Jump to content

Eleneithel

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Eleneithel

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Belgium
  1. For my part, I understand and accept the need to go unrealistic and exagerate certains aspects (such as the weapons) to improve the the characters visibility in-game. Modifying the proportion of the weaponry to help us see more easiliy what weapon does wield such character fulfill a purpose. Such process is also perfectly acceptable when modifying armour to better distinguish the types of armour. However, I do not see a practical purpose behind feminizing armour in an unrealistic way when you choose a more grounded and realistical style of armour aesthetics. In the Infinity Engine games and in Pillars of Eternity - I think it is also the case, since I haven't still read anything that told me otherwise - choosing a male or a female character does not modify the gameplay because there aren't any gender-based abilities or skills... or even classes. (Technicaly, such gender equality would be unrealistic in some ways, but making gameplay distinctions between female and male characters would be highly problematic in some regards. How would you distinguish them impartialy? How would you balance their differences? Ens... So, such equality is perfectly understandable.) A female or a male warrior remains the same, plays the same. So, there aren't any purpose for unrealistic feminized armours there, as there aren't any differences between female and male fighters. And, if you have several characters wearing the same weapons and armours, be it both female and male fighters (as it was often the case for me in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale), such unrealistic visual differences have no uses. Besides, when you want to select a specific character, you click on his /her portrait... it is much quicker than identifying and searching him /her amongst the characters on screen. And that is very much the purpose of these portraits: giving you visually some critical informations on the character (health, endurance, and others) and giving you a way to select quickly a specific character to have him /her execute a specific action. So, if you want to improve the visual experience in a manner to suit the gameplay, such gender-based unrealistic visual distinctions are not really useful in a game where female and male characters have the same access to abilities, skills, and classes. What you want, is class-based visual distinctions to help you identify your warrior from your mage, even if they are wearing the same armour and weapons. For example, if your mage wears the same plate armour than your warrior, have his avatar wearing it differently. (I seem to remember that it will be possible to have mage in heavy armour for those who so wish.) A mage will maybe have more cloth ornaments to his armour such as a coat of arms with esoteric symbols or else to mark proudly that he is a mage whereas a warrior would remains strictly practical in his attire and a rogue would remove some pieces of the same harness to remain light enough on his feet. Such visual distinctions would indeed fulfill a purpose, allowing the player to identify quickly where stand his mage (on screen) amongst his party. That would be more visuality realistic than feminizing armour, since each class have its own needs in terms of equipment and items, even when wearing full plate armour. (The mage need his grimoire, for example, the priest his religious symbol and clothing, ens...) But such visual class-based distinctions for armours would certainly be more expensive and time consuming to create than visual gender-based distinctions for armours... which explains probably why the Obsidean team go for the latter (in terms of armour).
  2. Well, in fact, medieval armour was tailored. Noblemen (or rich commoners) bought armour made to their measurements to have the best fit possible. (When you fight the ennemy, you don't want also to fight a badly fitted armour.) Depending on their means, the less rich (most common soldiers) bought munition grade armour (in other terms, mass-produced armour fitted following a standard size) and they would make it tailored by a blacksmith to obtain a better fit for them. So, technicaly, the rare women to fight in armour were probably wearing fitting /tailored armour. Although I am myself a man, I think (based on numerous readings online) female fighters would rather prefer armours that flatten their breast (rather than emphasize them) for pratical reasons. It is rather well known amongst female practionner of HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) today that their breast can be problematic to wield a two-handed sword... because it can get in the way and prevent them to execute certain moves. (The bigger the breast, the more problematic it can be.) So, there is that...^^ And, for the records, I am not the least outraged. I just thought I would share my opinion on the matter, since I have the greatest interest for Pillars of Eternity and want to contribute to it as I can. Wether PoE team makes use or not of that contribution is their decision entirely, I won't make a scandal of it if my opinion is not heard. After all, what would be the use of these forums if our opinion did not interest the least Obsidean? Edit: Maybe it would be interesting to complete the armour artworks of the present update with screenshots of the characters (wearing these armours) in the in-game landscape to give us a sense of scale to better appreciate the work of the art designers.
