Armour & weapon designs - a plea (part III).

[SGray]

the term "bracers" for vambraces

Thanks for the exact term )

Archer's bracers and vambraces are things with different purpose indeed.

From wiki: "Vambraces formed an integral part of the Great Steppe, Central Asian, and Islamic warrior armour. Vambraces remained in use long after the high mark of Renaissance armour in Europe. They were worn in Poland until 1770s, in the Caucasus region until the second half of the 19th century, and in Asia at least until the mid-19th century in Persia and the Indian subcontinent"

Half of men on those pics are in vambracers:

In these periods you'd also often carry a large shield, so covering the legs seems a bit more important than the arms, where you'd ideally have long sleeves of mail. It seems to have been a more common thing to use splint armour in more Eastern countries, true.)

It's pretty important to protect your arm with weapon even if you carry shield. And long mail sleeves at first - are heavy, at second - don't protect hands well. Good hit would just break the arm without solid protection. There is often one vambracer on arm without shield.

 

various metal bits sown onto leather, or just leather seem to be a mandatory piece of any armour design, or a fantasy costume. And really, except for a few cases, like these hypothetical splint ones and the Indian (late period, not even medieval) steel ones, I can't recall seeing them being worn and used that way.

Probably that's because if metal bits are not on leather but in cloth (like in brigandine) they are hardly distinguishable from doublet sleeves.

 

arms feel empty and a simple mail sleeve just offends us by not being tied up with a bracer. ;P

Right feeling ) It looks just painful.

 

Similarly, warriors throughout history seem to have been comfortable fighting without gloves.

Thats what sword guards (garde) are intended for. Before appearance of complex plate gloves there wasn't any way to protect fingers from being smashed by direct hit without hindering movement much and loosing control of weapon.

 

This is all for the sake of coolness and asymetrical design. Single pieces of pair equipment probably were used here and there, but more because of the lack of the other piece rather than any deliberate purpose. It's also much easier to strap and set up a pair of pauldrons. As we've no doubt seen many times, these pauldrons are magically held on the body by (often really crazy) webs of straps and belts. Often they'd make it very difficult for the person to move.

That's wrong. At first that is not pair equipment by it's origin. To strengthen armor which is taken more blows is fairly common practice: left one of greaves, right one of vambraces, left or right pauldron, depends on fighting technique (more often left one, with smaller shield). Everything is for sake of more effective protection at cost of less weight.

Second thing, on how it's held: more often it's chainmail collar, probably with short chainmail sleeve with pauldron attached to the other side. Webs of straps and belts at taste and design quality, for additional stability and weight distribution. Provides neck and shoulder protection, often on top of brigandine. Quite a good and handy protection at cost of twice less weight than symmetrical for the sake of symmetry ones.

 

Rational armor/weight distribution on light armor as it is:

 

 

 

Underarmored imo, it would be better with something more on hip and at least one of vambraces, but still represents the concept.

Edited November 21, 2012 by SGray

[Merlkir]

Elmore! I was like "Hey, my favourite Elmore painting is that Mongol looking dude from Forgotten Realms!" Then I googled it. Yes, that one by Keith Parkinson. :D But Elmore does have a few nice ones, sure.

 

 

 

@SGray:

 

Probably that's because if metal bits are not on leather but in cloth (like in brigandine) they are hardly distinguishable from doublet sleeves.

So it's "invisible bracers!" ? Iirc there are suriviving brigandine finds, do they have metal plates in their sleeves?

 

Half of men on those pics are in vambracers:

Yes, they're exactly the type of reconstructions which look very nice and historical. But are they?

 

And long mail sleeves at first - are heavy, at second - don't protect hands well. Good hit would just break the arm without solid protection. There is often one vambracer on arm without shield.

Mail sleeves aren't that heavy. If you replace a long sleeve with a short sleeve and add a bracer made of steel splints, the weight will be probably higher. As for protection, I'd like to see a few tests on that. It's peculiar that long sleeved mail is well documented, while bracers aren't. Which brings me to the last sentence - where is the one vambrace on the sword arm? (I mean, you say "often", so where have you seen it? Reenactors?)

