Auteur |
Message |
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 501
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Sam Juil 09, 2022 11:58 pm Sujet du message: Armor |
|
How much, and what type of armor, do troops need to be considered Armored?
Is this an absolute standard or does it vary over time in relation to the typical amount of armor worn in that period?
In particular do they need to have metallic armor (bronze or iron)?
Does it need to include a metallic helmet, protection for most of the torso and at least some of the limbs (arms and legs)? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 347
|
Posté le: Dim Juil 10, 2022 2:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
P. 17 "some troops are protected by metal armour and/or a large shield"
Is there something more specific you are after?
I think armor is actually generally pretty well balanced points wise so I think the choice is one mostly to get the "look and feel" of an army about right. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 501
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Dim Juil 10, 2022 6:34 am Sujet du message: |
|
I’m looking through various Chinese lists and trying to work out why virtually none have armored infantry. The only ones I think I can see are a couple of units of Yuan guardsmen and some Qiang auxiliaries plus (perhaps) some armored archers given pavises like the Northern Dynasty Pug Nosed Archers despite archeological and artistic (sculptural or pictorial) evidence dating back to at least the 3rd c BC showing various types of armor used by infantry.
Figuring out which infantry units should really be armored is perhaps tricky based on artistic representations as artists could easily be over representing unique or interesting details like armor even if only used by a small minority. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Black Prince
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2016 Messages: 290
|
Posté le: Dim Juil 10, 2022 11:41 am Sujet du message: |
|
The armour system has some quirks in it. Early Foot Samurai do not count as armoured which can be considered reasonable as their armour was not metal. Yet when the mounted Samurai (hvy cav) dismount they count as armoured foot. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 501
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Dim Juil 10, 2022 2:33 pm Sujet du message: |
|
The Ō-yoroi, the heavy box like cavalry armor used by high ranking Bushi had six main components, mostly of metal plates or lamellar, laced together then covered in lacquer with leather parts used to cover gaps. It provided pretty complete protection for a mounted horse archer but was heavy and cumbersome and not really suitable for use on foot.
The Dō-maru used by lesser Bushi and retainers on foot consisted of either metal or leather plates or lamellar and was much lighter, cheaper and provided the user more mobility.
So I would say the mounted Bushi fighting as armored horse archers had pretty full metallic armor (though not Fully Armored in the ADLG sense, especially as their horses were unarmored) and the foot Bushi and lesser retainers could have either less complete metallic or leather armor.
Should there be an option for some or all of the foot Samurai/Bushi to be armored? Probably. Other than that the level of armor in the Early Samurai list appears about right. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1474
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Dim Juil 10, 2022 4:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
KevinD a écrit: | How much, and what type of armor, do troops need to be considered Armored?
Is this an absolute standard or does it vary over time in relation to the typical amount of armor worn in that period?
In particular do they need to have metallic armor (bronze or iron)?
Does it need to include a metallic helmet, protection for most of the torso and at least some of the limbs (arms and legs)? |
I suspect you are over thinking it.
Surely the answer is "enough that in Herve's opinion game balance is helped if the troops concerned get a +1 if they lose against certain enemies".
You can of course try and reverse engineer it in other ways, but you are dooming yourself to fail at a pointless exercise. _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1545
|
Posté le: Lun Juil 11, 2022 2:19 am Sujet du message: |
|
Also the definition of armor is probably not a matter of absolutes.
Was the armor of the troop superior to contemporaries? Did the troops have a greater ability to withstand missile fire?
Any attempt to put an absolute point on armor level that equates Hebrew Gibborim or Trojans warriors as on the same level as 13th century knights is surely going to send one into the Mountains of Madness.
So the levels are:
basic
More than contemporaries.
Heavy armor defined as late medieval or Cataphract
This way lies madness. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Mar Nov 15, 2022 9:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | Also the definition of armor is probably not a matter of absolutes.
Was the armor of the troop superior to contemporaries? Did the troops have a greater ability to withstand missile fire?
|
I'm not even sure comparing to contemporaries is sufficient... in the late medieval period there is a lot of infantry types that were equipped with quite a bit of maille, brigandines, and even some plate that don't even have the option to be armored. It almost looks like the list authors would rather rate them as unarmored ordinary medium/heavy swordsmen, when they should probably get armor and polearms but be rated as mediocre. _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1545
|
Posté le: Mar Nov 15, 2022 5:54 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Making foot armored in the High medieval period is problematic.
1) Armor on foot versus Heavy Armor foot/mounted knights does nothing in that interaction except make less foot.
2) Armor on foot would make crossbows a better investment.
3) Armor on foot versus longbows would make the longbows worse and when melee begins certainly hurt the MSw/Longbow. Doing this effectively makes Longbow armed troops of less interest and one of the objectives of V4 was to make Longbow more useful.
Last if you make troops mediocre and armor you make them at best more defensive and in a period where more have the same or better armor than these troops you have effectively made expensive bad troops.
From a game design point of view the current process is far superior than these outcomes. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 17, 2022 8:45 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | Making foot armored in the High medieval period is problematic.
