Topic: Which AT to use for Napelonic and American Civil War eras?

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I've been working on a revision of War Law, and wanted to include up to and including the Boer War era.
I've figured that the majority of the bulky uniforms worn of this era, should be more restrictive and provide a little more protection than AT1.
Using AT 5 seems the easiest choice, providing a small amount of protection but making the target easier to hit...

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

[intothatdarkness]

You're still looking at AT 1-ish, really. Those bulky uniforms weren't more than wool, and one layer at that. You also have to consider that most combatants in later eras won't be using shields and the like, so any DB is going to be derived from stats alone. They'll be easy enough to hit. I reworked Outlaw for firearms and hitting people wasn't a problem. The problem ended up being they got hit almost too often.

Your one exception might be curassiers (sp) and some of the folks who tried wearing breastplates during a variety of wars during this period.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

My initial opinion was the same, though the tunics, greatcoats etc should provide some protection against melee weapons... but actually become a liability against firearms... and maneuverability. AT2?

[intothatdarkness]

That might be a better choice. Soldiers didn't usually fight in greatcoats, but I can see where it's worth giving them slightly better protection should melee result. Just remember, though, that as weapons technology got better melee became less common. It's an interesting period to work through with these rules.

[jdale]

AT 2 provides a little advantage against animal attacks but basically none against melee weapons (hits are reduced by a tiny amount but the threshold for every level of critical is lower). AT 5 provides very little advantage, at noticeable cost. AT 6 might be better, it does delay the onset of more severe criticals at the cost of maneuverability and making it easier to get a less severe hit.

It's more difficult than perhaps it should be, because AT 1 provides a really huge hidden bonus that undermines the utility of every other armor type.

[Old Man]

You're still looking at AT 1-ish, really. Those bulky uniforms weren't more than wool, and one layer at that. You also have to consider that most combatants in later eras won't be using shields and the like, so any DB is going to be derived from stats alone. They'll be easy enough to hit. I reworked Outlaw for firearms and hitting people wasn't a problem. The problem ended up being they got hit almost too often.

Your one exception might be curassiers (sp) and some of the folks who tried wearing breastplates during a variety of wars during this period.

AT-17 breastplates for armored cavalry was my thought as well. Sometimes perhaps AT-13 as well, but everyone else was AT-1. (See ROCO IV pg 54)

[VladD]

AT 6 and 7 would be common as well. Lots of leather was incorporated in military uniforms and some of the padded armors wives fashioned for their husbands were reputed to stop bullets (probably ricochets). The padded armors of the Central and South Americans ( Ichcahuipilli) were taken by conquistadores because of the effectiveness against the weapons of the natives, but also because they witnessed the many cotton layers and extremely tight stuffing stop musket bullets. They would rate as AT 6-7 as well.

Curassiers had AT 17, but Polish Winged Hussars had a special more elaborate armor that allowed more movement and covered a bit more and would rate as AT 18.

A note on military uniforms of the day: They were actually quite practical. Just as a REAL business suit nowadays: with underwear, a shirt, a leather or woolen/felt vest and some type of woolen/ felt overcoat and then there was usually also a woolen/felt or leather rain coat. Broad leather belts and/ or  uniform/ ammunition webbing also might provide a little protection. The uniform was used in any climate and weather and was modeled to look like a Sunday suit of the day, except in the national or regimental colors.

One practice which seemed wise was that many bought an iron skull cap and fitted it in the felt or leather hat. Some modifications were allowed and one should remember that the army train usually contained more retainers and soldier's wives (and whores) than actual fighting personnel. These wives and retainers did a fair bit of repairing and modifying the soldiers' kit. It was not unusual for campaigning armies to slowly lose the original issued gear and start using looted items.

AT 13 was not used, as there has not been found evidence for that and it seemed it was more of a liability against bullets than stopping them. Pieces of the mail lodged in the wound and caused more damage.

Other medieval war gear started to disappear at the onset of the 18th century btw. In the English civil war (1642-1651) there were still armored pikemen, musketeers and cavalry, even though firearms were widespread, but later in the century it seems most of the fighting is done using firearms.

Firearms, after the Napoleonic age, tend to become more accurate and more powerful forcing a rethink of military tactics and strategy. This led to a more sane approach to fighting battles, with armies not lined up to do battle, but with skirmish tactics and most set battles occurring near choke points or near towns and fortifications.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Many thanks for all the repiies. 

I'm feeling here that basic clothes here should perhaps be a happy medium between AT1 and AT2.

AT5/6 does seem to be a bit of a game bug-bear, in that it is a AT that is ecconomically viable AT, but one that provides no obvious in-game benefits over AT1 (i.e. just get hit more often), which as players we would not *choose* at all. Realistically, however, needs must, and other hidden considerations come into play, such as environmental effects, which a *real* person faces.

Trouble is that, I believe AT1, is simply intended for "near-naked" only, monks in loin-cloths, athletes in sports-wear etc... normal modern casual clothes being the top-end of what might be acceptable within that AT perhaps even being AT2. Within AT1 I'd really only consider including Zulus, Native Americans etc.

The more that I think about it, using AT5 and AT6 (for those with greatcoats etc) does start to make more realistic sence, even though the effects are quite severe. I think the answer here is simply to assume giving a bonus to AT5 (+5 to +10)?

I'd already considered the effect of the cavalry armour for curiassers etc.

[markc]

I agree with the added bonus to the AT idea and I think it works great.
MDC

[intothatdarkness]

Many thanks for all the repiies. 

I'm feeling here that basic clothes here should perhaps be a happy medium between AT1 and AT2.

