Maneuvering in Armor

[redcrow]

To go along with my other post on weapons, I'm hoping to get some input on Armor.  Specifically, maneuvering in armor.  Many games include a skill for learning to maneuver in different types of armor, but  how difficult is it to maneuver in different armors?  I imagine it would be easier to maneuver in soft leather than full plate, but is it just a matter of getting used to or is there some actual training involved?  If there is some actual training involved, then what types of armors would require training?

If being completely unarmored equals 100% maneuverability, what percentage of maneuverability would full plate equal?  What about other armors like Cuir Bouilli, Chainmail or Scale?

How long can a person wearing full plate exert themselves before they begin to become fatigued?  What about other armors?

If a knight in full plate is knocked from his horse, is he like a turtle on its back or can he get to his feet quickly and easily?  Can someone wearing full plate climb a tree?  Do cartwheels and handstands?

[Mike Holmes]

Can you give a little context? What game this is for? The answers vary by game, you see.

To go along with my other post on weapons, I'm hoping to get some input on Armor.  Specifically, maneuvering in armor.  Many games include a skill for learning to maneuver in different types of armor, but  how difficult is it to maneuver in different armors?  I imagine it would be easier to maneuver in soft leather than full plate, but is it just a matter of getting used to or is there some actual training involved?  If there is some actual training involved, then what types of armors would require training?

OK, I'm going to give you the real life answers that I'm aware of. But realize that real life answers are often exactly what a design should avoid.

Training is probably not the right word for what soldiers do with armor. A soldier trains in his other skills while in armor to learn to negate the effects of the armor. But only for those skills. That is, you don't learn some skill that will make you better at everything including acrobatics. One might study acrobatics while in armor for some reason, and learn to cancel out the effects, but not likely. Why would you? How often are you going to do acrobatics on the field of battle in RL? Never happens.

If being completely unarmored equals 100% maneuverability, what percentage of maneuverability would full plate equal?  What about other armors like Cuir Bouilli, Chainmail or Scale?

I assume that you are talking about the "D&Dified" versions of these? To be precise there is no such thing as "Full Plate" in real life. There were jousting armors, and some field armors that included plate portions. But as a rule soldiers never went into battle in joustig plate armor which is what you see in FRPGs. "Scale"? Historical example? Not saying that such armors didn't exist. They just existed in such differing arrays of possbilities that making any asessment of "scale" isn't going to work. The least problem of which is trying to decide what such an armor covers, how thick it is, what metal it's made of, how much it weighs, and what sorts of joints it has, if any.

The point is that you're always going to be making assumptions. So why not just choose a reasonable sounding figure, and go from there? Why the obsession with the detail?

How long can a person wearing full plate exert themselves before they begin to become fatigued?  What about other armors?

Same problem, but worse. You missed the essential element, which is, to mention what the person is doing. Sitting? You can go a very long time just sitting there in armor without getting fatigued (yet it might surprise some to know that even just sitting there some armors will eventually fatigue you). Sprinting? Even light armor makes this a harder quick.

I assume you meant "fighting"? Well, that's actually a variable activity as well, which is rarely described well in terms of what actually happens. In any case, fatigue sets in after about the second blow, armored or not. Then it grows slowly until you fall over from overexertion. Any system that says that you can fight for X amount of time, and then you become "fatigued" is woefully unrealistic. But probably good enough for a game. So, again, don't sweat it.

If a knight in full plate is knocked from his horse, is he like a turtle on its back or can he get to his feet quickly and easily?  Can someone wearing full plate climb a tree?  Do cartwheels and handstands?

Depends, depends, and depends. Are we talking about Jousting armor or ceremonial plate again? Then, yes, it's heavy, and hard to recover from if unbalanced. But then, that's what you try to avoid in fights. Yes, you can climb trees, do cartwheels, and do handstands all in the heaviest of armors. But I wouldn't recommend it.

Armor, in general, does not prevent you from fighting, or doing anything closely related. Because if it did, nobody would use it. It's much more important to be able to move than it is to be armored. Because if your opponent tips you over, even if he's unarmed, he still has the advantge. You must be able to maneuver to stay viable in a melee. Armor does make fatigue set in more rapidly, but, again, not typically enough to make a difference in combat. Because if it did, nobody would use it.

In general, having armor is better than not having armor. That's why historically it was created sometimes at great expense. There is no "downside" to armor in a fight as a general rule (though designers always wish that were not true).

