All that chainmail does not look comfortable, it would have to be something sci-fi or given a made by the elves handwave to be plausible but that said it covers all the bits so technically it does fall into the Practical Armour category.
The choice between "sexy" and awesome armor
Débuté par
FumikoM
, sept. 28 2014 04:54
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
Retour en haut
#2452
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:07
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
I think you might be surprised at just how effective mail is even against thrusts.
Here
And here is an account of a LANCE not going through mail! A lance! Like, from horseback!
and
Mail is pretty awesome protection. There is a reason it was so popular.
Here
Regarding sword and knife stabs, Dr. Williams presents a convincing argument that it was far more difficult to thrust a blade through mail than many assume.95 He tested two samples of mail (placed over padding) and found that the energy required to compromise either sample exceeded the maximum amount of energy that a person can generate with a one-handed thrust—even over-handed. He tested the amount of energy required to penetrate his samples with a simulated halberd blade, a lance head, and a bodkin arrowhead. The halberd and lance required more than 200J to penetrate the first sample; the bodkin required only 120J to penetrate. Against the second sample, the halberd required 170J, the lance 140J, and the bodkin 120J. From this, it would seem that a bodkin-shaped spike is the most efficient design to compromise mail, which is consistent with other experiments.
Williams also cited an experiment by Horsfall et al.,96 who concluded that the maximum energy a person could deliver in an over-arm stab was 115J and an under-arm stab only 63J. If the data from the two experiments are combined, it seems that it was not possible for a person to punch through mail (at least the two samples tested by Williams) with a single-handed thrust—even with a spike that was optimized for the task.
And here is an account of a LANCE not going through mail! A lance! Like, from horseback!
Regarding the protective qualities of field mail against lances, there are a few contemporary sources. The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh (1095-1188) recount an anecdote in which he jumped his horse over a hedge and solidly struck a Frankish knight with his lance such that:
He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head...he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him.98
and
Over the page, Usamah describes how he charged at what he perceived to be an enemy and hit the man in the armpit with his lance, knocking him off his horse. It was fortunate that the man's mail saved him from injury because he turned out to be a friend.99
In another battle, Usamah's cousin named Khitam was attacked by Frankish lancers and unhorsed. They then reversed their lances and began to thrust into him while he lay on the ground. However, Khitam was wearing "a coat of mail the links of which were so strong that their lances could have no effect on it."100
Mail is pretty awesome protection. There is a reason it was so popular.
- xkg, Finnn62 et TheBlackSwordsman aiment ceci
#2453
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:15
Voragoras
-
- Members
- 462 messages
^ Anything with a narrow tip or a lot of force, like a longbow, would utterly destroy a set of chainmail, though. There was a type of arrowhead with a narrow tip, called a bodkin, that would go through mail very easily, for example. A lance would probably be too large to be effective at serious injury.
But yeah, generally? Mail is very good protection, given it has the appropriate cushioning underneath.
- Remmirath et Finnn62 aiment ceci
#2454
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:17
Vanth
-
- Members
- 491 messages
Since this is a sngle player RPG, why not have both modest/functional armor and 'sexy' armor, and let the player choose? I can see the point in objecting in an MMO but one cannot really be offended by what armor someone else puts on their character if you never have to look at it.
- Korra23 aime ceci
#2455
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:22
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
Not so sure about that. Its a subject of debate, and at this point there are no clear answers. One thing is for sure though, its definetly not "easy" for longbow arrows to get through mail, here for reference^ Anything with a narrow tip or a lot of force, like a longbow, would utterly destroy a set of chainmail, though. There was a type of arrowhead with a narrow tip, called a bodkin, that would go through mail very easily, for example. A lance would probably be too large to be effective at serious injury.
But yeah, generally? Mail is very good protection, given it has the appropriate cushioning underneath.
A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows—particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),59 inadequate padding was used (if employed at all),60 the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect61—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991.62 An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts,63 but these tests may have underestimated the strength of English longbows. Strickland commented that there has yet to be a test that uses accurate reconstructions of both armour and bow.64
Here are some more brief examples: at the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk. During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets or did not have visors.75
Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:
And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound.76
From the above you can see that although an arrow might not pierce the armor, it might still cause blunt force trauma(this is because mail is flexible, unlike plate). But blunt force is preferable to pierced flesh.
