at point-blank) - 100 J (light mail and padding) = 40-50 J from an impaling weapon which press into the flesh, a force comparable to an underarm stab with a knife; it could be either lethal or, more probably, non-lethal, depending where the arrow hits. Heavier mail with padding is likely to reduce the damage to some blunt trauma or it could even be completely proofed.

Last edited by Rasna; 12-25-2018 at 08:15 PM.
Rasna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
low-tech, low-tech armor, low-tech weapons

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 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.