"Layered" Armors

[Frostorm]

So historically speaking, armor has been worn as long as war has been a thing. In an effort to protect themselves, people often wore more than 1 layer of armor. And so, I kind of wanted to add a splash of realism by allowing characters the option to layer their armor. But instead of simply splitting the "Body" slot into something like "Overlay & Underlay", I decided to add an Augment slot to most pieces of "Body"-slot armor. This Augment slot would accept another piece of "Body"-slot armor.

For clarification, let's say we have an item called "Mithril Hauberk" and another item called "Adamantite Breastplate". Each piece of armor can be worn by itself, but the breastplate features an Augment slot while the hauberk does not. Therefore, a player could place the "Mithril Hauberk" in the aforementioned Augment slot and then equip the "Adamantite Breastplate" into the "Body" slot. This would obviously provide the player with the cumulative bonuses of both armors.

I divided armor types into simple Light, Medium, & Heavy varieties. The "Mithril Hauberk" would be Medium while the "Adamantite Breastplate" would be Heavy. The differences between Light, Medium, & Heavy are simple. Light armor does not apply a Movement penalty. However, Medium armor reduces Movement range by -1 while Heavy armor reduces it by -2. Of course, each armor type provides more or less protection accordingly. That is, inverse to the imposed Movement Range penalty. If a player wore the aforementioned Hauberk+Breastplate, he/she would incur a combined -3 Movement Range penalty.

Now, while this feature seems neat and gives a nod to realism, I have some issues when it comes to balancing. Should I assume 2 pieces of Body-slot armor as the norm, thus setting it as a base benchmark? Or would some people perhaps only want to equip 1 piece (i.e. Augment slot left empty) of armor to avoid the potential Movement penalty?

Or is should such a mechanic even be implemented in the 1st place? I mean, it's always good to ask oneself: "Is this a good idea?" or "What's the purpose of this mechanic?" and so on... Cuz gameplay-wise, I could probably achieve a similar result by simply splitting the "Body" slot into something like "Chest" & "Legs". However, that would defeat the whole idea of wearing multiple layers of armor, which is a more realistic representation, at the expense of cumbrousness.

 

[Enigman]

It will come down to what you expect your enemies to have. Your average ordinary soldier during the medieval period would have been lucky to have anything more than a basic shield and helmet (assuming they had equipment provided by a liege lord.) The fall of the Roman Empire meant that Europe failed to have standard equipment supplied by the 'state' for a few hundred years.

If it's assumed that the enemy can equally kit themselves out (even with more primitive armour than what your characters use (eg cuir bouilli, gambeson (worn with or without armor)) then you can probably cater for this in your enemie's HP, encumberance etc. Missile troops (sling, archers) would obviously need freedom of movement so less armour is a plus (unless they use crossbows, primitive firearms.)

Everything comes down to cost and few had the coin to have custom armour during the Medieval period (if using it as a model) - cloaks stopped being used once it became easier to produce coats and jackets - a cloak was a couple of hours work, a coat or jacket would take days pre industrial era.

Armour production was a time consuming skill and not worth it for your average blacksmith who would have made more from shoeing horses and making utensils, nails etc. If you remove this idea from the equation and assume that there is an equitable distribution of smiths, coin and an economy that can produce armour at scale then there shouldn't be any problem with having 'layers' or augments to armour as an accepted practice. You would then just need to cater for it in your enemies with varying levels of armour. The problem of course, is that it adds an increased layer of complexity when designing enemy troops to get your balance right.

 

[KaitlynKitty]

Your average soldier in early medieval Europe would likely have a gambeson, shield and if they can, a helmet. Career soldiers such as mercenaries and knights, as well as experienced raiders, would be able to afford a hauberk of mail. Plate armor started to appear later in the medieval period, starting as additions affixed to already present mail armor. Even by the time of the crusades, plate armor was rare in Europe.

The Romans had plate armor, however it was made from strips of plate which could be mass produced and gathered according to the body. Production heavily decentralized in Europe as the Roman empire declined. The standing armies were replaced by levying, which put much less pressure on commoners to buy armor. Instead, landlords equipped their servants with expensive armor to defend their land.

 

[alice_gristle]

At a glance, it seems like a ton of work to me! And little gain. Then again, I'm usually not a fan of "mechanics gotta have all the realism", so...

I'm more of the type, if ya wanna impress me with realism, put yo buck in story and milieu instead. Like, I don't get hot about layering armour realistically, I get hot about realistic politics, realistic village design, realistic reactions and needs for the characters, and so on.

Or jus' get me roses and a box of marmalades, that impress me most! Yo game's gonna ship with them, right? Riiiiiight?

 

[IvanForever]

At a glance, it seems like a ton of work to me! And little gain.

I think it can go both ways, depending on how the person implements it, as well as other factors in the game.

Now, while this feature seems neat and gives a nod to realism, I have some issues when it comes to balancing. Should I assume 2 pieces of Body-slot armor as the norm, thus setting it as a base benchmark? Or would some people perhaps only want to equip 1 piece (i.e. Augment slot left empty) of armor to avoid the potential Movement penalty?

Or is should such a mechanic even be implemented in the 1st place? I mean, it's always good to ask oneself: "Is this a good idea?" or "What's the purpose of this mechanic?" and so on... Cuz gameplay-wise, I could probably achieve a similar result by simply splitting the "Body" slot into something like "Chest" & "Legs". However, that would defeat the whole idea of wearing multiple layers of armor, which is a more realistic representation, at the expense of cumbrousness.