Even the much-vaunted bodkin did not guarantee penetration. It seems that bodkins are more capable than other arrowheads of punching through the mail links but have difficulty penetrating the layer of padding underneath. Bodkin-type arrowheads have been used since the Bronze Age and were common during the Roman period and right through the so-called "Age of Mail." Considering the frequency with which knights faced arrows on the battlefield, if mail was highly susceptible to them, then it would not have remained the preferred type of body armour for so long. One might argue that a type of armour more resistant to arrows, such as plate or lamellar, would have been more extensively used in Western Europe during this time. It has also been demonstrated that some types of mail (such as "double mail") were considered proof against arrows. If one was concerned about arrow fire, this sort of mail was available to those who could afford it. Therefore, one must conclude that plate armour did not become widespread in the 14th century simply because of the susceptibility of mail to arrows.
#2456
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:23
Muspade
-
- Members
- 1 280 messages
Since this is a sngle player RPG, why not have both modest/functional armor and 'sexy' armor, and let the player choose? I can see the point in objecting in an MMO but one cannot really be offended by what armor someone else puts on their character if you never have to look at it.
Only if you're willing to deal with reduced armor ratings.
#2457
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:37
Vanth
-
- Members
- 491 messages
Only if you're willing to deal with reduced armor ratings.
Firstly, what difference would it make to you what the armor ratings of 'sexy' armor is, if you are not going to wear them? Secondly, armors can protect magically.
Thirdly, would you be happy for full cover armor to give a movement penalty making your characters move and attack more slowly?
#2458
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:41
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
Why would the armor make you move and attack more slowly? You might tire a bit more quickly then someone without armor, but that's about it.Firstly, what difference would it make to you what the armor ratings of 'sexy' armor is, if you are not going to wear them? Secondly, armors can protect magically.
Thirdly, would you be happy for full cover armor to give a movement penalty making your characters move and attack more slowly?
#2459
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:43
Muspade
-
- Members
- 1 280 messages
Firstly, what difference would it make to you what the armor ratings of 'sexy' armor is, if you are not going to wear them? Secondly, armors can protect magically.
1. I'd rather the Bioware Team focus on armor sets that are consistent with the previous games.
2. "Cuz magic" is not an argument. If that was the case, higher ranking soldiers wouldn't be wearing the armor that they do.
3. Armor does not slow you down to a significant degree but i'd be a'ight with a pentalty for it, namely the "Fatigue" penalty. It was already present in DA:O
- Lady Luminous aime ceci
#2460
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:55
xkg
-
- Members
- 3 744 messages
I think you might be surprised at just how effective mail is even against thrusts.
Here
And here is an account of a LANCE not going through mail! A lance! Like, from horseback!
and
Mail is pretty awesome protection. There is a reason it was so popular.
Very good post, and yes it was very good protection against slash/thrust weapons, arrows and bolts.
But not against blunt wepaons like maces etc.
Mace could broke the ribs, crush the skull without penetrating the armor.
The knight dude could even die from the pure shock after being hit by it.
But the mace is very short so it has this nasty drawback.
#2461
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 05:59
go.apostate
-
- Members
- 87 messages
One day, I want to be sexy.
One day, I want to be a brute.
One day, I will be a sexy brute.
#2462
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:00
Revan Reborn
-
- Members
- 2 997 messages
I'd just like to say using "fantasy" as a scapegoat to justify "sexy" armor is a weak argument. First and foremost, fantasy is an extremely broad genre, and it can range from something that is believable and grounded in reality (Game of Thrones or The Witcher) to the more absurd and unrealistic in every regard (The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter). While magic, dragons, dwarves, and elves are all part of Dragon Age, they are incredibly rare, and either hated, feared, or many don't even believe of their existence. The games suggest a somewhat untrue depiction of the Dragon Age world as you are dealing with the most gifted and talented people who become the heroes of Thedas.
Now back in regards to attire, we have never seen any warriors in bikini chainmail or boob plate. The more armor one wears in Dragon Age, the more protection they have (Ex: DAO from light to massive). Even light was cloth and nothing particularly revealing or sexualized. Armor in Dragon Age is for wars and battles. With the potential exception of a few rogues and mages (Isabela and Morrigan of whom weren't soldiers), very few characters have ever shown anything suggestive or revealing. Making the ridiculous argument that bikini chainmail can be enchanted with magic is a weak and baseless argument that has no history or relevancy in regards to Dragon Age.
