Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DWC]

I still haven't determined if the clothing article (vest, robe, dress, shirt, ect) has any protective effect beyond it's material and what body parts it covers. So dresses vs robes, might be my next project, idk.

I would hypothesize that the "size" value of the clothing item would, with all other variables constant, afford greater effective protection.

The difference between any two items of clothing or armor, coverage wise, are the [COVERAGE] and [UBSTEP]/[LBSTEP] tags. [COVERAGE] determines how likely the armor is to actually play into a defensive calculation: e.g. caps, with [COVERAGE:50] (percent) only actually attempt to deflect half of all blows aimed at the head, whereas a helm with [COVERAGE:100] will always be accounted for. [UBSTEP] and [LBSTEP] ('upper-body' and 'lower-body step,' respectively) determine how far along the body the armor goes, beyond the body part it anchors to -- as examples for upper body armor: a vest has both tags at 0, meaning it covers only the upper body; mail shirts have both tags at 1, meaning it covers one extra step (in this case, the upper arms and the lower torso); coats have [UBSTEP:MAX] to cover the entire arm (excepting fingers, which are currently impossible to cover) and [LBSTEP:1] so it covers the lower torso; robes have both [UBSTEP:MAX] and [LBSTEP:MAX] so they cover the entire body, from halfway up the face to down over the feet.

I knew all that already, I mean is if there is any difference between articles that cover the same area and are made of the same material. Dresses and robes both have max coverage and [UBSTEP:MAX] + [LBSTEP:MAX], but robes weigh slightly more and have double the [LAYER_PERMIT] value.

So would it be better to wear multiple robes or multiple dresses? You could wear more dresses than robes and if their protective value per article is the same, dresses would be superior to robes.

But the [LAYER_SIZE:xx] value is different for them and I suspect that plays into how 'thick' or hard it is to penetrate. Which would be important in determining the absolute optimum types and amounts of clothes to wear.

Why make the breastplate steel instead of the mail shirt(s)?

because breastplates are shaped armor designed to stop the force of impact, and candy does this more poorly than steel because of its low density. Mail shirts being made out of candy makes sense because mail shirts cannot stop blunt damage anyway due to not being shaped and are designed to stop cutting and stabbing damage, which candy does very well due to its high damage resistance.

If this is true, then everything except mail shirts and leggings would be better off using steel, they all have the 'shaped' tag, but mail shirts and leggings have the [STRUCTURAL_ELASTICITY_CHAIN_METAL] tag which I think is what makes it more easily defeated by blunt attacks.

[Urist Da Vinci]

I don't layer armor. But I do DFHack "tweak military-training". Skill > armor material in my experience.

Armour user skill doesn't increase protection, it just makes dwarves move better in their armour and get tired less easily while wearing it. That does mean they attack, dodge, and block more, but it doesn't increase their protection from a hit that actually connects.
...

Not true. See http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Material_science#The_Armor_Absorbs_the_Force_of_the_Collision
A better way to say it would be that armor user skill does improve protection, but that it isn't going to be enough to save the dwarf wearing the armor.

Also see this about clothing weight, size, coverage, etc: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012_Talk:Weight

[Centigrade]

Why make the breastplate steel instead of the mail shirt(s)?

because breastplates are shaped armor designed to stop the force of impact, and candy does this more poorly than steel because of its low density. Mail shirts being made out of candy makes sense because mail shirts cannot stop blunt damage anyway due to not being shaped and are designed to stop cutting and stabbing damage, which candy does very well due to its high damage resistance.

Thanks for that information! I must have had my thinking backwards, as I knew you wanted steel armour rather than Adamantine for some part of the uniform.

[Drazinononda]

I knew all that already, I mean is if there is any difference between articles that cover the same area and are made of the same material. Dresses and robes both have max coverage and [UBSTEP:MAX] + [LBSTEP:MAX], but robes weigh slightly more and have double the [LAYER_PERMIT] value.

So would it be better to wear multiple robes or multiple dresses? You could wear more dresses than robes and if their protective value per article is the same, dresses would be superior to robes.

But the [LAYER_SIZE:xx] value is different for them and I suspect that plays into how 'thick' or hard it is to penetrate. Which would be important in determining the absolute optimum types and amounts of clothes to wear.

