Re: Armor proposal 1

[Wright Frazier <khelek>]

> OK, guys, presume the STR and AGI are 15+, but the average attribute value
> is exactly 10.5.  I mean the mean attribute value will be 10.5, to clarify
> in the event median or mode is used rather than mean because I really
> really don't want to confuse you here.  In that manner, the hypothetical,
> that is, not real, but concieveable, subject may indeed not be deviant
> from the statistical norm across the value of his attributes.

Whatever..the average stat is an 11.

> 
> You are correct, I misspoke
> 
> However, I did make the point in a previous post that a 20 wouldn't crit,
> not that a 20 wouldn't hit.

So? they'll still get KO'd as they get knocked below 6DP or out right
killed by the longsword hit since they have so few DP.  Your point is
invalid.

> Now, lets examine the criteria:
> 
> War drives innovation in armor and weapons
> 
> Armor's purpose is to protect those who use it
> 
> Armor will be innovated until it protects as well as possible
> (Or, people will wear the best armor they can)
> 
> The majority of the population is below rate 5
> 
> Armies are uneconomical because they take people out of the work place

Depends on the type of army and when the fighting season is.  Most
fighting took place in the summer.  The time when folks were waiting
for the crops to grow.  So they could either sit around pick weeds and
hope for rain, or they could go kick around the neighbors and still
be home for fall harvest.  This was such a time honored tradition up
until the rise of nations that it was enforced by papal law.

My example of it pulling people out of the economy was certainly valid,
but not the only example. =)  It really depends on the time frame of
European history, or what world culture you are talking about.  The
Japanese warrior caste never did any real work besides carving people up
and writing poetry.  Noble aspirations, but not real productive.


> 
> Standing armies are especially uneconomical because they perminently take
> people out of the work place

My listed example before is not the only one for permenant armies.  Just
those that saw action in the middle ages and renesaince when soldiers
just soldiered.  The Romans Legions also doubled as construction crews,
and were quite skilled at it.

> 
> Specialized troops are uneconomical because they remove people from the
> work place and require relatively expensive training

Quite true, but you don't need huge numbers of skilled troopers to kick
ass.  Or if you do, there are always the Swiss.  I.e. mercenaries.
The swiss formed the backbone of MANY an army in the renesaince, and before
that the Germans and Danes did the majority of merc work.  Also the
Genoese were renown for their crossbowmen.  So yes, having specialized
troops of your own is uneconomical, having specialized troops that
come from somewhere else is usually quite affordable in terms of money
and your workforce.

> 
> Wars are fought to get/hold power/wealth.

Yep, also the rare one is fought just because.  Albagensian Crusade
was fought just to kick around some christians in southern france
who believed a bit different(pure holy war there, though the looting
was nice afterwards, but the initial motive was religion).  Lesse,
Religion wars of the Reformation Period started as being about the 
Protestant faiths against the Catholic faiths, but like most good
holy wars, it got turned to politics when Cardial Richilue(sp?) of
France(yeah the guy from the 3 musketeers) decided to back protestant
power(Sweden I believe) against a Catholic one(the Germanies).  It
was a cool war, and initially it was purely about religion.

Though I guess that can be construed as being about holding power.

> 
> OK so far, let me emphasize, AGAIN, I didn't come up with ANY of the
> above criteria.  
> 
> Let's look at the logic:
> 
> If wars are fought for power or wealth, then a (if not THE) major cause
> for war is economics (stability or change).
> 
> If war drives innovation for armor and weapons, then economics drive
> innovation for armor and weapons.
> 
> If armies (especially standing armies) and specialized troops are
> uneconomical, then, they will only be present when needed.

Nah..you always at least have a garrison and some body of professional
soldiers.  Be they mercenary, house carls, national armies, or whatever.
Noone ever totally demobilized for war.  It was just a matter of good
sense.  You demoblize completely, you get invaded 2 weeks later.  Or
you just beg for a band of cutthroats to move in and start praying on
your populace.  Also your criteria completely leaves out things like
law enforcers.  This was often handled by the military, but in many
states/nations/areas a paramilitary police force was there, and armed
(and note, not just in modern times, this is an old idea).

> 
> If the general population makes the work force, and if armies remove
> people from the work force, then armies are made up of a section of the
> general population.

Again...Nah, you can always get foreign mercenaries to form the army around.

> 
> If the majority of general population is under rate 5, then the majority
> of an army is also under rate 5.

Except for that group of rate 40 to 50 rate 10 to 15 killers you hired
from some other place that will gleefully smack around your unruley
neighbors for some silver and looting rights.

> 
> If people will wear the best armor they can, then all members of an army
> will wear the best armor they can. 

Best they can get, but this isn't always going to be plate.  Plate
is expensive, chain is expensive.  Only real soldiers wore it usually
though after a good battle, the peasents often wore it as well. If they
were fast enough on their feet that is.

> 
> If the majority of the army is under rate 5, then most cases of armor use
> occur between people under rate 5.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  A fairly fair, rough assessment of
who wears what could be summed up as:
Peasents: Clothes or Leather(until after they are bloodded and get to loot)
Regulars: Leather or mail
Mercs/Specialists: mail or plate

This of course changes as time and economic power rises till regulars
and mercs wear mail or plate.

> 
> So far, everything looks good.

Nah..many holes.

> 
> As pointed out above, a 20 always hits, or, no matter how protective your
> armor, you will be hit 5% of the time.
> 
> Evaluating the case above with 1-handed weapon, helmet, shield, and plate
> (the most "advanced" armor, at least in terms of protection) yields the
> results that, indeed, only a 20 hits.

Most advanced armor doesn't mean they get to use it.  Just that they'd
like to in most cases.  Some folks don't like armor however, they are
usually really quick and sneaky people though.

