|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 6:49:58 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 6:49:58 GMT -5
On the subject of shields...
I think it's more appropriate to have them increase your Defense value rather than your Armour, as they require active use to protect yourself with, and getting by a shield is more often a question of skill rather than impact. Impact obviously matters as brutal weapons increase your offense, but I like this approach. Shields will also provide their defense bonus against ranged attacks, which weapons do not for obvious reasons.
Shields:
Buckler: Small round shields, often coated or completely made out of metal. They're primarily used for melee parrying, and can provide a good edge in close quarters. Their defense bonus only applies in close combat.
Defense: 1
Parrying Dagger: While not technically a shield, light parrying daggers were often used in conjuction with swords in professional European fencing. They offer a versatile off-hand tool for parrying, riposte and deflection and perform a similar role to the buckler. A parrrying dagger's defense only applies in close combat. They do not count as an additional weapon, but as a shield. However, if you have no weapon they count as a Tool.
Defense: 1
Shield: Large round shields as used by many dark age nations, medieval kite shields and drop shields. This is a profile for your typical large, wooden shield.
Defense: 2
Pavise: Pavises are alrge board-shaped shields often used in sieges or by crossbowmen to take cover behind while reloading. They're heavy, tough wooden constructs that cover most of your body.
Defense: 3
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 7:10:02 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 7:10:02 GMT -5
Fighting with two weapons:
You can wield two single-handed weapons at the same time, and may make one attack with each every time you fight. Your Initiative order test is not affected. However, while you are wielding two weapons all attacks are made at -3 Offense.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 8:29:52 GMT -5
Post by Rolling Thunder on Sept 1, 2011 8:29:52 GMT -5
The simplest solution is to make the next-highest model into a commander, chosen by the player. That's what most wargames do.
But brigandines aren't as good as cuirasses. They're good - better than basic mail - but fundamentally the shape of a plate cuirass is the best simply because it is smooth and deflects blows nicely. Brigandines give something for a point to latch on to, so the energy can be delivered rather than deflected by the shape. I also think you should up mail hauberks. In terms of protective capacity they're pretty amazing, given they cover you from head to toe in swordproof and semi-arrow/spearproof armour.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 8:52:19 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 8:52:19 GMT -5
I might do that, do you think that's a more realistic solution considering the scale? We're primarily talking about medieval (1000-1500) tactics here.
Well, it depends on what you're up against. Certainly a brigandine would offer better protection against an axe or mace than a light cuirass would?
What if I up plate cuirass to 4, and then brigandines and hauberks both go 5? You're right, while a hauberk in my description does not inclode heavy leg or arm protection, it still includes a gambeson which is pretty damn good going.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:27:07 GMT -5
Post by Rolling Thunder on Sept 1, 2011 9:27:07 GMT -5
Well, it depends on what you're up against. Certainly a brigandine would offer better protection against an axe or mace than a light cuirass would? Not really. There's no such thing as a "light" cuirass - they all tend to be around the same thickness. Brigandines also don't protect the shoulders (same with cuirasses). The plate cuirass is superior to the brigandine (brigandines basically being scale mail or lamellar with a leather covering). And cuirasses are almost always worn with padding underneath. So I'd suggest you drop the brigandine to 4.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:35:20 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 9:35:20 GMT -5
You're probably right RT, but I'm really uncertain about making the hauberk more protective than the brigandine as they are relatively similar constructions, just with the difference between mail and plate. It's always possible to keep them all at 5 though, or make the cuirass 5 and dump the others to 4.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:40:58 GMT -5
Post by Rolling Thunder on Sept 1, 2011 9:40:58 GMT -5
The brigandine only covers the torso. The hauberk covers the torso, shoulders, upper arms, pelvis, and thighs, and often extends to the arm. It's significantly more coverage and only slightly less resilient to thrusting attacks. I'd make the brigandine 3 (because the advantage isn't significantly greater than that conferred by scale or lamellar), the cuirass 4 and the hauberk 5.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:44:22 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 9:44:22 GMT -5
What exactly did you miss when I said that the brigandine profile represents the medieval constructions with padded coats (arms and legs protected by padded cloth and possible metal plates)? The torso-only brigandine is refered to as the Wisby Harness in the rules.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:50:45 GMT -5
Post by Rolling Thunder on Sept 1, 2011 9:50:45 GMT -5
Because the difference in protection is minimal. It's like having an entry for a mail shirt worn over a larger gambeson (fairly common occurance). Also, padded cloth<Mail in terms of protection.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:55:38 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 9:55:38 GMT -5
Had a more thorough look. Yeah, you're right, actually riveting the arms and legs parts seems to have been unusual. Besdies, armour isn't ever supposed to include proper leg and arms protection as that's what the additional armour is for. Brigs and wisby harnesses will be melded to 3. Hauberks and breastplates stay at 4, I will not make the hauberk 5 as it's not assumed to include mail chausses or heavy arm protection, and therefore is better but not hugely better than a haubergon.