 

Right feeling ) It looks just painful.

 

Yet apparently, it was worn like that for centuries. Peculiar.

 

Everything is for sake of more effective protection at cost of less weight.

 

Lastly - still not convinced it makes a difference. It's not like plate pauldrons are very heavy, if it's leather, even less so. I am not convinced anyone in their right mind would choose to not wear one of a pir of pauldrons to lose a bit of weight.

 

The blog post was written more about the various nimble rogues wearing no armour except for a pauldron, or berserking barbarians who despise armour, except for that one lone pauldron.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Merlkir

[Jarmo]

Elmore! I was like "Hey, my favourite Elmore painting is that Mongol looking dude from Forgotten Realms!" Then I googled it. Yes, that one by Keith Parkinson. :D But Elmore does have a few nice ones, sure.

 

Oh, that's one of my favorite Elmore paintings as well! XD

I wanted to play in Forgotten Realms so bad when they advertised it with that one. Too bad the pic has almost nothing to do with the campaign world.

 

The quality in itself wasn't my point though. It's how the whole BG style seems to be exactly Elmore style.

 

Anyway, this being a pic thread now, here's one of my favorites.

Pretty neat armor designs btw, usable, realistic and all, but still with clear fantasy flavor. Even without all the dudes being undead.

 

[Karranthain]

And here's a companion piece to the one I've previously posted :

 

 

It retains a similar style - it's distinctly fantasy, with very ornate design, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it looks practical enough. Doesn't stretch my suspension of disbelief too much at least.

[Merlkir]

I'm not sure how the leg pieces bend and how comfortable it'd be, but overall it's alright.

[Karranthain]

I'm not sure how the leg pieces bend and how comfortable it'd be, but overall it's alright.

 

Yeah - and the bow's a little "off" as well, but in general it looks fairly practical as far as fantasy designs go. I prefer the version in red though. In any case, I'm perfectly fine with a small concession here and there, as long the overall look's good - and in this case I think that's provided in spades

 

In fact, I was thinking we could perhaps exchange our favourite fantasy designs for this page and the next perhaps? Let's see your favourites!

Edited November 21, 2012 by Karranthain

[SGray]

Yes, they're exactly the type of reconstructions which look very nice and historical. But are they?

Look at this (really big pic):

 

Man in red to the right, with sword up: what it is on his arm? Man on the top row to the left from him, with short sword or dagger up - same. Two more - to the right and lower, one in scale mail with two-hander, and one above him with a pike.

 

 

So at least such "reconstructions" are dated to 1878. Have seen myself armor sets with vambracers in museums, but couldn't google image i want fast enough (

More so:

 

 

 

So it's "invisible bracers!" ?

As much as brigandine is invisible armor.

 

Iirc there are suriviving brigandine finds, do they have metal plates in their sleeves?[

They hadn't any sleeves mostly. Vambrace is a separate part of armor. And yes there are findings of different bracers including cloth and metal ones (the easiest to craft btw), that are not showing steel outwards. Like this replicas:

 

 

 

 

 

Mail sleeves aren't that heavy. If you replace a long sleeve with a short sleeve and add a bracer made of steel splints, the weight will be probably higher.

Said from the point of man (woman) who newer tried to swing anything in such outfit. Long mail sleeve (not one-layered) weight's roughly a kilo and all that weight is on your arm. That's bad. While there could be short and wide sleeve that lays on your shoulder and around 0.3 kg bracer is on your hand, and such weight distribution means much even if it's same in weight.

 

As for protection, I'd like to see a few tests on that.

Tested that myself and it proved obvious: flat and solid distributes blow much better then flexible one.

 

It's peculiar that long sleeved mail is well documented, while bracers aren't. Which brings me to the last sentence - where is the one vambrace on the sword arm? (I mean, you say "often", so where have you seen it? Reenactors?)

Look at the upper picture. Full plate on arms, bracers, sleeved mail in equal quantity, clear depict of bracer on one arm (man in red, man in scale armor). Sleeved mail is rather heavy armor by itself, and still it's often reinforced by plate bracers, both or on weapon arm.

