Make plate armour finally realistic

[CrazyCracka420]

not really, it depends on quality and age, in 12th century for completely new armor, yes that would be accurate. but in 13-14th century, it would cost about same as horse. [for example english foot knights who wore plate armor, yet they fought on foot because horse was too expensive for them.]

I imagine a war horse was too expensive , but I doubt a typical riding horse (like a palfrey) were more expensive than a set of plate armor.

Also if we were to have "realistic" plate armor (where you are only vulnerable at joints in the armor) we'd need to add other things as well like horses knocking your plated ass unconscious when it runs you over.  Or breaking your leg when it steps on your leg and you are now immobile. 

[Nightmare798]

I imagine a war horse was too expensive , but I doubt a typical riding horse (like a palfrey) were more expensive than a set of plate armor.

Also if we were to have "realistic" plate armor (where you are only vulnerable at joints in the armor) we'd need to add other things as well like horses knocking your plated ass unconscious when it runs you over.  Or breaking your leg when it steps on your leg and you are now immobile.

well actually horse was more expensive that you would think, thats why peasants usualy used oxes, or donkeys. horse itself is a bit broad term, by horse i mean battle worthy horse, not just some random pony or something like that. however, horses bred for battle were worth a great deal, even without armoring.

furthermore plate armor is also a broad term. for what it is, it could easily be just steel bracers, cuirass, helmet and boots, or it can also be the suit you were talking about. point is that while those two items are relative, the plate armor while unaffordable for common foot soldier, was priced reasonably enough to be used by lieutenants [part plate armor i was talking about earlier], and cheap enough for people of higher statuses.

[Simon_Templar]

but you are agree that its totally retarded that you can step somebody with a dagger when he have plate armour? unless you are not unconscious. it is pretty match impossible. but make another rage thread:D so it is not really balanced at all

[Simon_Templar]

this hit zone thing sounds nice. but i think you shoud make it that all kind of swords make blunt damage on swords and not cut ... and then you have a plate armour. so you need a system what includ this. becouse the only thing what you can do is try and hit hard enough to break somebodys bones inside the armour. another thing is still that the ahlpike shoud only make damage when you make a stap forward. and not just when you stay on one place you just thrust and you get throught the armour. becouse you woud need the power of your hole body to pierce throught. the lolstap is ruin the game:D time to remove it...

the only things woud shoud make pierce is steel pik militari pick and all kind of morning stars. and another thing is. that the steel pik shoud stuck in the armour sometimes. becouse this weapon was not the ultimativ answer for everything.

[rufio]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Simon_Templar]

i expected something like this from a two hander but its acally not only about 2handers it is also about 1hand stap, polearm stap, but just saying make 2 hand stap a polearm stap to make it also realistic:D

[Brrrak]

but you are agree that its totally retarded that you can stop somebody with a dagger when he have plate armour? unless you are not unconscious. it is pretty match impossible. but make another rage thread:D so it is not really balanced at all

Thank God daggers weren't weapons used for killing plated heavy infantry during the medieval and Renaissance period.

[Kafein]

During a warm day, a complete suit of plate armor would also be really inconvenient, no ?

[Adamar]

How about making almost all arrow and swing damage bounce/glance of plate? Would this be possible to make?

[Tomas]

not really, it depends on quality and age, in 12th century for completely new armor, yes that would be accurate. but in 13-14th century, it would cost about same as horse. [for example english foot knights who wore plate armor, yet they fought on foot because horse was too expensive for them.]

13-14th century English Knights fought on foot because of tactics not because they didn't have horses.

The 2 main battles from the era you specify are Crecy and Poitiers.  Both consisted of the English defending a hill of some sort with inferior numbers and in both cases it therefore made sense for Knights to fight on foot.  Fighting on foot means you are better able to hold ground and are less likely to run away.  At Poitiers however some of the English knights remained mounted allowing them to turn the French flank and capture the French King to end the battle.

As for Plate armour, the average plate armour was relatively cheap in reality.  It took less time to make than chain mail, had no moving joints and was full of imperfections that made it vulnerable.  Overall it was probably the cheaper part of most knight's armour since most of them would have been wearing a chain mail shirt under their plate anyway.

