Antique Weapons

[swordtart]

Playing FALDOR recently I hit a bit of a speedbump.

The poor low tech peeps are all using rubbish yestertech and so I was expecting a well armed TL13 toting Traveller to be in no danger, but then I discovered that the rules for the various low tech weapons are all a bit... much.

Now I have no trouble believing that a hit in the chest with warbow arrow (3D-3) might be just as damaging to the soft tissue as a hit with an autopistol. What I have trouble believing is that an arrow will penetrate armour better. I also find it next to impossible to believe that a suit of full plate armour is rarely going to completely stop it. Even if we are talking about some unicorn autopistol, it should not be more effective against a a muzzle-loading rifle. The introduction of the musket was one of the reasons that armour was done away with as it was no long able to offer even marginal protection.

I had hoped the field catalogue with it's crunchy weapon rule might help, but I see there that muzzleloaders suffer from penetration modifiers, which might be fine against modern armours, but surely not armour of prior centuries. Musket balls have no problem smashing big holes in even well made armour and even the "pistol-proof" mark was more of a sales gimmick than an actual proof.

I know that ancient armours are half as effective against higher TL weapons but that means a breastplate is half as effective against a repeating crossbow. I hope I am missing a rule somewhere that says muscle powered ranged weapons suffer AP penalties vs armour, but I suspect not indeed many of the bows get AP2. The situation with melee weapons is no better. Full plate armour is rarely going to be effective against even a poorly aimed blow with a cutlass. Either ancient weapons are too effective or ancient armour is too ineffective.

Fortunately my clever PC decided on a night attack on the Nomads artillery position. As they were armed with a gauss weapon and took a bunch of musketeers from the besieged city along as decoys. Positioned just out of effective range, the musketeers blatted away to little effect and attracted all the enemy fire since no-one could detect the almost silent gauss weapon with no muzzle-flash. As they were out of effective range and were in cover behind trees the decoy musketeers also suffered very little damage. Had they relied on all they knew about bows and arrows and muskets vs. armour they would been very disappointed in the outcome.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Playing FALDOR recently I hit a bit of a speedbump.

The poor low tech peeps are all using rubbish yestertech and so I was expecting a well armed TL13 toting Traveller to be in no danger, but then I discovered that the rules for the various low tech weapons are all a bit... much.

Now I have no trouble believing that a hit in the chest with warbow arrow (3D-3) might be just as damaging to the soft tissue as a hit with an autopistol. What I have trouble believing is that an arrow will penetrate armour better. I also find it next to impossible to believe that a suit of full plate armour is rarely going to completely stop it. Even if we are talking about some unicorn autopistol, it should not be more effective against a a muzzle-loading rifle. The introduction of the musket was one of the reasons that armour was done away with as it was no long able to offer even marginal protection.

I had hoped the field catalogue with it's crunchy weapon rule might help, but I see there that muzzleloaders suffer from penetration modifiers, which might be fine against modern armours, but surely not armour of prior centuries. Musket balls have no problem smashing big holes in even well made armour and even the "pistol-proof" mark was more of a sales gimmick than an actual proof.

I know that ancient armours are half as effective against higher TL weapons but that means a breastplate is half as effective against a repeating crossbow. I hope I am missing a rule somewhere that says muscle powered ranged weapons suffer AP penalties vs armour, but I suspect not indeed many of the bows get AP2. The situation with melee weapons is no better. Full plate armour is rarely going to be effective against even a poorly aimed blow with a cutlass. Either ancient weapons are too effective or ancient armour is too ineffective.

Fortunately my clever PC decided on a night attack on the Nomads artillery position. As they were armed with a gauss weapon and took a bunch of musketeers from the besieged city along as decoys. Positioned just out of effective range, the musketeers blatted away to little effect and attracted all the enemy fire since no-one could detect the almost silent gauss weapon with no muzzle-flash. As they were out of effective range and were in cover behind trees the decoy musketeers also suffered very little damage. Had they relied on all they knew about bows and arrows and muskets vs. armour they would been very disappointed in the outcome.

and just remember, it doesn't matter what equipment your players have. If they are stupid, then a TL-0 caveman can still kill them. lol

 

[Condottiere]

Bullet proofed.

The issue with armour was that they tended to become more cumbersome and bulky, in order to protect against improved innovations in penetrating them.

I would think one difference between manual powered weapon systems, and firearms, would be potential draw weight, which would depend on the strength of the drawer, and the quality of the bow; basically the propellant.