That said, fights last only seconds, and days are a lot longer. Another thing you'll never see is soldiers wearing armor if they aren't under direct threat of harm. Armor is hot, and wears you out over long periods. The first thing a soldier does when he gets to a safe area is to take off his armor. Because it sucks wearing armor (kevlar included).

Mike

[ThreeGee]

Hey redcrow,

What Mike said, but keep in mind that a fighter would take shots to his armor as well as use his armor to dish it out in close combat. Shields, of course, are an additional complication, being somewhere between weapons and armor.

All of it is inter-related, and if you are not familiar with fighting to the point where you feel comfortable writing a game about it, perhaps you should stick to playing The Riddle of Steel and write instead about what you know.

Later,
Grant

[redcrow]

Can you give a little context? What game this is for? The answers vary by game, you see.

This is for a game that I'm working on.

Training is probably not the right word for what soldiers do with armor. A soldier trains in his other skills while in armor to learn to negate the effects of the armor. But only for those skills. That is, you don't learn some skill that will make you better at everything including acrobatics. One might study acrobatics while in armor for some reason, and learn to cancel out the effects, but not likely. Why would you? How often are you going to do acrobatics on the field of battle in RL? Never happens.

You are correct.  A person probably would not do acrobatics on the field of battle in RL.  However, in a game such as I'm working on I can envision an armored warrior tumbling or rolling out of the way to avoid a charging horse or any number of other things.  What I'm after is how difficult this type of maneuvering would be.  I would like the game to provide a sense of realism without trying to ignore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and calculate every possible outcome.  I guess what I'm looking for is a simple realistic "rule of thumb" to go by.

Rather than trying to keep track separately of each skill a knight has trained with while in armor and what they have not, I would much prefer to use a simple penalty for trained and untrained.  Since you said that soldiers did train in armor, my next question is would training in heavy armor equate to training in lighter armors or is it better to require training in in simple armor categories such as Light, Medium, and Heavy.  Historically speaking, did soldier train in light armor such as soft leather or was training in armor simply reserved for the heavier armors.

I assume that you are talking about the "D&Dified" versions of these? To be precise there is no such thing as "Full Plate" in real life. There were jousting armors, and some field armors that included plate portions. But as a rule soldiers never went into battle in joustig plate armor which is what you see in FRPGs.

So, knights didn't wear a full suit of plate armor into battle?  What plate portions were generally worn into battle?  Was it just a breastplate?  Did it include Cuissart, Brassart, Vambrace, Greaves or were those portions reserved for tournaments only?

"Scale"? Historical example? Not saying that such armors didn't exist. They just existed in such differing arrays of possbilities that making any asessment of "scale" isn't going to work. The least problem of which is trying to decide what such an armor covers, how thick it is, what metal it's made of, how much it weighs, and what sorts of joints it has, if any.

Here is an example of Scale armor that I was able to find...
Scale

The point is that you're always going to be making assumptions. So why not just choose a reasonable sounding figure, and go from there? Why the obsession with the detail?

I wouldn't call it an obsession with detail.  A reasonable sounding figure is a good idea.  Did you have a particular figure in mind as the point of my post was to get exactly that from those who are more informed on the subject than I.

How long can a person wearing full plate exert themselves before they begin to become fatigued?  What about other armors?

Same problem, but worse. You missed the essential element, which is, to mention what the person is doing. Sitting? You can go a very long time just sitting there in armor without getting fatigued (yet it might surprise some to know that even just sitting there some armors will eventually fatigue you). Sprinting? Even light armor makes this a harder quick.

Well, I did mention exertion, which generally wouldn't include sitting.  What is a reasonable amount of time (on average of course) that a person wearing light armor could sprint for?  How long could the same person wearing heavy armor sprint for?

Its certainly true that I could simply take all this information from other games, but one of the reasons I haven't done so is because of all the complaining I hear from historical re-creationists about how innacurate they are.  So I was hoping to get some expert opinion on the subject rather than perpetuating the same innaccuracies that other games are accused of.

I assume you meant "fighting"? Well, that's actually a variable activity as well, which is rarely described well in terms of what actually happens. In any case, fatigue sets in after about the second blow, armored or not. Then it grows slowly until you fall over from overexertion. Any system that says that you can fight for X amount of time, and then you become "fatigued" is woefully unrealistic. But probably good enough for a game. So, again, don't sweat it.

I'm wanting to avoid applying advanced physics to a simple game to determine whether or not a character is tired, but at the same time I would rather be a bit unrealistic in the approach rather than "woefully" unrealistic.