AT5/6 does seem to be a bit of a game bug-bear, in that it is a AT that is ecconomically viable AT, but one that provides no obvious in-game benefits over AT1 (i.e. just get hit more often), which as players we would not *choose* at all. Realistically, however, needs must, and other hidden considerations come into play, such as environmental effects, which a *real* person faces.

Trouble is that, I believe AT1, is simply intended for "near-naked" only, monks in loin-cloths, athletes in sports-wear etc... normal modern casual clothes being the top-end of what might be acceptable within that AT perhaps even being AT2. Within AT1 I'd really only consider including Zulus, Native Americans etc.

The more that I think about it, using AT5 and AT6 (for those with greatcoats etc) does start to make more realistic sence, even though the effects are quite severe. I think the answer here is simply to assume giving a bonus to AT5 (+5 to +10)?

I'd already considered the effect of the cavalry armour for curiassers etc.

Actually you're more likely to encounter some sort of improvised armor (padded, shields, etc.) with Native fighters than you are with those of the major powers after about 1820-1840. In the US, most Plains tribes continued to use shields until the end of this period, while the Army was wearing wool uniforms with no extra padding or protection. Vlad's comments are good and spot-on for anything up to the Napoleonic period (and during it, to be honest), but after that the situation changed greatly. Unless they were fighting in winter or cold conditions, most troops dropped their greatcoats when they entered action, or at least left them with the regimental baggage train. I'm not much of an expert on British colonial operations, but I can go into great (and deeply boring) detail about the Indian Wars and some of the Civil War stuff.

It also doesn't help that RM does a poor overall job of modeling firearms. The stock combat system isn't really set up for them, and I've seen few good damage models (although I'm working on one now that I think hits a nice balance and is actually based on things like the Taylor Formula to determine caliber damage). That complicates things greatly. RM's combat model is based on having armor and shields to boost DB and doesn't deal with moving targets, meaning that when you enter a setting without heavy armor and shields characters get hit with far more frequency.

It would be interesting to see what you come up with!

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Yeah, so I understand. I'm generalising greatly with AT here for this. I'm going to establish a "Generic Uniform" and a "with Greatcoat" option and run with it. I agree, that firearms models are a little dodgy, TBH ALL determinations of weapon damage are "dodgy" in ALL rpgs.... RM has done the best job till now though....

Generailisation means that I have also done away with a lot of the specifics and assumed a smaller number of generic firearm tables to start with... (I have a plan ).... than is currently presented in RMSS Firearms. In fact, I've cut it down to 5. Two are pistols, three are Rifle/Carbine.

The differences between the various specific firearms of the various time periods, that use the same tables, are further distinguished by the weapons weight, reloading time, number of rounds, ranges/penalty etc. Distinguishing damage that a specific type of gun does, I believe is over analysing beyond the necessity of the game. Especially when ALL damage done by weapons in the game is basically hypothetical in nature.

[yammahoper]

AT 3 and 4 could work.  ...and a Ten Foot Pole has padded armor listed at AT 3.  The people of the time could easily devise uniforms that use AT 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If you don't mind redefining the no armor rule, your options do open a bit.

[intothatdarkness]

Yeah, so I understand. I'm generalising greatly with AT here for this. I'm going to establish a "Generic Uniform" and a "with Greatcoat" option and run with it. I agree, that firearms models are a little dodgy, TBH ALL determinations of weapon damage are "dodgy" in ALL rpgs.... RM has done the best job till now though....

Generailisation means that I have also done away with a lot of the specifics and assumed a smaller number of generic firearm tables to start with... (I have a plan ).... than is currently presented in RMSS Firearms. In fact, I've cut it down to 5. Two are pistols, three are Rifle/Carbine.

The differences between the various specific firearms of the various time periods, that use the same tables, are further distinguished by the weapons weight, reloading time, number of rounds, ranges/penalty etc. Distinguishing damage that a specific type of gun does, I believe is over analysing beyond the necessity of the game. Especially when ALL damage done by weapons in the game is basically hypothetical in nature.

I understand what you're saying, and your approach makes great sense for a skirmish-type setting (which is what I consider War Law). RMSS Firearms was a bit of a mess, and the system I'm developing uses generic tables based on both weapon class and caliber (working with four tables now, one of which is a specific attack type table). My focus is narrower than yours, though.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Yeah, so I understand. I'm generalising greatly with AT here for this. I'm going to establish a "Generic Uniform" and a "with Greatcoat" option and run with it. I agree, that firearms models are a little dodgy, TBH ALL determinations of weapon damage are "dodgy" in ALL rpgs.... RM has done the best job till now though....

Generailisation means that I have also done away with a lot of the specifics and assumed a smaller number of generic firearm tables to start with... (I have a plan ).... than is currently presented in RMSS Firearms. In fact, I've cut it down to 5. Two are pistols, three are Rifle/Carbine.

The differences between the various specific firearms of the various time periods, that use the same tables, are further distinguished by the weapons weight, reloading time, number of rounds, ranges/penalty etc. Distinguishing damage that a specific type of gun does, I believe is over analysing beyond the necessity of the game. Especially when ALL damage done by weapons in the game is basically hypothetical in nature.

I understand what you're saying, and your approach makes great sense for a skirmish-type setting (which is what I consider War Law). RMSS Firearms was a bit of a mess, and the system I'm developing uses generic tables based on both weapon class and caliber (working with four tables now, one of which is a specific attack type table). My focus is narrower than yours, though.

I'm working on artillery now. That's even more of a headache. (Me thinks I have it all sorted though... )

[intothatdarkness]

I'm working on artillery now. That's even more of a headache. (Me thinks I have it all sorted though... )

I feel your pain. Working on grenades, mortars, and indirect fire now, too. And trying to keep resolution simple in the process.