Then, within the capabilities of the local industrial base, the arrow or bolt, which could have a sharp and hardened edge, that, like a discarding sabot, could have some armour piecing traits.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

If you are dealing with stone age people it indicates that they have trade with high TL (from their viewpoint) and may have "advanced weapons" such as AP arrows and high powered compound bows with laser sights and stabilizers. Armour penetration may not be surprising in that case.

 

[MonsterX]

Playing FALDOR recently I hit a bit of a speedbump.

The poor low tech peeps are all using rubbish yestertech and so I was expecting a well armed TL13 toting Traveller to be in no danger, but then I discovered that the rules for the various low tech weapons are all a bit... much.

Now I have no trouble believing that a hit in the chest with warbow arrow (3D-3) might be just as damaging to the soft tissue as a hit with an autopistol. What I have trouble believing is that an arrow will penetrate armour better. I also find it next to impossible to believe that a suit of full plate armour is rarely going to completely stop it. Even if we are talking about some unicorn autopistol, it should not be more effective against a a muzzle-loading rifle. The introduction of the musket was one of the reasons that armour was done away with as it was no long able to offer even marginal protection.

We run into the problem that armour value in Traveller is just a single number - except for laser protection. But IRL, low-tech armours tend to be very effective against melee weapons and to a greater or lesser extent muscle-powered ranged weapons, but much less effective against firearms. On the other hand, modern armours (like present day) tend to be more effective against firearms, but less effective against melee weapons and actually also less effective against thrown spear, arrows and bolts. While it is always better to have more and tougher material between you and the weapons trying to kill you, each category of weapons has characteristics which make different materials optimal for stopping them.

Ideally, you'd want AP characteristics for weapons and armour values to fall into categories, so that a battleaxe would have trouble with plate mail, but not so much with a bullet proof vest, but an autopistol would be able to get through plate mail, but have trouble with a bullet proof vest. Under the current system, that can't happen.

Making it happen, though, is probably not worth it.

 

[swordtart]

Bullet proofed.

The issue with armour was that they tended to become more cumbersome and bulky, in order to protect against improved innovations in penetrating them.

I would think one difference between manual powered weapon systems, and firearms, would be potential draw weight, which would depend on the strength of the drawer, and the quality of the bow; basically the propellant.

Then, within the capabilities of the local industrial base, the arrow or bolt, which could have a sharp and hardened edge, that, like a discarding sabot, could have some armour piecing traits.

Then it would be a function of the strength of the archer not inherent to the bow itself. We are also talking about default TL1-2 weapons here, not TL7-8 reproduction weapons with specialised materials. I am not convinced any arrow shot from even a war bow would significantly penetrate period plate armour (vs. a cheap modern repro). I believe it might penetrate weak points in period armour and massed volleys might cut down even knight as it penetrates joints but those would be mobility kills rather than punching through the breastplate or helmet, but with AP2, even a baseline hit from a Traveller TL2 bow will more often than not defeat the maximum 6 points of the "best" TL1-2 armour that traveller offers.

The proof mark in armour was usually to show pistol-proofing rather than musket-proofing and with any armour will depend on whether the armour was hit by a bullet from effective range or a spent bullet from a weapon operating outside its design parameters. Armours developed when early firearms became available were better but it becomes so heavy it is restricted to cavalry. Eventually even cavalry abandon it other than for ceremonial purposes as it is not effective enough of the weight burden (and Traveller does at least address that with the TL effect of ranged weapons). My issue is that it should be firearms not bows and the like.

Just because a set of armour appears to have been dented by a musket ball, doesn't mean it is proof against a more modern weapon (hence archaic armour getting half its protection against later TL weapons), however it may well be proof against firearms of its own TL. We know that attacks against armoured individuals was generally directed at the joints (and so could be represented by the extra damage on a good hit).

Some of this can be dealt with by recognising that a 17th century back an breast is likely more pistol proof than a 12th century and that just because "Breastplate" armour is available from TL1 it doesn't mean it cannot be a higher TL and thus continue to offer protection against TL2+ weapons.

 

[swordtart]

We run into the problem that armour value in Traveller is just a single number - except for laser protection. But IRL, low-tech armours tend to be very effective against melee weapons and to a greater or lesser extent muscle-powered ranged weapons, but much less effective against firearms. On the other hand, modern armours (like present day) tend to be more effective against firearms, but less effective against melee weapons and actually also less effective against thrown spear, arrows and bolts. While it is always better to have more and tougher material between you and the weapons trying to kill you, each category of weapons has characteristics which make different materials optimal for stopping them.

