Re: Armor proposal 1

[Wright Frazier <khelek>]

> 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?

I would hope none.  Its not a standard item to begin with. i.e. not listed
explicitly on the table as "Steel Plate Mail", and it has always been
a 'holy grail' type item. i.e. its a bit sacred and very precious, and
not something taken for granted because it costs 40K sp or more.  Every
purchase of steel plate that I've seen has been through the GM and
with RP.

> 
> 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?

You're missing the point of this completely BJ.  The way armor is written
up in AQ is silly and not something that could exist even in a wacked
out fantasy world like Jaern.  Innovation will occur.  I can see
arguements for no guns/gun powder because folks never invented the
powder.  But the armor would be refinements of what already existed.
You cannot stop people form making better what already exists.

So again, Jaernian armor should be that, jaernian armor, and all that it
entails.


> > 
> > 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.  

Your original point is bogus because you are trying to explain it away
from a game mechanics stand point, and not from a roleplaying stand
point.  See my above point.  The armor that is written up that is
used on jaern is silly.  It encumbers like the a block of lead in
a backpack, and gives the protection of a leather jacket.


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

Don't know much about plate armor eh?  Its impressive stuff.  The hundred
odd pounds of metal that you wear has little effect on your most movements.
Why?  Because the weight is supported by the armor itself.  Its a rigid,
interlocking metal skin that distributes its weight over the whole of
the persons body, not just hanging on the shoulders as with chain mail.
This makes it very mobile.  This is why it was used by infantry men in
battle.  You probably suffer from the misconception that only cavalry
wore plate armor.  You are incorrect, it was worn by the infantry as well.
The Swiss (argueably about the best heavy infantry(pre gun powder) to ever
serve in a war) wore a heavy 'buff coat' and trousers, a steel back and
breast plate, tassetts(metal thigh plates), pauldrons, and a steel helmet.
Then they carried a 20' pike.  There are numerous historical records of
these men charging over a half-mile and more of battle field in full combat
dress and then engaging the enemy.  The germans tried to copy this form
of fighting and were farily successful at it.  The Spanish tried to
counter it with sword and bucklermen who they dressed head to toe in
plate armor.

The misconception of the armored knight stuck on his back because his
armor weighs to much comes from jousting armor, or the knight getting
stuck under his horse.  Jousting armor was EXTREMELY thick plating, double
on the chest with primative shock aborbers inbetween, and very badly
top heavy.  This is the stuff that required men to lifted into the
saddle by crane while wearing.  As for getting stuck under a horse,
could happen to a guy in his skivies.

> 
> 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.

Because you are thinking in terms of a modern american.  The streets of
US cities are safe, and you don't fear the night.  Before electricity,
before 'peace' was a nifty notion that people wanted, before the notion
of 'every man is equal' people feared the night.  Because that is when
the vile people came out.  Pre 1900's people did not go unarmed, esspecially
if they went out at night.  The world was VERY unsafe, and cities
esspecaially so.

War has driven the majority of human innovation, and in a world like
jaern where there are no central governments, war is an everyday fact
of life.  Not necessarily the big armies mobilizing, but absolutely
steet violence.  People get knifed in the streets for their money,
people get mugged for their shoes.  People always carry weapons.

And this is not the modern world where armor is pointless because it
cannot stop a hypersonic 5.56mm slug.  Armor WILL save a soldier's life,
and he will wear it for that exact reason.

Re: wearing armor down the street to the market.  Correct, most people
wouldn't, but the professional soldiers, mercenaries, and thugs would
own it and use it.  Further such people are notorious for funding
weapons/armor development as they after battles quite often have a large
cash influx and know they are going out again so they are willing to
blow the coin for a little insurance on coming back.  That means
there is an economic niche for people to make better and better armor.

Bleh..enough spew on this part.  BJ, stop thinking like a 20th century
civilized man who thinks deep down everyone is nice and wants to
be your friend.  That is a REALLY modern mindset and while commendable,
would have gotten you killed 100 years ago if you ever left your
hovel.


> > 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.

True, but again, not nearly the ownly ones.

> 
> 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.

Torites don't wear armor for artificial means, because T'or says they can't.
If they could, they would.  Others can, so they do.

> 
> Nah, you just missed my point.

So'kay, you've missed all of mine. =)

> > 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..."

He wasn't a large or particularly impressive fellow.  Typical looking
brit if you ask me.

> 
> Swords were crushing weapons, correct?

Swords that were inuse after the invention of plate armor often had
a less than razor sharp edge.  Such an edge would easily turn, and
since the armor was sloped to deflect blows, you didn't get the
cutting power you needed.  Further 1 handed swords disappeared except
as dress and duel weapons with the arrival of plate armor.  The 'long sword'
was left dead on the battle field with suits of chain mail.  You simply
couldn't get the necessary power behind'em.  With plate armor, if you
wanted a 1handed weapon, you used a mace or pick.  If you wanted a
sword it was a 2handed hanger.  The edges on the big swords were often
not even very sharp, and it wasn't necessary for them to be.  Their point
was to deliver a lot of force to a small area and cave the armor in, and
to render the limb immobile, break the underlying bone, or KO the SOB.

> 
> 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.

Oh, so that would be the reason that a couple hundred guys were able to
whip up on the aztec empire(disease asside).  You are also looking at
2 different tactical styles going at it.  Massed heavy infantry against
light mobile jungle fighting.  Something that is still a bitch to beat
if the light infantry has the terrain, as the Aztecs did.  However, Cortez
and his predecessors still did prove victorious when all things were
equal.


Wright