 

Yet apparently, it was worn like that for centuries. Peculiar.

Rly? Any historical depicts of not barebone (light, intended for archers, riders or spearmen, barely to cover torso from arrows) armor without reinforcements on hands?

 

Lastly - still not convinced it makes a difference. It's not like plate pauldrons are very heavy, if it's leather, even less so. I am not convinced anyone in their right mind would choose to not wear one of a pir of pauldrons to lose a bit of weight.

One pauldron that'll doubtfully be hit ever vs weapon arm speed and mobility loss?

Not the weight itself, but weight on moving parts of body (shoulder) or on long arms (bracer), that is slowing or limiting your movements. (interesting ambiguity btw, meant physics term) Not quite a no-brainer decision.

 

UPD:

I'm not sure how the leg pieces bend and how comfortable it'd be, but overall it's alright.

Platings are not intended to bend anyhow ) Simple high boot with 4 separate metal plates stapled to it. Quite a comfortable thing on it's look except plate on the heel.

Edited November 21, 2012 by SGray

[Karranthain]

On the topic of favourite fantasy designs, I'd like to mention Guard of the Citadel (or Fountain Guard) from the Lord of the Rings movies.

 

 

 

 

The plumed helmed is probably quite heavy, but within the realm of possibility, I'd say The cloak and the cloth fit nicely with the elegant cuirass.

[Merlkir]

Oh boy.

 

1) that painting is useless. It's a romanticized depiction of a battle of Grunwald, as you say, painted in the 19th century. People in the 19th century had very funny ideas about medieval armour.

 

2) The 18th century (!) Rajahstani armour falls under "late Indo Iranian", which I mentioned as an exception.

 

3)

As much as brigandine is invisible armor.

That was a joke btw. The point was - if you can't see it in depictions, it's very difficult to prove its existence.

 

4)

They hadn't any sleeves mostly. Vambrace is a separate part of armor. And yes there are findings of different bracers including cloth and metal ones (the easiest to craft btw), that are not showing steel outwards. Like this replicas:

 

That's exactly what I was asking about, if there were any finds of this kind. You post replicas, which may or may not be based on such finds. I have no way of knowing. People make "replicas" of Drizzt's swords you know.

 

5)

Said from the point of man (woman) who newer tried to swing anything in such outfit.

 

Here come the assumptions. According to my profile, I am a male. Just so you know. I have worn armour, both mail and plate. I have fought with swords in armour. Surely, the sword wasn't sharp, but that's as close as one can get, legally.

 

weight's roughly a kilo and all that weight is on your arm. That's bad. While there could be short and wide sleeve that lays on your shoulder and around 0.3 kg bracer is on your hand, and such weight distribution means much even if it's same in weight.

The mail sleeve hangs from your shoulder. You can also tie it with a strap to the forearm, so the weight is distributed more evenly. The point is - you're covered in armour from shoulder to the hand. With a bracer you have a gap from the shoulder to the elbow.

 

Tested that myself and it proved obvious: flat and solid distributes blow much better then flexible one.

Be that as it may, I'd still love to see such a test, with various weapons, amounts of padding etc. etc.

 

6)

Look at the upper picture. Full plate on arms, bracers, sleeved mail in equal quantity, clear depict of bracer on one arm (man in red, man in scale armor). Sleeved mail is rather heavy armor by itself, and still it's often reinforced by plate bracers, both or on weapon arm.

As mentioned earlier, it's a painting from the 19th century, it speaks of nothing else but the level of knowledge about armour in 19th century. You can google many "reconstructions" from the 21st century which are very inaccurate.

 

7)

Rly? Any historical depicts of not barebone (light, intended for archers, riders or spearmen, barely to cover torso from arrows) armor without reinforcements on hands?

 

Ehm, yes. Almost ANY depiction of a person in mail would not show any bracers.