Will use uo the 5 "slot" on a lighter, early mail and plate armour. The current mail and palte will be renamed to transitional plate.
ranged weapons tomorrow!
|
|
Gardelin
Guardsman
The Pantless One
And then, there were sallets.
Posts: 67
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 9:57:06 GMT -5
Post by Gardelin on Sept 1, 2011 9:57:06 GMT -5
Liking the armour system, with it's many varieties, and the fact that the helmet makes a difference. Space marine sergeants would scream in terror, had this not been a historical medieval setting.
One question though; how do you handle combined armour? Say, if the model has a mail hauberk with a brigandine on top, would you use some combining table, or rather the highest armour value of the two?
Also, about the brigandine. Wasn't the long sleeved version the more uncommon one? Wikipedia says so, and I have yet to see a single one outside of M&B.
The shields are also nicely done, adding to the defence instead of armour, since they were primarily used to deflect blows, not soaking them up. Well, unless you were a viking. Then you'd use the shield to trap the enemy weapon.
Additional, regarding the sergeants, I think you should keep them named sergeants. While maybe not 100% historically accurate, it's a good collective term for the second-in-commands which would inevitably be in present, seeing as the "armies" would rather be a small retinue or a raiding party, than the huge blob of soldiers used in medieval armies.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 10:02:29 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 1, 2011 10:02:29 GMT -5
Last post before heading home! I'm glad you like them, was rather pleased with the initial work myself. Combined armour is often handled as a higher armour class, for example a mail hauberk with a brigandine would likely be classed as transitional plate armour. Basically, you can't combine body armour, but I might change that if I see a good reason. Yeah, I realised that as well. Brigandines and Wisby harnesses will be the same armour piece from now on. I liked the Sergeants as well (and not only because I've played Total War games), the name carries more weight than "veteran". Might make them a single man though, a bit like a second-in-command to the captain. If I do that I'll add Veterans as a new unit. Glad you like the shields! Really appreciate the feedback. talk more soon! Liking the armour system, with it's many varieties, and the fact that the helmet makes a difference. Space marine sergeants would scream in terror, had this not been a historical medieval setting. One question though; how do you handle combined armour? Say, if the model has a mail hauberk with a brigandine on top, would you use some combining table, or rather the highest armour value of the two? Also, about the brigandine. Wasn't the long sleeved version the more uncommon one? Wikipedia says so, and I have yet to see a single one outside of M&B. The shields are also nicely done, adding to the defence instead of armour, since they were primarily used to deflect blows, not soaking them up. Well, unless you were a viking. Then you'd use the shield to trap the enemy weapon. Additional, regarding the sergeants, I think you should keep them named sergeants. While maybe not 100% historically accurate, it's a good collective term for the second-in-commands which would inevitably be in present, seeing as the "armies" would rather be a small retinue or a raiding party, than the huge blob of soldiers used in medieval armies.
|
|
Gardelin
Guardsman
The Pantless One
And then, there were sallets.
Posts: 67
|
REALISM
Sept 1, 2011 10:21:07 GMT -5
Post by Gardelin on Sept 1, 2011 10:21:07 GMT -5
About combining armour. I think it should be included, or at least touched upon, since basically everyone did it in the 1300-1400's. Wisby harnesses, mail and brigandines were hardly ever worn without using them together with other armour, 'cept for gambs.
But, even if there's no combining, add some descriptions so that you'll know what counts as what. For instance, I have a captain wearing a mail haubergeon with brigandine on top and has fully platemail covered arms. Had the guy worn a cuirass instead of brigandine, it'd have been a platemail. So what armour rating would this mishmash of armour have?
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 2:13:56 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 2:13:56 GMT -5
I'll see about it, but most instances (including your guy) is mail and plate. Any form of mail hauberk with more or less plate armour added to it is included in this category. So your guy would have mail and plate + full arm guards for a total armour rating of 7. If he has plate-mailed legs as well, he'd have the additional leg guards for a total rating of 8 (9 with a helmet) which is the intended value and effect of transitional plate armour.
I've been thinking about combinations though, for example it seems odd that a mail haubergon would only have 1 more armour rating than a gamb, if it's supposed to include one. I also have to play it cool with the armour piercing values though, but I'm sure I can work something out.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 2:58:54 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 2:58:54 GMT -5
Right guys, experimenting with combined armour. Assume that armour can be combined within reason, how does thee values sound? Remember that I have to work with 10 values and everything can't be 8-10 as it'd make most models immortal. I intend to up the AP on weapons, but bear with me for now and accept a certain degree of representation and average values.
