Different Weapon damage to different typearmor?

[anguy]

I am new here so I don't know if this was not already posted, but the efficiency of the weapons in the game doesn't seem to take the type of armor into the account. For example historically the chainmail worked great against cutting weapons but worse against arrows or blunt weapons which inflicted trauma without penetrating it. So I think the weapons in game should have also besides number of hitpoints also the type of damage ( blunt, piercing etc.) and they should work in different ways against diferent types of armor.
What do you think?

 

[okiN]

Blunt and piercing attacks have halved armor penalties.

 

[Cataphract]

Blunt and piercing attacks have halved armor penalties.

Hey thanks , i actually didnt know that, now that you told i can recall that i got heavily pounded with blunt weapons when i wore armor

 

[compfreak]

I agree with anguy. A proper system, like pierce beats plate and cut beats cloth, would be nice. It would add more strategy to the battles and equalize the game a bit, since many low level units use polearms, which would be strong against the best armors. It also provides a money sink because you have to get weapons and armor of every type to have the advantage.

 

[Ilex]

Agreed. Light weapons should have more limited armor piercing ability even if they cut human flesh like a hot thing butter.

Arrows could be different too: Not just this is best, this one is inferior, but: This one penetrates armour but has inferior damage compared to the one that doesn't penetrate armour as well as the other.

 

[leo]

The system of armor could be better, but I have severe reservations about a rock/paper/scissors style of armor.

I wouldn't want to see a system such as "pierce beats plate, blunt beats chain, cut beats cloth" because, for the most part, it makes no sense.

For instance: everything beats cloth, not just cutting weapons. If you're wearing cloth, you may as well paint "shoot me" on your chest and jump up and down spastically to draw the attention of the enemy archers.

And while chain may not be as good at blocking blunt weapons as it is at blocking edged ones, you're still a hell of a lot better off wearing chainmail than wearing cloth (or nothing) when you get whacked in the sternum with a hammer.

What I would rather see is an exaggerated version of what we already have in place.

So in short:

Platemail gives better protection against all damage types than all other kinds of armor. However, it protects you less from piercing attacks than it does from other kinds of weapons. As for cutting weapons, however, it's almost impossible to hurt a man in plate unless you're wielding a very monstrous weapon. However, it also encumbers you more than all other armor, reducing your movement and attack speeds.

Chainmail gives, on average, the second best protection. It protects you less from blunt damage than from other types of damage, however, and encumbers you.

Leather armor gives fairly low protection. It offers a little protection against blunt, piercing, and cutting attacks. It does not inhibit your movement much.

Cloth (or no armor) offers almost no protection against all types of weapons. In fact, those wearing cloth perhaps should take extra damage from piercing and cutting weapons due to the internal damage they may (and probably will) suffer at the hands of enemies. On the bright side, there is no encumberance to worry about.

Just my $.02

 

[LB]

If we use that damage system, we'll have to allow thrust attacks with swords from horseback ...

 

[BobG]

Basically I agree with leo's take on armor. The two places I disagree are on leather armor and cloth. Leather armor would probably provide slightly better protection against cuts than against piercing or blunt damage. Cloth might provide next to no protection at all, but it certainly wouldn't increase the damage you receive. The armor itself would be easily damaged of course, but at least so far the game doesn't track armor damage, so that's irrelevant.

Incidentally, when talking about cloth, we should be careful not to overgeneralize. Padded cloth armor actually should provide decent protection; probably around the same level as simple leather, but with maybe better protection against blunt damage, since the force of the blow would be spread out somewhat by the padding. A peasant shirt, on the other hand, wouldn't protect you from anything more dangerous than sunburn.

 

[Praetorian]

hey, nice... was just writting something relatively about this in suggestions. In my opinion a weapon like the sabre shouldnt do so much damage to a knight in full armour. It just doesn't make any sense. On those days, a guy in full plate armour was a VERY hard thing to kill. The easier way was really to knock him off the horse (some armours were so heavy that the tired knight almost could't get up from the floor... as for fighting... lol)

Also, with this comes the speed of horses, that should be different when a guy is in full 100000 ton armour or wearing that shirt with the shoot me (if you can) target.

cheers

 

[Praetorian]

sorry, remembered...

