It is currently Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:25 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Daeruin wrote:
Higgins, the numbers themselves look good to me, but I don't have the knowledge to give good feedback on that kind of thing. (...) So all I can offer is that from the standpoint of a common player, they look great.
Glad to hear they at least look great. :)

Ian.Plumb wrote:
What I'm saying here is that a sword doesn't just have a DR. Rather, it has a particular kind of DR -- in the case of a sword, a cutting DR. Some weapons are capable of more than one type of attack. For example, a sword. With a sword you can also strike with the pommel. This is a blunt attack with a bludgeoning DR. The sword might also be capable of a thrust attack, giving it a puncturing DR.
Emm... Isn't this how things already work in TROS? :| I never suggested removing that. Indeed, what would be the point of different AVs if weapons only had one type of DR?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If the AV of an armour is so high against a particular type of attack that it makes that type of attack pointless -- what use is served by adding a cap to the wounds?
Point is, extremely high AV makes the character invulnerable from that type of attack and removes the chance of blunt trauma that still should be delivered in case of good blows.

Daeruin wrote:
In order to make the AV so high that nobody can possibly do damage, you'd have to set it to 25. That seems silly to me. If the attack is impossible, then make it impossible. Don't just make it tactically unlikely.
Plus as said, this AV of 25 would absorb ALL damage. Even a MoS 15 hit to the helmet from a zweihander would not get the wearer bruised... is this what we want?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Caps are a ham-fisted approach to the problem. The alternative approaches under discussion give far greater tactical opportunity to the player -- and a far more elegant in approach.
Sure, it a hard and simple solution, but I fail to find elegance in a complicated 7-layered wound system from which only certain 5 layer-patterns apply at any given type of situation and which removes the possibility of unarmoured character getting grazed. Or do you mean some other particular approach?

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian, I understand and to some degree share your predilection against weighted wound results. But I suspect that you have overlooked that this weighting will in play very rarely be really weighty. Please consider:

Grave wound caps would, among other things, serve as an indicator to the player that he needs to change his approach to trying to inflict wounds upon his character’s enemy – which I think we agree is a good thing. In most cases the problem can be solved by either attacking less heavily armoured body parts like maybe the lower legs or the face, or to switch to another type of weapon – maybe a bludgeoning one instead of a cutting one.

Really the only situation where neither will the character is when facing an opponent in full plate with visor down and himself lacking a poll axe or similarly heavy hitter. But how often is this going to be the case? You need a setting where full plate exists – certainly not the case everywhere. And even in those situations, you need not just be in any old combat, but in a proper battlefield or formal duel situation – I mean, even in a fantasy version of later 15th century Europe, just how common will opponents in full plate armour complete with bevor, gloves and helmet with closed visor be off the battlefield? If a referee is allowing even a PC or NPC suspecting danger to traipse around like that, he is clearly not doing his job.

But finally, even if the character is up against such an exceedingly rare opponent and is lacking an effective weapon (even much rarer, considering that such opponents will almost only ever be encountered where one can expect them – battle and duel), just how weighty is a theoretical capping at wound level 3 going to be? How frequently do your combatants achieve wound levels beyond 3 after the subtraction of a hefty AV? Really so often that the capping will result in a painfully blatant weighting towards wound level 3? I don’t think so. And in view of the extreme rarity of such situations, I think that the problem of the weighting of results is merely a theoretical one.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps. If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?

No. But such an AV is ridiculous in itself. If I use a scimitar to cut at somebody in a plate armour with sufficient force to inflict a whopping 11 (!) wound levels on an unarmoured opponent, I will indeed still not cut through the plate and padding underneath – but I will transmit an amount of blunt trauma my opponent is definitely going to feel, armour or not. Simply setting extremely high AVs means making the armoured person totally impervious against certain types of attacks, instead of making him impervious to serious injury from certain types of attack – which I think we are out to achieve.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Grettir wrote:
Ian, I understand and to some degree share your predilection against weighted wound results.