Depends, depends, and depends. Are we talking about Jousting armor or ceremonial plate again? Then, yes, it's heavy, and hard to recover from if unbalanced. But then, that's what you try to avoid in fights. Yes, you can climb trees, do cartwheels, and do handstands all in the heaviest of armors. But I wouldn't recommend it.

Well my question stems from sources where I have read that if a knight was knocked down (as from his horse) his squire was required to rush to his aid and defend him if necessary.  Again, my question is if being completely unarmored equals 100% maneuverability, what would being fully armored equal in maneuverabilty.  I'm just looking for a simple, yet reasonably realistic rule of thumb not a complete guide to the effects of each and every separate piece or type of armor.  Something like this... unarmored = 100% maneuverability, lightly armored = 90% maneuverability, moderately armored = 70% maneuverability, heavily armored = 50% maneuverabilty, where light armor may be equivalent to leather armors, moderate may be equivalent to armor worn into battle, and heavy may be equivalent to full tournament plate mail with all the trimmings.

Armor, in general, does not prevent you from fighting, or doing anything closely related. Because if it did, nobody would use it. It's much more important to be able to move than it is to be armored. Because if your opponent tips you over, even if he's unarmed, he still has the advantge. You must be able to maneuver to stay viable in a melee. Armor does make fatigue set in more rapidly, but, again, not typically enough to make a difference in combat. Because if it did, nobody would use it.  

In general, having armor is better than not having armor. That's why historically it was created sometimes at great expense. There is no "downside" to armor in a fight as a general rule (though designers always wish that were not true).

I have heard many different accounts of what led to heavy armors being phased out on the field of battle.  What were some of the major factors that led to this if not maneuverability?  While my game focuses on a period where heavy armor is on the way out, I would still like to include some simple rules for their use to reflect why it might be being phased out, but also to support those who wish to use it.

That said, fights last only seconds, and days are a lot longer. Another thing you'll never see is soldiers wearing armor if they aren't under direct threat of harm. Armor is hot, and wears you out over long periods. The first thing a soldier does when he gets to a safe area is to take off his armor. Because it sucks wearing armor (kevlar included).

Mike

A fight with a single opponent might last only seconds, but what about charging into a full fledged battle with hundreds or even thousands of combatants on each side.  I imagine that type of engagement could last much longer than a few seconds and so accounting for fatigue could become critical.  

The focus of my game is small scale combats that would generally only last a few seconds, however I would like to include some simple yet reasonably realistic rules to cover situations where combat could last much longer than a few seconds.

[redcrow]

Hey redcrow,

What Mike said, but keep in mind that a fighter would take shots to his armor as well as use his armor to dish it out in close combat. Shields, of course, are an additional complication, being somewhere between weapons and armor.

All of it is inter-related, and if you are not familiar with fighting to the point where you feel comfortable writing a game about it, perhaps you should stick to playing The Riddle of Steel and write instead about what you know.

Later,
Grant

Well, one of the reasons for my posts is to get some informed opinions from those who are familiar with fighting.  All learning begins with "I don't know", which is the premise for my questions.

The Riddle of Steel is an excellent game and provides many elements which I would like to add in my game, however there are enough things I would have done differently to warrant perseverance in designing my own system.

I think it a bit unfair to say that only people who have practical experience with arms & armor should endeavor to create an RPG with a sense of realism.  That said, I'm simply looking to balance realism with fantasy heroism making things deadly without being overly deadly and heroic without being super-heroic.

[SrGrvsaLot]

I have heard many different accounts of what led to heavy armors being phased out on the field of battle. What were some of the major factors that led to this if not maneuverability?

The invention of firearms. Heavy armor was basically useless against 'em, so there really wasn't point in wearing anything hot, heavy, and uncomfortable if it wouldn't protect you from getting killed.

[redcrow]

I have heard many different accounts of what led to heavy armors being phased out on the field of battle. What were some of the major factors that led to this if not maneuverability?

The invention of firearms. Heavy armor was basically useless against 'em, so there really wasn't point in wearing anything hot, heavy, and uncomfortable if it wouldn't protect you from getting killed.

I've heard this before, but I've also heard counter-arguments that claim early firearms were not very good at penetrating heavy armor such as plate.  These counter-arguments generally agree that the crossbow was much more efficient at penetrating heavy armor than early firearms which basically fired a small steel ball.

Not being an expert myself, I am left to wonder which argument is correct and what historical sources verify it.