  3. The scales are actually smaller than you can see, they've just used different types scales to give the impression that they are those large scales that you see before you. Like a mosiac, that scale armor is just a combination of much smaller scales that just happen to look like that. Because scale is much more flexible, they are more likely to fit the person's body shape. This would also be true in most other armors except plate. Or not. Well, in fact, any mail or scale armour worn by a woman wouldn't fit like that (or like a tight fitting t-shirt) for many reasons. First of all, such armour is far heavier than a t-shirt, so it tends to flatten the curves of your torso, wether that you be a grown woman or a fat grown man with a curved belly. Secondly, in medieval times, it was custom to wear padded /quilted clothes (to know an aketon /a gambeson) under your armour (be it mail armour, plate armour, or scale armour), which would also contribute to flatten your natural curves. It has been attested at several occurences in medieval history the existence of women wearing armour, undistinguished amongst male fighters, and their gender would only be recognized after the battle when their helmet would be removed. So... I think the female version of these armours should be closer the male version, the feminisation should be more subtle (shorter and slimer frame, curvature of the breast much less pronounced). With the present version, it would take a woman with a very large breast to make the mail /scale armour protrude as much. Edit: As for the "womanly fantasy breastplate", Skallagrim explained on his You Tube channel why it would be highly unpratical... in a lighty and funny way.
  4. To answer to diverse opinions made all along this thread, I would say that the combat mechanics of Baldur's Gate were indeed quite archaic because of the lack of special abilities. Was it due to the second edition of D&D rules? I can't honestly say, I only know the rules of the third edition. I believe that the main focus for the combats in Baldur's Gate was the management of the spellcasters and the positioning of each companion. If your fighters and thiefs were well positioned, they would do their job and you could then focusing yourself on the management of the spellcasters to protect them (as they were more vulnerable in low levels) and use their spells to support your fighting line. The tactical aspect of the gameplay came from the spellcasters which enjoyed a quite large diversity of spells with a diversity of effects. Your mages and sorcerers could immobilise /confuse the main threat amongst your foes or summon creatures to lessen the pressure on your fighters, your priests and druids could heal your fighters or strengthen their abilities to fight. All spellcasters could shift between a supporting role or a more agressive role and it was up to you to decide which strategy to adopt, knowing that they only enjoyed a limited number of spells to cast. Baldur's Gate had sadly not much possibilities to customise the character, their skills and feats. Later games based on the third edition of D&D (such as Icewind Dale 2, Neverwinter Nights and its sequels) were far more flexible on that aspect while remaining limited by the weaknesses of the D&D system. Gameplay-wise, the adoption of the third edition ruleset was a peak for the D&D games. If Baldur's Gate had enjoyed the third edition ruleset, I think it would have been better still: combining a better combat gameplay and a greater character customisation with his well written quests, plots, and characters. Dragon Age tried to preserve the tactical aspect of the Baldur's Gate series, while making the game far more action /combat-oriented and more accessible to the masses. Doing so, Bioware have sadly rejected many good things of the D&D system that they know quitte well. The classes are more limited and their customisation is very rigid compared to D&D 3.0 /3.5: less classes, less skills, less feats, less spells, and a multiclassing system very restrictive. The magic system is much more agressive by nature with the mage class being a variation of the sorcerer of Baldur's Gate, except the "number of spells per day" mechanic has been replaced by a cooldown casting system fueled by mana. The warrior is typicaly a one-handed weapon and shield /a two-handed weapon wielder and heavy-armored tank ; the rogue being the mobile and ligthly armored two-weapons fighter or archer. In some ways, I find Dragon Age combat system /classes system even more archaic and less subtle than Baldur's Gate. It has a very pronounced MMORPG feel, while being party-based, and I think it is a mechanically inferior system that is inadequate for a party-based tactical RPG. That is why I am quite disappointed with Dragon Age and I do not hold Bioware in high esteem anymore: they had the skills and experience to create a much deeper and far more subtle system for Dragon Age and they only came up with an MMORPG-inspired system for their game. Quite a drawback compared to the third edition of D&D for a tactical party-based RPG. I do not see Dragon Age as a tactical party-based RPG, but rather a party-based action-RPG. The direction taken by Dragon Age 2 is surely proof of that and I do not expect Dragon Age: Inquisition to be much more tactical and profound than his predecessors. I think that the best system by far I have seen this recent years for a tactical party-based RPG was the adaptation of the ruleset of The Dark Eye by the Drakensang series. The system has its drawbacks and weaknesses (I found the spells not that useful in combat compared to Baldur's Gate) , but it allowed a great customisation of the player character and the companions and a very tactical and very deep combat system. Not every character could learn to cast spells (if they were of a non-caster classes), but they could learn every weapon, every skill, every feat you want them to. I liked such freedom about this game because you could tailor your companions to better suit your gameplay style. And I very much hope than Obsidean goes for a similar system for Pillars of Eternity because it is better suited to a tactical party-base RPG in my opinion. The character and his companions must be customisable to a certain degree to allow the player to create his own playstyle, the mechanics must be deep enough and well-used enough by the AI to offer various challenges for the player (not only combat-oriented challenges like Dragon Age), and the mechanics must be complex enough to allow true tactics rather than only bashing the ennemi with hand-to-hand weapons and agressive spells.
