It's odd (to me) to have such a huge hole there when the rest of the rigid armor family is present though. At least an optional piece of the "it's here if you want it but you'll have to add it to the races you want to have it yourself" variety would be nice. After all, the point of such heavily armored soldiers is because they're extremely difficult to kill - which they had better be for the cost in metals and possibly fuel that go into making thier armor. And with this mod (which I might add is awesome in spite of the arbitrary gap in armor when there's such things as spaulders and ailettes to protect the upper arms, which is fairly obvious you already know,) layering isn't exactly a means to compensate.
It's why many weapons were what they were: As a response to the metal-skinned man-shaped manifestation of your nightmares; not to hit those big freaking gaps any idiot with a hatchet could hit if the enemy in question was distracted or an idiot himself, but to put a hole through that fancy metal suit Mr. Walking Tank was wearing or bash it apart. Granted right now DF can't implement that yet meaning such weapons need to break bones through the protection but still.
Though I will admit, right now I'm trying to test the weapons on a very resilient creature that doesn't respond to pain, doesn't bleed, and can occasionally tear of an armored dwarf's hand or claw his head in through an iron helmet, coif, and a pig tail hood + thier tissues and skull. I decided to ask about it because it's difficult to test a weapon's effectiveness when the testers insist on dying of silly things like having both thier upper arms clawed/chewed to pieces.
If I had any idea what anything in the files meant, I'd be happy to take care of it myself. I will also state again this mod is great, especially since it fits with my habit of only issuing one layer of armor and a uniform to a soldier.
Unrelated question, what's the difference between the haubergeon and hauberk? Last time I tried to give soldiers with haubergeons breastplates they threw them on the floor, but I can give them to soldiers with hauberks just fine. I ask this because I just tested it and the habergeon-equipped unit ditched thier breastplate and at a glance I can't see any difference.
I appreciate the feedback. It doesn't come off as ranty to me. Going along with the reason I gave breastplates an obvious weakpoint, most of the armours are made with a specific time frame in mind: that being the 900ad-1300ad period. A complete plate harness didn't exist during this period, save for the potential few prototype creations.
If you wish to solve the breastplate problem yourself its as simple as changing this:
[ITEM_ARMOR:ITEM_ARMOR_PLATE]
[NAME:breastplate:breastplates]
[ARMORLEVEL:3]
[UBSTEP:0]
[LBSTEP:0]
[SHAPED]
[LAYER:ARMOR]
[COVERAGE:300]
[LAYER_SIZE:20]
[LAYER_PERMIT:28]
[MATERIAL_SIZE:15]
[HARD]
[METAL]
into this:
[ITEM_ARMOR:ITEM_ARMOR_PLATE]
[NAME:breastplate:breastplates]
[ARMORLEVEL:3]
[UBSTEP:1] <--
[LBSTEP:0]
[SHAPED]
[LAYER:ARMOR]
[COVERAGE:300]
[LAYER_SIZE:20]
[LAYER_PERMIT:28]
[MATERIAL_SIZE:15]
[HARD]
[METAL]
This will make it cover the upper arms (ignoring the arrow for hilighting the changed bit).
Regarding the difference between the byrnie, haubergeon and hauberk: Historically the haubergeon and hauberk are two names for the same thing, but granted a few generations of development and you then have that
typically hauberks are a bit longer than haubergeons, and the outlier byrnie being the shortest. Byrnies have a LB of 0, haubergeons 1, and hauberks 2. Otherwise essentially identical, thrown in for flavour.
Author
Topic: Stal's Armoury Pack [43.05] [Armoury v1.9] (Read 62357 times)