It would be one thing to petition for "sexy" armor if it at least made sense in the source material. It's an entirely different matter when it would not add anything and it's purely for gratuity and titillation. That is not the kind of experience BioWare has historically created.
- X Equestris et blahblahblah aiment ceci
#2463
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:00
Vanth
-
- Members
- 491 messages
Why would the armor make you move and attack more slowly? You might tire a bit more quickly then someone without armor, but that's about it.
I would have thought this was fairly obvious. You clearly move more slowly in heavy clothing than light clothing, so why should armor be any different? It is simple physics. Greater mass feels less acceleraton for the same force applied.
1. I'd rather the Bioware Team focus on armor sets that are consistent with the previous games.
2. "Cuz magic" is not an arguement. If that was the case, higher ranking soldiers wouldn't be wearing the armor that they do.
3. Armor does not slow you down to a significant degree but i'd be a'ight with a pentalty for it, namely the "Fatigue" penalty. It was already present in DA:O
1. I agree with this. Consistency is important. But we will be exploring new clutures and areas in this game. Zevran for example wore rather slight armor in previous games. There would be no lore inconsistancy with some armors being lighter.
2. You have already accepted the conceit of having armors with basically the same cover but wildly differing armor ratings to allow character progression. This was present in both DA:O and DA2. So any link between what armor looks like and the protection it gives is already broken. Or would you claim the armor should logically give more protection if it looks badass? 
3. Of course it does. See above. The fatigue penalty is good, but actually makes my point, not yours - there are good practical reasons for wearing light armors (i.e. 'sexy' armours).
#2464
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:03
Voragoras
-
- Members
- 462 messages
Not so sure about that. Its a subject of debate, and at this point there are no clear answers. One thing is for sure though, its definetly not "easy" for longbow arrows to get through mail, here for reference
From the above you can see that although an arrow might not pierce the armor, it might still cause blunt force trauma(this is because mail is flexible, unlike plate). But blunt force is preferable to pierced flesh.
True, perhaps that was the wrong choice of word. I think it depends a lot on the individual standard of the mail you're wearing and the force of the bow, as well as the type of arrowhead used.
And yeah, arrows did some serious damage that's never properly represented in media. It has a shocking amount of force when you consider it's just some string and wood.
#2465
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:20
Lilaeth
-
- Members
- 998 messages
3. Of course it does. See above. The fatigue penalty is good, but actually makes my point, not yours - there are good practical reasons for wearing light armors (i.e. 'sexy' armours).
Light does not necessarily equate to sexy. At least not the gratuitous chainmail bikini kind of sexy.
- Muspade, Lady Luminous et greywatch aiment ceci
#2466
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:26
Muspade
-
- Members
- 1 280 messages
I would have thought this was fairly obvious. You clearly move more slowly in heavy clothing than light clothing, so why should armor be any different? It is simple physics. Greater mass feels less acceleraton for the same force applied.
1. I agree with this. Consistency is important. But we will be exploring new clutures and areas in this game. Zevron for example wore rather slight armor in previous games. There would be no lore inconsistancy with some armors being lighter.
2. You have already accepted the conceit of having armors with basically the same cover but wildly differing armor ratings to allow character progression. This was present in both DA:O and DA2. So any link between what armor looks like and the protection it gives is already broken. Or would you claim the armor should logically give more protection if it looks badass?
3. Of course it does. See above. The fatigue penalty is good, but actually makes my point, not yours - there are good practical reasoncs for waring light armors (i.e. 'sexy' armours).
1. Zevran wore leather armor. I'm not seeing your argument here.
2. I have accepted that leather armor gives less protection than plate armor. I have accepted that plate bikini's give you even less protection than practical leather armor.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're claiming it's "broken" while citing two games where plate armor has generally had higher armor rating than leather and cloth.
3. There are no benefits to wearing plate armor bikini's. It's a waste of resources, it looks stupid, it's highly impractical and protects none of your vital area's properly.
- Lady Luminous et greywatch aiment ceci
#2467
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:31
GrinningRogue
-
- Members
- 278 messages
1. I agree with this. Consistency is important. But we will be exploring new clutures and areas in this game. Zevran for example wore rather slight armor in previous games. There would be no lore inconsistancy with some armors being lighter.