Ideally, you'd want AP characteristics for weapons and armour values to fall into categories, so that a battleaxe would have trouble with plate mail, but not so much with a bullet proof vest, but an autopistol would be able to get through plate mail, but have trouble with a bullet proof vest. Under the current system, that can't happen.

Making it happen, though, is probably not worth it.

But if you are going to make the effort to put ancient armour in the book (and allow low TL systems in the genre) you need to treat them properly or they just become a joke scenario. People often laud Traveller on its gritty realism and wax lyrical about the beauty of the TL system, but when you actually butt up against it you see the logical flaws.

I am not sure this was in CT (as frankly the CT combat tables were more hassle than they were worth to try to convert) - FALDOR is a CT module and it stats out the weapons in CT terms and they may work fine in context. MGT2 less so.

Every one (even MGT2) knows that a modern gun is going to rip through a suit of plate and it will barely slow down the bullets. Everyone should also know that wearing plate made you fairly safe from arrows and nine times in ten you could ignore them. In Traveller, Knights would be in abject terror of even a couple of archers as in two shots they'd be dead. Of course everyone should also know that a biker jacket is not the same as leather armour and jack providing protection 1 is a waste of everyone's time.

I'll have to have a look and see if any of the low tech 2d6 systems handle it any better.

 

[MonsterX]

But if you are going to make the effort to put ancient armour in the book (and allow low TL systems in the genre) you need to treat them properly or they just become a joke scenario. People often laud Traveller on its gritty realism and wax lyrical about the beauty of the TL system, but when you actually butt up against it you see the logical flaws.

It could be a slippery slope down that rabbit hole. Hit location is also something which should be addressed; low tech armours often go full body, and so do very high-tech ones, but mid-tech tends to focus on protecting the head and torso, probably because this allows significant protection without too much weight hindrance.

You have to have the low-TL stuff in the book, because even if you didn't have low-TL societies, you're still going to have people using low tech weapons sometimes. You can't just decide not to put them in the book.

If you find some workable mechanics, please do report back.

 

[Condottiere]

It really depends on how many resources you want to invest in protection.

Or for that matter, weapon systems, as a whole.

The Romans did actually industrialize, at a minimum, their military industrial complex, and on a political socio economic aspect, if they had met the Goths, Huns, and Vandals, a couple of centuries earlier, probably would have adapted to beat them, militarily, on their own.

If you're willing to centralize armour making industries, figure out how to consistently make high quality steel, and configure the plates ergonomically, you could issue them to the Praetorian Guards, and let's say, the Equestrian order.

I can't recall how the early Chinese dynasties equipped their troops, but they did have blast furnaces.

Cast iron has been found in China dating to the 5th century BC, but the earliest extant blast furnaces in China date to the 1st century AD and in the West from the High Middle Ages.[14] They spread from the region around Namur in Wallonia (Belgium) in the late 15th century, being introduced to England in 1491. The fuel used in these was invariably charcoal. The successful substitution of coke for charcoal is widely attributed to British inventor Abraham Darby in 1709. The efficiency of the process was further enhanced by the practice of preheating the combustion air (hot blast), patented by British inventor James Beaumont Neilson in 1828.[15]

 

[Sigtrygg]

Bows, crossbow and the like could be given an additional trait - low velocity

Armour ratings are doubled (made up number, need to think on it) vs low velocity projectiles

Alternatively if you don't want to add a new trait use the AP trait but give it a negative value

AP -2

Why the longbow and crossbow are given an AP2 trait in CSC is a bit of a mystery

 

[Grognardia]

Good catch. I just removed the AP value from bows and crossbows. Not perfect but hopefully better.

 

[swordtart]

Field Catalogue introduced the Lo-Pen trait that multiplies the effectiveness of armour, which is a bit clumsy as it doesn't take much for you to be doubling or tripling the protection of armour. Against a suit of plate, that is reasonable but once you start talking about commonly available reasonably high TL armours it starts to become overly effective. TL10 cloth for example is hardly exotic, but trebling the protection would make it impervious to most of the lower TL weapons.

