Hi folks! :) I've just run a short mock combat with versus a templar squire and a guardsman. The combat lasted only a half-dozen rounds and ended in a mess when the squire crushed the guards left shoulder. With a pain level of 8 he lost his entire CP (shock 13!!!) --> end of fight. The game really inspires and the two players just left for home with an appetite for more TRoS.
So -- I've been thinking about armor. Yesterday I was surfing the net (instead of studying as usual), looking for articles on medieval armor and find quite a bit. With some cross-referencing with Harn, Palladium's Compendium of Weapons, Armours and Castles, and a few other games I came up with a list of armors and their respective protective values vs. edged, pointed and blunt damage. I'm not entirely satisfied with my list though, and would like some thoughts and input from you guys and girls. I don't know if my coat-of-plate types are adequately correct, but the reference materials differ somewhat regarding this. Some speak of brigandine, jazeraint and bezaint, some of brigandine coat-of-plates, some just of coat-of-plates with different plats and backings. No real consensus can be found (not surprising). In the list below, you'll find two types of CoP - the brigandine (metal plates riveted to a soft leather backing with a heavy cloth or soft leather cover), and the jazeraint/jazerant (metal scales riveted to a hard leather backing). The brigandine would be a CoP with plated on the inside (?), while the jazeraint would be a CoP with plates on the outside. I really need help with these armor types.
Here's my list with AVs and all.
Material E P B
Thick cloth 1 1 0.5
Soft leather 1 1 0.5
Hard leather 1 1.5 1
Cuirboulli 2 2.5 1.5
Quilt 1 1 2
Padded 1.5 1 2.5
Brigandine CoP 4 3.5 1.5
Jazerant CoP 3.5 3 1.5
Ringed maille 2 2 2
Maille 3 1.5 1.5
Lamellar 4.5 4 1.5
Plate 5.5 5.5 3.5
I've tried to range the AVs to fit the numbers presented in the TRoS rulebook. For example - Plate with padding gives AVs of 7 / 6 / 5. Please comment on both numbers and materials -- it's probably needed. I look forward to a long discussion on this subject. :) The TFoB section on this (assuming it's in TFoB) might already be written, but I'd still like some input on the subject. :)
Oh, almost forgot. Fractional values can be rounded either way, depending on how the Seneschal and players want it. Up for "safer" campaigns, down for more "lethal" campaigns. One could even make it more granular by making quarter fractions (.25 .5 .75) or less...
I think you've gone to more effort than necessary. In TROS the weapon damages are adjusted based on armor type, not the opposite way around as in Harn. Thus a war hammer does extra damage vs plate than vs leather.
I'd add in the arming doublet. I guess it could just be padding.
NT
Quote from: AngarosOne could even make it more granular by making quarter fractions (.25 .5 .75) or less...
But they'd still have to round. So how would it matter if you tweaked that closely? Or are you just saying that some values on a particular armor might round up and other's down?
Mike
Yes they'd still have to round. More granularity would just give you a more exact value. I would probably not use it, but it could be done... just a thought.
@ toli : It's more detailed than standard TRoS - yes, but not necessarily more cumbersome in actual play. I actually forgot about the "extra damage vs. hard armors" thing. :) Does this mean that the outer layer (if more layers of armor than one is used) is the one that counts as hard? One could wear a quilt aketon under a maille byrnie with a pauldron (shoulder prot.) on top. Would this still be hard armour even though the two underlying layers are soft. I'd say yes, but what do you think? Also, the list only shows materials not garments. A comprehensive armor list would show different garments of different materials such as maille cuirasses or hauberks, quilt/padded aketons and gambesons, plate couteres and so on...
Quote from: AngarosDoes this mean that the outer layer (if more layers of armor than one is used) is the one that counts as hard? One could wear a quilt aketon under a maille byrnie with a pauldron (shoulder prot.) on top. Would this still be hard armour even though the two underlying layers are soft. I'd say yes, but what do you think? Also, the list only shows materials not garments.
I think if you're wearing hard it doesn't really matter where it is. Presumably one would not wear plate under padding. What's the point.
Your approach might be useful in defining armor value for incomplete suits. I don't think a breas plate alone should have the same armor value as full plate. There are more gaps. A mail shirt worn concealed under a tunic would not have the same armor value as full mail armor...and all that.