  5. Wizards in PE always have their grimoires out and in-hand when they cast spells. They draw in soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it. That sounds terrible. Aside from the concept itself being awful, consider: What happens when a fighter bats the grimoire out of the mage's grasp? What happens when a rogue outright swipes the grimoire from the mage? Or are these maneuvers conveniently not possible? Going from bad to worse if so... Edit: Haha, JFSOCC ninja'd me asking about rogues stealing grimoires whilst I was typing & juggling some other tasks. Firstly, thanks to J.E. Sawyer for correcting me. Secondly, I must say this concept is rather original, even if I find it rather odd and strange for differents reasons. But my own vision of magic isn't the concern here. Gameplay-wise, I think this concept of Grimoire may be very interesting for the players, but only if it serves also as a mean of bringing balance to the classes. Such magical grimoire would make the wizard a formidable ranged opponent and support character if he has the ability to cast spells at will, even only minor spells. In return, fighters with their disarming abilities and thiefs with their their pickpocket abilities should be able to weaken, if not completely paralyse, the wizard's abilist to cast magic. It would be an interesting way to prevent powerful casters to become immune to classes like the fighter, like it was the case in Baldur's Gate II where Minsc and others warriors were often powerless against high level wizards as the Cowled Mages or Liches and where the player was left with the hope of having too a high level caster or waiting for the spells to disapear and the foe running out of spells... wich meant often the death of several companions before having the opportuny to strike back at last. In fact, the problems with the D&D wizard /sorcerer were that he was rather ineffective in low levels as his number of spells were very limited and that he becomes very difficult to kill once he is able to use powerfull offensive and defensive spells wich immune him to melee weapons while casting Fireball and Finger of Death... So, I think Project Eternity should look at others systems than D&D to conceive the wizard class, like Warhammer FRP II who was interesting in this regard.
  6. 1) I also find rather... inadequate the Book Slam Technique of the wizards. I do not find logical or realistic for a wizard to wield (and read) a book in combat, even if he fights away from the melee, because of his need to remain aware of his surroundings and of his ennemies in an chaotic situation. An adventurer wizard would more likely hold a staff or a melee weapon (like a sword) when casting at a range and use it in close quarters to defend himself. Why? Because an hostile fighter can engage him in a matter of seconds. So, it would be more coherent for a wizard to use an melee weapon imbued with his own power to compensate his vulnerability, but maybe this point of view conflict with the magic system... I do not know. Concerning the Defense ability of the fighter, I think the number of ennemies engaged should be a matter of skill and experience. By experience, I can tell that it is very difficult to engage two ennemies at the same time, even when they aren't trained to fight efficiently together. Thus, I would advise that a novice fighter be able to engage only two ennemies when defending, but he should then be able to raise that limitation when leveling and "training". Otherwise, I like the principle of this rule of engagement. 2) Concerning fighting skills and feature, I always found D&D video games a bit irrealistic and I would propose another vision for the fighting skills system. For example, take a fighter like a swordman in real life. A novice fighter IRL would learn the basics, which are fencing movements, fundamental stances (which serve equally as offensive and defensive moves), and some desarming, grappling, and projections techniques amongst the most easiest and basics fencing techniques. This, I would qualify as the minimal training to have to survive a swordfight against another opponent. In D&D games (especialy NWN), I always thought that level 1 fighters were seen almost as beginners: they can swing a sword, they can move, but they haven't really received the minimal training of the novice fighter and you must choose wether he can disarm, knock down, or else... which makes combat with low level characters rather uninteresting. So, my suggestion for a level 1 fighter, for example, would be to give him some basic abilities such as disarm, knock on the ground, shield bashing /pommeling, basic dodge... and a limited selection of weapons he has trained with (a primary melee weapon like the broadsword or the battleaxe, a secondary like a dagger or a hatchet, a ranged weapon like the bow or another melee weapon, and eventually basic unarmed combat). When leveling, the fighter can train to improve these basics abilities (better disarm, for example) or to gain new abilities (wielding a new weapon, dual-wield, ens...). I think this make more sense than the D&D way of having a level 1 fighter knowing how to wield much different