Leather Jerkin: 1 Gambeson: 1 Mail armour: 3 Brigandine: 3 Iron cuirass: 4 Tempered steel cuirass: 6
Helmet: 1 Arm guards: 1 Leg guards: 1
So, to run a few popular examples..
Norman knight: Gambeson, mail, helmet = 5 1400's transitional plate: Mail, brigandine = 6 14th century era militia: Gambeson, helmet = 2 Viking huscarl: Mail, helmet = 4 Gothic knight: Tempered steel cuirass, leg guards, arm guards, helmet = 9 16th century landsknecht: Iron cuirass, helmet: 5
Right, so some reasoning here guys. I told you there would have to be compromises. The compromise to make transitional plate and similar armour slightly worse than full tempered steel, is the merging of hauberks and haubergons. It's just the way it has to be to keep things in line. Also every man cannot be assumed to have a gambeson, the profile is meant to represent the heavy padding typically worn by militia or early medieval soldiers, not the lighter comfortable padded clothes work with later era plate mail. I can't cover everything unless I up to D20, and I'd rather not do that.
Do you prefer the combination system, or the old design? If I stick with the old design I'll make it more clear which armour types that include which combination pieces.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 4:54:21 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 4:54:21 GMT -5
Right, so let's see about those ranged weapons. Each weapon will have one profile for short range and one for long, primarily tooling with the outlay and the O/AP values at the moment but range will be added on at convinient time.
Offense values on bows are fixed, and have nothing to do with the man firing them.
RANGE ADDED. RANGE IS REALISTIC AND IS BASED ON FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS:
MEDIEVAL MAN = ROUGHLY 1,5 METER TALL. MODEL = 28MM 28 MM = 1,1 INCHES
1,5 M/YARDS = 1 INCH
IN EFFECT, RANGE IS IN SCALE 1X1,5
REALISTIC RANGE IS THEN DIVIDED BY HALF, REPRESENTING REALISTIC EFFECTIVE RANGE FIRING AT A FEW DOZEN SKIRMISHERS.
...And also to make the game a bit more approachable...
It's very hard to belive that GW got some of these things right. I might have made a mistake here, correct me if I have.
My reasoning, using the longbow as an example:
The effective range of a competent longbowman to hit a non-moving target, is roughly 100 yards. So we have 100 yards, and because 1,5 m = 1 inch we divide 100by 1,5 and get 66. Then we halve 66, representing the significantly increased difficulties in hitting a running man, and achieve 33. This is abbrevated to 32 for the sake of even numbers. Result, the longbow's range is 32".
A turn represents roughly between 1 and 5 seconds. The average human can run 7 yards in a second, make it 5 accounting for equipment. 5 x 1-5 = 5 - 25. A man will run between 5 and 25 yards per turn. This is between 3 and 16 inches per turn.
It's perfectly reasonable to me that a longbowman would be able to fire up to 2 arrows (4 if doing it rapidly with less chance to hit) during the time it takes an average man to run 50 yards whilst carrying equipment.
Javelin:
Short range: 5" Offense: 5 Armour piercing: 3 Rate of fire: 1
Long range: 10" Offense: 4 Armour Piercing: 1 Rate of fire: 1
Self bow:
Short range: 12" Offense: 4 Armour piercing: 2 Rate of fire: 2
Long range: 25" Offense: 4 Armour Piercing: 1 Rate of fire: 2
Composite Bow:
Short range: 12" Offense: 5 Armour piercing: 4 Rate of fire: 2
Long range: 25" Offense: 4 Armour Piercing: 2 Rate of fire: 2
Longbow:
Short range: 16" Offense: 5 Armour piercing: 4 Rate of fire: 2
Long range: 32" Offense: 4 Armour Piercing: 2 Rate of fire: 2
Crossbow (horn/wood):
Short range: 16" Offense: 6 Armour piercing: 5 Rate of fire: 1
Long range: 32" Offense: 5 Armour Piercing: 4 Rate of fire: 1
Crossbow (winch):
Short range: 20" Offense: 7 Armour piercing: 7 Rate of fire: 1, but has to reload every other turn.
Long range: 80" Offense: 6 Armour Piercing: 4 Rate of fire: 1, but has to reload every other turn.
(Winch bows are assumed to have an effective range of 300yards, in reality this would range from about 200 up to 1000 depending on construction)
Arquebus:
Short range: 3" Offense: 9 Armour piercing: 10 Rate of fire: 1, but has to reload every other turn.
Long range: 6" Offense: 5 Armour Piercing: 4 Rate of fire: 1, but has to reload every other turn.