A couple of knights: http://upload.wikime...von_Klingen.jpg

A random page from the Maciejowski bible:

 

 

8 )

One pauldron that'll doubtfully be hit ever vs weapon arm speed and mobility loss?

The mobility loss is negligible. I'd question the "doubtfulness" of the shoulder getting hit. In battle it doesn't matter that much how exactly you stand. Sure, you can hope you don't get hit, but it happens.

 

Interestingly, the concept piece with only one pauldron, (which we're talking about) has the LEFT pauldron. So it's the shield arm that's covered, not the sword arm. Just btw. So we'd assume, by your thinking, he's always facing the enemy with his left side. Or maybe he's left handed?

Anyway, it still seems silly to me. The weight and mobility difference is minimal, not really the tradeoff for protection provided by a pauldron.

 

9)

Platings are not intended to bend anyhow ) Simple high boot with 4 separate metal plates stapled to it. Quite a comfortable thing on it's look except plate on the heel.

 

Oh, you don't say! Plate armour doesn't bend?! That's news to me. You know, I'm almost offended you assume I'd think that was the case.

Of course the plates itself don't bend, but the leg under the armour surely bends, so the armour has to accomodate for that. How do the plates over the knee slide, if they do at all? They seem stuck to the boot/pants for good, how does the leg bend at the knee?

Also the pointy bit at the bottom, I wouldn't want to have that poking my foot.

 

Greaves are usually shaped a certain way to allow for easy movement without sharp bits of metal poking or breaking your leg. This doesn't quite look like it'd allow for movement entirely.

 

 

I wonder, are you Russian by any chance? Do you do bohurt, or any kind of armoured boxing like that?

Edited November 21, 2012 by Merlkir

[Karranthain]

Getting slightly off-topic there guys...

 

As for the armour I've posted - absolutely, the artist got a bit carried away with the greaves (which should've ended at the knee). The bow doesn't look very functional either. All the same, I like the detail on the armour and the overall look - hey, it doesn't have spikes or bladed gauntlets, gigantic shoulderpads, flaming skulls etc. That alone makes it great in this day and age

Edited November 21, 2012 by Karranthain

[SGray]

the artist got a bit carried away with the greaves (which should've ended at the knee).

Of course the plates itself don't bend, but the leg under the armour surely bends, so the armour has to accomodate for that. How do the plates over the knee slide, if they do at all?

Why should they slide or bend at knee at all? Couldn't they simply stick up over the knee? Not the most practical design for man without shield, but still viable.

 

if you can't see it in depictions, it's very difficult to prove its existence.

Was surprised myself how difficult it is to find such an evidence in web, but:

 

10-th century. Depiction on a jug from the Nagyszentmiklós treasure shows a Khazarian-style mounted warrior with splinted vambraces and greaves.

‘Goliath’, sculpted relief on exterior of the Church of the Holy Cross, Aght’amar (Akdamar Adası) in Lake Van, eastern Turkey. Armenian, 915-921.

Reconstruction of Valsgärde 8 panoply, 635-650AD.

http://members.ozema...nces.htm#note13

Quite an interesting text and pics, btw. Early ones, but nevertheless.

 

 

Last pic is quite an interesting concept, imo, which I'd like to see in game (lowest tier mb) .

 

Here come the assumptions. According to my profile, I am a male. Just so you know. I have worn armour, both mail and plate. I have fought with swords in armour. Surely, the sword wasn't sharp, but that's as close as one can get, legally.

My sincere apologies )

 

Further offtop:

 

The mail sleeve hangs from your shoulder. You can also tie it with a strap to the forearm, so the weight is distributed more evenly. The point is - you're covered in armour from shoulder to the hand. With a bracer you have a gap from the shoulder to the elbow.

But it's still weight on your arm. And if you want to fight dynamically for more than 5 minutes - it really matters. About the gap - it's pretty well protected by short and wide sleeve from top-down and side hits, it's vulnerable to bottom-up hits, but such are rarely direct hits and not hard to be made so, also it's rarely powerful enough hits, so doublet and free-hanging mail sleeve on it's way is enough. Ofc it's always good to have some additional protection on the elbow.