[LAYER_SIZE] plays into how many of that item you can wear over an item with a given [LAYER_PERMIT] value. In this case, because a dress is [LAYER:UNDER] and has permit and size values of 50 and 10, respectively: you put on a dress, which [LAYER_PERMIT:50] value of which allows five more [LAYER_SIZE:10] dresses to fit over it. Now the UNDER layer is full, and you move on to the next layer, [LAYER:OVER], where you are applying your robes. Robes have [LAYER_SIZE:20] and [LAYER_PERMIT:100], which you'll notice would work out the same way as the dresses; wear one and it allows five more. However, since you already are wearing six dresses, the total upper body armor size is already 60; so you can only wear three robes over the six dresses, bringing you to a [LAYER_SIZE] total of 100, which is the max [LAYER_PERMIT] for robes. If you wanted to change the ratio, you'd have to remove two dresses for each extra robe you wanted to wear, which given that they cover the same area and dresses are lighter, would be a bad idea overall.

Then of course you can put three cloaks over the top of that ([LAYER_SIZE:15], [LAYER_PERMIT:150]) for a maximum total of twelve layers of clothing.

This section on the wiki explains the concept in a different way than I did, which may or may not be easier for any given person to understand.

As far as I know, the various tags within the armor raws do not effect toughness in any way, aside from [STRUCTURAL_ELASTICITY_WOVEN_THREAD] dictating that they are flexible items rather than rigid or semi-rigid as with proper armors. And material of course.

[DWC]

I knew all that already, I mean is if there is any difference between articles that cover the same area and are made of the same material. Dresses and robes both have max coverage and [UBSTEP:MAX] + [LBSTEP:MAX], but robes weigh slightly more and have double the [LAYER_PERMIT] value.

So would it be better to wear multiple robes or multiple dresses? You could wear more dresses than robes and if their protective value per article is the same, dresses would be superior to robes.

But the [LAYER_SIZE:xx] value is different for them and I suspect that plays into how 'thick' or hard it is to penetrate. Which would be important in determining the absolute optimum types and amounts of clothes to wear.

[LAYER_SIZE] plays into how many of that item you can wear over an item with a given [LAYER_PERMIT] value. In this case, because a dress is [LAYER:UNDER] and has permit and size values of 50 and 10, respectively: you put on a dress, which [LAYER_PERMIT:50] value of which allows five more [LAYER_SIZE:10] dresses to fit over it. Now the UNDER layer is full, and you move on to the next layer, [LAYER:OVER], where you are applying your robes. Robes have [LAYER_SIZE:20] and [LAYER_PERMIT:100], which you'll notice would work out the same way as the dresses; wear one and it allows five more. However, since you already are wearing six dresses, the total upper body armor size is already 60; so you can only wear three robes over the six dresses, bringing you to a [LAYER_SIZE] total of 100, which is the max [LAYER_PERMIT] for robes. If you wanted to change the ratio, you'd have to remove two dresses for each extra robe you wanted to wear, which given that they cover the same area and dresses are lighter, would be a bad idea overall.

Then of course you can put three cloaks over the top of that ([LAYER_SIZE:15], [LAYER_PERMIT:150]) for a maximum total of twelve layers of clothing.

This section on the wiki explains the concept in a different way than I did, which may or may not be easier for any given person to understand.

As far as I know, the various tags within the armor raws do not effect toughness in any way, aside from [STRUCTURAL_ELASTICITY_WOVEN_THREAD] dictating that they are flexible items rather than rigid or semi-rigid as with proper armors. And material of course.

Thanks, I sort of knew that, but your description was more enlightening then the wiki article.

I still wonder if there is any toughness difference between clothing articles. In older versions there was, but I wonder if it's still modeled and it's value is determined by material size or layer size/ permit. So a hypothetical shirt with a layer size of 100 would be as protective as a set of 10 shirts with layer size 10. Or what the effect of multiple layers of clothing offer, if an attack that penetrates one layer will penetrate them all and multiple layers are pointless and if not, can a single clothing item substitute for multiple layers?

Probably not, but I'm exploring ideas for modding clothing to simplify inventories without sacrificing much protection or unbalancing the game. I'll try to do some science in the arena when I get the time.

[Noodz]

I think adamantine armor is way too expensive. Remember that you need 1 wafer per size of the item, so a simple mail shirt demands outrageous 6 wafers. Adamantine helmets are what most players will be able to mass produce.

Save the wafers for battle axes, spears and short swords

[Urist Da Vinci]

...

As far as I know, the various tags within the armor raws do not effect toughness in any way, aside from [STRUCTURAL_ELASTICITY_WOVEN_THREAD] dictating that they are flexible items rather than rigid or semi-rigid as with proper armors. And material of course.

