Re: Armor proposal 1

[Benjamin Austin <jedi@ecn.purdue.edu>]

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> > I was unaware that my car becomes unuseable after it rains since, if it 
> > were mostly rust (and it has spend its life outside), would be unable to 
> > support the weight of its engine.  The exception is John's car.  :)  It 
> > _must_ have the lightest engine ever.
> > 
> > Also, if items are cared for, rust is avoidable.  More to that, there is 
> > no salt in the water greatly reducing its corrosive effects.
> 
> Nope, there is salt and other minerals in it, just in low concentrations.
> Low enough that is still drinkable.

Then there is not a significant amount to oxidize metals to contribute to 
corrosion.

> > 
> > > 	d) Because steel plate costs 40,000sp.
> > 
> > 
> > That's an economic issue and there have be times where you were either a 
> > minimalist or a rate 2 character if you didn't have 40,000 sp in your 
> > back pocket.
> 
> And its a bad GM that without even considering things that lets someone
> buy steel plate off the cuff with out even a MINOR amount of RP in it.
> 
> Steel is not plentiful.

How many people do you think purchase the steel plate without running it 
through a GM simply because it is on the standardized equipment list?


> > > 	e) Because you didn't look very hard and so few well done marine
> > > 		combat scenarios are run.
> > 
> > Look hard at what?  I've never heard a GM say "The boat approaching has 
> > several men running around on the deck in heavy plate so you immediately 
> > recognize it as a mariner vessel."
> 
> I've run, and seen others run vessels with many armed and armored men
> on the decks.  Seen landing craft full of armored men as well.  Last one
> was about a month ago.

It is not prevelant enough that I've run across one.  Therefore, back to 
my original point, if only a handful of the marines wear them 
occassionally, where are all the drastic improvements coming from?


> 
> Marines do wear armor when they don't want to die, or would do so more
> if armor was accurately protrayed in AQ.  It however is _NOT_.

Ah, so they haven't been wearing it so they haven't needed to modify it.  
So, if no one is modifying it... refer to original point.  

> If it
> was, it would be mobile, and give a fair amount of protection, but nothing
> horendous like full plate armor.  Which while mobile as hell, was wholey
> unsuited for use on a ship.

Sorry, but I cannot by that I strap 100 lbs of _anything_ on and I am 
"mobile as hell."

> 
> You seem to have this mistaken impression that people wouldn't wear
> armor if it was available.  Sorry guy, but not everyone is the kung fu
> master from Kung Fu the series.  People wear armor because they want
> to survive.  The average person take 1-2 hits to kill, maim, or put down.
> Veterans take 3-4 hits.  If armor can extend this for 1 to 2 hits, then
> that is a decisive advantage, and one you want if you plan to live.
> The world isn't composed of rate 20 guys, or even rate 15 guys.  The
> average guy is less than 10, usually less than 5.  The armor, shield,
> and helmet make a huge difference in surviveability.
> 

But why would the average person wear armor?  It is not really cost 
effective nor practical to wear going down the street to buy a fish from 
the Rougtero market.  It would be like me purchasing and wearing a bullet 
proof vest.  It is expensive and not really practical unless I'm driving 
a potato truck through Gary, IN.

> My problem is that the armor far from realistic in its penalties.  Armor
> would be made using fish hides and stuff that doesn't rust or get hindered
> by water.  This is the reason marines don't wear armor, because with the
> way its written now, people can't imagine a marine using it.  Not because
> they wouldn't wear it if it was practical.  For a microcosmic example
> of this, look at the majority of adventurers who don't wear anything heavier
> than clothes because they don't want to sacrifice the movement to wear
> a breast and backplate that slows you to 1/3 of your movement.
> 

I agree with your example.

> If Jevan could swim in armor with 100lbs of stuff carrying a sword and
> wearing boots, if people can run sprints in Kevin's mail, if people
> can swim and effectively use a sword with only minor difficulties while
> in the water, and do this stuff using real world equivilants, not stuff
> that is specifically developed for water combat.  Then it is LUDICROUS
> to think that Jaernians wouldn't have done it, and done it better and
> in a way that is useable.
> 

Okay, any lab professor or scientist will tell you that 2 points don't 
necessarily consistute a trend.


