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 > The Fantasy Trip > The Fantasy Trip: House Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-05-2018, 09:59 AM   #21
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: One on One simulation

Thanks Nils; that's interesting.

I guess another way to ask the question would be:

Are there any 32-point characters who perform better when wearing armor than not wearing armor, and how heavy an armor is that true for, and for which characters?

And I'd be interested in seeing results without the naginatas and Expert/Master talents, as I notice that your top 7 results are all either naginatas or Experts, then the next 7 top characters are either unarmored or naginata/expert, then there's someone in cloth with a tower shield... and only near the bottom do we see people even in leather, and they also have tower shields.

But really I'm not just interested in the top people, but whether or not wearing armor improves or reduces someone's performance, and at what point?
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2018, 02:04 PM   #22
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: One on One simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Thanks Nils; that's interesting.

I guess another way to ask the question would be:

Are there any 32-point characters who perform better when wearing armor than not wearing armor, and how heavy an armor is that true for, and for which characters?

And I'd be interested in seeing results without the naginatas and Expert/Master talents, as I notice that your top 7 results are all either naginatas or Experts, then the next 7 top characters are either unarmored or naginata/expert, then there's someone in cloth with a tower shield... and only near the bottom do we see people even in leather, and they also have tower shields.

But really I'm not just interested in the top people, but whether or not wearing armor improves or reduces someone's performance, and at what point?
Just a quick question, the link doesn't work where all builds are presented?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

When you say armor do you also mean a shield, or just actual armor?

Here is a list of the Cutlass builds without expertise.
Cutlass is pretty much in the sweet spot for 32 point characters since cutlass is the first 2d weapon. And you can afford some variation when it comes to armor.

And as you can see adjDX of 10 and 11 tops the list. Then 9 and 12.
And then adjDX 13, 8, 14, 7.

So it is not so much a question about when armor is good, but more a question of getting the most out of your adjDX. If you chose to increase DX and wear armor, or instead get more ST to do more damage is about equal. And balance wise, it is almost the same as getting more IQ and get expertise. A great balance between the different attributes. Expertise is the slightly better choice, but you pay for it by having to have more talents on top of the IQ buy so you do get less of other things. But you have the option of buying other more interesting talents later on with an IQ of 10. Great trade off.

At 36p you have almost the same sweet spot for Morningstar builds.

Win rate Build
65,02 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass Leather, Tower Shield
64,04 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass Cloth, Tower Shield
60,44 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass Chainmail, Tower Shield
60,39 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass No Armor, Tower Shield
56,56 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass No Armor, Large Shield
54,46 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass Plate, Large Shield
52,37 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass No Armor, Small Shield
46,58 ST10,DX14,IQ8,Cutlass Plate, Tower Shield
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 08:54 AM   #23
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: One on One simulation

The link works, thanks. I've just not had more than a few minutes at a time to use Internet and/or work on TFT things for a few weeks now. And the data there is pretty dense to me and has the Expert/Master stuff and so is a bit off from my experience with the original rules, so I'm not sure what the results are really showing.

I was mainly interested in armor because for the most part, with the old rules, most of the players and characters in our TFT games tended to start with no armor and a small shield, and then hesitantly add cloth or leather armor or maybe a large shield, mostly, few people wanting to lower their adjDX, certainly not below 10, and preferring to get adjDX up to 13+ before considering lowering it for armor. A tower shield was considered good for not directly lowering MA, but risky because it doesn't protect from the side or rear.

I think the duel simulator results are really interesting and a little surprising sometimes (e.g. when figures with low adjDX get some fairly good results). I think there may be different results in actual mapped combat with multiple combatants per side, and also that it matters what the actual foes being faced are like. e.g. if most people don't wear much armor, then the stats may be different compared to if many people do wear a lot of armor despite low adjDX.

Mainly though, I'm curious because it seems unrealistic to me if armor such as chain or plate actually reduces combat ability for a 32-point fighter, so I'm interested in at what point reducing the armor DX penalties to attack would cause heavier armor to be worth wearing for such people. (Shields I'm not as interested in the same way, partly because they only give -1 or -2 and that doesn't seem like a realism problem to me, and also partly because I'd tend to want to change shield effects from a small stacking armor effect, to a chance to block some attacks.)
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 05:50 AM   #24
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: One on One simulation

Realistically speaking (which is a rabbit hole in RPGs :- ) ) old armor from the medieval period did lessen your fighting ability in one on one combat to some extent. And even good plate, when worn by almost every professional in the late medieval period did hamper you quite a lot.

I know most of us grognards on this site know all of this but this is how I see it.