Obviously good plate was much more expensive and as such it was much rarer

[Lennu]

Well, realistically a hard hit from a blunt weapon should cause the plate to bend in and have all kinds of nasty consequenses. For example breastplate to push the chest inwards too, causing the wearer to be unable to breathe and the player should be forced to watch his character to slowly suffocate to death during the next 5 min

Hopefully there will be games in the future with realistic physics that include weak spots in the armor and stuff like that. 

[Nightmare798]

13-14th century English Knights fought on foot because of tactics not because they didn't have horses.

The 2 main battles from the era you specify are Crecy and Poitiers.  Both consisted of the English defending a hill of some sort with inferior numbers and in both cases it therefore made sense for Knights to fight on foot.  Fighting on foot means you are better able to hold ground and are less likely to run away.  At Poitiers however some of the English knights remained mounted allowing them to turn the French flank and capture the French King to end the battle.

As for Plate armour, the average plate armour was relatively cheap in reality.  It took less time to make than chain mail, had no moving joints and was full of imperfections that made it vulnerable.  Overall it was probably the cheaper part of most knight's armour since most of them would have been wearing a chain mail shirt under their plate anyway.

Obviously good plate was much more expensive and as such it was much rarer

take a look at this for accurate pricing...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


here is a link to that page, also with listed currencies.http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

as you can see, maximum price of warhorse was L80 [in 13th century, there is no info that armor was included, but since cost is this high, ill take it as granted that we are talking about armored war horse. cost in shillings is 1600]

whereas battle-ready full milanese armor was about 166 shillings and 8 deniers. [1441]

however, unarmored war horse was worth 50 shillings in 12th century.

so to certain degree
kafein was right about plate armor being expensive, but not as much as millions of crpg gold.

id wager that it would be about 40-50 k of crpg gold if devs were going for realism...

[Nightmare798]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

this gif is fucking golden lmao

[Nightmare798]

but you are agree that its totally retarded that you can step somebody with a dagger when he have plate armour? unless you are not unconscious. it is pretty match impossible. but make another rage thread:D so it is not really balanced at all

actually daggers were more effective against heavy armor than you might think. unlike sword, dagger doesnt flex that much when you are trying to stab a guy in plate, you also have much better stabbing condition when using very short weapon. and lets not forget that daggers have much stronger blade than swords because of lenght, which means that they can be much slimmer and pointier without losing blade strenght. this allows for daggers like stiletto.

[Tomas]

(click to show/hide)

take a look at this for accurate pricing...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


here is a link to that page, also with listed currencies.http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

as you can see, maximum price of warhorse was L80 [in 13th century, there is no info that armor was included, but since cost is this high, ill take it as granted that we are talking about armored war horse. cost in shillings is 1600]

whereas battle-ready full milanese armor was about 166 shillings and 8 deniers. [1441]

however, unarmored war horse was worth 50 shillings in 12th century.

so to certain degree
kafein was right about plate armor being expensive, but not as much as millions of crpg gold.

id wager that it would be about 40-50 k of crpg gold if devs were going for realism...

I never said horses weren't expensive.  I said they were a necessity and that just because the English tended to fight dismounted did not mean they did not have horses.

You also appear to have overlooked the 2 important entries in your quest to prove how expensive horses were

 Total Armour owned by a Knight (1374): 326s 8d. 
 Knight's 2 Horses (1374): 200s

From your own evidence Knights spent more than 3 times as much money to buy their armour than their horse. 

Thank you for supporting my own argument as well though.  Knight's armour = 326s 8d.  Duke of Gloucester's armour = 2060s.  Where the "armor of the knight in 1374 was probably mail with some plates; same for Gloucester's."  As I said, there was a vast difference betwen average plate armour and good plate armour. 

Sadly there is no comparison to show how much of the 326s was spent on Mail by the Knight, however in the 12th century mail was 100s and between the late 13th and late 14th century the value of money approximately halved (according to the Thatcher's wages).  Therefore at a guess, more than 200s of the total 326s will have been spent on the mail, again supporting (although not proving) my point.