I know very little about which weapons were good or bad against which armors. I need to know, as it'll be a little important in the game I'm writing. I either need to find a good resource for this or else get help from you guys on the CBG.
A little background on the system:
Weapon damage stats are x/y (armor types). X is the lower damage value, which weapons use against armor they don't penetrate. Y is the higher damage value, which they use against armor they do penetrate. (Armor types) lists the types of armor the weapon penetrates.
Armor stats are a/b. A is the lower DR value, used against weapons that penetrate it. B is the higher DR value, used against weapons that don't penetrate it.
So I need to know which weapons would penetrate which armors. I also need to know whether weapons should have high x / low y (penetration across the board at the expense of max damage), low x / high y (damage at the expense of penetration), or both values more or less average.
Standard slashing melee weapons include:
Swords (A short sword, a one handed sword, and a two handed sword)
Axes (A throwing axe, a one-handed axe, and a two handed axe)
Scythe/sickle
Standard piercing weapons include:
Dagger/Rapier (for both I'm thinking they'll only penetrate leather)
Spears (shortspear, longspear)
Picks
Morningstar (beats leather and chain, and I'm thinking high penetration)
Standard bludgeoning weapons include:
Maces
Hammers
Flails
Club/Staff
Standard projectiles include:
Guns (revolver, rifle, shotun, sniper, and gat... I'm thinking leather and chain)
Bows (I'm thinking they'll only beat leather)
Crossbows
Slings
Polearms include:
Glaive
Guisarme
Halberd
Ranseur
Trident
Miscellaneous other weapons include:
Gauntlets
Darts / Javelins (maybe)
Whip
Net
Oh, and armors are fairly standard fare:
light/heavy chain
light/heavy leather (includes hide, etc.)
light/heavy plate
Quite a good idea with two damage levels. Allows you some more variety than with DR since you can have weapons that bypass armor more easily and such.
I wouldn't say that daggers can only penetrate leather. Daggers were most often used in real combat for stabbing knights in the eye and such, since the high pressure from the dagger point broke through the metal (rondels i think those daggers were called...). Anyway, knifes are a completely different story and are obviously not very effective against full plate.
Generally, full plate was very effective against slashing weapons unless they got in between the plates (you should probably have maneuvers or attacks that allows the user to aim for holes in the armor and such).
Blunt weapons were much more effective as they crushed his bone no matter what metal he wore since the shock just moved through the plate, but knights often wore padded armor underneath to prevent this. (so they had one vs. slashing and one vs. bludgeoning). I think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.
I can never remember whether chain was made against crossbows or the other way around, but i *think* that crossbows would pierce it as they would expand the ring and go through.
I seem to recall that the Flower of Combat supplement for Riddle of Steel had some useful stuff about this in a sidebar in their armor chapter...
Hope it helps (and that i remembered the facts correctly)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowQuite a good idea with two damage levels. Allows you some more variety than with DR since you can have weapons that bypass armor more easily and such.
I wouldn't say that daggers can only penetrate leather. Daggers were most often used in real combat for stabbing knights in the eye and such, since the high pressure from the dagger point broke through the metal (rondels i think those daggers were called...). Anyway, knifes are a completely different story and are obviously not very effective against full plate. [/quote]Generally, full plate was very effective against slashing weapons unless they got in between the plates (you should probably have maneuvers or attacks that allows the user to aim for holes in the armor and such).
Blunt weapons were much more effective as they crushed his bone no matter what metal he wore since the shock just moved through the plate, but knights often wore padded armor underneath to prevent this. (so they had one vs. slashing and one vs. bludgeoning).[/quote] I think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.[/quote]
I seem to recall that the Flower of Combat supplement for Riddle of Steel had some useful stuff about this in a sidebar in their armor chapter...
Hope it helps (and that i remembered the facts correctly)
[/quote]
Thanks for the tips.
I think that chain (just like plate) would be little protection against blunt weapons unless padded armor was worn. Most armor was worn in layers with different qualities back then, a fact DnD and other games seem to scoot over (or maybe they just assume you are wearing padded underneath).
I have a list of weapons with 3 damage types (P, S, B), and a list of armor with DR vs those types. Want it?
M.
@CC: So include the option of wearing light chain or leather underneath as a hauberk? Maybe just increase the lower DR value?
@Cheo: It might be useful. I'd like to see.
Quote from: cataclysmic crowI think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.
It would depend on the arrowhead more than anything. A broadhead arrow would go through cloth, might go through leather, but wouldn't go through anything else. A bodkin arrow would go through anything up to chain almost 100% of the time and on a direct hit would also go right through plate.
@Nomadic & co.
so what was the most common arrowhead? I can't speak on behalf of Beejazz, but this seems like a somewhat non-complex system so he might not want to complicate it with multiple types of arrowheads. Of course, up to him.
It would take a lucky hit for any kind of arrow to pierce through plate (less so than hitting a gap in the armor).
Anyway, the effectiveness of pretty much all types of projectile weapons depends a whole lot on the distance to the target. The weapon's effective range would typically be just a fraction of the maximum range, especially so VS armored targets.
