gasoline-doused logs on the fire

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

Again, lemmie emphasize I LIKED the thrust of proposal 3

However,

Here's the BIGGEST area of trouble I have with Armor Proposal 1 and 2
(AP1 AP2 throughout)

The arguement (dear lord, my spelling has been in the crapper the past few
posts ... please excuse me) is that armor is over penalized.

to wit, the proposed solutions are:

Increase the benefits
Decrease the penalties

Simple, logical, good potential solutions ...

If there were a problem.



through a string of posts (paraphrased) ...

========================

Armor development is driven by those who fight.

Armor development will require expenditure of wealth.

Those that have wealth and wish to fight will likely raise a fighting
force (armies, mercs, adventurers, etc.)

The majority of people in the game world are under rank 10 ... even rank
5.

Standing armies are uneconomical because members are taken out of the work
force.

Specialized troops are ESPECIALLY uneconomical because greater resources
are expended on training them.  As such, they are not the brunt of a
massed fighting body.

Armor's function is to extend the chances of survival of the wearer.

All members of a fighting unit (army, party, whatever) will wear the best
possible armor they can get their hands on (though criteria for that armor
may depend on the purpose of the fighting unit).

Armor (within the system) prohibits tumbling, sprinting, rolling, jumping,
and otherwise inhibits movement.

================

Therefore, if one is taken out of the work force to become part of a
fighting force, they were not originally part of the fighting force, but
part of the work force.

Therefore, the brunt of an army is likely sub rate 5 non-warriors.

If the purpose of armor is to increase one's chance to live, and is driven
by battlefield effectiveness, then evaluating combat between sub rate 5
non-warriors will encompass the majority of battlefield encounters.

=================

Assume all necessary stats are 15 (for ease of math)

Assume all participants divide 10000 eps (four ratings, again, ease of
math) as evenly as possible between DP, CMod, and weapon skill.

Assume all participants are wearing plate, helmet, shield, and carying a
1-handed weapon.  All materials are iron.

Therefore:
(assuming mobility)

						CDV:	Chance to be hit:

Participant Clothed:				10		55%

Participant W clothing, weapon, shield, helmet:	15		30%

Participant fully loaded:			20		5%


Now, at best, a non warrior is buying Cmod at 300, giving him a Combat Mod
of 4 (increasing all incidents to hit by 20%)

Using this info,

A soldier fully loaded is 50% less likely to be hit than one without
armor.

AND

Even IF said soldier is going head-to-head against another, they still
only hit one another 25% of the time  (vs. 75% of the time if unarmored).

FURTHER

The claim that tumbling, rolling, etc is impossible under the current
system, is invalid.  While the armor penalizes RESISTANCE CHECKS, it does
NOT NECESSARILY penalize skill checks.

THEREFORE,

IF one can use the sprinting skill while in armor, one can overcome the
movement penalties in said armor.

So again,

Using the tenets set before me in previous threads,

How is current armor unbalanced?

John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu

"I am amused by the simplicity of this game.  Send me your finest meats
and cheeses!"				--Kenny Mayne