It's true we're exploring new cultures and areas, but given that these nations had been at war with each other before, and that most of those in the army are no mages or stealth users, I don't think we'd suddenly get a culture that goes to war or patrols in scanty armor (if that's what you mean by lighter). If their enemies are covered in armor, I imagine they too, would want to be covered in armor, and I doubt some decades of uneasy peace would change their preference. That, plus, given how dangerous the world of Thedas is, even in peace time, I imagine even the standard adventurer would prefer to have protection. The protection, of course, would come in the form of covers and armors, which are more accessible than magic. Magic is not rare, but not common enough that the every man has access to magical protection.
If suddenly there's a nation with scantily clad warriors, it'd have to be an entirely new nation, or Qunari. They seem to be less armored in DA2. I figure it must be something about The Qun demanding them to do so.
#2468
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:47
Patchwork
-
- Members
- 2 585 messages
3. Of course it does. See above. The fatigue penalty is good, but actually makes my point, not yours - there are good practical reasons for wearing light armors (i.e. 'sexy' armours).
Light armour is not the same thing as skimp/sexy armour.
Light armour is leather with a bit of padding underneath it's not a chainmail bikini.
#2469
Guest_E-Ro_*
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 06:51
Guest_E-Ro_*
Guest_E-Ro_*
-
- Guests
What? move more slowly in heavy clothing? what kind of clothing are you wearing? This is a pretty hilarious post tbh.I would have thought this was fairly obvious. You clearly move more slowly in heavy clothing than light clothing, so why should armor be any different? It is simple physics. Greater mass feels less acceleraton for the same force applied.
anyway ill just leave this here
- Remmirath, Dermain, RevilFox et 4 autres aiment ceci
#2470
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:05
Lady Luminous
-
- Members
- 16 570 messages
If suddenly there's a nation with scantily clad warriors, it'd have to be an entirely new nation, or Qunari. They seem to be less armored in DA2. I figure it must be something about The Qun demanding them to do so.
I still think it's because Par Vollen is mostly rainforest, so that accounts for not wanting to melt in heavy armour. Thus the habit/penchant of wearing less, even in cooler climates.
#2471
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:13
Nattfare
-
- Members
- 1 940 messages
I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for why the Zulu fought with little to no armour was because of the hot temperature.
#2472
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:26
Voragoras
-
- Members
- 462 messages
What? move more slowly in heavy clothing? what kind of clothing are you wearing? This is a pretty hilarious post tbh.
anyway ill just leave this here
I can never get used to how loud plate armour is.
- Dermain aime ceci
#2473
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:30
Lilaeth
-
- Members
- 998 messages
I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for why the Zulu fought with little to no armour was because of the hot temperature.
-
Probably - they would arrive at the battlefield in all their finery and strip it off before they fought. Quite sensible!
- Dermain et eyezonlyii aiment ceci
#2474
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:31
Remmirath
-
- Members
- 1 174 messages
Very high temperatures has been the main reason that various cultures have fought with little to no armour. Ferelden, at least, is definitely more in the northern sort of clime, and it seems like none of the countries we've heard about in Thedas would be hot enough for that to apply.
The other reasons have usually boiled down to a lack of resources of one kind or another. Also, cultures who fought without much or any armour have usually tended more towards ambush tactics, which is, I think I can safely say, not what our characters are going to be doing most of the time in DA:I -- with the possible exceptions of rogues, who I think should be able to wear little to no armour if that's their choice. Heck, I think anybody should be able to wear basically no armour if they want; I just don't think it should be a good idea (I don't like armour restrictions, so I would much prefer if warriors could wear mage robes if they wanted, or vice versa).
That's what most people want in this thread, really. Choice for the PC/any NPCs you're equipping, and practical armour for the world in general (with the possible exception of any NPC who really, truly, in-character would not wear practical armour).
I'll point out that being able to move is an important concern in armour development, and you're not going to find any armour in which people couldn't perform the actions they needed to perform while wearing it (there is some specialised armour, say for jousts, that wouldn't work out so well in other situations).
1. Zevran wore leather armour, which nobody is arguing at all against the inclusion of. No problem with there being lighter armour. It's a good thing to have, something that I think we all want.
