The One Ring :: View topic - More realistic Armour Limits

They do have rules for swimming, though I don't think anyone uses them, where armor makes you more likely to drown.

The movement rules are not realistic in my opinion.
Especially if you look at the speed of horses and men.

Horses should be able to move 30cm.
Average sized beings should be able to move less then the half of that around the 12cm like it is now.
With heavy armour 1 or 2 cm less, perhaps with a shield less movement.
Armoured horses could be encumbered by the armour, but then again the horses are bred for battle purpose.

No, the armor is not particularly realistic, but that's just part of the game, and is rather hard to get around. Though I will make the point that the man who has spent the last four years of his life almost living out of that armor has gotten to the point where it is second nature, though he might be slightly slower than the less-encumbered orc, he still has much more endurance than the modern man.

men that weren't given heavy armor wouldn't have been as strong as those who were so it would balance out.

I am a Roman re-enactor and I only wear my armour a couple of times in a year.
If I would wear my armour every day and keep training it would be less hard to do the shows.
Most of the time I don't feel my armour any more because I get used to the weight.

I never play with inches, only CM so I don't know the differences between those.

Indeed the people now are not as fit as in the ancient ages (and the subsequent ages).
I am a Roman re-enactor and I only wear my armour a couple of times in a year.
If I would wear my armour every day and keep training it would be less hard to do the shows.
Most of the time I don't feel my armour any more because I get used to the weight.

Keep in mind that the warriors of Minas Tirith are trained specialist soldiers,
always ready in their armour and always training.

Another good example is archery.
I just started archery and I have a bow of 45 pound (draw strength).
Another member, just 13/14 years old, who has been shooting since he was 8 has a bow of 35 pound.
Just like the English longbow archers, they where given a bow to train since they where 6 years old.
And once in a time they where given a heavier bow, and heavier and heavier.
They kept training for years.
When finally their lord needed them for battle they would have so much power in their arms that they could easily fire a bow of 100-150 pounds.
That's why in the battle for Agincourt the English longbow men could easily defeat the French heavy cavalry (and of course thanks to the high ground etc. etc., I expect that the most English people around here know their history)

When shooting with a so called "war-bow" (100-150 pounds) at a closed car from a relative big difference, you easily shoot through the car leaving two big gaping holes.

No, the bow should not ignore armor. Not at all. However, it should be more effective against troops without armor, or those with normal armor. And just for the record, the arrows shot at Boromir in the movie would not have stopped in him. Period. Cue Legolas and a Goblin archer.

Yes, the bow is difficult to learn to use properly, but a highly experienced archer was indeed devastating. I think that they should be stronger, but one can't take into consideration every detail, unfortunately.

And as an interesting note, said-same English Bowmen would tend to end up with curved spines due to the pressure of drawing the bow. That is apparently what has been found these days due to skeletal examination.

Can you explain how Boromir would have survived, I do believe you, but I wonder what you mean by it.

imrail wrote:

Can you explain how Boromir would have survived, I do believe you, but I wonder what you mean by it.

I believe he meant the arrows would have gone right through Boromir, not stopped sticking out in a way that was dramatically perfect

Author:	Pathfinder Captain [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:52 am ]
Post subject:	More realistic Armour Limits
I have a point that I have been thinking about for some time, and would like to hear other people's views. I feel that the rules regarding Armour could be more realistic and balanced. In SBG, there are great advantages to wearing Armour, but no downsides, apart from the cost. In reality, more heavily armoured units would move slower. This would allow lightly armoured Scout Units to outflank their enemies, giving another level of tactical creativity. Let me know what you think

Author:	Fenris [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Great idea but unlikely to ever be implemented. a wood elf wearing a tunic would be able to move an awful lot faster than a WoMT in full heavy armour and a shield...

Author:	Draugluin [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
They do have rules for swimming, though I don't think anyone uses them, where armor makes you more likely to drown.

Author:	whafrog [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Draugluin wrote: They do have rules for swimming, though I don't think anyone uses them, where armor makes you more likely to drown. I've used these rules quite a bit for crossing rivers at points other than the ford or bridge, or to dig treasure out of a swamp. Many an Easterling or WoMT has sunk to its murky embrace I think the same rules should apply to jumping or climbing (can't recall if they do). I agree with the sentiment of having a movement cost, but there would be ripple effects. The main one is, -1" movement is a big deal which would have to be mitigated in some way, ie I don't think you could charge 2 points for it anymore. It would have to cost the same as armour. It would mean throwing weapons are suddenly worth a lot more...Rohan could now run circles around the Legions. You might want to have a special rule for Dwarves (who "make light of burdens"). For cavalry, armoured horses could move slower but gain S4...but that would make KoDA and Morgul Knights, with their lances, that much more deadly.