Thanks, I sort of knew that, but your description was more enlightening then the wiki article.

I still wonder if there is any toughness difference between clothing articles. In older versions there was, but I wonder if it's still modeled and it's value is determined by material size or layer size/ permit. So a hypothetical shirt with a layer size of 100 would be as protective as a set of 10 shirts with layer size 10. Or what the effect of multiple layers of clothing offer, if an attack that penetrates one layer will penetrate them all and multiple layers are pointless and if not, can a single clothing item substitute for multiple layers?

Probably not, but I'm exploring ideas for modding clothing to simplify inventories without sacrificing much protection or unbalancing the game. I'll try to do some science in the arena when I get the time.

Yes, layer size does modify the protection amount, but the effects of contact area and layer size are rounded to certain numbers, meaning that only ogre-sized or absurdly thick clothing is different from vanilla clothing on dwarves. See also http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Material_science#The_Armor_Absorbs_the_Force_of_the_Collision

[KroganElite]

Why make the breastplate steel instead of the mail shirt(s)?

because breastplates are shaped armor designed to stop the force of impact, and candy does this more poorly than steel because of its low density. Mail shirts being made out of candy makes sense because mail shirts cannot stop blunt damage anyway due to not being shaped and are designed to stop cutting and stabbing damage, which candy does very well due to its high damage resistance.

I thought adamantine had perfect rigidity. If you shape it into armor,  it can't be bent(or would require ridiculous amount of pressure). Yes it's light but that has nothing to do with surviving blunt force.  It doesn't matter how dense it is because it doesn't deform! The damage is spread throughout on both adamantine and steel breastplates as long as neither gets deformed(which steel is more likely to do).

A hit from a copper maul to the upper torso protected by a steel breastplate and an adamantine breastplate will still feel the same. A hit from something like a Platinum warhammer would be more damaging to a steel breastplate user because that amount of pressure would deform the steel preventing it from distributing that lethal force.

Of course, most of the time you won't be facing anything that needs more than a steel breastplate(except maybe silver bolts). If anything most people go with steel breastplate + candy chainmail is because it's economical, not because it's weaker.

[Loud Whispers]

I thought adamantine had perfect rigidity. If you shape it into armor,  it can't be bent(or would require ridiculous amount of pressure). Yes it's light but that has nothing to do with surviving blunt force.  It doesn't matter how dense it is because it doesn't deform! The damage is spread throughout on both adamantine and steel breastplates as long as neither gets deformed(which steel is more likely to do).

A hit from a copper maul to the upper torso protected by a steel breastplate and an adamantine breastplate will still feel the same. A hit from something like a Platinum warhammer would be more damaging to a steel breastplate user because that amount of pressure would deform the steel preventing it from distributing that lethal force.

Of course, most of the time you won't be facing anything that needs more than a steel breastplate(except maybe silver bolts). If anything most people go with steel breastplate + candy chainmail is because it's economical, not because it's weaker.

Currently DF doesn't take armour deformation into account. It also takes the whole armour article into account instead of only parts of it when considering if a blow strikes through.
This takes weight into consideration.
If humanoids with blunt weapons are all you're going to fight for most of the time, a steel breastplate will be superior.

[Urist Da Vinci]

I thought adamantine had perfect rigidity. If you shape it into armor,  it can't be bent(or would require ridiculous amount of pressure). Yes it's light but that has nothing to do with surviving blunt force.  It doesn't matter how dense it is because it doesn't deform! The damage is spread throughout on both adamantine and steel breastplates as long as neither gets deformed(which steel is more likely to do).

A hit from a copper maul to the upper torso protected by a steel breastplate and an adamantine breastplate will still feel the same. A hit from something like a Platinum warhammer would be more damaging to a steel breastplate user because that amount of pressure would deform the steel preventing it from distributing that lethal force.

Of course, most of the time you won't be facing anything that needs more than a steel breastplate(except maybe silver bolts). If anything most people go with steel breastplate + candy chainmail is because it's economical, not because it's weaker.

Currently DF doesn't take armour deformation into account. It also takes the whole armour article into account instead of only parts of it when considering if a blow strikes through.
This takes weight into consideration.
If humanoids with blunt weapons are all you're going to fight for most of the time, a steel breastplate will be superior.