weapon, but knowing few or none basic fighting techniques. The logical progression for a fighter is to learn the basics of a few weapons and, later eventualy, specialise in particulars weapons or learn other ones. Of course, such fighting system would be transposed to the other classes (fighting or non-fighting), with variations. For example, a ranger /archer wouldn't learn melee techniques as disarming, but learn rapid firing and precise shooting instead. A rogue classe would trade certain frontal fighting techniques for more disloyal and sneaky ones to be able to inflict swift attacks. A wizard would know less agressive fighting techniques and concentrate on defensive ones to be able to survive and retreat behind his allies. The amount of basic abilities retained by each classe would depend on their amount of martial training (high, medium, or low). I think such system would be more interesting and more realistic on a tactical point of view than the D&D system. Most characters do not need to be able to wield a large selection of weapons as the player often specialises them in a particular weapon for tactical reasons or personal tastes. Especialy if the player can choose the weapons of his character during his creation. (The NPC would more likely wield weapons accordingly to their culture and preferences) What do you think? PS: I am not used to speak /write English (as French is my native language), so I hope I am understandable...^^
  7. Regarding the greatsword, the speed would rather be medium in fact, or a bit faster than slower. Such swords weight something like 3 to 4 kg and were well balanced compared to a two-handed axe. In recent movies, one of the best examples of greatsword fighting is the siege scene in the movie Ironclad. Greatswords are more tiring and require to use the force of all your body (not only your arms) to use it, but one can wield it with fluidity and with great efficiency (especialy with all the sword is used, not only the blade). Used in half-sword, a greatsword would also be a piercing weapon. In fact, the techniques of half-sword were certainly developped as a mean to fight more efficiently men in plate armor (but they existed maybe sooner than that). As for the damages, I quite liked the mechanic of Warhammer FRP 2. All hand-to-hand weapons had basicly the same amount of damages: 1D10+ Strengh Bonus + Bonus or malus of the weapon (-3 to +1). I think it's the best way to preserve a certain realism: damages come from the strengh of your bow, it's not only inherent to the weapon. Regarding ranged weapons, I hope that this time archers would be able to fire from a longer distance. In IE games like Baldur's Gate, the range of archers (and spellcasters) was rather limited, they could not really escape easily to close combat as melee fighters were on them rather quickly. As you, I also think strengh matters to use a bow and that it would be interesting to distinguish civilians /hunting bows (less powerfull, less tiring to use, but with less penetration and inefficient against plate, maybe mail) that would be used rather with precision (the archer aims for unprotected part of the body) and warbows (very powerfull, more tiring, more penetration) that would be especialy designed to fight men in mail and even plate (at close range). That way, each companion archer would be able to have a distinct playstyle: a marksman that shoots fast and precisely to wound or distract or a marksman that only shoots to kill or seriously wound. As for the wheelock pistols, there would be rather heavy. Early matchlock /wheelock firearms were rather heavy, encumbrant, and often used with a supporting stick to stabilize the weapon while aiming. Pistols didn't need such sticks, but they would remain heavy nonetheless, I think. So using two heavy weapons like that in each hand could be possible, but with an aiming penalty... early pistols were essentialy used in close quarters anyway as they weren't precise as an arquebus /musket at a distance. (Shorter smoothbore barrel, weight, ens...)
  8. I think magic is vast domain and there should several means to counter a spell, everyone with his own advantages and disadvantages: - The first one would be a proper counterspell. The spellcaster knows the spell casted by his opponent and use the adequate counterspell to block the incoming attack. This would be the ideal and cleanest way of countering magic, but not every spell would have a counterspell (to make things fun). - The second one would be an improvised counterspell. The spellcaster casts an opposite spell of the one used by his opponent. This would be the simplest method, but it wouldn't work every times... or it would work only partialy. - The third one would be the most dangerous as you attack directly the opponent to break his control over his spell. The spellcaster use a spell to attack the opponent before he achieve his incantation (or a companion attacks and hurts him), the opponent loses grasp on his spell and fails to cast it. But there could be differents side-effects inherents to the disruption of the spell, which becomes wild magic (explosion, death of the opponent caster, magical contamination, ens...).
