Print

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

[Andeerz]

The DF wiki page regarding DF2010 resease info says the following:

*Force from blunt weapons can transcend layers. For instance, a hammer can bruise the skin while breaking the bone underneath.

    * As such, plate armor's benefits are generally ignored by blunt attacks, and leather armor would prove to be more effective.

Transfer through layers from blunt weapons = awesome!

However, the sub-bullet-point makes me cringe and I hope it's simply the author's incorrect interpretation and not actually in the game.  The truth about plate armour is that it is sure as hell a lot more effective than any other type of medieval armour at resisting blunt force trauma.  I know this not only from personal experience (I've donned all manner of armour and get hit plenty with blunt objects; I'm in the SCA), but also from reading up on the literature.  Here's a good representative work from a reputable source:

http://www.armourresearchsociety.org/docs/JotARSvol1_Strongfirstpage.pdf

Check out the second paragraph.  Don't get me wrong: blunt weapons
ARE an effective melee weapon against plate armour and many were designed specifically to break plate armour.  But pretty much any medieval weapon is going to do worse against plate armour than any other armour type.

Anyway, I hope the blunt and other trauma models take into account the true advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of armour.  If this is not the case, then I hope it changes. 

[Nikov]

I believe Toady has said previously (I anticipate a link from Footkerchief supporting this claim) that the warhammers in DF are more of the armor-piercing variety. Maces and hammers of these types do have the ability to penetrate steel plate, however the opening of a wound was secondary to shattering limbs or skulls. Armor layering is the best defense against any attack, with successive layers of cloth, leather, chain and plate creating a composite effect similar to the kevlar, ceramic plate, depleted uranium and hardened steel of modern tank armor. I have seen many videos of arrows easily piercing chainmail by itself but being thwarted by the addition of a piece of soft leather (impressively, this defeated a rather earnest spear-thrust as well as an axe blow).  However I certainly agree that a dwarf in nothing but leather should be less protected, even against hammers, than a dwarf in nothing but plate. To help acheived layered armor, I previously modded leather gambesons into the game and expect to do the same once DF2010 is out, along with my usual additions (sheep, elven cave cities and tweaked food and metal values.)

[Andeerz]

Cool beans!  I've seen many similar demonstrations meself!  Also, I will have to ask you about how to mod the leather gambeson thing in when DF2010 comes out!    But, yeah, my main complaint was that, according to the wiki, DF2010 would make plate armour less effective than leather in a respect where leather would in fact be vastly inferior.  I was also under the impression that the warhammers and maces in DF were meant to be more like the real kind with the appropriately proportioned heads as opposed to the monstrosities commonly found in "fantasy" settings. 

Oh, but for head shots, I think a warhammer or mace might be more devastating than bladed weapons given the recipient of the blow was wearing a metal helm as bladed weapons would be much more likely to ricochet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

I'd love to test that out sometime!  And if it is indeed the case and it is not already accounted for in game, perhaps armour defensive bonuses of the helm could be mitigated when against blunt force weapons.

[Pilsu]

(I've donned all manner of armour and get hit plenty with blunt objects; I'm in the SCA)

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous?

[Squirrelloid]

A warhammer is actually a piercing weapon related to axes, not a bludgeoning weapon at all.  The term arose to describe the implement opposite an axe blade which was a curved spike such that a swing with it leading would cause it to land squarely against a target surface.  It was also developed into a weapon on its own, with a number of surviving examples, including some highly decorative ones.

This idea that a war hammer is a bludgeoning weapon is a modern fantasy misconception.  (There were certainly military hammers, but they were just called hammers.)

[Footkerchief]

*Force from blunt weapons can transcend layers. For instance, a hammer can bruise the skin while breaking the bone underneath.

    * As such, plate armor's benefits are generally ignored by blunt attacks, and leather armor would prove to be more effective.

Transfer through layers from blunt weapons = awesome!

However, the sub-bullet-point makes me cringe and I hope it's simply the author's incorrect interpretation and not actually in the game.  The truth about plate armour is that it is sure as hell a lot more effective than any other type of medieval armour at resisting blunt force trauma. 

