Helmet progression revision.

[ArchonAlarion]

This will probably piss people off, but I'm posting in the realism section, so just think about it from that perspective for now.

Great helmets should provide the most head armor and weight the most. Armets and sallets should give high armor, but not as much as great helmets. Great helmets were the heaviest and offered the most protection. They would penalize your vision and head movement the most too.

I'm suggesting that the great helmets switch places with the high-tier non-great helmets, keeping the stats/prices the same, but switching the names and models.

Currently the helmet progression is based on chronological appearance, and not on the actual protection/weight of the helmets. Yes, armets and sallets were designed to glance blows, but the size, weight, and thickness of great helmets exceeds the former's sheer protectiveness.

*edit: Tourney helms should actually have the best armor, which would be good for armor crutcher humiliation haha.

[Penitent]

I disagree.

Great helms had straight tops and sides.  Because of this they are more vulnerable to blunt and pierce attacks, having a greater chance to receive a blow perpendicular to the armor surface and thereby transferring more force to the soft melon within.

The curved shape of the armet and sallet were designed purposefully to deflect or redirect the force of a blow to the head....a greater chance to glance.  If you look at the armet it even has a little "shield" on the back of the neck to protect one of its weak points.  The milanese sallet and Weimar Helm have raised ridges along the top of the head, strengthening this weaker and likely point of attack as well. These helms represent a higher technological achievement and protect better!  If they did not, knights of the early renaissance would have chosen great helms instead.  The great helms were the best of their day, but they are just kind of like a big metal box.   A strong design, but not the best.

I do agree that great helms probably weighed more though.  In terms of visibility, I think the two are comparable.

[Penitent]

double post..

[ArchonAlarion]

Men at arms could have also found a need for a lighter helm with a visor and removable pieces due to the battlefield meta and social-status concerns. Part of the protection is in the weight of the helm, and the size of the great helm means that more padding could be placed inside, including a mail coif and smaller inner helm, the predecessor of the bascinet. Note that the sugarloaf helm does not have a straight top. I completely understand about the curved sides glancing blows, but I don't think it is enough to truly say that great helmets were less protective. If you have any sources relevant to this I'd be interested in reading them. I didn't read anything specific to verify the suggestion, but I gathered it indirectly from material and from SCA fighting where great helm users have trouble taking head shots because they can't feel the blows (yes, I understand sca combat doesn't really compare to reality lol).

[TurmoilTom]

WINGED GREAT HELMET BUFF

I WANT TO SURVIVE MORE HEADSHOTS

[Tears of Destiny]

Armets and sallets should give high armor, but not as much as great helmets.

This is just historically not right.

[Ujin]

This is just historically not right.

Exactly. Armets are just superior technology compared to great helmets.

[Casimir]

so are shotguns.

[zagibu]

And giant war lobsters. The winner of the battle could feast on them for days.