Arquebuses and winch crossbows will have to spend an active turn reloading before they can fire again. Bows can choose to fire twice per turn, but at an additional -1 penalty on the roll to hit.
Ranges and hit modifiers coming soon.
Also here is the AP/A tabe chart I made, it can also be used to compare defense/offense.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 5:17:40 GMT -5
Post by Walrus on Sept 2, 2011 5:17:40 GMT -5
I am so playing this... The armour combination looks good, and I can't see anything wrong with ranged weaponry.
That Gothic knight looks like it would be rather hard to kill...
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 5:29:55 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 5:29:55 GMT -5
Thanks. ;D
Do you prefer the combination armour system to the fixed one? They both have their own aspect of realism, the combination offering.. well, combinations, while the fixed offers slightly more varied and natural armour values (that occasionally come off as rather unrealistic however).
Yeah, if you look at the chart you'd need AP 5 to even have a chance at killing someone in full plate armour on anything but a natural 10.
Gonna update weapon's AP value accordingly once the armour situation is resolved. Where are my henchmen when you need them?
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 5:33:10 GMT -5
Post by Walrus on Sept 2, 2011 5:33:10 GMT -5
In your dungeon I prefer the combined system, it makes me think of soldiers picking up extra bits of armour, or switching out bits (something I would have done back then). I will check it out when I get back in a few days
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 5:38:33 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 5:38:33 GMT -5
I'm afraid my dungeon is reserved for my fiancé, with absolutely no men allowed. No, Gardelin is probably asleep, playing Fable 3 or painting archers, and RT is almost certainly playing Europa Barbaroum! Yeah, looting was always prominent in warfare (especially in late medieval and rennaissance Europe), and soldiers on campaign scavenge what they can. Beyond that, a number of combinations are just plain cheaper and more readily available than buying a more advanced armour suit is. Combined armour has been worn by people from all over the world to reinforce protection without necessarily investing a lot of money in it. Or investing a lot of money into it... Byzantine cataphracts! You could've equipped three men with everything they wore. Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it!
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 6:15:30 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 6:15:30 GMT -5
Things this game will include in the future: Horses. Probably a similar strategy as I used in WHFB: TR, as in the horse has a seperate profile from the rider and hits against the model are randomised. If the rider dies, the horse runs away somewhere. If the horse dies, the rider is assumed to fall off and be incapacitated. Impact hits when charging over a certain distance etc.. they'll be quite expensive though!
Thins we will not include: Siege weapons. Make no sense for the purpose of the scale, but I'll include rules for ladders, siege towers, grappling hooks and other nice things for fort sieges. Basic stuff really.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 7:52:49 GMT -5
Post by Shostak(AWOL) on Sept 2, 2011 7:52:49 GMT -5
This project is looking really good!
May I suggest some sort of fire rate stat, it stands to reason that a soldier with a longbow should be able to kick out more shots than one with a winch crossbow.
Is this game going to include a sort of points system, or run as an ongoing RP campaign, recruiting more men as they die and looting from the dead etc, (or both)?
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 8:00:17 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 8:00:17 GMT -5
Thanks for your interest! Yeah, I wrote that in the last line of the update dealing with ranged weapon. Haven't added an actual statistic for it, but that's a good suggestion. I'll include points values for everything once the actual content is decided (troops, weapons, armour, horses). It's designed as a basic skirmish miniature wargame really, any campaign or RP settings would have to be external modifications. I've already designed one medieval/fantasy RP and isn't likely to do another one, but Gardelin is working on some pretty cool Mighty Empires campaign settings that could work well for my system with some adaptions.
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 8:03:40 GMT -5
Post by Shostak(AWOL) on Sept 2, 2011 8:03:40 GMT -5
Thanks for your interest! Yeah, I wrote that in the last line of the update dealing with ranged weapon. Haven't added an actual statistic for it, but that's a good suggestion. Ooops, missed that! I look forward to seeing how this turns out!
|
|
|
REALISM
Sept 2, 2011 8:08:02 GMT -5
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Sept 2, 2011 8:08:02 GMT -5
Added a RoF statistic, "Reload" will now be one of the Activation options for men armed with winchbows or arquebuses. Thanks mate, obviously once everything's complete I'll summarise this into a proper, tidy rulebook. Will probably print them off and hand them out to wargamers and interested parties, so everyone who shows interest on the forum and lives in the UK can have one mailed to them once it's finished. There's not a whole lot left to to to be honest, fine-tuning stuff, points values, ranges, horsies.. maybe some siege rules? And then basic rules, I want to make a real rulebook that people who've never played wargames can read and learn the game from. So lots of explaining stuff that you and I take for granted!
|
|