The sub-bullet-point is an exaggeration, yeah.  The next version's breastplates (yes, "plate mail" is no more) and helms are pretty good at deflecting/dampening blunt blows.

[Neonivek]

The final advantage people forget when it comes to Platemail is unlike Cloth, unlike chain, unlike leather. Platemail is solid

This means that the force from a blunt attack can be distributed across the armor itself (such as the armor as a whole) rather then part of it unless the force can cause the armor to buckle.

Though to my knowledge that is also a disadvantage and my knowledge of physics when it comes to this is rather weak.

[Caesar]

If I'm not mistaken metal plates will actually be fairly uneffective when used against bludgeoning weapons. I think it'd dent in when hit, as it normally is quite a bit larger than the person within it, allowing open space, which would cause severe trauma to the affected body part.

Still, it'd absorb part of the energy of the blow when being dent, taking part of the potential damage to the body away with it.

Layering metal armor would add the benefit of the underlying layers now preventing the armor from denting by absorbing the blow in it's place.

On the other hand I think a round-shaped metal item (like a helmet) will not dent that easily (think rimmed submarine skeletons); It's just not really pleasurable to have someone hit a metal helmet and send it clanging your skull like a bell.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't armor, helmets at the least, layered by standard?

The final advantage people forget when it comes to Platemail is unlike Cloth, unlike chain, unlike leather. Platemail is solid

It is also its greatest disadvantage. Solid materials will transfer any force to whatever is next to it.

Compare it by having a small rock and a cushion of equal weight being thrown at your head. The cushion will be 'compressed', like a spring, which takes away (part of) the force, whilst the rock will refuse to give in, transferring all (most) energy to your skull.


Edit: Made a few corrections

[Nikov]

Physics discussions are all fine and dandy, but a maul to your kneecap doesn't particularly care what is in the way. A sword does, however. I think we shall find a battle between plate-armored dwarves with blunt weapons and plate-armored dwarves with edged weapons swing the way of the hammer and not the sword, simply because a slashing blade won't be cutting through metal plate while a hammer's force will readily shatter joints and limbs. However, pit these troops against mobs of scraggly leather-armored goblins and the sword-wielders will hew a bloody path, since broken arms and ribs are not mortal wounds but severed arms and slashed throats certainly are. That is, the sub-bullet is incorrect (irl) to say leather is more effective. Rather, blunt weapons are more effective against plate, but plate is more resistant than any other armor overall.

Utter Dwarfcrap to follow:

Verus Plate, Decreasing Effectiveness
Blunt, Piercing, Slashing
Versus Chain, Decreasing Effectiveness
Piercing, Blunt, Slashing
Versus Leather, Decreasing Effectiveness
Slashing, Piercing, Blunt
Versus Cloth, Decreasing Effectiveness
Slashing, Piercing, Blunt

In this sense, certain weapons are better at defeating different armors and the difference lies in reduced lethality against an armored target, not so much reduced damage by a weapon. That is, a sword slashing off a limb is a lot more lethal than a hammer breaking a limb, thus slashing weapons are more effective against the weak armors they can defeat. Broken limbs are far more likely against an opponent in plate than a sword might manage to find a gap to cut; thus the otherwise modest damage of a hammer is the most effective against plate, since the other weapons are relatively far less likely to defeat the armor. Regarding chain, I placed piercing weapons highest since bolts and arrows are generally good against mail and also because spears have a much better effect against a mailed target than swords.

[Andeerz]

Spot on, Nikov! But chain still offers substantial protection against piercing, especially arrows, when combined with a padded garment underneath, basically converting piercing to blunt force.  In fact, check this out!  It's a pretty convincing test, though the pull of the bow used is not indicated.
http://cotasdemalla.es/ma1.htm

This test is even more thorough:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
This shows that a pike or spear could pierce mail pretty well...

Even cloth (15 layers of thick linen) can offer some decent protection:
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=65938&highlight=mail+test+arrow

So, perhaps the piercing vs. blunt for chain might need to be rethought...  I dunno.

And thanks for the clarification, Footkerchief.  Whew!

(I've donned all manner of armour and get hit plenty with blunt objects; I'm in the SCA)

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous?

Yup!  And I'm sure you know exactly what I mean by "blunt objects". 

