Vapourware Who handles different weapon vs weapon and armour combinations well?

[Screwball]

I was watching an account of the bloody battle of Towton, which took place in North Yorkshire on 29th March 1461. The presenter mentioned that buckler and sword was a popular combinaton at this time in England and at this battle. It seemed like an odd thing to bring to a battle. A large shield would give more cover. But of course it is a very mobile combination and useful for skirmishing around formations, or where a melee has broken up into individual combats.

There are some famous fighting manuals of the period (normally German and Italian) which detail moves that you can make with buckler and sword.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hZy_lGLSY

Have you seen different combinations of weapons and armour handled well in games, or written about in game design? It would be really interesting, for me, to see a system in which weapons and tactics evolve together. So that certain weapons evolve to handle formations or tactics the enemy uses and vice versa.

 

[Krice]

I think the reason for a large shield is that it protects you from arrows and other missiles. But in close combat a small buckler could even be a better option. Anyway, games rarely model fighting in that kind of level, it's just bashing enemies and weapons have different damage values.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

AD&D 2nd edition made an attempt to differentiate between shield types, but larger shields were always better except in terms of encumbrance and use of the shield hand:

A buckler (or target) is a very small shield that fastens on the forearm. It can be worn by crossbowmen and archers with no hindrance. Its small size enables it to protect against only one attack per melee round (of the user's choice), improving the character's Armor Class by 1 against that attack.

A small shield is carried on the forearm and gripped with the hand. Its light weight permits the user to carry other items in that hand (although he cannot use weapons). It can be used to protect against two frontal attacks of the user's choice.

The medium shield is carried in the same manner as the small shield. Its weight prevents the character from using his shield hand for other purposes. With a medium shield, a character can protect against any frontal or flank attacks.

The body shield is a massive shield reaching nearly from chin to toe. It must be firmly fastened to the forearm and the shield hand must grip it at all times. It provides a great deal of protection, improving the Armor Class of the character by 1 against melee attacks and by 2 against missile attacks, for attacks from the front or front flank sides. It is very heavy; the DM may wish to use the optional encumbrance system if he allows this shield.

 

[KateMicucci]

OP you might enjoy Battle Brothers (I didn't).

 

[Humbaba]

Earlier editions of 40k match up a unit's weapon skill against another, giving you the roll you need to hit, same with a unit's strength vs toughness to wound. Armor used to be entirely negated provided the weapon used had a high enough armor penetration value.

 

[Ebonsword]

Have you seen different combinations of weapons and armour handled well in games, or written about in game design? It would be really interesting, for me, to see a system in which weapons and tactics evolve together. So that certain weapons evolve to handle formations or tactics the enemy uses and vice versa.

1st Edition AD&D had a whole table dedicated to comparing weapons vs various types of armor.

It's a bit confusing, because armor is listed by armor class instead of type, so it assumes you know that chainmail is armor class 5 while leather is armor class 7.

I think it does a pretty good job, overall. For example, a quarter staff is pretty good against unarmored opponents (+1 to hit) but absolutely sucks against someone in plate mail (-5 to hit).

 

[Beastro]

I was watching an account of the bloody battle of Towton, which took place in North Yorkshire on 29th March 1461. The presenter mentioned that buckler and sword was a popular combinaton at this time in England and at this battle. It seemed like an odd thing to bring to a battle. A large shield would give more cover. But of course it is a very mobile combination and useful for skirmishing around formations, or where a melee has broken up into individual combats.

There are some famous fighting manuals of the period (normally German and Italian) which detail moves that you can make with buckler and sword.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hZy_lGLSY

Have you seen different combinations of weapons and armour handled well in games, or written about in game design? It would be really interesting, for me, to see a system in which weapons and tactics evolve together. So that certain weapons evolve to handle formations or tactics the enemy uses and vice versa.

Shield size decreases as armour takes on more and more of a role in protection. It's why by the Early Modern Era shields were beginning to be abandoned as armour did all the protection and freed both hands up for wielding a two-handed weapon.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

1st Edition AD&D had a whole table dedicated to comparing weapons vs various types of armor.

Chainmail Rules for Miniatures already included a table for making adjustments on the basis of specific weapons versus specific armor, and Gygax incorporated this into D&D in 1975 via Supplement I: Greyhawk's Alternative Combat System, which also introduced varying weapon damage:

 

[Screwball]

Thanks for the great suggestions.

Sorry I didn't reply for so long. I was waiting for my account to get approved and didn't see that had happened till now.

 

[ItsChon]

I get the impression you're interested in games that are more so tailored towards medieval combat/realism, but to answer this specific part of your question,

Have you seen different combinations of weapons and armour handled well in games, or written about in game design? It would be really interesting, for me, to see a system in which weapons and tactics evolve together. So that certain weapons evolve to handle formations or tactics the enemy uses and vice versa.

Age of Decadence/Dungeon Rats does a good job of this. All the weapons and armor types feel very distinct from each other and using them really changes how a combat encounter plays out.

Outside of that, Underrail is also a game where different weapon combinations and armors are made to feel distinct and logically coherent, but it's a sci-fi game and it has a more "abstract" combat system that feels like a game verus something that is trying to "emulate" real life. AoD and DR are also like this, but it feels more pronounced in Underrail. Not to say this is a bad thing, just clarifying.

 

[Pocgels]

For realism, I don't think I've ever played a game that felt like it made much of an effort to simulate the details of melee combat, at least if we're not talking about action or fighting games. The fact that many RPGs have weapons which consist of a single damage stat and perhaps some effect (which is often just more damage of a different type) demonstrates this. Weapon speed/handling, reach, and ability to perform against armor would all probably be a pain to calculate on tabletop, but hey, math is what computers are good at.

So most games that try to add variety to the melee matchups go for ad-hoc solutions, which unfortunately are often forgettable or don't add much (Pillar of Eternity, Warcraft 3). As for weapons and tactics evolving together, I thought Symphony of War: Nephilim Saga did this well. (Haven't played Dungeon Rats so IDK)