I'm not opposed to caps -- if we are simply incapable of producing an alternative model that produces a similar effect in a more elegant manner. I simply expected someone to come up with a better model.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps. If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?


Grettir wrote:
No. But such an AV is ridiculous in itself. If I use a scimitar to cut at somebody in a plate armour with sufficient force to inflict a whopping 11 (!) wound levels on an unarmoured opponent, I will indeed still not cut through the plate and padding underneath – but I will transmit an amount of blunt trauma my opponent is definitely going to feel, armour or not.


More successes means more force? To get a bigger wound means you struck harder -- not more accurately, not the same amount of force has hit a more vital location?

If it is more force, and we're talking sword edge against a piece of steel, then over a certain number of successes means the sword has broken?

Look, I'm happy with caps if we're saying that's the best model we can come up with. Under caps, how do we handle magical weapons?

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Under caps, how do we handle magical weapons?
To be frank, I haven't had a magical weapon in play for years... how have you handled them in TROS so far? And why would caps make them any different?

Wait, wait... I'm lying... there was one magical weapon in one of our games... a sword with a major portion of it's business end invisible, and that imposed a hefty penalty to the dice pool unless one was familiar fighting with (or against) such a weapon. I don't really see how that would be affected by armour caps though.

P.S.
Does the silence towards my suggested AV ratings mean that everybody was happy with them? Or they were so ghastly that you guys are literally speechless? :D

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Last edited by higgins on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Under caps, how do we handle magical weapons?


higgins wrote:
To be frank, I haven't had a magical weapon in play for years... how have you handled them in TROS so far? And why would caps make them any different?


Well, in my Lyon campaign magical weapons are ... well, non-existent. But that is not to say that magical weapons won't exist in anyone's TRoS/EoS campaign. So, when Arthur slashes at Mordred with Excalibur and all SAs blazing -- well, I guess the player will be a tad peeved when they realise that the cap applies to them even with their 27 successes and a magical blade.

So do we simply remove caps for magical weapons?

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Under caps, how do we handle magical weapons?

That would obviously depend on whether the weapon is thought of as supernaturally sharp or as “homing in” on the target by itself. The latter case does not influence a possible cap, the former can increase it by 1 or 2 levels.

[quote="Ian.Plumb"]More successes means more force? To get a bigger wound means you struck harder -- not more accurately, not the same amount of force has hit a more vital location?
If it doesn’t mean more force or at least the superior transmittal of force as in striking at an optimum angle, it is irreconcilable with the – many! – armours that are completely homogenous. If I hit the torso of a knight in maille with padding underneath, all the accuracy in the world isn’t going to help me – the armour’s exactly the same all over the torso. And as I can’t outright cut through the armour with the sword as the area where I hit also doesn’t make a difference, it is only a matter of force.

But before somebody cries out that I am reducing this to brute strength please consider that optimum force transferral requires skill, skil not only to strike true, in the optimum angle, but also to maneuver oneself into the position to get off such a strike in the first place.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
More successes means more force? To get a bigger wound means you struck harder -- not more accurately, not the same amount of force has hit a more vital location?


Grettir wrote:
If it doesn’t mean more force or at least the superior transmittal of force as in striking at an optimum angle, it is irreconcilable with the – many! – armours that are completely homogenous.


Hmmm, I don't like where this is heading at all. I would like to move away from TRoS' linear wound model and towards a non-linear model -- where a Level 5 lethal wound can have very little BL, S, and P associated with it. More successes means more force would be at odds with that approach.

Nevertheless, for EoS I'm happy for more successes to mean more force.

Grettir wrote:
But before somebody cries out that I am reducing this to brute strength please consider that optimum force transferral requires skill, skil not only to strike true, in the optimum angle, but also to maneuver oneself into the position to get off such a strike in the first place.