A warhammer is actually a piercing weapon related to axes, not a bludgeoning weapon at all.  The term arose to describe the implement opposite an axe blade which was a curved spike such that a swing with it leading would cause it to land squarely against a target surface.  It was also developed into a weapon on its own, with a number of surviving examples, including some highly decorative ones.

This idea that a war hammer is a bludgeoning weapon is a modern fantasy misconception.  (There were certainly military hammers, but they were just called hammers.)

 
I'm interested to know where you get this information.  The warhammers I've seen and handled sure do have a piercing end as well as a square-faced end.  Both can pierce but also effectively bludgeon.  The purpose of the square end, at least as far as what makes sense to me, was to provide a better surface for striking glancing surfaces.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Also, I will respond to Ceasar when I have time... He's wrong about quite a few things.

 

[Caesar]

Ceasar

Caesar

But if I am wrong anywhere, I'm happy to hear where and why.

[Andeerz]

Yeah dood!  I'm compiling some info and some good sources.  Gimme a bit, as I am at work right now. 

[Andeerz]

If I'm not mistaken metal plates will actually be fairly uneffective when used against bludgeoning weapons. I think it'd dent in when hit, as it normally is quite a bit larger than the person within it, allowing open space, which would cause severe trauma to the affected body part.

First off, I'm dumb for saying that you were wrong about quite a few things.  Looking back at what you said, you were only wrong about one thing, which was saying that plate armour was ineffective against blunt force weapons.  Also, sorry about mispelling your name.  :3  And also, I had a hard time finding good sources to link to, but a lot of what I will be saying in this post is from information garnered from reputable individuals who study this and make armor for a living.

Plate could and would dent against bludgeoning weapons which is part of why hammers, picks, and maces were frequently used against them.  The other reason is that most other kinds of weapons couldn't as easily damage someone through plate armour, as plate was able to easily deflect these weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour) 

But, this did not mean that plate armour was ineffective against bludgeoning weapons or less effective than other armours against these weapons.  Plates still could deflect these weapons, though not as easily, and will disperse the force of a strike over a broader area than if there was no plate at all.  The solidity of plate is what allows it to do this, along with some presumed padding underneath it.  The rigidity of the plate allows an impacting force to move the plate in its entirety, and the plate being broader than the point of the weapon impacting it, will impact the underlying padding and body under it with a much broader area.  This disperses the impacting force, hopefully reducing the likelihood of permanent and life-threatening injury.  If the plate does dent, well, it'll suck for the wearer of the armour, but if there's some space between the plate and the body, it might not be deep enough to be problematic and the impacting force will still be distributed over a large area.  If it is problematic, then you would have had problems even if wearing any other kind of armour.  Plate armour was effective, just not invulnerable to such weapons.  And plate does a better job of protecting its wearer than any other medieval armour against any medieval weapon.   

Keep in mind also (and Caesar was right about this) that helms, plate, and maille armour invariably had padding under them which was absolutely vital to the ability of these armours to offer protection.  Maille was worn with thick padded garments under it.  Check out some of the links in my previous post to see what I mean about maille and the padding underneath it.  Plate was frequently worn with maille under it as well as padded garments under that.   

Helmets weren't just metal sitting on the head, but often had padding situated as so to suspend the helm over the head.  Here's a good article on the matter:  http://www.highlandcitadel.com/fencing/HelmsWeb.pdf  A correctly made helm (and I have first hand experience with this) will not ring like a bell when hit.  A poorly made one will, and it sucks.  Getting hit in the head, helm or no, sucks and is disorienting at best.  But a helm increases the odds of surviving a strike to the head big time, and plate head defenses, when correctly suspended and padded will disperse a considerable amount of force from a blow, even one from a blunt weapon or a rock being thrown at your head.     

[G-Flex]

Physics discussions are all fine and dandy, but a maul to your kneecap doesn't particularly care what is in the way.

The thing is that not every strike will be perpendicular to the armor, and a lot of plate armor is designed to deflect the blows that aren't. Basically, your kneecap does care if the blow is skewed a bit and mostly just glances off.

[Nikov]

Here. You stick your knee out and I'll swing a sledgehammer at it, and we'll see if glancing blows cripple you any less.