2. This is somewhat true, but at least they are differentiated by material, and all massive armour has protected more than any light armour. With regards to DA:O, at least. The numbers were sufficiently out of whack in general that I personally discount DA II for this, but I will say that the massive difference between one set of basically the same armour and another is a problem I had with DA II.
3. Light armours are not necessarily 'sexy' armours. Light armour is fine, and I'd like to see a goodly variety of leather and lighter metal armours. Further, I have much less of a problem with 'sexy' lighter armours; more form-fitting or tailored leather isn't a problem, for example. It's when it is hurting the functionality of the armour that I have a problem with it, and even then, I think that people should be able to customise their armour like that if they want. If it's purely a customisation option, I don't even care whether or not it impacts the protective value of the armour, because I can then ignore it completely. If one or two suits of less practical armour show up in the game somewhere (say if there is a character who that actually makes sense for in-character), then I want them to have less armour value. Then it becomes something that's part of the game world, rather than something entirely optional, so I want it to act accordingly.
The other reasons have usually boiled down to a lack of resources of one kind or another. Also, cultures who fought without much or any armour have usually tended more towards ambush tactics, which is, I think I can safely say, not what our characters are going to be doing most of the time in DA:I -- with the possible exceptions of rogues, who I think should be able to wear little to no armour if that's their choice. Heck, I think anybody should be able to wear basically no armour if they want; I just don't think it should be a good idea (I don't like armour restrictions, so I would much prefer if warriors could wear mage robes if they wanted, or vice versa).
Since this is a sngle player RPG, why not have both modest/functional armor and 'sexy' armor, and let the player choose? I can see the point in objecting in an MMO but one cannot really be offended by what armor someone else puts on their character if you never have to look at it.
That's what most people want in this thread, really. Choice for the PC/any NPCs you're equipping, and practical armour for the world in general (with the possible exception of any NPC who really, truly, in-character would not wear practical armour).
I'll point out that being able to move is an important concern in armour development, and you're not going to find any armour in which people couldn't perform the actions they needed to perform while wearing it (there is some specialised armour, say for jousts, that wouldn't work out so well in other situations).
1. I agree with this. Consistency is important. But we will be exploring new clutures and areas in this game. Zevran for example wore rather slight armor in previous games. There would be no lore inconsistancy with some armors being lighter.
2. You have already accepted the conceit of having armors with basically the same cover but wildly differing armor ratings to allow character progression. This was present in both DA:O and DA2. So any link between what armor looks like and the protection it gives is already broken. Or would you claim the armor should logically give more protection if it looks badass?
3. Of course it does. See above. The fatigue penalty is good, but actually makes my point, not yours - there are good practical reasons for wearing light armors (i.e. 'sexy' armours).
1. Zevran wore leather armour, which nobody is arguing at all against the inclusion of. No problem with there being lighter armour. It's a good thing to have, something that I think we all want.
2. This is somewhat true, but at least they are differentiated by material, and all massive armour has protected more than any light armour. With regards to DA:O, at least. The numbers were sufficiently out of whack in general that I personally discount DA II for this, but I will say that the massive difference between one set of basically the same armour and another is a problem I had with DA II.
3. Light armours are not necessarily 'sexy' armours. Light armour is fine, and I'd like to see a goodly variety of leather and lighter metal armours. Further, I have much less of a problem with 'sexy' lighter armours; more form-fitting or tailored leather isn't a problem, for example. It's when it is hurting the functionality of the armour that I have a problem with it, and even then, I think that people should be able to customise their armour like that if they want. If it's purely a customisation option, I don't even care whether or not it impacts the protective value of the armour, because I can then ignore it completely. If one or two suits of less practical armour show up in the game somewhere (say if there is a character who that actually makes sense for in-character), then I want them to have less armour value. Then it becomes something that's part of the game world, rather than something entirely optional, so I want it to act accordingly.
- Grieving Natashina et Lady Luminous aiment ceci
#2475
Posté 19 octobre 2014 - 07:36
Heimdall
-
- Members
- 13 223 messages
I still think it's because Par Vollen is mostly rainforest, so that accounts for not wanting to melt in heavy armour. Thus the habit/penchant of wearing less, even in cooler climates.
Additionally, those in DA2 were on a ship. If they had heavier armor, they probably weren't wearing it when it went down for safety. Even if the weight doesn't restrict movement too much, it'll sink you like a rock.
- Dermain aime ceci