> 
> If armor will be innovated until it protects as well as possible, and
> economics drives armor innovation, then armor ought not be innovated past
> where it is now because a form exists indeed DOES protect as well as
> possible (at least when evaluating the most common occurance of armor
> use, though I grant that the specimen used in the evaluation had
> attributes that were above average.)

Far above average I'd say.  You are still missing the point.  Things
improve when it comes to killing folks.  In the 60's you'd have thought
having the capacity to wipe everyone off the earth was enough to stop
developing new nuclear weapons.  Was it?  No.  We came up with the MIRV,
Trident balistic missile, etc...  There are always better ways to
help you kill your neighbor.

The problem is availability.  Look now at the Iraqis, Pakastanis, Indians,
Chinese, ect...  Everyone would like to get ahold of the #1 weapon on
the block(Nuclear bombs have a lot of prestige), but just because they'd
like to doesn't mean they can afford it.  These are poor nations generally
and nuclear weapons programs cost billions of dollars to start and
maintain.  Worth doing?  Open to debate, but better to lean to the
side of caution so the other guy who did the same thing won't blow
you to hell till the world learns to play nice(laugh).  

This holds true with armor as well.  People know it exists, smiths
know how to make it(if they have armor smithing), the question is...
can people afford it.  Peasents cannot.  Thats several hundred
peaces of silver for _1_ suit.

Your average peasent can't afford that, hell they can't afford the 80
or so for a suit of mail.

The king and his buddies can, the professional mercs can.  People wear it,
just not all of'em.  But the right ones do.

About 300 to 400 BC there was this really cool king...damn me if I can't
remember where, but I know it was on a mediteranian island.  Regardless,
he funded the first weapons thinktank.  He invited everyone who was
a thinker and wanted to get rich to come to his island and invent weapons.
If you came up with something really good, you got to be the man and
get a lot of money.  One smart chap came up with what was called the
Gastrophetes(the belly bow).  It was essentially a really big crossbow
that you braced against your stomach, and that you cocked by placing
the front of it into the ground and leaning or walking forwards.  Then
you put a bigass bolt into the trough and killed a couple of guys.
These things had 200+lbs of pull, and were then taken by the greeks and
romans and turned into such nifty toys as the ballistae.

See..prime example of weapons development at its finest before the rise
of really big nations, and how it got copied and improved upon by others.

> 
> Regardless, using the criteria presented to advocate the above proposals,
> one can disprove the argument they were used to construct.

Nah..you didn't.  Give up.

> 
> Further, if I suspend both arguments entirely, and merely state that DV's
> ought to go up by 2 because armor doesn't protect enough, then those who
> engage opponents increase their mods so they may have the same chance to
> hit.

Only if they are soldiers or get drafted or expect to get in a fight.
Otherwise live out your life peacefully and happily in your hamlet and
learn to run.

> 
> If their net change to hit becomes 0, then, obviously, armor does not
> protect enough, lets raise it another 2DV

Wow..you are on something...but a point isn't it.

> 
> then those who engage armored opponents increase their mods to have the
> same chance to hit
> 
> then net change to hit becomes 0.
> 
> If net change to hit becomes 0, then it's time to increase armor again
> ...
> 
> (and then the gun is invented)

Crossbows and bows were much prefered up until a good gun was invented,
and even survived on after that because of their reliability and speed.
But then..I digress.

> wearing armor has nothing to do with how good a warrior the character is
> or percieves he is.  It has nothing to do with skill or any other
> experience cost.  (save for the guy that makes it).

No, but it does help one survive.

> movement penalties can be offset with the wonderfully inexpensive skill,
> sprinting.

Inexpensive?  base 150 for most folks and you need plenty of it.

You are also forgetting one big thing...Training takes time.  1 week
per rank of the skill learned(yes thats 16weeks for that 16th rank).
Farmers don't have the time to devote a solid 3 weeks to learning
2 ranks of CM usually.  They have better things to do..plant the crops,
tend the crops, make babies, etc...  That is also assuming that they
can find someone to teach them(the big kicker there).  Teaching oneself
to fight is a long and quite difficult process. 

> 
> the minuses to resistance checks can't be offset short of mutates or other
> exceptional stats, but that was never addressed in deapth within any of
> our arguement.
> 
> as such there are mechanisms in place that deal with the penalties armor
> bestows upon the wearer that are addressed in AP1 and 2.
> 
> I have yet to see how armor is unbalanced compared to other forms of DV
> increase

Because you refuse to try and see.

> 
> Aha. We seem to be having a mechanical vs. conceptual disagreement here.
> I give a rat's ass about what armor looks like, feels like, or tastes
> like.

I do, and many others do.  Complete realism isn't the best, but some of
it is called for.  Esspecially when the mechanic is so bad.  Some
modeling on reality is a good thing.  Otherwise we might as well
just play something like Toon, Shadowrun, or Paladium.

> 
> I'm saying the mechanics for armor ... an incremental trade off in
> movement rate (as neither of us address the minuses to resistance checks
> in detail) yields an increase in defensive value ... is balanced.  In
> fact, plate armor and all the accessories protects as well as it can.

Not at all..if it was balanced it wouldn't be such a detriment to
the wearer.  Plate gets you killed right now.  Chain gets you killed
right now.  You fail those power checks, you fail those strength
checks, and you fail those agility checks a lot more often with the
stuff on.  You get run down and eaten by the monster.  So yes, this stuff
is highly unbalanced.

> 
> Further, by expending eps, one can offset the movement penalties.
> 
> This does balance with expending eps to get a dv boosting spell without
> movement penalties.

See the above.

Wright