  9. I like the idea of an exhaustion system, the spellcaster should see his ability to cast spells only be limited by his inherent abilities (constitution, stamina, will, ens...). It would allow a great variety of playstyle and require to use our spellcasters intelligently. The exhaustion should distinguish different states: - Fresh: the spellcaster is at his height (no spell cast since a certain time) and is granted casting bonus (increased damage, ens...) for a short time (the first two spells casted) - Normal: the spellcaster knows no bonus or penalties - Tired: the spellcaster suffer several casting penalties - Very tired: the spellcaster suffer casting penalties and can suffer side-effects (spellfaillure, reverse spell, uncontroled magic, ens...) - Exhausted: the spellcaster is no longer able to cast most spells (will test or similar) and can become unconscious (constitution test) or worse (HP draining, even maybe death). Following the state of exhaustion of the spellcaster, he would need to rest (one or several night sleep depending of his state of exhaustion) and to stop practising magic for a certain time (depending of his mental and physical abilities) to recover completely. Such mechanic would oblige the player to use magic with caution and the spellcaster could use a greater variety of talent as he wouldn't be able to cast too intensively. I always found the D&D wizards too vulnerable in close combat, but I think a spellcaster should be able to fight in close combat with a certain efficiency although he wouldn't be as good as a pure fighter. In this particular case, it would compensate the exhaustion mechanic (which should be more difficult to bear for low-level spellcasters as they don't master yet the ways of magic). Their array of spell should be varied: quick spells easier to cast and less tiring and much more powerfull ones who would leave the spellcaster exhausted (or even inconscious or dead) in return of incommensurable effects capable of turning the tide of battle by themselves. It would allow very different playstyle for the player, especially if the spells can be combined for increased effects.
  10. That's interesting indeed, finding ideas in this way of thinking would only require to observe IRL fighting to help understand the logic of a fight. For exemple, disarming your opponent wouldn't be a move first initiated by the P.C. Most disarming techniques require the opponent to attack you first and, instead of parrying the incoming attack, you choose to attempt a disarming. It's a defensive reaction towards an agressive move, not really an agressive move in itself (even if you can return the ennemy's weapon against him once you desarmed him). In the game, a character would need to be attacked and being able to see the attack coming to perform a disarming. So, the character must be attacked and not under a surprise effect. If he succeeds the disarming technique, the attack is blocked and the opponent disarmed and temporary exposed to a fatal counter-attack. if he fails, he dosen't parry the incoming attack and is temporarily more vulnerable (increasing the opponent's damages or causing a critical strike). Eventually, a man in full plate armor could be immuned to the critical strike to a certain extent depending on the opponent weapon as he is very well protected. A very interesting idea this attack chains... but it would need a sufficiently good A.I., an A.I. able to automate and use such combat mechanics. (I don't know if it would be hard to implement, I know nothing of the programmation, the scripts, ens...^^)
  11. In most cases I've seen, RPG on PC rest on a magic system where there is either a limited number of spells that you can cast before resting, either a limited diversity of spells that you can cast as long as you have a sufficient amount of mana. Maybe Project Eternity is an opportunity to implement a more original magic system. For those who know Warhammer FRP (2nd edition), I have always find interest the wizard's ability to cast spells without limitations, but their ability to cast at will is balanced by a system of secundary effects known as Tzench's curse. I would find interesting that spellcasters of Project Eternity be bound to a similar system with the following characteristics (for exemple): - Ability to cast spells at will - After a certain amount of incantations (following the will or the constitution of the character), the caster tires and has more chances to fail a spell or to provoke secundary effects because his magic mastery is weakened by his own fatigue. - Spells could have secundary effects to a certain extent (the more powerful the spell, the more chance there are secundary effects). These side-effects would differ following the type of spells with a great variety of effects: the death of the spellcaster, the spell hits the wrong target, the spell reverse his effect, ens... Sure it would be harder to play a spellcaster in such conditions, but it can be a way to balanced their powerfull magic (or their most powerfull spells) with a part of unknown. I think magic is a force that cannot be entirely controled, dominated and remains an enthropic and hazardous power. The skill of a spellcaster would reside in his ability to channel magic as well as his ability to use magic at the right times and not overuse it. In such mechanics, a spellcaster would not be as vulnerable as a D&D wizard because they always must rely on a vast diversity of skills and talents to survive, not only their ability to cast magic.