 

Be that as it may, I'd still love to see such a test, with various weapons, amounts of padding etc. etc.

Free-hanging arm in chainmail and padding - and moderate hit - good enough. Fixed somehow hand or fast direct blow with some sort of blade on the forearm in chainmail - could result in fracture. Obvious, imo.

 

Ehm, yes. Almost ANY depiction of a person in mail would not show any bracers.

Well, not the best example, but I was wrong.

 

In battle it doesn't matter that much how exactly you stand.

???

 

LEFT pauldron. So it's the shield arm that's covered, not the sword arm. Just btw. So we'd assume, by your thinking, he's always facing the enemy with his left side.

If it's something less than big heater shield - pretty reasonable. So he is facing his enemy with his shield. Not any other way.

 

I wonder, are you Russian by any chance? Do you do bohurt, or any kind of armoured boxing like that?

Yes (Belorussian, actually) and yes ) Was it so obvious? How did i give myself out? )

 

 

[Merlkir]

Hey, thanks!

 

@knee: yes, it could, but it does seem like it's attached to the pants all over its surface. Ancient greaves for example do go up over the patella, but not quite that far and they do indeed provide a comfortable range of movement.

 

@bracers:

I mentioned the Hungarian one (which I wrongly remembered as Avar) and the Vendel ones. I haven't seen the Armenian one before, padded cotton/silk bracers are an interesting idea. The Scythian greave is also interesting.

 

 

 

 

In battle it doesn't matter that much how exactly you stand.

 

poor wording on my part. I meant to say just standing to the side doesn't prevent you from getting hit there. It does make it less likely, sure.

 

About being Belorussian, I just thought I recognized tiny Slavicisms in your English. (being Czech myself) And these fights are quite popular in most Slavic countries, you seem to speak from some kind of practical experience. HEMA organizations don't do much armour fighting and almost no shield fighting, so it was a pretty safe guess. HEMA people are also quite picky about historical accuracy, bohurt fighters a bit less so. I've seen some beautiful equipment at these events, but boy do they not worry about anachronisms and adopted modern protective inventions. Which is perfectly fine if it keeps them from getting seriously hurt while doing this intensive sport.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Merlkir

[GhoulishVisage]

So, I've been thinking about the armor, and what slots should be available for placement

 

- Head (Helmet, hat, hood etc)

- Neck (Amulets)

- Shoulders (Cloaks, scarves, capes)

- Torso (Shirts, Jerkins, Chain shirts etc)

- Arms (Vambraces)

- Hands (Gauntlets, Gloves)

- Legs (Pants)

- Feet (Boots, shoes)

- Fingers (2-4 Rings)

 

Also, I'm thinking that perhaps a Tabard could be individually placable separate from armor.

This could allow for separate effects, or it could be entirely decorative to show your allegiance to a particular faction for roleplaying purposes.

Hell, once you have a stronghold perhaps Obsidian could design an insignia to go onto your own guard's tabards and your flags. An ouroboros should do nicely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some vambraces and tabards I googled.

 

So, do you think I'm going a bit overboard on the equipment?

[Merlkir]

Yes. :D So many equipment types most likely reduce possible (achievable) variety overall.

[Agelastos]

A decade ago, several cRPGs and MMORPGs had 6-8 slots just for armor, and some even let you don a robe or tabard over the armor. And then there were all the dyes...

I really miss that.

Sure, there were usually a lot less unique-looking armors available, but at least you got to mix and match different pieces to your heart's content.

Now I always have to spend hours, or even days, in Blender and Photoshop just to get a suit of armor that feels right for my character.

 

Hopefully, because of the locked isometric perspective, I won't have to obsess over every little detail about my character's appearance in P.E.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Agelastos

[Karranthain]

Yes. :D So many equipment types most likely reduce possible (achievable) variety overall.

 

I agree, that'd be a bit too much I'd be fine with 4 or 5 armour slots myself (the standard).