Perhaps this should have been addressed in the various mercenary books or the field catalogue as it really needs a system.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The CSC mentions that low TL or antique armour is halved vs higher TL projectile weapons.

 

[Condottiere]

It would be how much energy is expended at the point of contact, and how that point holds up.

Which is why we have discarding sabots.

You construct larger ballistae, you have more potential energy beyond human muscle.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Factors - kinetic energy, momentum, shape, hardness

 

[Condottiere]

 

[rinku]

Trouble is, we have three eras.

1. Low tech, basically pre-gunpowder. Thousands of years and dozens of cultures working out what does and doesn't work vs muscle powered violence, but design is often based on opinion and tradition. Well documented from historical sources (although a lot of them are misleading) and widely tested by reenactors.

2. Gunpowder era. Hundreds of years of rapid technological development, scientifically driven design, widely tested by militaries and enthusiasts. (note, this runs up to modern day. The explosives may no longer be gunpowder per se, but it's all the same broad category of non-muscle powered scientific violence that we can directly research).

3. Far Future. Speculation.

So we have a decent shot at coming up with rules for era 1 and 2, but Traveller is mostly based in era 3. We are told that Cloth is equivalent to 20th century armours, but really it's a higher tech whatever, unless it actually comes from a TL7-8 world. Are TL12 designers going to ignore advances that make their product knife and cutlass resistant? Of course not! Are these armours superior to Era 1 and 2 products in almost every way? You would expect so!

 

[MonsterX]

The CSC mentions that low TL or antique armour is halved vs higher TL projectile weapons.

Yeah, this does partially solve the problem, although I'd probably give certain archaic armour higher ratings, melee weapons better odds against certain ballistic protection armours and better options for medieval can-openers-on-a-stick to get higher AP ratings - maybe the RAW is good enough as is. A lot of medieval armoured fighting seems to be jumping on top of someone and then sticking a knife between the armour joints, and THAT might actually work out the same way for combat armour and battledress melee when you think about it. And you can do this in the RAW already.

 

[swordtart]

Trouble is, we have three eras.

1. Low tech, basically pre-gunpowder. Thousands of years and dozens of cultures working out what does and doesn't work vs muscle powered violence, but design is often based on opinion and tradition. Well documented from historical sources (although a lot of them are misleading) and widely tested by reenactors.

2. Gunpowder era. Hundreds of years of rapid technological development, scientifically driven design, widely tested by militaries and enthusiasts. (note, this runs up to modern day. The explosives may no longer be gunpowder per se, but it's all the same broad category of non-muscle powered scientific violence that we can directly research).

3. Far Future. Speculation.

So we have a decent shot at coming up with rules for era 1 and 2, but Traveller is mostly based in era 3. We are told that Cloth is equivalent to 20th century armours, but really it's a higher tech whatever, unless it actually comes from a TL7-8 world. Are TL12 designers going to ignore advances that make their product knife and cutlass resistant? Of course not! Are these armours superior to Era 1 and 2 products in almost every way? You would expect so!

Earlier iterations did apply modifiers by weapons against each armour type. It looks like to the to hit rather than damage which is also the way original D&D did it. When this was done away with and armour started being simply a flat protection we lost that nuance.

With the vast array of weapons it was probably felt that a matrix was would be over burdensome (and it is a bit clunky). But with the introduction of Traits we could bring it back in a more streamlined form. With the complexity in the Field Guide it was a shame this sort of thing was missed and made somehow worse.

 

[swordtart]

Yeah, this does partially solve the problem, although I'd probably give certain archaic armour higher ratings, melee weapons better odds against certain ballistic protection armours and better options for medieval can-openers-on-a-stick to get higher AP ratings - maybe the RAW is good enough as is. A lot of medieval armoured fighting seems to be jumping on top of someone and then sticking a knife between the armour joints, and THAT might actually work out the same way for combat armour and battledress melee when you think about it. And you can do this in the RAW already.

I think the issue is more that weapons do enough damage to one-shot kill an unarmoured human, but the ancient armour doesn't provide enough protection to stop it. Plate stops arrows most of the time, not merely reduce the damage they do.

I think my solution is to give Ancient Armour the same protection as its modern equivalent. Plate is the Combat Armour of its day. If you read the TL as the century it should have the same level of protection. Chain is equivalent to cloth.

Ancient armours will still only be half as effective against black powder firearms but will be quarter as effective against more modern firearms. If a weapon has AP it will be applied after the reduction.

I think that will fix it.