I was just stating the thing before, because the speed really doesn't seem to change... so,

why should I make myself a horse archerin leather when I can make myself a horse archer in dark knight's fashion?

well... there is allways the fun and the "waiting for arrow from nowhere in chest" (lucky strike, is it?)

 

[anguy]

The easier way was really to knock him off the horse (some armours were so heavy that the tired knight almost could't get up from the floor... as for fighting... lol)

Actually the plate armour used in battle was not that heavy - only 27kg = +/- the same weight as current US soldier carries into the battle. Also the weight was so distributed that the knight in full plate could run and jump (of course not so long as lighter infantry).

 

[Sir Saladin]

Full plate armor was custom made for rich knights and was easy to move around in. I think that guy was refering to the custom of knights in single combat that would challenge each other to fight for the love of battle and the winner would sit on the loser's chest and pull the helmet off and threaten his life with a dagger. Then the loser knight would have to pay money or be held for ransom.

 

[Ryuta]

I think blunt weapon like mace should deal bigger damage against armour because shock would penetrate through the material. and plate is extremely effective against thrusting weapon because it is designd to turn the point (the point will skid away the armour).

And padded cloth or leather could give more bonus. If it was made very thick, it would be able to stop blades and absorb shocks from blunt weapon (though not very good to protect you from piercing weapon).

 

[Sir Saladin]

Big hammers should kill the lobster men in their armor. Just imagine running around and acting tough with broken ribs and massive painful bruises, those guys really were tough.

 

[Slyloki]

So do we then also have to take into account the effect that sometimes after repeated blows to the chest with a blunt weapon, which didn't cause any actual damage to the wearer, the armour was so badly dented in that the person had trouble breathing...

A line has to be drawn somewhere in any GAME...

 

[Sir Saladin]

HEHE, oh yeah its just a game. No need to spend 10000 hours programming breathing trouble unless they put in illnesses, now that would be fun. Aw crap Wulgar has syphilis now? No wonder he has been acting so crazy.

 

[vanedor]

If we use that damage system, we'll have to allow thrust attacks with swords from horseback ...

You can... with the viking sword, longsword and arming sword.

 

[Praetorian]

I'm sorry to come again with this, but some mounted knights had VERY heavy armours. I'm sorry but the 30 kg story wasn't allways true, just something you hear all the time connected with the actual weight of the soldier's backpack + weapon, blablablah. The thing is, there are lot's of descriptions during the crusades of knights being unhorsed and stabbed to death, unable to simply stand up and defend themselves.

Just adding a small experience:

2 years ago I had the chance to hold in my hands a real (whatever century) armour, and believe me, it weighted more than 30 kg's, that I guarantee. Those two things I noticed, it's wearer was a very small man, that had to carry a huge weight on him, ok, divided through all the body, but still...

 

[Praetorian]

uhm... adding to the full dressed up knight in black armour:

how easy is to shoot an arrow wearing a knight's armour?
how easy is to shoot an arrow wearing a knight's armour while on horseback?

 

[anguy]

Just adding a small experience:

2 years ago I had the chance to hold in my hands a real (whatever century) armour, and believe me, it weighted more than 30 kg's, that I guarantee. Those two things I noticed, it's wearer was a very small man, that had to carry a huge weight on him, ok, divided through all the body, but still...

1. Was it battle armour or tournament one?
2. The knights were in much better physical shape than todays people... They were trained from young ages to wear armour.
3. There is a difference between standing up when you are free and when someone sits on your chest and stabs you.

The armour cannot be that heavy because the knights were not excusively mounted warriors, they often fought on foot. The English knights fought almost exclusively on foot. French attacked on foot in Poitiers and Agincourt, when they needed to walk at least 500 meters.