[Valamir]

The firearm / armor thing is a myth and one that has been dispelled here in the past.  Suffice it to say hear that firearms were increasingly deployed NOT because they were knight killers, but because they were much cheaper and easier to maintain than a crossbow, and much easier to train large numbers of peasants how to use than a longbow.  Malnourished starving soldiers could still fire a musket...malnourished starving archers can't even draw a longbow.

Armor fell from favor, NOT because it wasn't effective against gun fire, but due to expense.  Its one thing to outfit 1000 men in armor.  Its another to outfit 100,000 men in armor.  The period of transition from armored cavalry to shot and pike was also the period of transition from feudalism to nation states.  As the political importance of minor lords declined (the knight hood) concern about their prestige and "place of honor" in the army declined.  Cost, politics, expediency, the rise of armies of commoners were all more important factors than gun powder in the decline of armor.

But with that said...from the tones of your questions...wouldn't you be better off consulting a library for answers.  I mean we can't very well offer a crash course in period weaponry and history in an RPG forum.

[redcrow]

But with that said...from the tones of your questions...wouldn't you be better off consulting a library for answers.  I mean we can't very well offer a crash course in period weaponry and history in an RPG forum.

Certainly a library can provide a wealth of information, but even those sources can be contradictory.  I'm not looking for a crash course in period weaponry and history so much as I'm looking for educated answers to questions that I have already encountered contradictory answers for.  In that regard the ideas, suggestions, and opinions I find here are invaluable because they can apply to an RPG whereas few if any books from a library would provide suggestions on how these things might apply to a game.

[Mike Holmes]

What Ralph said.

You want all sorts of information on accuracy in these things but you refuse to go to the source. TROS is written by a member of ARMA, and endorsed by it. While Jake admits to certain liberies taken with reality to enable game play, these seem to be precisely the same liberties that you want to take.

Better question. What is it about TROS that you'd do differently?

To answer your question in a more general way the answer is nobody knows. That is, without being more specific, we can't give you answers. But the more specific your questions the less thay can be applied as a simulation. For example, you ask how far can an average armored man sprint? Well, that would assume that we knew a lot more aobut this average man than we do. How big is he? How strong is the average man? How much excercise does he get? What sort of aerobic respiratory rate can he be expected to have? Is that for a modern man or one from medieval Europe? Japan?

Just what does it mean for one man to be 87% as maneuverable as the next? I mean really, what do you expect for an answer when I've no idea what the question is? Does this relate to resolution in some fashion? Movement rates? What?

I'm not asking you to answer these questions. I'm asking you to consider that in fact they are unanswerable by anyone in the whole wide world. What you have to do is just work out some figures that sound reasonable to you. Then put it all together and then put this in front of somebody like Jake Norwood who has a good idea about how these things work in real life. Then he can tell you how you might want to adjust.

In any case, armor doesn't limit your mobility much in battle. There's actually very little difference between running in armor and sitting in terms of increase in fatigue rates (armor is balanced across the body so it's carried by the muscles that carry most of the body's weight anyhow). It's only at the very highest levels of exertion that it makes a difference, and even then it's marginal over short periods of time like individual combats. What's more likely to set in over the course of repeated small engagements is long term fatigue.

This doesn't have to be quantum mechanics to do fatigue realistically. Ars Magica, Hero System (Long term fatigue), and other systems do pretty good jobs of handling fatigue in realistic manners. What I like is to see systems where you slowly accumulate penalties that you can buy off by accumulating more penalties if you like. At some point the penalties become high enough that you can't buy them all off. This means that players have to consider making attacks or defenses at less than full effectiveness to avoid becoming so fatigued that they cannot continue. And taking breathers wherever possible. Combine with with Will rolls for really realistic handling. Thus, you'll have some characters who go down simply because they don't have the will to push themselves when tired, or make a mistake in assessing a threat and decide to take an attack to lightly, etc.

Fun, fun.

Mike

[redcrow]

Better question. What is it about TROS that you'd do differently?

Before I answer let me just re-state that there are many aspects of TROS that I really like.  I would also like to point out up front that what I would do differently is simply a matter of personal preference and is not meant to spark a debate on the best method for doing something.

First, I don't care for system mechanics that use multiple dice to determine "successes".  I enjoy playing games like TROS, Shadowrun, and Vampire that use this mechanic, but I've never cared for the mechanic itself.  There are reasons for my dislike of this type of dice mechanic, but I don't think detailing those reasons here is necessary.  This is something that I cannot simply house-rule away as it is a foundation for the game.

