• Being a nobody is better than saving the day in historical RPG Kingdom Come: Deliverance
    7 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/being-a-nobody-is-better-than-saving-the-day-in-historical-rpg-kingdom-come-deliverance[/url]
[QUOTE=PCGamer;53038964][url]http://www.pcgamer.com/being-a-nobody-is-better-than-saving-the-day-in-historical-rpg-kingdom-come-deliverance[/url][/QUOTE] This article is ridiculous. First up, the son of a blacksmith is not a nobody. He is someone with a useful trade. It makes him middle class and far above the rest of the peasantry. It also claims that a suit of plate will make you waddle like a penguin. Plate was easy to move in with basic training and weighs significantly less than a combat load for a modern soldier. And of course if you have something as simple as a chain shirt in the 1400's, you weren't a nobody. That stuff was expensive. A full set of plate was akin to owning a main battle tank. This article is silly.
[QUOTE=GunFox;53040069]This article is ridiculous. First up l, the son of a blacksmith is not a nobody. He is someone with a useful trade. It makes him middle class and far above the rest of the peasantry. It also claims that a suit of plate will make you waddle like a penguin. Plate was easy to move in with basic training and weighs significantly less than a combat load for a modern soldier. And of course if you have something as simple as a chain shirt in the 1400's, you weren't a nobody. That stuff was expensive. A full set of plate was akin to owning a main battle tank. This article is silly.[/QUOTE] You are the nitpick-ingest son of a bitch I know and I love it.
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53040202]You are the nitpick-ingest son of a bitch I know and I love it.[/QUOTE] hes rite tho
[QUOTE=Citrus705;53040386]hes rite tho[/QUOTE] any game deserves decent journalism
[QUOTE=GunFox;53040069]This article is ridiculous. First up l, the son of a blacksmith is not a nobody. He is someone with a useful trade. It makes him middle class and far above the rest of the peasantry. It also claims that a suit of plate will make you waddle like a penguin. Plate was easy to move in with basic training and weighs significantly less than a combat load for a modern soldier. And of course if you have something as simple as a chain shirt in the 1400's, you weren't a nobody. That stuff was expensive. A full set of plate was akin to owning a main battle tank. This article is silly.[/QUOTE] A full set of plate isn't really anything like a main battle tank. In terms of price, armour wasn't very expensive. For an archer, it could've been around 120 days of pay. For a man-at-arms, 60 days. There were some very expensive armours, but that's mostly because knights really like showing their wealth and gold can be expensive. In terms of protection, it really depends on the time period. Plate armour was sufficiently developed around the year 1500 to completely protect every part of a soldier's body. That's a massive difference from the transitional plate armour from around the 1400s. Those armours relied on chain mail to cover the gaps. This was also the case for nearly all armours in between 1400-1500, but even more-so here. A soldier's head would've been protected by a bascinet. This almost always includes a visor, aventail and standard. Both the helmet and visor protect very well against projectiles, thrusts and practically any attack. The aventail, a small coat of mail hanging from the helmet, protects well against cuts. It lies over the breastplate. The standard, another coat of mail covering the neck underneath the helmet, lies underneath the breastplate. If a thrust or projectile slips underneath the aventail and slides over the breastplate, it could be directed straight to your neck. The standard is an extra layer of mail to defend against this. Another piece of protection against this is a stop rib on the breastplate. It's a rib of steel or iron in the form of a V positioned below the neck. It helps deflect any thrusts past the side of the neck instead of right into it. A soldier's torso would've been protected by a gambeson (or similar protective garment), a shirt of mail and a breastplate. Most breastplates from this time only covered the front. The breastplate also only covers the upper torso and stops right where your ribs end. Everything below that would've been open to ranged fire and thrusting weapons. The most common weapon on the battlefield just so happens to be a spear, and it was very effective at penetrating mail. The upper arms would've been protected by the shirt of mail, plate spaulders and a rerebrace (like a bracer on the upper arm). The rerebrace often only covered the outside of the arm, so the inside would've been vulnerable to thrusts. The arm pit is one of the most dangerous weak points of any armour. Most armours around this time period had spaulders, which didn't cover the arm pit. Pauldrons, which covered the arm pits with a disk, were common too, although they only cover from thrusts directly from the front. If the arm is lifted, any thrust will go underneath this disk. The forearm and elbow would've been protected by the shirt of mail, a vambrace and the couter. The vambrace covers both out- and inside of the forearm. The upper legs were protected by the cuisses. English style cuisses often covered both front and back of the thighs, but continental cuisses around this time often only covered the front. The groin wasn't defended very well though. It was covered by the mail shirt, but the mail shirt only reaches to the middle of the thighs. The knees and shins were protected by the poleyn and greaves. These greaves often protected the front and back. The feet would've been protected by sabatons. Their weakness depends on how closely they fit to the greave and whether any mail was in between. The feet wasn't really a primary target though. This text probably wasn't intended to be so long, but I just can't leave a job half-done. In short, a 1400s knight or men-at-arms clad in plate would've been vulnerable in these areas: -Back of torso -Abdomen -Inside of the upper arms -Armpits -Groin By no means invulnerable to the average soldier. But it sure is a thousand times better than just a gambeson. It definitely increased the survival rate in battle dramatically. Also, "something as simple as a chain mail shirt" is simplifying things a fair bit. A mail shirt in the 1400s was slightly more expensive than a breastplate. It also took a lot longer. A breastplate could be made in two days. A mail shirt in two months. [editline]10th January 2018[/editline] I'm also leaving firearms out of this, since most firearms defeated regular plate armour. Armour adapted to that, but that'd be 150 years later.