The reason for having plate in a battle was these:
Missile fire. Your own attack capabilities didn't protect you one bit.
Getting surrounded or outnumbered. Again you relied on reinforcements not your own DPS to get you to safety.
Random hits from friends and blows you never expected are very hard to parry.
Shield walls hampers your parries severely and often all you can do is getting squeezed and take it.
Scaling walls and other defensive works where you are a sitting duck for a time.
Your DPS won't help you when you basically go all out defensive most of the time in order to increase your own chance of survival. That is why battles could take hours and not minutes.

So in short, armor was extremely popular despite hampering your one on one fighting ability.

This all changed when the battles changed. When missile weapons became powerful enough to go through armor that reason disappeared.
When shield walls disappeared due to cannons and formations became much more loosely deployed or specialized. You had space to actually fight and parry and killing one opponent might actually buy you some safety instead of just being replaced by another.
Cannons instead of siege engines made scaling high walls and such happen less often.
Mobility became a much more important tactical advantage.
Light steel swords became better and fencing tactics improved, a style of combat that encouraged speed above armor penetration.

Duels have always been fought with the armament the soldiers were most used to. If plate had been all that, we would have seen it more in one on one duels during and after the renaissance as well.

So heavy armor, should probably be a slight liability in a one on one duel unless you are very used to fighting in it. But it should be invaluable on the battle field pre gunpowder.

And then the main reason that heavy armor faded out. It is very impractical and so is a shield if you don't expect trouble. Bucklers were popular for a time because they were small and could be carried on the belt. Swords are easier to carry around than spears and armor makes you a little bit clumsy, slower, limits your field of vision and more tired. The last part, tired, is probably more important than one think. A soldier's life is 99% not fighting after all.

What would be realistic in a dungeon crawl is any ones guess I think. I for one would get as much armor as I could if someone forced me underground to fight monsters. :-)

Nope no rabbit in that hole either.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 10:17 AM   #25
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: One on One simulation

Sure there are some disadvantages to wearing armor, but that is not at all the same thing as so much impairment that it's not an overall advantage to wear armor.

Similarly, sure there are limits to how much one cares about realism in games (and how much and what's realistic varies widely), but that doesn't mean it therefore makes sense to dismiss all interest in realism.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 01:44 PM   #26
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: One on One simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Sure there are some disadvantages to wearing armor, but that is not at all the same thing as so much impairment that it's not an overall advantage to wear armor.

Similarly, sure there are limits to how much one cares about realism in games (and how much and what's realistic varies widely), but that doesn't mean it therefore makes sense to dismiss all interest in realism.
But you are saying that armor should help in a one on one situation. I am not so sure. I think it would have been more common and lived on for a longer period of time if it had been a great advantage in a one on one situation. Maybe in some, but not all situations. I think armor makes a lot of sense in a large battle situation, but maybe not in a duel. Or maybe it was explicit dueling rules that forbade it or implicit cultural rules or just a choice of fighting style. But for some reasons people stopped dueling in full armor, why is that? And why did shields disappear from duels?

Now armor is a tiny bit weaker than going without it in a one on one clean fight, mostly due to MA penalties and it is costly, unless you are experienced, then it is better at certain levels. And shields are better than armor due to Shield Expertise, no MA penalties and in the sim you very seldom get hit in the side or back.

In many other games wearing armor is a no brainer. You stuff on as much as you can and it is always good. The penalties are small and the benefits huge. And yet historically people who could afford it, didn't always dress up in full plate. Why?

I like that it is a balanced choice, that makes many different builds competitive and viable. If armor were a lot cheaper penalty wise it wouldn't be a choice any more just a question of wealth.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2018, 09:48 AM   #27
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: One on One simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
But you are saying that armor should help in a one on one situation. I am not so sure. I think it would have been more common and lived on for a longer period of time if it had been a great advantage in a one on one situation.
Seems to me the only time armor was not considered definitely desirable was after effective firearms became common.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
Maybe in some, but not all situations. I think armor makes a lot of sense in a large battle situation, but maybe not in a duel. Or maybe it was explicit dueling rules that forbade it or implicit cultural rules or just a choice of fighting style. But for some reasons people stopped dueling in full armor, why is that? And why did shields disappear from duels?
Because armor takes a lot of effort and skills and resources to make and tailor and takes time and effort to put on and isn't convenient, and armored knights became militarily inefficient (and eventually considered obsolete and unfashionable) with the advent of effective firearms. Nonetheless, many people did continue to use breastplates and helmets and sometimes other pieces of armor. Shield didn't disappear from duels but got smaller and less common, largely because armor became so effective that a shield wasn't necessary nor much help, because what real shields mainly do it prevent you from being hit, but with good enough mail or plate, being hit very often causes no injury.