Author:	imrail [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
The movement rules are not realistic in my opinion. Especially if you look at the speed of horses and men. Horses should be able to move 30cm. Average sized beings should be able to move less then the half of that around the 12cm like it is now. With heavy armour 1 or 2 cm less, perhaps with a shield less movement. Armoured horses could be encumbered by the armour, but then again the horses are bred for battle purpose.

The One Ring https://ww.one-ring.co.uk/

More realistic Armour Limits https://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22761	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Valamir [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
No, the armor is not particularly realistic, but that's just part of the game, and is rather hard to get around. Though I will make the point that the man who has spent the last four years of his life almost living out of that armor has gotten to the point where it is second nature, though he might be slightly slower than the less-encumbered orc, he still has much more endurance than the modern man.

Author:	Draugluin [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
imrail wrote: The movement rules are not realistic in my opinion. Especially if you look at the speed of horses and men. Horses should be able to move 30cm. Average sized beings should be able to move less then the half of that around the 12cm like it is now. With heavy armour 1 or 2 cm less, perhaps with a shield less movement. Armoured horses could be encumbered by the armour, but then again the horses are bred for battle purpose. You can't have the difference be a single cm, because that's a really wierd fraction of an inch. I do agree about the horses tho, all mounts and flying monsters should be able to move 1-2in faster. Valamir wrote: No, the armor is not particularly realistic, but that's just part of the game, and is rather hard to get around. Though I will make the point that the man who has spent the last four years of his life almost living out of that armor has gotten to the point where it is second nature, though he might be slightly slower than the less-encumbered orc, he still has much more endurance than the modern man. This is very true, the Spartans were trained to run in full gear from sun-up to sun-down with few breaks in full armor (including an 80 lb shield, 20 lb spear, 20 lb helmet, 60 lb breastplate) AND were expected to slaughter the enemy. Men aren't as strong as they used to be because of all of the technological advancements since then.

Author:	Fenris [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
yes this is true but still if all men were stronger and fitter and so they would still have run faster without armour.

Author:	GothmogtheWerewolf [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Men that weren't given hevay armour wouldn't have been as strong as those who were so it would balance out.

Author:	imrail [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
I never play with inches, only CM so I don't know the differences between those. Indeed the people now are not as fit as in the ancient ages (and the subsequent ages). I am a Roman re-enactor and I only wear my armour a couple of times in a year. If I would wear my armour every day and keep training it would be less hard to do the shows. Most of the time I don't feel my armour any more because I get used to the weight. Keep in mind that the warriors of Minas Tirith are trained specialist soldiers, always ready in their armour and always training. Another good example is archery. I just started archery and I have a bow of 45 pound (draw strength). Another member, just 13/14 years old, who has been shooting since he was 8 has a bow of 35 pound. Just like the English longbow archers, they where given a bow to train since they where 6 years old. And once in a time they where given a heavier bow, and heavier and heavier. They kept training for years. When finally their lord needed them for battle they would have so much power in their arms that they could easily fire a bow of 100-150 pounds. That's why in the battle for Agincourt the English longbow men could easily defeat the French heavy cavalry (and of course thanks to the high ground etc. etc., I expect that the most English people around here know their history) When shooting with a so called "war-bow" (100-150 pounds) at a closed car from a relative big difference, you easily shoot through the car leaving two big gaping holes.

Author:	Oldman Willow [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Quote: men that weren't given heavy armor wouldn't have been as strong as those who were so it would balance out. A good point. Quote: I am a Roman re-enactor and I only wear my armour a couple of times in a year. If I would wear my armour every day and keep training it would be less hard to do the shows. Most of the time I don't feel my armour any more because I get used to the weight. I wore body armour 10 to 12 hours a day for almost 30 years. You get used to the armour. You learn to drink more water and how to use the extra mass to your advantage. Improper foot wear will effect your movement far more than heavy armour. Try the red man armour suit and let three classes of police trainees practice with batons and ASPS with you as the target all day then you will form a new opinion of armour effectiveness. Most of the people who write game rules never have worn armour or even struck a blow in defense or offense. Armour should add a courage and charge bonus plus increase defense. The added mass works in your favor as least as much as it slows your movement. I think the current rules work fine. If I were going to change any thing I would subtract 1 from courage for not having armour or a shield. You could give a movement bonus to run if you drop your weapons and shields. It could be argued that the game designers have already taken this into account. http://www.kungfu4less.com/mareinsu.html

Author:	Valamir [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
I also agree- having done archery myself for a number of years and worked with swords for several as well, I do second the opinions expressed- the human body gets conditioned to wearing armor and wielding weapons. And WoMT should be better than they actually are... But that is to get off topic.

Author:	imrail [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
@ Oldman Willow: Indeed improper footwear is killing! The Roman sandals I wear have a special sort of nails under it. If the sandal isn't the right size, or if the sole is to thin it is very painful.