 

And keeping with the theme of fantasy designs, I present to you the White Lions of Chrace :

 

 

 

What I like about this particular design is the contrast between the very ornate and sophisticated armour (particularly the gemmed cuirass) and the cloak fashioned from a lion's skin, which gives it a more tribal feel. I'd assume it'd be heavy as hell though. But such is the price of looking menacing Oh, and I really like plumed helmets.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Karranthain

[Merlkir]

Yep. The labour intensity of the current way of making game assets restricts developers and games' scope quite a bit. It takes this many man hours to make a sword, this many to make a helmet.

I'm a bit tired of the "lovingly handcrafting" approach to making games. Support procedural generation!

 

[GhoulishVisage]

Oh well, just thinking back to Morrowind with it's selection of equippable stuff.

Skyrim really bummed me out with how limited it's equippable items were.

[Karranthain]

Oh well, just thinking back to Morrowind with it's selection of equippable stuff.

Skyrim really bummed me out with how limited it's equippable items were.

 

What if we had this many equippable slots?

 

 

 

And voilà, after a couple of hours of equipping all of this, here's the final result!

 

 

You could probably create a stand-alone game out of the whole process of equipping a knight

Edited November 21, 2012 by Karranthain

[LadyCrimson]

If we had that many gear slots, I'd get nowhere in terms of progressing in the game because I'd spend 30 minutes after every combat in the paper-doll screen.

[GhoulishVisage]

That... would be completely awesome.

Seems stuffy though.

And probably flea-ridden and rank too, considering hygiene back in the day.

 

Still think the tabard should be separate though.

It sucks finding an awesome piece of equipment with an inseparable tabard on it that you don't like.

Also be an awesome way to declare allegiance to a particular faction or boast your own insignia once you get the stronghold and some recognition.

Having your own guards with whatever your insignia will be on their uniforms patrolling around the area would be incredibly cool.

 

 

So, equipment will probably look like the following if it's like NWN2:

 

Visible:

- Head (Helmet, hat, hood etc)

- Shoulders (Cloaks, scarves, capes)

- Torso (Shirts, Jerkins, Chain shirts etc)

- Hands (Gauntlets, Gloves)

- Legs (Pants)

- Feet (Boots, shoes)

 

Not visible:

- Neck (Amulets)

- Fingers (2 Rings)

 

Huh. All I removed was vambraces and two rings.

I was actually expecting to remove a bit more.

 

Why isn't that possible?

Edited November 22, 2012 by GhoulishVisage

[Agelastos]

What I like about this particular design is the contrast between the very ornate and sophisticated armour (particularly the gemmed cuirass) and the cloak fashioned from a lion's skin, which gives it a more tribal feel. I'd assume it'd be heavy as hell though. But such is the price of looking menacing

 

Wearing the pelts of big cats and other large predators over sophisticated armor was fairly common in real life too, even during the Late Medieval/Early Modern period (which is the period that P.E. supposedly is based on/inspired by).

At least in Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

 

]

Winged hussar

[Karranthain]

What I like about this particular design is the contrast between the very ornate and sophisticated armour (particularly the gemmed cuirass) and the cloak fashioned from a lion's skin, which gives it a more tribal feel. I'd assume it'd be heavy as hell though. But such is the price of looking menacing

 

Wearing the pelts of big cats and other large predators over sophisticated armor was fairly common in real life too, even during the Late Medieval/Early Modern period (which is the period that P.E. supposedly is based on/inspired by).

At least in Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

 

Aye, but that particular white lion cloak might just be a bit too heavy to actually wear in combat

 

I'm hoping it's a silmarily common practice in the world of PE; as I've mentioned, I really like this sort of a contrast.

[AGX-17]

I haven't checked in on these threads in a while. Are we (by which I mean people other than myself,) still just nodding in agreement that all fantasy game armor but chainmail and steel plate is unrealistic and should not be present despite the fantasy setting?

[Karranthain]

I haven't checked in on these threads in a while. Are we (by which I mean people other than myself,) still just nodding in agreement that all fantasy game armor but chainmail and steel plate is unrealistic and should not be present despite the fantasy setting?

 

No, but we're graced with that particular strawman every once in a while