Because of Adamantine's low density, a wooden bolt can shatter (using blunt damage) a little hole in an Adamantine breastplate and cut the dwarf underneath. The same wooden bolt would deflect harmlessly off a Steel breastplate only because of Steel's higher density. The wood bolt doesn't have the shear strength to cut either Adamantine or Steel. This is one of the strange ways in which DF damage actually works.

[Iapetus]

Is silk still a useful protective material, or has that been nerfed?

[Starver]

Well, I didn't know that silk was actually that good (in DF) for protective purposes, but as for 'overpowered' I know that IRL it has been a very useful armour-layer material to use.  (Not necessarily for straight protection purposes, although it wouldn't be too bad in a multi-layered quilted garment, but its usefulness in mitigating exacerbating arrowhead injuries when later removing any bolt that penetrated is something that the likes of the Mongols made good use of.)

Although I'd also like to think that you could make GCS-silk into something akin to a flexible Kevlar vest, or perhaps anti-stab armour.  Is that how it's overpowered at the moment, then?

(Usually I don't do much more than set silk socks in my uniform, for the novelty.  Of course everyone not in the military ends up grabbing silk socks as well... )

[DWC]

I believe plant fiber cloth is the most protective, due to it's density compared to silk, leather and wool. Leather is the apparently the worst material in terms of protection for whatever reason.

From what I understand the ranking go from best to worst: plant fiber, silk, wool then leather. The values in the raws are probably not realistic or appropriate for what they are modeling.

[KroganElite]

I thought adamantine had perfect rigidity. If you shape it into armor,  it can't be bent(or would require ridiculous amount of pressure). Yes it's light but that has nothing to do with surviving blunt force.  It doesn't matter how dense it is because it doesn't deform! The damage is spread throughout on both adamantine and steel breastplates as long as neither gets deformed(which steel is more likely to do).

A hit from a copper maul to the upper torso protected by a steel breastplate and an adamantine breastplate will still feel the same. A hit from something like a Platinum warhammer would be more damaging to a steel breastplate user because that amount of pressure would deform the steel preventing it from distributing that lethal force.

Of course, most of the time you won't be facing anything that needs more than a steel breastplate(except maybe silver bolts). If anything most people go with steel breastplate + candy chainmail is because it's economical, not because it's weaker.

Currently DF doesn't take armour deformation into account. It also takes the whole armour article into account instead of only parts of it when considering if a blow strikes through.
This takes weight into consideration.
If humanoids with blunt weapons are all you're going to fight for most of the time, a steel breastplate will be superior.

I haven't had a physics class for years now, but I still don't see how the weight of the armor has anything to do with protection. If an attack does penetrate, the armor is useless regardless of weight. If it doesn't penetrate, an exact amount of force will be applied in both cases.

I thought adamantine had perfect rigidity. If you shape it into armor,  it can't be bent(or would require ridiculous amount of pressure). Yes it's light but that has nothing to do with surviving blunt force.  It doesn't matter how dense it is because it doesn't deform! The damage is spread throughout on both adamantine and steel breastplates as long as neither gets deformed(which steel is more likely to do).

A hit from a copper maul to the upper torso protected by a steel breastplate and an adamantine breastplate will still feel the same. A hit from something like a Platinum warhammer would be more damaging to a steel breastplate user because that amount of pressure would deform the steel preventing it from distributing that lethal force.

Of course, most of the time you won't be facing anything that needs more than a steel breastplate(except maybe silver bolts). If anything most people go with steel breastplate + candy chainmail is because it's economical, not because it's weaker.

Currently DF doesn't take armour deformation into account. It also takes the whole armour article into account instead of only parts of it when considering if a blow strikes through.
This takes weight into consideration.
If humanoids with blunt weapons are all you're going to fight for most of the time, a steel breastplate will be superior.

Because of Adamantine's low density, a wooden bolt can shatter (using blunt damage) a little hole in an Adamantine breastplate and cut the dwarf underneath. The same wooden bolt would deflect harmlessly off a Steel breastplate only because of Steel's higher density. The wood bolt doesn't have the shear strength to cut either Adamantine or Steel. This is one of the strange ways in which DF damage actually works.

I don't even...A wooden bolt shatters a hole using blunt force but still manages to stay sharp and cut the dwarf underneath? what? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding real life/DF mechanics, but that seems really weird. It seems blunt force acts like a bullet instead of actual blunt force?

The last time I checked, blunt force was spread over an area while penetrating/cutting force was concentrated.

[KroganElite]

disregard double post.