In case of bows specifically, it also depends on the draw weight. Obviously arrows shot with a 70lb draw bow aren't going to be as likely to pierce armour as those shot with a 150lb draw bow.
As for melee weapons, I think you should consider giving them more than just one type of damage, especially in the case of swords. Just about any kind of sword can be used to thrust, some swords are just better at this than others. Axe-type weapons and some polearms can also pack quite a punch, so they could be treated as bludgeoning weapons when used against heavy armor.
Quote from: GhostmanIt would take a lucky hit for any kind of arrow to pierce through plate (less so than hitting a gap in the armor).
For most arrows yes but for a bodkin it would only take a close to mid range shot hitting directly.
@CC the most common arrows were broadheads as they were also effective hunting arrows and thus in common supply even outside of military stockpiles.
Quote from: NomadicFor most arrows yes but for a bodkin it would only take a close to mid range shot hitting directly.
Having followed conversations on the subject of bows vs armor by people better informed than myself (such as on Sword Forum International), I am inclined to disagree with your statement. I'll have to bow out of this debate though (pardon the pun!) before it gets any further, as I'm not the right person to try to argue the matter in any depth.
Some flawed data in this thread.
A bodkin arrow was formerly considered to be the armor piercer, but once we finally did analysis instead of speculation, we discovered we were wrong. Of numerous bodkin heads tested, not any were hardened in a discernible way. A source (http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads)
What does this mean?
It means that a bodkin head, with its easy-to-manufacture design and common discovery, is a massed produced flight arrow for general use. It wounds badly when it impacts flesh, but it is not an AP round. At close range it might ding or put a small hole in plate, but the force of the arrow will damage the head fairly badly. These are arrows you don't count on getting back.
M.
From my understanding, a longbow with a bodkin arrow could pierce plate at close range. Though this is only from Bernard Cornwell books and what my grandfather used to say. (He read up on the stuff, but not a viable authority.)
Also, according to the British Long Bow Society the maximum draw strength for a period bow was 110 lbs. Which did surprise me, as I believed 150 was accepted as the max (and I guess that nullifies my opinions and beliefs on the subject.)
I also remember reading that crossbows' bolts would just stick in plate, but longbows' arrows would go through.
Blunt weapons will still smash someone up regardless of armour, I'm pretty certain.
But the Arms and Armour Journal has done some tests that disagree. According to Sword Forum International forums, their tests were done with harder arrowheads than used when longbows were used, and a sheet of steel instead of a breastplate (whose curvature and ribbedness would perhaps deflect an arrow).
Quote from: CheomeshSome flawed data in this thread.
A bodkin arrow was formerly considered to be the armor piercer, but once we finally did analysis instead of speculation, we discovered we were wrong. Of numerous bodkin heads tested, not any were hardened in a discernible way. A source (http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads)
What does this mean?
It means that a bodkin head, with its easy-to-manufacture design and common discovery, is a massed produced flight arrow for general use. It wounds badly when it impacts flesh, but it is not an AP round. At close range it might ding or put a small hole in plate, but the force of the arrow will damage the head fairly badly. These are arrows you don't count on getting back.
M.
I don't recall saying that a bodkin was the equivalent of an armor piercing round. What I take issue with is the idea that a bodkin arrow was only capable of piercing armor if the shooter was very lucky. A solid shot from close range will pierce just fine. A solid shot from mid range also has an acceptable chance to get through. Long range, no you would have to be lucky. Armor helps reduce the chance of getting hurt (and can reduce the damage done if you are hurt) but it isn't a shield that arrows or anything else (except maybe blowup hammers :P) just bounces off of without effect.
[blockquote Atsisodhi]...crossbows' bolts would just stick in plate, but longbows' arrows would go through.[/blockquote]
I was under the impression that the opposite was true.
Recurves, longbows and other bows that required the
archer to have sufficient strength to pull the string
back. This naturally limits the amount of poundage you
could place upon the arrow. In contrast, a winch-powered
crossbow allows the archer to provide a greater amount of
force, and as such provide a greater force upon the projectile.
[blockquote Atsisodhi]...the Arms and Armour Journal has done some tests that disagree. According to Sword Forum International forums, their tests were done with harder arrowheads than used when longbows were used, and a sheet of steel instead of a breastplate (whose curvature and ribbedness would perhaps deflect an arrow).[/blockquote]
Considering the case-hardening techniques utilised for later-period
armouring techniques, any metal softer than a high-carbon steel alloy
is likely to be softer and more easily pierced. This effect is further
exacerbated when combined with arrow heads that have been hardened
further than we have seen any evidence for.
As such, if this test still fails to pierce steel plates, can we not
further extrapolate this to suggest that the arrow heads in question
could not pierce a breastplate, considering that was often harder,
and were also shaped in a way that also increased deflection?
Early guns on the other hand were much better. They could project
lead shots with much more force (many, many times as much) and rather
than trying to pierce it with a sharp point, the shot only acted as
a medium for transfering the force to a small area. I'm told that
realistically a lead shot wayed a similar amount too.