  12. I think it would depend partialy of the game mechanics. If a stamina system is implemented, there would be no real need to slow down men in plate armor too much. From what I know this armor is heavy, but it is well conceved and well articulated: a man in plate can climb a horse by himself, ens. The weight is rather similar to the weight of a modern soldier in full kit, but better distributed on all the body. So, a man equiped in plate would march slower than a man without armor, would run slower too, but the most important aspect is that he would need to catch his breath from time to time because it's very tiring to wear such armor. (I wore a mail haubergeon in larp, so I know a bit how the body reacts) What I would propose is this: - A penalty reducing the stamina of a man wearing medium or heavy armor. The heavier the armor, the greater the penalty (even for a trained man used to wear such armor, a novice would have a greater penalty) - Impossible to sneak in heavy armor (plate are very noisy), penalty to sneaking in medium armor (mail are noisy, but I think possible to reduce the noise to a certain extent while moving carefully) - No special ability would be needed to wear armor (light /medium /heavy), but there would be special habilities to reduce to a certain extent the penalties of wearing armor (medium /heavy). The character would be then used to such armor and would have learned how to wear it more efficiently. Shields should suffer the same penatlies regarding stamina (wearing and using a shield is also tiring) and be added to the armor penalties. IRL, a fighter in plate doesn't wear a shield because he has no use of it (too much weight to move in a fight). His armoured body is already his shield and he would rather use a two-handed weapon like a warsword (or bastard sword /longsword). I think it would be more fun to preserve a certain care for efficiency amongst the characters. You can protect yourself with armor, but you have to be carefull of the weight you have to move because you would be tired too fast and thus die or become inefficient in combat. A interesting feature to add would be "breath catching" (or something like that) to force the player to realise rotations amongst his companions: when a fighter is too tired to fight efficiently, you take him to the rear, let him catch his breath, and send him again to the fight. Of course, he wouldn't recover completly his stamina (because of fatigue penalties), but he would recover enough to use again his abilities (disarm, mighty blow, ens.). PS: I also think it would a good idea to distinguish armor locations (head, arms, torso, leggs) as the developpers did in Drakensang. It give the player the ability to customise more the characters they control on a pratical point of view as well on a aesthetical one.
  13. For the combat mechanics, I think it would more interesting to take a look to the Dark Eye or the Warhammer rules because they are more flexible and realistic than Dungeons and Dragons rules. For example, I find more amusing to play a character with 20 HP than a character with 150 HP... IRL, you train yourself to be more resilient, more endurant, but, ultimately, you remain very vulnerable and you can die in a matter of seconds. I think the game should preserve that feeling: even if you are an elite fighter, if you can kill better and faster, you can be killed as fast if you are not cautious. As for the weapons, they should have a particular playstyle, a particular use where they excel: - Swords are good all-around weapons, they have maniability, they have a certain reach, but they cannot pierce a plate armor and are not as efficient against mail as an axe or a mace. - Axes are brutal and agressive weapons, they can pierce mail, they can break or ruin a shield, they can do damage against plate armor, but they are rather unwieldy because of the weight and balance and they are not very suited to defensive moves as a parry. - Maces and hammers are the bane of plate armor. They don't always pierce it or break it, but they always wound the man who wears it because of the shock, breaking bones or killing with internal wounds. They have a short reach, but they are very efficient in close quarters (Best used with a shield). - Pole weapons (as the spear or the halberd) have a longer reach than other weapons, they are suited to contain the ennemy at a distance or to fight cavalry, but they are inefficient in closer combat. As for armors, they would be balanced by their weight, I think. Heavy armor as the plate armor offer a good all-around protection, but they are heavy (about 30 kg, well distributed), they slow their wearer and tire them faster. Medium armor as the mail give decent protection without restreining or slowing you much, but they are tiring (about 10 to 20 kg, weighing essentialy on the shoulders). Light armor as the gambeson /leather armor gives a certain protection (but degraded fast) for a light weight (easier to sneak, dodge, climb, swim, ...) and don't tire much at all. Protection given by the armor should reduced damages (as in Warhammer) instead of increasing the difficulty to touch the wearer (like D&D). Regarding early firearms, they are very slow to reload. A reloading time of 15 seconds is only for a well-trained soldier equiped with a percussion cap musket /rifle. A flintlock firearm with paper catridge would be a little slower to reload, but matchlock /wheelock firearm would take far more longer, even for a trained soldier. As for the missfire, they should be implemented (even today guns jamm or missfire) and be more or less frequent following the firearm technology. But, no ancient armor would be able to resist them. Powerfull warbows can pierce a plate armor, but only at short range (10-20 meters) and require a very strong and trained archer. Lesser bow would be less efficient against armor, but would also require less strengh. As for the crossbow, they are slower to reload, but they require far less skill to be used. Range and penetration would depend on the power of the crossbow, so the weaker ones should not be able to pierce an plate armor. PS: Sorry for my English, I'm not used to write /speak it fluently.
×
×
  • Create New...