> 
> > So you can argue that the land warriors are the ones who developed the 
> > fine perfection in the armor.  But let's look at those.  At very few 
> > times has there been a standing army on Lojem Isle for an appreciable 
> > amount of time (at least that I can recall or have heard about).  The 
> > group of people that are primarily involved in comabt on the land is the 
> > T'orites and they don't wear armor either.  So who has been wearing this 
> > armor long enough to get everyone together and say "This chafes me so.  
> > Let's change its design,"?  Perhaps the weapon/armor smithing ought to be 
> > a reserved skill due to lack of use.
> 
> More islands out in the world than Lojem.  

True, but it is one of the bigger ones and seems to be a population hub 
as well.

> Further about standing armies.
> These were for all practical purposes never kept with few exceptions in
> times of peace.  It wasn't till the 1600 and 1700's that we saw standing
> armies appear in peace time.  Why because armies take a significant portion
> of the population and force it to produce nothing.  They are just resource
> sinks, and only with STRONG and very wealthy central governments can
> you get a standing army.
> 
> re: Torites leading landwars.  I couldn't disagree more. May be a view,
> but torites are religious fanatics and few can face the years of mental
> and physical discipline to become a priest of t'or.  It is far easier
> to be a marine or warrior.  They may not be the martial artists that
> Torites are, but they are more practical.  Just looking at xp cost alone,
> a warrior will have many more spare xp around than a torite.  Torites are
> DAMN expensive to raise.  From a roleplaying stand point it takes many
> years to train ones body to the perfection of a torite, not so for
> a warrior or marine.  As for why torites don't wear armor, Tor doesn't
> allow them and the martial arts junk gets messed up by it.
> 

Correct and my point was that since they don't wear armor and they face 
combat on a daily basis so others don't have to, who is modifying the armor?
Your not going to hear a T'ortie bitch that armor is mobile enough.  So, 
if no one bitches, who's going to change it.


> Think of torites as shaolin monks, and marines/warriors as every other
> chinese warrior.  The monk was an abosolute combat terror with hands or
> spear.  A master of them could kill anyone one on one.  However that didn't
> stop the average chinese soldier from wearing armor and toting a spear.
> Further it wouldn't save said monk from getting speared by the 10 guys
> with spears that came after him.  or for another example, Torites are
> kinda like the Special Forces..while it'd be nice to have an army of'em,
> you aren't going to raise an army of'em because you can't afford to
> keep that many people nonproducing for the half decade it takes to train'em.
> 
> So your statement that torites are the primary land guys is completely
> bogus.  They are just too expensive.

Nah, you just missed my point.

> 
> Restricting armor/weapon smithing.  That'd be fine with me since its
> an intellegence skill and not something that can just be picked up
> without either a) researching it b) being taught it.
> 
> > 
> > I apologize for coming back at you so hard but I guess that I fail to see 
> > were all the improvements could have been made.  It is hard for me to 
> > imagine the back in medival times they were running around in a suit of 
> > full plate better than our police swat teams with comporable protection.
> > 
> > Again, sorry if this sounds harsh - it is not meant to be.
> 
> Wish I still had the video tape, I had this great tape of a guy in full
> plate doing tuck rolls, climbing fences, fighting, jumping around, ect...
> While he was fairly loud doing it, he was not hindered.  
> 

I'm not saying that it is not possible to overcome the effects that plate 
or other armor has.  Look to spriniting and agility checks.  The 
individual was probably not your ordinary Joe (sorry, Joe) say "if you 
ever wanted to know what you can do in platemail..."

> Plate armor ruled the battle field because it was so effective.  It was
> practically impenetrable, to such a degree that edged weapons were not used.
> It took a heavy blunt force trauma impact to take down a guy in plate because
> you had to either render the armor immobile by damaging it, or you had
> to break the bones of the wearer.  
> 

Swords were crushing weapons, correct?

> Plate armor disappeared for 1 reasons.  Quality guns.  Otherwise anyone
> who could get it wore it.  Conquistadors tromping up the shores into
> central america to kill the aztecs, 

The Conquistadors got their bootys kicked by warriors (unarmored ones as 
a matter of fact) with short sticks and knives.  Just a point on this - 
I'm not familiar enough with your other examples.

Swiss pikeman running for a mile
> of open field to engage in a battle wearing breast and backplates, spanish
> sword and buckler men, etc...  They all wore plate armor if they could
> get it because the stuff worked beautifully.  Further it could stop a
> knife, something a kevlar vest can't do, which I assure you was much
> to the chagrin of a young man who bet another friend that he couldn't
> get a kabar through the vest.  needless to say the gentleman is now dead.
> 
> Bleh, I'm rambling now.
> 
> Wright
> 
> 

I need to lay down.  All this typing in one day.

BJ