I.e. my impression from my and others' research and recreation experiences is that real late-medieval armor protects more like 8+ TFT damage per hit, and does not greatly reduce the ability of people to hit each other. Currently TFT armor reduces damage but generally not fully, and also heavy TFT armor greatly messes up your ability to hit people, so it'd be utterly balance-transforming to go that far, but it seems to me that having armor actually be a clearly bad choice for most people is backwards, and so I'm wondering where the balance point might be where armor starts to at least be something useful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
Now armor is a tiny bit weaker than going without it in a one on one clean fight, mostly due to MA penalties and it is costly, unless you are experienced, then it is better at certain levels. And shields are better than armor due to Shield Expertise, no MA penalties and in the sim you very seldom get hit in the side or back.

In many other games wearing armor is a no brainer. You stuff on as much as you can and it is always good. The penalties are small and the benefits huge. And yet historically people who could afford it, didn't always dress up in full plate. Why?
Because it didn't exist before about 1400, and later, because it's not comfortable or convenient to wear armor all day long.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
I like that it is a balanced choice, that makes many different builds competitive and viable. If armor were a lot cheaper penalty wise it wouldn't be a choice any more just a question of wealth.
Certainly TFT as written provides that and you and many players may not want to change that.

Though, in my experience playing GURPS (where armor has almost no DX penalties to hit opponents, but still slows you down and makes you a bit easier to be hit) there is still a major choice of what armor to wear because having lower MA than friends & foes is a big deal. Sims that assume you will stand and fight one opponent don't take into account the effects of MA on what actually happens and whether someone can flee or not. In my GURPS campaigns, almost everyone would be more formidable in full plate but rarely does anyone choose it because it's conspicuous and they don't want to be slowed and encumbered that much.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2018, 12:56 PM   #28
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: One on One simulation

Quote:
So it is not so much a question about when armor is good, but more a question of getting the most out of your adjDX. If you chose to increase DX and wear armor, or instead get more ST to do more damage is about equal. And balance wise, it is almost the same as getting more IQ and get expertise. A great balance between the different attributes. Expertise is the slightly better choice, but you pay for it by having to have more talents on top of the IQ buy so you do get less of other things. But you have the option of buying other more interesting talents later on with an IQ of 10. Great trade off.
This is half the reason why I don't generally like the idea of introducing "armor talents". I always favored compensating for the DX penalty with more weapon skill or...more DX!

Quote:
I know most of us grognards on this site know all of this but this is how I see it.

The reason for having plate in a battle was these:
Missile fire. Your own attack capabilities didn't protect you one bit.
Getting surrounded or outnumbered. Again you relied on reinforcements not your own DPS to get you to safety.
Random hits from friends and blows you never expected are very hard to parry.
Shield walls hampers your parries severely and often all you can do is getting squeezed and take it.
Scaling walls and other defensive works where you are a sitting duck for a time.
Your DPS won't help you when you basically go all out defensive most of the time in order to increase your own chance of survival. That is why battles could take hours and not minutes.
Here's another reason:
By the time they were using full-plate, they were rich enough to afford it and they were usually riding on horseback when fighting. Horseback is the key. If a lesser armored opponent on foot knocked them off their "high horse", the platemail guy was toast. Heavy armor is not your friend...unless you are on horseback.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2018, 02:54 PM   #29
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: One on One simulation

In TFT plate is plate. But in reality it was a huge difference between a breast plate and helmet, conquistador style, medieval knight plate and late medieval footman's full plate. I think we are comparing different versions of plate at different times and so have a hard time agreeing.

But in order to change the balance these questions must be asked:

Can we find other things, like weight and MA penalties, perception penalties, built in fatigue loss, reaction roll penalties, swim penalties, skill use penalties, etc. to make up for the current DX penalty? And in doing so keeping it as extremely well balanced as it is now?

Or do we think that it is more important to see realism shining through and everyone should be wearing as much armor as they can afford?

And should heavy armor be an advantage at all times in a melee or adventure situation?


I for one like the balance as it is, it is exceptional. Maybe a slight tweak here and there to make it even more balanced without losing the feel of difference between different builds.


I don't care much about realism as long as I as a GM can portray a world that looks like I think it should. I want my NPC knights to wear heavy armor because they are rich and care more about survival on the battle field than speed and mobility. And I want my musketeers or barbarians to laugh at armor and do well without it by other means. And I want there to be a use for both expensive heavy infantry and cheaper and more mobile light infantry. And as long as I can come up with somewhat reasonable arguments for them to look right, and those builds not being impotent, I am ok with it. And the rich plate guys can always buy fine versions of their armor and then it will be a clear advantage sim wise.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2018, 03:02 PM   #30
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: One on One simulation

Quote:
Can we find other things, like weight and MA penalties, perception penalties, built in fatigue loss, reaction roll penalties, swim penalties, skill use penalties, etc. to make up for the current DX penalty? And in doing so keeping it as extremely well balanced as it is now?
I am certainly down with leaving it as it is because all of that sounds like needless complication to me.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.