Author:	Draugluin [ Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
imrail wrote: I never play with inches, only CM so I don't know the differences between those. Indeed the people now are not as fit as in the ancient ages (and the subsequent ages). I am a Roman re-enactor and I only wear my armour a couple of times in a year. If I would wear my armour every day and keep training it would be less hard to do the shows. Most of the time I don't feel my armour any more because I get used to the weight. Keep in mind that the warriors of Minas Tirith are trained specialist soldiers, always ready in their armour and always training. Another good example is archery. I just started archery and I have a bow of 45 pound (draw strength). Another member, just 13/14 years old, who has been shooting since he was 8 has a bow of 35 pound. Just like the English longbow archers, they where given a bow to train since they where 6 years old. And once in a time they where given a heavier bow, and heavier and heavier. They kept training for years. When finally their lord needed them for battle they would have so much power in their arms that they could easily fire a bow of 100-150 pounds. That's why in the battle for Agincourt the English longbow men could easily defeat the French heavy cavalry (and of course thanks to the high ground etc. etc., I expect that the most English people around here know their history) When shooting with a so called "war-bow" (100-150 pounds) at a closed car from a relative big difference, you easily shoot through the car leaving two big gaping holes. Very true on the archery subject. A bow is one of the deadliest weapons a warrior hundreds of years ago could have, but also the most difficult to learn to use. I feel that the archer limit should be less (to represent the training difference), maybe 1/4 or 1/5, but bows should have more strength and/or ignore armor defence bonus' or something.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Valamir [ Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
No, the bow should not ignore armor. Not at all. However, it should be more effective against troops without armor, or those with normal armor. And just for the record, the arrows shot at Boromir in the movie would not have stopped in him. Period. Cue Legolas and a Goblin archer. Yes, the bow is difficult to learn to use properly, but a highly experienced archer was indeed devastating. I think that they should be stronger, but one can't take into consideration every detail, unfortunately. And as an interesting note, said-same English Bowmen would tend to end up with curved spines due to the pressure of drawing the bow. That is apparently what has been found these days due to skeletal examination.

Author:	imrail [ Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Valamir wrote: No, the bow should not ignore armor. Not at all. However, it should be more effective against troops without armor, or those with normal armor. And just for the record, the arrows shot at Boromir in the movie would not have stopped in him. Period. Cue Legolas and a Goblin archer. Yes, the bow is difficult to learn to use properly, but a highly experienced archer was indeed devastating. I think that they should be stronger, but one can't take into consideration every detail, unfortunately. And as an interesting note, said-same English Bowmen would tend to end up with curved spines due to the pressure of drawing the bow. That is apparently what has been found these days due to skeletal examination. Can you explain how Boromir would have survived, I do believe you, but I wonder what you mean by it. Interesting that these English Bowmen have curved spines. Recently I went to the Orthopaedic doctor and it seems that my lower spine is somewhat curved. I doubt it has anything to do with archery, I shoot for less then a year now.

Author:	whafrog [ Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
imrail wrote: Can you explain how Boromir would have survived, I do believe you, but I wonder what you mean by it. I believe he meant the arrows would have gone right through Boromir, not stopped sticking out in a way that was dramatically perfect

Author:	Draugluin [ Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Valamir wrote: No, the bow should not ignore armor. Not at all. However, it should be more effective against troops without armor, or those with normal armor. And just for the record, the arrows shot at Boromir in the movie would not have stopped in him. Period. Cue Legolas and a Goblin archer. True, maybe, like you said, ignore standard armor, but not heavy armor. Chainmail wasn't designed to stop an arrow, in fact, an arrow would hardly even be slowed down. It shouldn't have gone clean through him, but definitely up to the fletching.

Author:	imrail [ Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
whafrog wrote: imrail wrote: Can you explain how Boromir would have survived, I do believe you, but I wonder what you mean by it. I believe he meant the arrows would have gone right through Boromir, not stopped sticking out in a way that was dramatically perfect Yes I see that I read it wrong, I didn't see the "in". They had to kill him somehow, in the books he was pierced by many arrows. His death had to be a bit more dramatic.

Author:	Valamir [ Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: More realistic Armour Limits
Yes, the arrows would have passed through, though I do agree that the death had to be more dramatic, for, alas, realism is oft sacrificed for the silver screen. And Boromir's chainmail was just around the shoulders and upper arms- it didn't actually extend across the chest. Some chainmail coats were made to the point where they could stop many arrows, short of a direct hit, but that would still likely break a rib- don't shoot cows with arrows that have blunts on them (45lbs bow), because one can break ribs. Now, plate on top of a good chainmail coat could probably stop a heavy bow- not easily, but it could. @imrail- I don't think that your spinal situation can, at the present, be blamed upon archery- it takes a bit heavier of a bow and a bit more time inflict bodily change- give it ten years, maybe. But now I'm getting into theory, of which I know not.