Second, while I do prefer a low-magic game, the magic system for TROS isn't as fleshed out or as detailed as I would like.  Certainly, I could add my own detail to the game or change it to suit my personal tastes, but to change what I feel needs changing or detail what I feel needs detailed would be the equivalent of re-writing the entire magic system from the ground up.  This has consequences to how the rest of the system functions, so any changes I might make must conform to the rest of the system or else I must begin altering the rest of the system to conform to my new magic rules.  I think it would be much easier to simply create my own system from the ground up to where everything conforms to my preferences right from the start.

Last, my preference in gameplay requires elements for characters that TROS just isn't designed to handle.  While I do like speed and ease of character creation, I would prefer a little more detail and crunchiness than TROS offers.  As with magic, the elements that I would like to see cannot be simply added in on top of the existing system without being forced to conform to the system or changing the entire system to conform to my additions.

TROS is a fine game and I have enjoyed the demo version very much and look forward to purchasing the full version soon.  What it does, it does very well, but there are things it doesn't do that I want in a game.

In any case, armor doesn't limit your mobility much in battle. There's actually very little difference between running in armor and sitting in terms of increase in fatigue rates (armor is balanced across the body so it's carried by the muscles that carry most of the body's weight anyhow). It's only at the very highest levels of exertion that it makes a difference, and even then it's marginal over short periods of time like individual combats. What's more likely to set in over the course of repeated small engagements is long term fatigue.

Amazingly, this is exactly the type of answer I was looking for.  I'm not looking for someone else to create all the crunchy rules for me, I'm just looking for some general opinions from people with practical knowledge and/or experience.  I will try to phrase my questions more specifically from now on.

This doesn't have to be quantum mechanics to do fatigue realistically. Ars Magica, Hero System (Long term fatigue), and other systems do pretty good jobs of handling fatigue in realistic manners. What I like is to see systems where you slowly accumulate penalties that you can buy off by accumulating more penalties if you like. At some point the penalties become high enough that you can't buy them all off. This means that players have to consider making attacks or defenses at less than full effectiveness to avoid becoming so fatigued that they cannot continue. And taking breathers wherever possible. Combine with with Will rolls for really realistic handling. Thus, you'll have some characters who go down simply because they don't have the will to push themselves when tired, or make a mistake in assessing a threat and decide to take an attack to lightly, etc.

Fun, fun.

Mike

Again, this is right in line with the type of answer I was looking for.  Not only have you given me good suggestions for other systems that handle fatigue in a realistic yet playable manner, but you also provided me with your personal preference.  The Will roll would fit rather nicely into my game design with a minimum of fuss or extraneous die rolling as it already includes a Willpower attribute which represents (among other things) a characters ability to continue once all mental and/or physical faculties have been exhausted.

I apologize for the obscurity of my questions and will try to be more specific in the future.  Thanx for the input and suggestions.

[ThreeGee]

Hey redcrow,

It is great that you are thinking about the details, but you need practical experience to tie everything together. For example, I played in a combat larp event on midsummer's day when it was so hot my boff sword cooked and had to be remade. Because of a quirk in the system, I was running around wearing little more than a towel and boots, and I was plenty hot even staying in the shade. My friends wearing chain had to take most of the afternoon off because they just could not take the constant exertion in hot armor. On the other hand, winter events are the opposite. I pile on the armor because it helps keep me warm and protects cold skin from damage.

Seriously, you need to do your homework. Take everything said on these threads and go to the library. Then, join your local SCA or combat larp group and try out what you have learned. Even sport fencing is better than nothing.

Later,
Grant

[Sylus Thane]

Hey Redcrow.
Since it seems you are looking for some practical experience with this I'll lend you some. I've been doing medievi recreation for almost fifteen years, all of it in armor. So far the ultimate thing I have run into that makes you tire in armor more quickly than anything else is the armor not fitting right. Didn't have anything to do with weight, (period armor didn't weigh as much as people think it does) or style but has everything to do with comfort, If your armor doen't fit you right of course it will wear on you, tire you out. But, if it does fit right, id made for you, then you never really notice it when your doing something, just like you don't notice comfortable clothes. I knew a guy that would ride to events in full plate on his mororcycle, he was only tired from the ride.

So overall it doesn't have anything to do with style, but with fit and comfort. that maybe what you should take into consideration, that or just don't worry about it.

Sylus