NT
Quote from: toliYour approach might be useful in defining armor value for incomplete suits. I don't think a breas plate alone should have the same armor value as full plate. There are more gaps. A mail shirt worn concealed under a tunic would not have the same armor value as full mail armor...and all that.
Can't say that I agree. IMO the AV depends on material. Where it protects you depends on the garment. I don't deal much with complete suits when gaming. Most often players order (or "aquire" and adjust) pieces. Even a full plate armor is made out of pieces. Gaps would of course be fewer and less exploitable if a whole suite/set was made by the same armourer/team of armourers, but I'd imagine any armourer worth the name would adjust pieces ordered to give maximum protection when used with the pieces already owned. Armor has to be fitted to the wearer after all in order to be effective.
[quote="AngarosCan't say that I agree. IMO the AV depends on material. Where it protects you depends on the garment. [/quote]
That is basically what I meant by gaps. A breast plate alone will have gaps in the arm pits or neck, for example. A full suit of plate would have mail protecting the arm pits as well as some plate pieces. The value of plate alone would be 5, +1 for and arming shirt that protects the arm pits.
or something like that. It depends on how detailed you want the hit locations to be. If you want to include a very large number of hit locations, then simple physical value of the material is fine. However, lower detail can be simulated by giving different pieces more or less AV.
NT
Some of this doesn't make any sense --
Doesn't chain presume a layer of cloth or leather armor underneath? I was directed to this page http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm a while ago from a thread on toughness. Look at the results of taking a blow wearing chain against meat.
Similarly, doesn't plate presume there's a quilted byrnie or something underneath? I mean, sure, vambraces and greaves go pretty much right against the bone, but aren't the armor values for things like chain and plate based on a presumption that they're worn correctly?
I'm sorry if I misunderstand the purpose of this thread, but when talk turns to things like wearing chain under a tunic...sure, maybe as a last ditch tactic for a guy who just can't escape a duel at dawn, but as a general use of the armor?
Wearing plate or chain without padding underneath wouldn't do much good. Especially not chain. Even with padding underneath, getting chain links pushed into the body is far from uncommon with serious wounds. Plate and straps will also pinch and gripe skin without padding. Not as serious as getting a dozen mail rings pushed into the abdomen, but it really hurts. The AVs in the table above does not include padding since there are different kinds of padding garments to be used. I admit that the detail level I'm going for may be further than most people want to take TRoS armor rules, but I like this level of detail. :) I tried to get values to fit those already described in the rulebook. Plate AV 6 for example, which is the average AV gotten from Plate with Padding/Quilt in the detailed approach.
@ Toli : I see what you mean. The level of detail I'm aiming at would include a large number of hit locations (those covered in the damage tables basically), which is why I tried the materials approach.
Quote from: Jason KottlerSome of this doesn't make any sense --
Doesn't chain presume a layer of cloth or leather armor underneath? I was directed to this page [url].......
Similarly, doesn't plate presume there's a quilted byrnie or something underneath? I mean, sure, vambraces and greaves go pretty much right against the bone, but aren't the armor values for things like chain and plate based on a presumption that they're worn correctly?
I'm sorry if I misunderstand the purpose of this thread, but when talk turns to things like wearing chain under a tunic...sure, maybe as a last ditch tactic for a guy who just can't escape a duel at dawn, but as a general use of the armor?
Your point is largley my point. The full suit or battle ready set up assumes certain things like mail on the joints (like the arm pits) and padding underneath. Wearing just a breast plate (presumably over your jacket or some thing) wouldn't be as effective at covering small gaps etc.
As for chain under a tunic, obviously it isn't a military option. The duel at dawn or the king who is afraid of a dagger in the back might be the example. But again, just the mail with out the padding would not give as good protection, hence a lower AV......
Quote from: toliI think if you're wearing hard it doesn't really matter where it is. Presumably one would not wear plate under padding. What's the point.
Maybe this statement is true from a conventional medieval armour perpective. The purpose of the underlying soft armour is to protect the flesh from the vagaries of the armour itself and to help spread the concussion of the blow, and perhaps to make the armour more comfortable to wear etc.