1) Armor on foot versus Heavy Armor foot/mounted knights does nothing in that interaction except make less foot.
2) Armor on foot would make crossbows a better investment.
3) Armor on foot versus longbows would make the longbows worse and when melee begins certainly hurt the MSw/Longbow. Doing this effectively makes Longbow armed troops of less interest and one of the objectives of V4 was to make Longbow more useful.
Last if you make troops mediocre and armor you make them at best more defensive and in a period where more have the same or better armor than these troops you have effectively made expensive bad troops.
From a game design point of view the current process is far superior than these outcomes. |
Not certain I agree that -any- of these outcomes are undesirable.
1. It works the other way too. Heavily armored foot and Heavily armored knights are wasted points against unarmored foot as it stands.
2. And what's wrong with crossbows being a better investment?
3. I'm not certain how longbows in melee are much worse off against armored mediocre than they are against unarmored ordinary. It's about a half a point swing in the dice for armor, and a half point the other way for mediocre.
4. "At best more defensive" sounds like a pretty historically accurate description for most medieval infantry, but YMMV I guess. _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 17, 2022 9:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
Jhykronos a écrit: |
3. I'm not certain how longbows in melee are much worse off against armored mediocre than they are against unarmored ordinary. It's about a half a point swing in the dice for armor, and a half point the other way for mediocre.
|
Literally, here are the numbers.
Your Longbowmen (medium swordsmen, longbow) vs some Brigans (medium swordsmen):
Mean result: Tie (0)
Histogram of results:
3 hits on the longbowmen: 1
2 hits on the longbowmen: 5
1 hit on the longbowmen: 9
Tie: 6
1 hit on the brigans: 9
2 hits on the brigans: 5
3 hits on the brigans: 1
Your Longbowmen (medium swordsmen, longbow) vs some theoretical Brigans (medium swordsmen, armor, mediocre (polearm?)):
Mean result: Tie (0)
Histogram of results:
2 hits on the longbowmen: 3
1 hit on the longbowmen: 9
Tie: 12
1 hit on the brigans: 9
2 hits on the brigans: 3
Average result is the same, but the fight is less "swingy". _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1474
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 17, 2022 2:02 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Jhykronos a écrit: | Jhykronos a écrit: |
3. I'm not certain how longbows in melee are much worse off against armored mediocre than they are against unarmored ordinary. It's about a half a point swing in the dice for armor, and a half point the other way for mediocre.
|
Literally, here are the numbers.
Your Longbowmen (medium swordsmen, longbow) vs some Brigans (medium swordsmen):
Mean result: Tie (0)
Histogram of results:
3 hits on the longbowmen: 1
2 hits on the longbowmen: 5
1 hit on the longbowmen: 9
Tie: 6
1 hit on the brigans: 9
2 hits on the brigans: 5
3 hits on the brigans: 1
Your Longbowmen (medium swordsmen, longbow) vs some theoretical Brigans (medium swordsmen, armor, mediocre (polearm?)):
Mean result: Tie (0)
Histogram of results:
2 hits on the longbowmen: 3
1 hit on the longbowmen: 9
Tie: 12
1 hit on the brigans: 9
2 hits on the brigans: 3
Average result is the same, but the fight is less "swingy". |
The first one results in 22 hits on the LB and 22 on the Brigans
The second in 15 hits on the LB and 15 on the Brigans.
Thats surely the same net result but taking a lot longer to resolve ? _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 17, 2022 8:24 pm Sujet du message: |
|
madaxeman a écrit: |
The first one results in 22 hits on the LB and 22 on the Brigans
The second in 15 hits on the LB and 15 on the Brigans.
Thats surely the same net result but taking a lot longer to resolve ? |
Yeah, maybe that's a desirable consequence and maybe it isn't. But I'd say running the numbers is very informative. _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Jeu Nov 17, 2022 8:28 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Myself, I tend to prefer it if troops are plainly wearing armor or are armed with a certain weapon, then they should be classified as such to avoid confusion. Otherwise we end up with oddities like all the light cavalry horse archer figures that are double armed with javelins (because the manufacturer was following the old WRG list classifications, instead of history).
Also, if it is more important to get the "desired effect" (whatever that is) with troop classifications, then why are we still downgrading the potential effectiveness of Greek Hoplites around 460 BC based on some very shaky assumptions about the metal in their armor? _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 347
|
Posté le: Ven Nov 18, 2022 1:55 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Jhykronos a écrit: | lso, if it is more important to get the "desired effect" (whatever that is) with troop classifications, then why are we still downgrading the potential effectiveness of Greek Hoplites around 460 BC based on some very shaky assumptions about the metal in their armor? |
I would suggest the solution is not changing armor in the game, but changing the classification of hoplites if that better reflects reality. There is much better understanding of linothorax armor and it probably IMO should be an option to grade them as still armored.
Rules change aren't needed when a grading change would work.
See this and related book for modern linothorax reconstruction - quite interesting
https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/how-to-make-your-own-greek-armor |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|