Except increasing your ST by 1 always delivers 1 more wound level while increasing your Proficiency only gives you a possibility of increasing MoS (and thus Wound) by 1. Seems to indicate that Strength is more important than skill when all is said and done.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I would like to move away from TRoS' linear wound model and towards a non-linear model -- where a Level 5 lethal wound can have very little BL, S, and P associated with it.

I’m afraid that we would be totally at odds here. I don’t care about strictly linear or nonlinear wound severity progression, but I absolutely want the immediate consequences of wounds to increase from wound level to wound level. Delivering better results for more successes is one of my mechanical credos.

(That said, I even want to do away with the harmless “flesh at the side” hits for torso punctures, even though they might be realistic. And then they might, if hitting really tender spots is what combat successes do represent as well.)

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Except increasing your ST by 1 always delivers 1 more wound level while increasing your Proficiency only gives you a possibility of increasing MoS (and thus Wound) by 1. Seems to indicate that Strength is more important than skill when all is said and done.

Your point being that this is how it’s supposed to be or that you want to change this?

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I would like to move away from TRoS' linear wound model and towards a non-linear model -- where a Level 5 lethal wound can have very little BL, S, and P associated with it.


Grettir wrote:
I’m afraid that we would be totally at odds here. I don’t care about strictly linear or nonlinear wound severity progression, but I absolutely want the immediate consequences of wounds to increase from wound level to wound level. Delivering better results for more successes is one of my mechanical credos.


What I'm saying here is that a Level 5 lethal wound -- that is, a wound that kills the defender -- does not have to produce high BL, S, and P. Quite small wounds can kill, and once they have occurred death is certain (given the limited medical knowledge of the day).

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Except increasing your ST by 1 always delivers 1 more wound level while increasing your Proficiency only gives you a possibility of increasing MoS (and thus Wound) by 1. Seems to indicate that Strength is more important than skill when all is said and done.


Grettir wrote:
Your point being that this is how it’s supposed to be or that you want to change this?


This is simply an instance of how the TRoS mechanics actually run counter to Jake's intent. Clearly Jake built a system that emphasizes the player's tactical choices in an effort to demonstrate that good warriors are smart or at least cunning. Yet the mechanics could be seen to emphasize St over Proficiency.

So no point here -- just an observation.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
So do we simply remove caps for magical weapons?
That would obviously depend on the weapon in question. If the weapons power lies in the capability of added loyality of the troops then why on earth should it hack though a plate like butter? But yes, I'd definitely see it possible to give magical weapons some properties outside their weapon class, be them anti-armour properties for plain arming sword or whatever... if that floats your boat. Completely removing cutting cap would be a fearsome blade indeed, slicing open helmets and cutting breastplates in half -- totally acceptable for anime fights... or indeed, for Star Wars.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Hmmm, I don't like where this is heading at all. I would like to move away from TRoS' linear wound model and towards a non-linear model -- where a Level 5 lethal wound can have very little BL, S, and P associated with it. More successes means more force would be at odds with that approach.
Calling TROS wounds linear in IMO misleading as they are clearly exponential, but... To clear one thing up, are you advocating that...

a) deadliness of the wounds should still go grow with the number or successes, but the respective S/P/BL need not grow in the same fashion, as they could be randomised

b) deadliness of the wound should not be connected to the number of successes. Let me bring an example. Trauma has a TROS-like wound system. Cutting and bashing wounds go worse with each step (or success) like in TROS there, but as puncturing wounds are unpredictable they are completely random, so, one can (in TROS terms) deliver a level 1 wound with MoS 6 in one exchange and then deliver a level 5 killing thrust with a mere MoS 1 on the next.