However from a modern armour perpective a soft armour outer layer may be highly effective from an ablative stand-point. If the outer layer was a surcoat padded with densely packed fibre's say cotton fibres. The idea here being to take energy away from a thrust or a missile prior to striking the metal armour. Designed perhaps to protect against half-swording and Estoc attacks.
Another reason to wear cloth over mail or plate would be, for example, surcoats for knights and guardsmen. It wouldn't have any real effect as armor, as far as i can tell. Anything likely to punch through a chain vest isn't going to be slowed down by a surcoat of some sort.
A question: What would be the difference between hard leather and cuirbouilli? I was under the impression that cuirbouilli was leather boiled to make it hard. Chances are, i'm mistaken.
From what I've gathered, the actual production methods are a bit unclear so the distinction may be a modern one. As far as my list is concerned, hard leather is boiled in water causing it to stiffen and shrink a bit, while cuirboulli is leather boiled in wax causing it to stiffen even more.
cuirboulli is from, I believe, Italian for boiled leather.
Both wax and water boiling techniques have historical precedent. I've read an article, which I may try to find later, on cuirboulli, which was quite informative.
Quote from: Gary_BinghamQuote from: toliI think if you're wearing hard it doesn't really matter where it is. Presumably one would not wear plate under padding. What's the point.
However from a modern armour perpective a soft armour outer layer may be highly effective from an ablative stand-point. If the outer layer was a surcoat padded with densely packed fibre's say cotton fibres. The idea here being to take energy away from a thrust or a missile prior to striking the metal armour. Designed perhaps to protect against half-swording and Estoc attacks.
I don't think 'ablative armor' would be effective enough to justify the weigh and burden against half-swording or any sort of thrusts, much less slashes or curts. Furthermore, putting the padding outside the hard armor means tht the padding can be chopped away, grabbed or whatever. Sure, men in armor wore surcoats. They did it for identification, keeping the sun off shiny armor, protect the armor from the elements and needless wear. The surcoat was an accessory to the armor itself.
Besides, if you needed an extra layer of protection (especially against missiles), that was a primary reason for carrying shields!
I fail to see why it would be so, but there is historical evidence of a padded under garment, typically referred to as a haqueton, being worn under the knight's armour to protect against the rubbing of the rings and another padded garment being worn over both the mail and the breast plate called a gambeson and then covered by a short surcoat called a cyclas. Later, the gambeson is replaced by a jupon, which is a tighter fitting padded garment. By all accounts, this was a fairly common mode of dress for a battle field knight up to the start of the 15th Century.
Far as I know Tony the Haqueton and Gambeson are different names for the same thing...also Aketon and Wambais.
I've not seen any evidence of them being worn *outside* of armor, but there is ample evidence for them being worn *instead* of armor.
In fact the ubiquitous "Padded Armor" of D&D fame is nothing more than a Gambeson worn without a hauberk.
There is evidence for Gambesons being specifically made to be worn alone to be made thicker and heavier than those made for being worn under armor, but to my knowledge they never recieved a special name.
The names for the garments aren't that important, but there are tapistries showing knights in the Mid-13th Century to the beginning of the 15th century wearing a padded garment over their armour. Like I said, I'm not really sure why they would do that, maybe the garment offered some protection to their metal armour that was much harder to repair and more expensive than the padded armour, but that's what they show.
Interesting. I haven't seen these. Any chance you have a link to images on line so I can check them out?
The tapistries are in my books about medieval armour, which there are a few and are at home. Right now things are incredibly busy at work/school/home, but when I get a chance I'll try to look that stuff up. If you don't see me post anything about that, feel free to drop me a gental reminder. ;-)
If I can remember, I give you the titles and authors of the books I have after I get home tonight from work.
I've got Daily Life in Medieval Times by Gies & Gies, Techniques of Medieval Armour Reproduction by Brian Price, The Knight in History by Frances Gies, Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Paddock, The Royal Armoury at Greenwich 1515 - 1649: a History of Its Technology by Alan Williams and Anthony de Reuck, and Medieval Military Costume by Gerry Embleton. I think the book by Edge and Paddock had a tapistry or two in it. The rest are all incredible sources of information on armour.