Sorry if I babble here, but I agree totally with the post. Different armor
types should offer different forms of protection. And historically, new
armors and weapons were created in an almost medieval arms race, one type
designed to combat another. Like paper scissors stone. Have heathens with
swords? Invent some plate armor. Bows killing you're troops? Invent tower
shields. All that medieval stuff came about over time, like the stealth
bomber in reaction to radar technology. No radar, no stealth bomber.
Actually, did you know that the proliferation of blunt weapons came about as
a way to combat knights in plate? Imagine a big bell vibrating, and you get
the picture. Various blunt weapons were invented with the design and
purpose of "crushing" men in plate. When plate armor wasn't around, there
was no need for such heavy and clumsy weapons (though being the first weapon
in existance, were around), for a sword was much more efficient and deadly.
Also, the invention of the crossbow came about as another anti-knight
weapon. There was only one reason anyone needed a bow-type weapon with such
ridiculous velocity: to pierce plate. A knight would train his whole life,
and be taken down by a fellow who had trained with his crossbow for a week.
Crossbowmen were often despised for this reason, and for the fact they would
hide in windows and shadows, never to fight with chivalry as knight's were
accustomed. The crossbow, unlike the bow, ended up being a very easy weapon
to master... an added bonus. (The Mongols, though not using crossbows,
rained arrows down on knights from above, with enough velocity to pierce
plate as well.)
Most game systems wouldn't use a system based on this: Plated warriors
nearly invulnerable unless you hid and shot at them with a crossbow, or took
them on with a mace. A mace wielder then ineffective against a faster
fellow with a stilleto (round one: guy with a heavy mace lying dead). A
rock-scissors-paper type game would be very interesting, though EQ ain't it.
Real medieval weapons were designed to kill an opponent, if properly
wielded, in one shot (at least as often as possible, though only
dismembering or incapacitating sufficed as a kill). And imagine mastering
your crossbow at level 4, hmm. Strict medieval realism might never be in a
game, though it would be interesting.
But I enjoy EQ's system, don't get me wrong, heheh.
Roop
-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle <
ksibbald@...>
To:
eqbards@onelist.com <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [eqbards] Platemail vs Banded vs Leather
>From: "Kyle" <ksibbald@...>
>
> Most gaming systems factor in some real life concepts about what type of
>damage armor can and cannot protect against. Assuming that there are three
>types of damage (slash, pierce, and blunt) various armors protect various
>ways. From what I've seen and heard, most of these are factored in here.
>
> Cloth armor isn't really gonna do much since it is easy to puncture, easy
>to cut through, and offers very little padding to slow the impact of
>something big and round.
>
> Patchwork usually provides a bit more protection against slash and blunt
>since it is slightly thicker than cloth. Piercing it may not improve
>against.
>
> The various leathers (rawhide and normal) are better against piercing and
>much better against slashing because of the toughness of it. Some are often
>padded decently so it takes the edge off of blunt damage.
>
> Studded leather would most likely improve upon slashing since the metal
>studs would help stop the blade but wouldn't do much for piercing since the
>studs cover such a small area. Blunt might actually hurt more if it hits
one
>of the studs and drives it into your chest. =)
>
> Reinforced is the same thing but now there is more surface area to stop
>piercing.
>
> Ring mail works much better against slash since you naw have a shell of
>metal around you. Blunt is slightly better since the rings are just linked
>and allows for force transferrence over a wider area. Not great though
>seeing as how much it gives into you. Piercing? Well, all those rings with
>the big holes in them doesn't stop much of a point. You'd basically be
>reduced to whatever padding is underneath.
>
> Chain is the same as ring but usually has tigher links making it a bit
more
>difficult to slip a piercer in.
>
> Banded, similar to splint and scale in other game systems, improves
against
>piercers quite a bit now that most of those holes are filled up. Still some
>between the plates though. Slashing prolly isn't much better than chain but
>blunt is probably better now that you have plates of metal that won't give
>as easily.
>
> Plate, of course, is usually considered the best. It offers very good
>protection against slashers since it is often hard to cut metal. Blunt is
>really good since you have that rigitity of a real big piece of metal.
>Piercing is better since there are relatively few holes to sneak through
>unless you want to try and force the point of a dagger or rapier through a
>quarter inch of steel.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Good Journey,
>
> Sineras Silverlyre (Cazic-Thule)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Rubino [mailto:tigger@...]
>Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 1:16 PM
>To: eqbards@onelist.com
>Subject: [eqbards] Platemail vs Banded vs Leather
>
>
>From: David Rubino <tigger@...>
>
>
> Hello all . . .
>
> I completed my set of bronze armor, and now I have a few questions about
>it if anyone can help.
>
> AC continues to be a mystery. It seems to be no more than an overall armor
>rating, which increases with level and with type of armor, and exists only
>so that I can compare AC values with jealous people who still have
>patchwork. Does AC really have a meaning? If so, what does the total AC
>value mean? What does the AC value of a single piece of armor mean?
>
> Now I know from experience that as soon as I went to full banded, my
>ability to take damage skyrocketed. All of the sudden things which used to
>destroy me just kept missing me or hitting me for 1 damage. This seems to
>suggest it has nothing to do with AC value, and everything to do with armor
>type. The fact that the banded "only" increased my AC by about 25 from
>patchwork was irrelevant.
>
> Now my bronze "only" increased my AC by about 15, a small amount compared
>to my overall AC, but again my ability to take damage jumped significantly.
>I can again solo everything that is blue.
>
> I read somewhere that each different type of armor (Leather, Chain, Plate
>and its equivalents) can absorb more and different types of damage as the
>armor gets better. This seems to be true, and seems to make the AC value
>worthless . . .
>
> Besides, full bronze looks really cool.
>
> Please comment . . .
>
>-Musil
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Looking to expand your world?
>http://www.onelist.com
>ONElist has over 145,000 email communities to choose from!
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ONElist: the best source for group communications.
>http://www.onelist.com
>Join a new list today!
>