I'm not sure which method you're trying to advocate.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
What I'm saying here is that a Level 5 lethal wound -- that is, a wound that kills the defender -- does not have to produce high BL, S, and P
But if the wound is lethal anyway, aren't the S/P/BL just colour? Something you're advocating to remove from the tables?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Quite small wounds can kill, and once they have occurred death is certain (given the limited medical knowledge of the day).
Wait-wait... What limited medical knowledge of the day? I thought EoS should be multi-genre with primitive, advanced, modern, futuristic and magical capabilities. Why narrow it down with a wound table that deems a wound lethal that could be easy to heal with magic?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Except increasing your ST by 1 always delivers 1 more wound level while increasing your Proficiency only gives you a possibility of increasing MoS (and thus Wound) by 1. Seems to indicate that Strength is more important than skill when all is said and done.
Except ST isn't factored in at all unless your CP is high enough to actually connect a hit. So, I think we can conclude that ST doesn't matter at all, and only Proficiency is important? :) C'mon Ian, that's just pure demagogy as assuming success on connecting obviously makes ST overpowered, just like assuming failure to connect makes it worthless.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian.Plumb wrote:
What I'm saying here is that a Level 5 lethal wound -- that is, a wound that kills the defender -- does not have to produce high BL, S, and P. Quite small wounds can kill, and once they have occurred death is certain (given the limited medical knowledge of the day).

Sorry, but as a player, that’s just the kind of occurrence where I feel cheated – maybe because I’m to some degree influenced by the Conflict Resolution over the Task Resolution school of design.

In a combat, my objective may or may not be to kill my opponent, but in any case it will be to overcome him and avoid being overcome myself. Now if the dice give me an exceedingly good result, the equivalent to wound level 5, I want to have been succesful. What do I care if my opponent will die from the wound inflicted three days hence, when I will have lost to him in the meantime?

That approach, while certainly realistic, is cheating the player out of his hard-earned successes. As is the harmless level 5 stab to the fleshy side of the body.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Clearly Jake built a system that emphasizes the player's tactical choices in an effort to demonstrate that good warriors are smart or at least cunning. Yet the mechanics could be seen to emphasize St over Proficiency.

Aren’t you seeing things a bit too negatively here? I mean, before ST is going to do you any good at all, you’ll first have to avoid being hit and to hit – and ST will not help you here in the least.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ok, so higgins has been pestering me repeatedly to comment on his propositions. :mrgreen: So here's his table for reference:
higgins wrote:
Image


And here I go: :ugeek:

“Padding” certainly needs to be dubdivided into heavy and light variety. There were huge differences in the thickness of it. Your padding seems fine to me for light padding; heavy padding I’d place at Cut 2, Piercing 1, Bash 1 or 2 (not entirely sure).

The same holds true for leather. I remember a Viking-age source being adamant about a coat of doubled elk-leather being in no way inferior to maille. Such leather armour of the “heavy” type would probably be as tough as belt or shoe leather – and have you ever punched a whole through a leather belt?

I’d therefore place heavy leather at Cut 3, Piercing 3 and Bash 1. Softer, more supple leather would imo be closer to Cut 2, Piercing 1 and Bash 0.

With cuir bouilli, I’m totally undecided. I know of cuir bouilli being historically used for shields and to toughen leather scales for scale armour, and possibly for leather helmets, but I very much suspect the cuir bouilli breastplate and other piecs of cuir bouilli armour to be a pure invention of role-players, probably inspired by wrong 19th century reconstruction of Roman armour. That said, cuir bouilli would only be needed for helmets. And while my knowledge about the properties of cuir bouilli is next to nonexisting, I imagine it to be very close to that of very sturdy leather, with a bit of added stiffness. I’d herefore place it tentatively at Cut 3, Piercing 3 and Bash 2.

Scale is traditionally susceptibel to a stab from below, going under the scales (that’s why it was never popular with hirsemen expecting to fight predominantly footsoldiers). Assuming a base of soft, pliable leather and scales of metal, I’d put it at Cut 5, Piercing 3 and Bash 1.

For scale armour using scales of cuir bouilli or horn (quite common, actually), I’d go for Cut 4, Piercing 3 and Bash 1.

