| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Quotes (actually quote) fixed.
RE Medieval Armor: it got heavier as time went on. There was a cionstant battle bwetween armor and weapons. As the weapons got heavier so did the armor. Things like warbows, crossbows, heavier horses and firearms all led to heavier armor. Late tilting and list armor were the worst.
The armor did provide a lot of mobility, but it still was fatiguing. They was actually different pieces that were worn when fighting on foot.
Most Rpgs tend to make the weapons, armors and shields too heavy. The 25 pound two handed sword from AD&D being a great example.
Simpler is better if and when it works. Sometimes you need the extra complexity to get better results. Hence multiple skills instead of just one score.
Ideally, we like both simple and good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
Regarding armor, to be honest I'm not sure about the relative weights of the various armors. I know medieval armor was decided for quite a bit of freedom of motion and knights were supposed to be able to jump into the saddle unaided (contrary to depictions of 15C tilting armor). Certainly medieval knights expected (generally) to ride into battle, though they did slog on foot in some battles. And those Roman Scutums are pretty darn heavy (as are hopolite shields in RQIII). |
I don't know whether I'm helping to derail or to re-rail this thread, but Patton said "when in doubt, attack," so I'm adjusting it to "when in doubt, post."
A friend of mine is a professional blade smith. He's studied medieval armor and spoken to experts in the field for a long long time. A full plate suit including weapons generally weighed around 75 lbs, and every joint had greater mobility than the associated joint on the human body. Soldiers often go into battle with 75 lbs of gear and armor even in modern times. Knights, however were better accustomed to the weight, and frankly people back then were stronger. (An English longbow with a 200lb draw was a common sight back then.)
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ...and frankly people back then were stronger. (An English longbow with a 200lb draw was a common sight back then.) |
Not stronger. Tougher maybe. Most people in the medieval period could not draw a long bow. It took years of practice starting from childhood to train an English bowman. Virtually no one in the modern world trains like that. In fact based on evidence from the Mary Rose, being a longbowman actually caused distortion of the skeletal structure. English longbows are better weapons than early muskets in nearly all respects. Yet the English stopped fielding longbowman after Henry VIII. One reason that the English stopped using bows was that the yeomanry stopped spending the time necessary for training. The other was that good wood became very difficult to obtain. In contrast to a longbow, it takes far less training to be able to shoot a musket.
See this is what happens when you advocate "when in doubt, post."  I get all pedantic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ...and frankly people back then were stronger. (An English longbow with a 200lb draw was a common sight back then.) |
Not stronger. Tougher maybe. Most people in the medieval period could not draw a long bow. It took years of practice starting from childhood to train an English bowman. Virtually no one in the modern world trains like that. In fact based on evidence from the Mary Rose, being a longbowman actually caused distortion of the skeletal structure. English longbows are better weapons than early muskets in nearly all respects. Yet the English stopped fielding longbowman after Henry VIII. One reason that the English stopped using bows was that the yeomanry stopped spending the time necessary for training. The other was that good wood became very difficult to obtain. In contrast to a longbow, it takes far less training to be able to shoot a musket.
See this is what happens when you advocate "when in doubt, post." I get all pedantic. |
I counted training for years as being stronger, same as growing up wearing armor so as to be used to the weight counts as being stronger. Most people couldn't use a long bow then, but I don't know of anyone who can now. Back then most people had to work hard all day long every day, and it showed in their physical strength. Soldiers from then were used to physical hardships our modern ones thankfully don't have to bear.
Also, I'm not taking any particular side in the discussion. I barely know what it's about. I just knew some stuff about armor from a truly reliable source, and some stuff about bows from a TV documentary, and figured I'd share it.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. Training makes a huge the difference.
I imagine Olympic medal winning athletes are as good, and often better, at what they do than anyone was in the ancient or medieval world. And a modern diet makes us bigger than the mass of the peasantry in the past. In addition, we have the advantage of a much larger population to draw on, so there are more genetic statistical outliers than there were in the lower world population past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
True. So, what was this thread actually about anyways?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The difficulty lies in how you gauge STR. For instance, major league baseball pitchers have very great arm STR in thier throwing arm. Comparable to the welsh warbowman. But hey are not necessarily stronger overall.
Likewise, the bowmen have very good STR with the muscles they used to draw back and hold back the bow, but they couldn't lift more, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Likewise, the bowmen have very good STR with the muscles they used to draw back and hold back the bow, but they couldn't lift more, etc. |
Good point. Which reminded me that doing something you are good at uses less energy than doing something you are unfamiliar with. An experienced swimmer moves more efficiently through the water than a novice. Hence they use less energy - which effectively gives them more stamina.
If we wanted a really detailed system for stamina, then it should be tied to both the stamina skill - which represts general cardiovascular conditioning - and the specific skill governing the activity. So a character with a high swimming skill would need less stamina to swim 3 km than a character would who has a low swimming skill. Similarly for the lightsaber skill. While certain forms are more energy intensive and hence more tiring, a skilled Ataru practitioner should use less energy than an unskilled practitioner for the same set of maneuvers.
See Fallon Kell, we are all back on topic now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