This extra force was particularly useful against opponents wearing
plate, in that its innate rigidity, thinness and high-carbon case-
hardened composition made it more susceptible to having large holes
punched through it. Hence later developments in armouring used
softer, thicker steel that was designed to absorb and disperse the
force of the shot.
I am far from an expert on the subject but here is my two low-denomination-monetary-units.
I remember seeing a documentary a few years back about Agincourt where they set up a test to see whether a longbow really could pierce plate armour. they had an experienced archer fire a reproduction longbow at a plate of steel (as in Atsisodhi's example). There was a big dent in the plate, but no actual penetration.
As I said, I'm no expert, but there did seem to me to be two issues with their experiment. One was that they placed the steel on what seemed to be a block of another metallic substance. I don't know, but I'd guess this would reinforce the steel from behind the same way that piling stuff against a door makes it harder to bash in. Certainly a big difference between metal and the padded armour I understand was historically worn under plate.
The other problem was that the archer drew the bow using his arm. Again this isn't a subject I have any great knowledge in, but I have always been lead to believe that a properly trained longbowman would draw his bow using his whole body rather than just the arm, to give his shot more power and range, but sacrificing accuracy.
So, feel free to shoot me down seeing as I really have no clue what I'm talking about and can barely even remember the documentary, but that's my contribution to the debate :P
A) Not all crossbows were winch-drawn.
[ooc]Although a longbow had greater range, could achieve comparable accuracy and faster shooting rate than an average crossbow, crossbows could release more kinetic energy and be used effectively after a week of training, while a comparable single-shot skill with a longbow could take years of practice.[/ooc]
you have push levers, pull levers, cranquins, and windlass systems, and the force is still dependent on other variations, such as recurving and the use of composite, and later, steel materials.
2) Firearms really pushed the development of armor.
Crossbows such as the Gatrophetes and arcuballista and the chinese varients had been around forever, but early firearms did penetrate almost all current armor, but arrmor on the battlefield from that point on (up to today) was developed primarily to deal with firearm upgrades.
[ooc]
In the early 15th century, small "hand cannon" first began to be used, in the Hussite Wars, in combination with Wagenburg tactics, allowing infantry to defeat armoured knights on the battlefield. At the same time crossbows were made more powerful to pierce armour. Rather than dooming the use of body armour, the threat of small firearms intensified the use and further refinement of plate armour. There was a 150 year period in which better and more metallurgically advanced steel armour was being used, precisely because of the danger posed by the gun. Hence, guns and cavalry in plate armour were "threat and remedy" together on the battlefield for almost 400 years. By the 15th century Italian armour plates were almost always made of steel[8]. In Southern Germany armourers began to harden their steel armour only in the late 15th century. They would continue to harden their steel for the next century because they quenched and tempered their product which allowed for the fire-gilding to be combined with tempering[9].[/ooc]
Wow. This thread sparked more discussion than I'd expected it would. I guess it's something relevant to most of us regardless of system if we're going for slightly more accurate representations of weapons. I'll settle for just getting things to feel right, if I can manage it.
Before I try sorting through the discussion and responding, here's what the guy I'm writing my game with had to say on the weapon list I've got so far. I wanna just run this by more people and make sure it sounds about right.
QuoteSword:Short-penetrates leather, high damage, low penetration
Long-leather, maybe mail-average
2Hands-leather, mail, maybe plate?-amazing penetration, slightly better than average damage. Perhaps make it some sort of specialized weapon? or extra penalties
Axes :Throwing-leather, hgh penetration, low damage
1hand-leather, mail, high pen, low damage
2hand-leather, mail, plate(?)-high pen, low damage
Standard piercing weapons include:(all high pen, low damage unless otherwise mentioned)
Dagger/Rapier leather,
Spears:Short-leather, mail
Long-leather, mail, plate
Picks, leather, mail, plate
Morningstar leather, mai
Standard bludgeoning weapons include:
Maces-plate, mail-high damage, low pen
Hammers-same
Flails-same
Club/Staff-none, high damage, low pen
Standard projectiles include:
Guns: Revolver:-leather, chain-average
Rifle-leather, chain, plate-average
Sniper-leahter, chain, plate,low pen, high damage
Gatling-everything-low pen, high damage
Shotgun-low pen, high damage-leather
Bows-leather-high pen, low camage
Crossbows-leather-average
Slings-none-high damage, low pen
Polearms include: all (unless otherwise listed)-leather-high pen, low damage-all get set
(I'm thinking we just rip off D&D here)
Glaive-leather-high damage, low pen
Guisarme (trip)
Halberd (trip)
Ranseur (disarm)-leather high damage, low pen
Trident
Miscellaneous other weapons include:
Gauntlets-bludgeoning-mail-low damage, low pen
Javelins-piercing-leather, mail-high pen, low damage
Whip-trip-no penetration, high damage
Net-no damage, entangle?
For game reasons, I'm critical of the idea of weapons that penetrate everything (a few that penetrate nothing are alright... in either case, I'm thinking they only need one damage bonus).
Oh, and he did skip sickle and scythe. I asked him about it and he said leather high damage low penetration.
EDIT: I'm also looking for excuses to make certain weapons less similar overall... I don't want duplicate stats and it looks like there'd be a lot of that.