Lamellar is a bit like scale without the backing material, but less pliable than scale not so vulnerable against stabs, as the lames are connected to all neighbouring ones, without openings. This means that it is pretty sturdy and not also better able than scale to withstand bashes.

I’d put metal lamellar armour at Cut 5, Piercing 4 and Bash 2, and lamellar armour made of cuir bouilli at Cut 4, Piercing 3 and Bash 2.

Maille I’d put at Cut 5, Piercing 4 and Bash 0. Of course, one would not wear it without padding underneath, which would imo add to little protection to Cut and Piercing AVs to make a difference in numbers, but would add the padding’s full Bash AV.

The values of maille may actually seem a bit low when compared to scale, lamellar and segmented – but don’t forget that the singular advantage of maille over all other metal armours was its pliability, allowing you to armour every bit of the body, without leaving any unarmoured openings. Scale is not as pliable, and lamellar and especially segmented even less so.

Of course, with the quite flexible scale, the rather flexible lamellar and segmented armours and especially the basically totally pliable maille we encounter the problem that even a cut that does not actually penetrate will still transfer a lot of blunt trauma.

Segmented armour of the Roman legionary type was practically impervious to cuts and quite sturdy against bashes, but a point might have slipped in between the segments, even though they actually gape open during only the most awkward of movements (I have once had the opportunity to wear a replica made to scientific specifications, so I know what I’m talking about). I’d put it at Cut 5, Piercing 3 and Bash 2.

The coat-of-plate must have been very similar to the segmented armour. Cut 5, Piercing 3 and Bash 2 feels about right to me.

I don’t actually know, not even from the description in TFoB, what historical armour “banded mail” is supposed to represent. I’ll pass on this one.

And I can’t really comment on the strength of plate, especially with the light – heavy distinction. How well would an anverage of 2 mm of hardened steel with added structural strength from the shape protect? Somewhere around Cut 8, Piercing 5 and Bash 5? Don’t really know.

Finally, for the geeks among you, I have uploaded a document I drafted some six years ago, reworking TRoS armour rules from my understanding and for my group's use. I would not do it all exactly that way again, but still, interested parties can see my values, and quite a few of rather good illustrations of armour. And, oh yes: It is written entirely in German. :twisted:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/b23bf1a ... schutz_doc

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Grettir wrote:
Ok, so higgins has been pestering me repeatedly to comment on his propositions. :mrgreen:
Indeed I have. :mrgreen:

This is all very, very helpful and will definitely add to the comprehensiveness of the armour table. Thanks a bunch for weighing in! :) However, before I delve into the figures more thoroughly to compile a second draft on the values, I have to ask one thing... I know this is not your area, but how do you view the mechanical side of edged weapons delivering blunt wounds?

I presented my solution in the post that included the first table, but were your cutting values given with the same principle in mind or did you use some other reasoning? How I basically handled the non-cuttable armours was that I decided upon a bashing AV and then set the cutting AV to bashing AV+2. I did that because 2-wound level difference seemed reasonable for an equally well placed blows with mace and sword delivered with similar effort.

To bring an example (victim wears my statted 6/5/4 regular plate).
1H mace: MoS2 + ST4 + DR1 - bashing AV4 = Level 3 bashing wound
Arming sword: MoS2 + ST4 + DR1 - cutting AV6 = Level 1 bashing wound

Also, the maille is the only armour you mention padding separately. Are the other ratings meant with padding included, or should the padding ratings be added to others as well? It seems to me that you meant most of the armours without padding and the plate suggestion with padding?

Grettir wrote:
And, oh yes: It is written entirely in German. :twisted:
Ouch. :shock: Seems I need to commission one of my players' professional capacities. She translates from German for a living. :)

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:06 am
Posts: 103
Location: Darwin Australia
I take it this thread was never finished?
Or was it taken up under another name.

Allan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
The results are in my pre-alpha. Feel free to critique or comment.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone