Body/Leg Armor Tradeoff

[Fillmore]

I am wondering if anyone has done any research into how often mounted/unmounted characters get hit in the legs? I ask because I am always struggling to decide which armors to go with when one has better body coverage but worse leg coverage. I always have a shield and it is mainly the odd hits from missile weapons that do me in.

For example right now I am trying to decide between Byrnie (39 body, 6 legs) vs Studded Leather Coat (36 body, 10 leg). The fact that the Byrnie is priced higher makes me think that the designers felt it was better, but since I am always on horse and with shield I wonder if for me the Studded Leather Coat would actually be better. I can see how infantry without shields would definitely want the Bynie, but since the game doesn't directly tell you where you have been hit I tend to wonder (I see axes in my shoulder or some such sometimes, but I do not ever recall seeing an axe lodged in one of my legs so I often wonder if leg coverage is really all that important).

 

[manekemaan]

well you just have to think, do the footsoldiers hit your legs often when you ride? yes or no? if its no go for the body, if its yes go for legs.

 

[Fillmore]

I can't really tell where they hit me though; I mean if it said where I was being hit I would have a better idea but as it is I can't really tell how often the hits are on the body versus the legs.

 

[jros83]

theoretically. sitting high on a horse leaves your legs in a more vulnerable position relative to footsoldiers, which would make taking leg armor into account a good idea. however, in practice, if you're competent enough fighting mounted, you're rarely going to take damage from infantry that isn't ranged (unless you're one of those "take my big honkin horse right in the thick of it" caveman types...   )

joking aside, that's how it is in WB.

 

[BHunterSEAL]

This is pretty hard to verify empirically because I'm not sure where the 'legs' hitbox stops and the 'body' hitbox begins. If it's around the knee or lower thigh area, as I have suspected, leg hits are only really a concern when fighting from horseback. Otherwise, it's rare that you'll get hit there often, unless you're at the top of a hill or on a rampart. Sometimes I have seen missile hits in the leg. However, if the cut-off point is the pelvic area, where the torso part of the model starts, leg hits would be relatively common.

I tend to fight mounted most of the time, so I spend heavy on boots--I am generally not overly concerned with the leg protection offered by my main armor suit because I usually get a lot out of my greaves. In pretty much any scenario, you're getting hit a lot more in the body than in the legs, so that's usually where dollar-for-dollar (or denar-for-denar, I guess?) I want the best protection.

Well yeah, I meant what I was about to say is hard to prove...
\/\/

 

[jros83]

This is pretty hard to verify empirically because

hence, "theoretically."

but you pretty much supported my argument anyway

 

[Mkhedari]

Maybe you could test by not wearing either boots or armor/gloves.  See how often you get knocked out without boots, then without armor/gloves.