MVP7 wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:15 pm
I'd be perfectly happy with the 10 POA advantage in armoured-vs-armoured situations
The 75% armour reduction still sounds like quite a lot to me though. For example it would lower Well-Armoured unit's POA advantage vs Protected HW unit from 50 to 12.5 which seems like a huge drop. Would a halberd or a poleaxe alone turn plate armour from being a huge factor into a pretty small one just like that? Maybe 50% or 66% reduction to armour could be considered?
Note that the proposal is not a 75% armour reduction, but a 75% reduction in armour advantage. (As opposed to 100% with the present rules)
@RBS, For a point of reference, could you tell what armour ratings some 15th-16th century units would have?
Well we don't plan to do 16th century, so that is moot.
For 15th century:
Mercenary/retinue billmen/halberdiers - BodyArmour 100 (Armoured)
Militia billmen/halberdiers - 50 (Protected)
Galloglaigh - 50 (Protected)
Swiss halberdiers - 50 (Protected)
Dismounted Men-at-Arms - 300 (Fully Armoured)
So dismounted men-at-arms vs retinue billmen would have a gross armour advantage of 200, reduced by 75% by the enemy HW to 50, which is still 25 POA armour advantage. (The maximum armour advantage POA is 50 anyway, so their actual net armour advantage POA is reduced by only 50% - instead of 100% with the current rules).
The dismounted men-at-arms will usually be superior, the retinue billmen average, so overall the dismounted men-at-arms will have a 75 POA advantage (instead of 50 POA with the current rules).
would the standards be raised so that a infantryman with a brigandine and helmet would only qualify as protected for example?
The standards will be raised. You also have to be aware that Osprey-style books tend to show the men in the best armour (because they look cooler), and not the average standard of armour for typical contemporary units.