[QUOTE=joost1120;53041128]A full set of plate isn't really anything like a main battle tank. In terms of price, armour wasn't very expensive. For an archer, it could've been around 120 days of pay. For a man-at-arms, 60 days. There were some very expensive armours, but that's mostly because knights really like showing their wealth and gold can be expensive. In terms of protection, it really depends on the time period. Plate armour was sufficiently developed around the year 1500 to completely protect every part of a soldier's body. That's a massive difference from the transitional plate armour from around the 1400s. Those armours relied on chain mail to cover the gaps. This was also the case for nearly all armours in between 1400-1500, but even more-so here. A soldier's head would've been protected by a bascinet. This almost always includes a visor, aventail and standard. Both the helmet and visor protect very well against projectiles, thrusts and practically any attack. The aventail, a small coat of mail hanging from the helmet, protects well against cuts. It lies over the breastplate. The standard, another coat of mail covering the neck underneath the helmet, lies underneath the breastplate. If a thrust or projectile slips underneath the aventail and slides over the breastplate, it could be directed straight to your neck. The standard is an extra layer of mail to defend against this. Another piece of protection against this is a stop rib on the breastplate. It's a rib of steel or iron in the form of a V positioned below the neck. It helps deflect any thrusts past the side of the neck instead of right into it. A soldier's torso would've been protected by a gambeson (or similar protective garment), a shirt of mail and a breastplate. Most breastplates from this time only covered the front. The breastplate also only covers the upper torso and stops right where your ribs end. Everything below that would've been open to ranged fire and thrusting weapons. The most common weapon on the battlefield just so happens to be a spear, and it was very effective at penetrating mail. The upper arms would've been protected by the shirt of mail, plate spaulders and a rerebrace (like a bracer on the upper arm). The rerebrace often only covered the outside of the arm, so the inside would've been vulnerable to thrusts. The arm pit is one of the most dangerous weak points of any armour. Most armours around this time period had spaulders, which didn't cover the arm pit. Pauldrons, which covered the arm pits with a disk, were common too, although they only cover from thrusts directly from the front. If the arm is lifted, any thrust will go underneath this disk. The forearm and elbow would've been protected by the shirt of mail, a vambrace and the couter. The vambrace covers both out- and inside of the forearm. The upper legs were protected by the cuisses. English style cuisses often covered both front and back of the thighs, but continental cuisses around this time often only covered the front. The groin wasn't defended very well though. It was covered by the mail shirt, but the mail shirt only reaches to the middle of the thighs. The knees and shins were protected by the poleyn and greaves. These greaves often protected the front and back. The feet would've been protected by sabatons. Their weakness depends on how closely they fit to the greave and whether any mail was in between. The feet wasn't really a primary target though. This text probably wasn't intended to be so long, but I just can't leave a job half-done. In short, a 1400s knight or men-at-arms clad in plate would've been vulnerable in these areas: -Back of torso -Abdomen -Inside of the upper arms -Armpits -Groin By no means invulnerable to the average soldier. But it sure is a thousand times better than just a gambeson. It definitely increased the survival rate in battle dramatically. Also, "something as simple as a chain mail shirt" is simplifying things a fair bit. A mail shirt in the 1400s was slightly more expensive than a breastplate. It also took a lot longer. A breastplate could be made in two days. A mail shirt in two months. [editline]10th January 2018[/editline] I'm also leaving firearms out of this, since most firearms defeated regular plate armour. Armour adapted to that, but that'd be 150 years later.[/QUOTE] Archers were well paid and generally taken care of in medieval armies. Archers, unlike crossbow wielders, took far more training to be effective on the battlefield and generally needed to maintain their training in order to remain effective. Crossbows were more like rifles, training took a fraction of the time and it didn't have a significant physical component involved. Archers, as a result, were generally protected and paid reasonably well. It isn't surprising that they would be able to afford armor, but they also again don't qualify as nobodies. They were specifically not used in the same fashion as peasants because they had a useful skill. This is questionable in terms of timeline. The 1400's was the rise of heavy cavalry and the development of full gothic style plate. In theory, full plate should be around. Even with a plate chain combo, you were probably not, as a bandit, going to be able to go after one of the few weaknesses in the armor (even assuming you knew they existed) before the plate clad opponent could exploit one of your many weaknesses. Especially given that they could probably also afford proper training. And, ultimately, the points you list are basically the points where the armor is weaker. You still have a gambeson, which is shockingly effective according to modern recreations, and chain. Weaker is a relative term when even a spear would be hard pressed to successfully defeat plate. I'd be curious to see documentation on mail being more expensive. They take more time to manufacture, but they are made using scrap materials and are much easier for unskilled labor to produce. Basically you need a true craftsman and quality materials for plate armor, but any apprentice can make a chain shirt out of scrap metal.
[QUOTE=GunFox;53042143]Archers were well paid and generally taken care of in medieval armies. Archers, unlike crossbow wielders, took far more training to be effective on the battlefield and generally needed to maintain their training in order to remain effective. Crossbows were more like rifles, training took a fraction of the time and it didn't have a significant physical component involved. Archers, as a result, were generally protected and paid reasonably well. It isn't surprising that they would be able to afford armor, but they also again don't qualify as nobodies. They were specifically not used in the same fashion as peasants because they had a useful skill. This is questionable in terms of timeline. The 1400's was the rise of heavy cavalry and the development of full gothic style plate. In theory, full plate should be around. Even with a plate chain combo, you were probably not, as a bandit, going to be able to go after one of the few weaknesses in the armor (even assuming you knew they existed) before the plate clad opponent could exploit one of your many weaknesses. Especially given that they could probably also afford proper training. And, ultimately, the points you list are basically the points where the armor is weaker. You still have a gambeson, which is shockingly effective according to modern recreations, and chain. Weaker is a relative term when even a spear would be hard pressed to successfully defeat plate. I'd be curious to see documentation on mail being more expensive. They take more time to manufacture, but they are made using scrap materials and are much easier for unskilled labor to produce. Basically you need a true craftsman and quality materials for plate armor, but any apprentice can make a chain shirt out of scrap metal.[/QUOTE] Small reminder that 5/6th of the army of England at the battle of Agincourt were longbowmen. That's a pretty large majority. Their pay was nothing special. They literally are the peasants. IIRC every peasant was required to regularly practice longbow. The development of full plate wasn't really until the 1450s. 1400 was ruled by transitional plate armour. Your average bandit would probably know about the weak points of armour, because they make a career out of killing people. A breastplate probably cost less than his sword. Armour was common. So it's safe to say they knew the weaknesses. Half-swording can easily turn a parry into a thrust to the armpits. If the bandit has a spear, it'd be even easier. He can just keep at range and turn any thrust into a possible takedown. Either of those attacks can still threaten the opponent even though he is wearing armour. A gambeson is shockingly effective because most people assume it isn't real armour. It is real armour though. It protects against some cuts, but any thrust will still pierce it. A gambeson on it's own does not hold up in a fight. Any hit that would've killed you without one would still probably kill you. Mail being more expensive kinda makes sense. The Black Death massively reduced the workforce. Meanwhile Milanese water-powered hammers could make a breastplate in 6 hours time. It'd be unpolished, but many inventories list "black", unpolished armour. Mail definitely wasn't made out of scrap materials. It requires proper iron or steel, just like a breastplate would. The process couldn't be machinated like plate armour could so while plate armour is getting cheaper, mail isn't. Mail was tailored to the body, while plate could've been mass produced in one size(as long as it wasn't custom made for someone). Mail requires proper understanding of tailoring, it's not exactly simple. Still, whether you make good or badly fitted mail, it'll take 2 months. A munition's grade breastplate is done in 6 hours. The blacksmith already has an hourly wage 30x that of a mail tailor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.