Yeah that's not someone trying to kill you. Try taking a hit from a Warhammer or mace to the head. Or a person on horseback taking a swing at you. Or have a person defending a wall drop a rock on you.
@@lactoseandintolerant7601It would be if plate wasn't so good at protection. The blows that qualify as non-lethal action in the suits would be lethal action out of them.
Yes, it would, but no /worse/ than being hit outright. The fallacy is in the idea that plate armor somehow makes you more vulnerable to concussive damage than not wearing it.
A really really good swing which isn't easy go pull off in a battlefield could harm an armoured opponent but even the lightest blow could instantly kill you eithout armour
Oh no doubt. My suit is a budget build and it's made a ton of concessions to keep it within my means. It's really not up to Living History standards at all.
Thats why i just have crusading chain armor. I got the gabeson, chainmail shirt, leggings gauntlet, coif, then i have my tunic and helm. That shoud be good enough for anything. The Gabeson absorbs alot of impact. I might get padding for my legs and shoulder plates. But not too much plate because i want to stay accurate for the 1200s. And some knights back then to add protection, had a leather armor piece under the chain mail. But for now, im happy with just the gabeson and chainmail.
It has greater defense than any other armor option, but its blunt damage resistance will be the smallest increase Which isnt saying much, still a massive improvement
Not so. Rigid armor is weakest against piercing damage, because piercing damage focuses power on one point, which can overwhelm the armor. In contrast, blunt damage is effectively dealt with just by distributing the force over a wider area. It's most effective against cutting damage, since this typically does not rely on large forces in the same way, but this is not unique to rigid armor, though it will also spread out the impact. The thing is, at worst, these all resolve to being blunt impacts. A cutting attack that can't cut becomes a blunt attack the armor distributes, and the same for a piercing attack that can't pierce. Even then, the smaller the impact area the better you'll do against the armor.
@@seigeengine depends on the rigid armor I guess. Many examples of plate can resist being deformed entirely by piercing attacks, thus making them blunt impacts as you said. So an attack already geared to deliver blunt force will have the least impedance from the armor, was my logic. I wish there was a thorough way to study this and determine which is more accurate, maybe both, but I do see your point.
Again, not so. A piercing attack essentially is just a blunt attack to a small area. You can give a blunt weapon more damage potential simply by decreasing the area it applies force over. There is no penalty for it having been a "piercing" attack "first." This only starts to shift at the point where you're piercing entirely through the target. Now, there are reasons you might prefer imparting force to a wider area, such as the risk of binding up your weapon inside the target, or maybe your strike being deflected off the armor and not imparting the energy in the first place, but those are beside the point. @@TheCompleteMental
Consider this: in American Football, you almost exclusively take bludgeoning damage, though medically they call it blunt force trauma. If wearing plates of armor made you take more damage, why are football pads required? Bludgeoning damage is good against all armor. It's also comparatively energy inefficient, because of basic physics, so it's usually a lot worse compared to other weapons like swords or spears against unarmored targets. As your opponent improves their armor, those weapons begin to have a much more difficult time penetrating defenses, so the old standby of "hit it with something heavy" becomes more common. Also I would far prefer to be wearing armor when hit with a bludgeoning weapon than not. It's better to get a concussion than have your head split open.
Yeah. I’d love to see a game accurately portray armor, but of course this is done for getting a balance of realism/intuitiveness for those who may not be historically minded, so it’s probably fine.
It’s less that the armor itself is taking more blunt damage, but more often than not, the armor just has a lower rating of protection from blunt damage. Essentially, it’s just not as protective against blunt weapons as it is against thrust or slashing weapons, though it does still protect.
You could actually pierce plate. It is not easy to pierce heat treated steel plate, but it is possible with a rondell dagger, especially on thinner parts
You can hope to pierce it if it's a piece laid on strong ground with your full body weight and strenght pushing down on it, but when the guy is standing there is no chance at all
Like how scorpions' exoskeleton can protect them from the pierce of a bullet (might be exaggeration but it is a lil plate armor anyway) but we just squish 'em cause the pression is one of the strongest types of damage both psychology and physically?
