Armor, is it worth it?

[Kolk]

Hello,

I'm coming back to TFT after 30 years.

When I first got to know this game, a long time ago, I used it more as a combat system in a home version of a battle game. So often 30 units vs 30, in the first line, etc. A bit interesting, a bit boring.

Recently, I found a website that gives the final result of a clash of any number of different units.
I chose :
A)short sword, small shield-Dx 13, Def 1
B)short sword, leather armor, large shield-Dx13(10),Def3.
Death rate 56:44.
Almost 50/50.
So, all that armor looks useless , but I wasn't sure about the outcome.
I'm not a programmer but I made my version of the code, at the current stage the results are similar, about 50/50.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that with the same Dx and Str, the extra armor does nothing, although it costs more.

I'm curious if anyone has noticed such a think, it may be hard to notice when playing 3v3, 4v4, ...., perhaps it is noticeable at larger numbers , and maybe I am wrong

[Shostak]

I've never crunched the numbers, but experience tells me that armor is worthwhile. Light armor is especially so, since it doesn't slow a character down much, but the penalty to MA for chain and plate detract from their defensive value. This is why some GMs house-rule Running giving a benefit regardless of armor instead of just to those wearing cloth or leather. Of course, one could take the point of view that if your chainmail was so cumbersome that the fight was over before you got there, it certainly kept you from getting hurt.

[TippetsTX]

Mundane armor, especially of the heavy variety, has its downsides, but TFT isn't a game limited by mundane assumptions.

Once you can afford DX enchantments, the odds start changing pretty drastically.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Once you can afford DX enchantments, the odds start changing pretty drastically.

DX enchantments have been further limited in Legacy edition. If you've got money to burn then use that unfatiguing Iron Flesh ring with +5 Water Armor to stop 14 hits at -1 DX. (But you need three wizards who each know Repair or have wizard's chests, and this setup does cost $16k + $16k + $1k???.) The Stone Flesh ring is only $4k and is useful enough in most cases.

One fun use of Leather armor is to cast Fire into your own hex, but given the nerfing of rat stacking mere Cloth armor is good enough for most uses.

The advanced combat talents (Pole Weapons Expertise and Shield Expertise) have made armor less useful in straight up combat, but it still helps with traps and other hazards to some degree.

[Kolk]

Thanks for the answers,

I didn't take talents into account in my assumption.
I used to play the basic version of Melee, just got back to TFT.

I'm wondering if it's better to have more DX or more Def, with the same starting DX, ST and the same weapon.

Increasing DX+1 significantly improves the results.

[tomc]

As long as your adj DX is 10 or better, armor is of marginal value in a duel. When you start adventuring and having consecutive battles with little or no healing between them, armor is worth much more.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Armor has been proven to be worth it in one on one duels, and by that I mean they are balanced. No big advantage, no big disadvantage.

So, the reason to wear armor comes down to this:

Armor is very valuable for a front-line fighter in a multiplayer battle. In a one-on-one duel, you take as much as you give, but as a tank, you take more than you give.

Armor is very valuable if you intend to fight more than once without a chance to heal up. Especially if you have access to a Physicker or healing potions.

Armor is very valuable on the mass battlefield where it is more important to survive than to kill many opponents.

Armor is very valuable against low ST weapons and bows. So if you know your most common enemy, then you know if armor is extra valuable or not.

Armor is not good if you will be using your adjDX outside of combat. For example, climbing around in a cave system or infiltrating a castle. It is deadly to wear if you risk falling into deep water.

Lowered MA is not a big thing in combat if you intend to walk up and engage your enemies head-on. But if you use MA to stay out of trouble like an archer or wizard, or rely on flanking attacks or charges, negative MA adjustments will hit you hard.

Lower MA will also limit your option to flee against some enemies.

Over all I think that armor is fairly balanced. The only thing I would have designed differently is the MA penalties. There should be at least +1 armor for -4MA armors, maybe even a +1 for leather. Chain is an unpopular armor because of this double penalty, both -1adjDX and -2 extra MA for only +1 armor.

[Kolk]

My algorithm is simplified, no MA, 1 vs 1, same weapon, short sword.

squad A vs squad B, (100v100) , one of these squads has armor. Those who win, fight in next rund, no time to heal.

The results do not indicate that armor gives an advantage.

I'm a bit busy right now, but when I have time I'll go through my code and look for bugs.

Thanks :)

[larsdangly]

The game is designed around a crude sort of balance in one-on-one duels in a Melee arena, by which I mean the weapon ST pre-requisites and damage, to-hit roll, and DX penalties and protection of armor and shields are such that all the various obvious 'builds' (omitting extremes) end up with loosely similar balance of offensive firepower and 'durability' (number of turns you will survive in combat). Yet, there are quite a few types of match up where this balance gets up-ended, e.g., when you don't do quite enough damage to do anything to a heavily armored figure, or your to-hit roll is so poor that your chance of doing damage plummets to near zero.

Of course there is also the game of movement and positioning, but this has to do with player expertise and it is not helpful to argue for or against certain builds based on idealized situations ('my javelin fighter is the best ever because he'll always win initiative on the second turn and therefore get to charge you from the side, blah, blah, blah...').

So, in this context, armor is 'worth it' in the sense that everything is similarly 'worth it'.

But, if you open up the range of tactical situations that can occur, armor starts to seem like more of a requirement, at least for combatant type characters. If your party is ever subject to 2-3 turns of high volume missile fire (say, a group of orcs firing horse bows from ~10 MH away), the unarmored characters have a very good chance of dying and the armored characters will probably laugh it off.

Similarly, if you are going to spend a few turns in a scrum of melee combatants in which you can't really avoid attacks by shifting, etc., then armor is the only thing that will keep you alive.

In this sense, 'to armor or not to armor' completely depends on what sorts of encounters you might have on your day-planner that day.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Kolk

My algorithm is simplified, no MA, 1 vs 1, same weapon, short sword.

squad A vs squad B, (100v100) , one of these squads has armor. Those who win, fight in next rund, no time to heal.

The results do not indicate that armor gives an advantage.

I'm a bit busy right now, but when I have time I'll go through my code and look for bugs.

Thanks :)

Squad combat may be different, but one on one, armor is not an advantage or a disadvantage.

Armor for the individual is of course a good choice in a mass combat situation. Not necessarily so for that side.

Set up as a tournament with lots of one vs. one I would expect armored people to get further on average in the tournament, but I have no idea of the winner (who needs a lot of luck) also benefit from armor.

Armor usefulness is also very dependent on enemy ST, or rather enemy's choice of weapons. If the enemy has a small weapon, armor is king, if the enemy has heavy weapons light armor is not worth it.