I tend to prefer simplicity and equipping only one piece, but depending on the game and how it's implemented, the opposite could also be true for me instead. I might prefer 2 pieces of Body-slot armor as the norm if it's "done right." It can change due to other in-game factors, such as the dungeon I'm about to travel through that contains certain enemies where higher Movement Range penalty can alter the situation heavily, or even the boss I'm about the face. Perhaps altering the Movement Range penalty by equipping and unequipping parts of the armor could be a major part of the strategy for defeating certain enemies, for example....

Whether or not it's a good idea is probably up to the developer and perhaps the intended audience.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

A couple of thoughts.

First, unless your game is set in our history, it doesn't really matter how things worked in our past. You create your own world and your own reality.

Second, I think I would generally like this mechanic, but I would probably prefer that more than movement is impacted, which you might already have considered.

For me, I think I would prefer to see an encumbrance system based on character attributes like size and strength. Also, as previously mentioned, that certain character classes probably couldn't realistically layer armor.

I think I would also prefer to see an impact on speed and agility and the ability to dodge. If you are weighed down by more armor, you are going to be slower and you are going to get hit more frequently. Those hits might not have as much effect, but they are going to happen more often.

And I would probably prefer an added equipment durability mechanic. Your armor gets hit more frequently and it gets damaged and wears out quicker.

I think all of that would help to balance the benefits of layering armor for more protection.

But that is just me. I would still play a game that just had the layering, as long as I like other aspects of the game.

Thanks for this interesting question!

 

[rpgLord69]

I would hope the game was set up in a way that you could survive without multiple movement penalty inducing armors. I find slow moving characters in tactical rpgs super annoying. Particularly in situations where you have to advance towards an enemy that simply waits for your assault.

 

[Frostorm]

I would hope the game was set up in a way that you could survive without multiple movement penalty inducing armors. I find slow moving characters in tactical rpgs super annoying. Particularly in situations where you have to advance towards an enemy that simply waits for your assault.

Yea, I have base Move Range for actors at 4 (tiles/spaces). So if the player wears a single piece of Heavy armor, they'll have a Movement Range of 2 (4-2=2). That's a singly layer btw. Heavy armor can be layered with Medium or Light armor. So adding a layer of Light armor would still leave the actor with a Move Range of 2, but wearing Medium armor in addition to the Heavy armor would result in a Move Range of 1 (4-2-1=1). Whether the tradeoff is worthwhile or not is the players' decision, I guess. In short, these are all the possible combinations...

Default Move Range: 4
w/ Light armor: 4
w/ Medium armor: 3
w/ Heavy armor: 2
w/ Heavy+Medium: 1
w/ Heavy+Light: 2
w/ Medium+Light: 3

I think I would also prefer to see an impact on speed and agility and the ability to dodge. If you are weighed down by more armor, you are going to be slower and you are going to get hit more frequently. Those hits might not have as much effect, but they are going to happen more often.

Yea, that's something I've definitely been considering. However, there's a psychological quirk when it comes to players and equipment with negative stat values. For example, which of these scenarios do you think would elicit a more satisfying player experience?...

1. Scenario A
   • Light armor gives +x SPD
   • Heavy armor gives ±0 SPD
2. Scenario B
   • Light armor gives ±0 SPD
   • Heavy armor gives -x SPD

Of course, Medium armor would fall in between Light & Heavy. The above scenarios are just to illustrate a point. But yea, I'd love to hear of more ways to "penalize" players for wearing heavier armors. In my game, the SPD (Speed) stat grants bonuses to EVA (Evasion) & CNT (Counter) chance as well as dictating Turn Order.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

Yea, I have base Move Range for actors at 4 (tiles/spaces). So if the player wears a single piece of Heavy armor, they'll have a Movement Range of 2 (4-2=2). That's a singly layer btw. Heavy armor can be layered with Medium or Light armor. So adding a layer of Light armor would still leave the actor with a Move Range of 2, but wearing Medium armor in addition to the Heavy armor would result in a Move Range of 1 (4-2-1=1). Whether the tradeoff is worthwhile or not is the players' decision, I guess. In short, these are all the possible combinations...

Default Move Range: 4
w/ Light armor: 4
w/ Medium armor: 3
w/ Heavy armor: 2
w/ Heavy+Medium: 1
w/ Heavy+Light: 2
w/ Medium+Light: 3


Yea, that's something I've definitely been considering. However, there's a psychological quirk when it comes to players and equipment with negative stat values. For example, which of these scenarios do you think would elicit a more satisfying player experience?...

1. Scenario A
   • Light armor gives +x SPD
   • Heavy armor gives ±0 SPD
2. Scenario B
   • Light armor gives ±0 SPD
   • Heavy armor gives -x SPD

Of course, Medium armor would fall in between Light & Heavy. The above scenarios are just to illustrate a point. But yea, I'd love to hear of more ways to "penalize" players for wearing heavier armors. In my game, the SPD (Speed) stat grants bonuses to EVA (Evasion) & CNT (Counter) chance as well as dictating Turn Order.

So personally, I think that is going to depend on the "generation" of the player. I am original school going back to paper D&D before computers. And a lot of early CRPGs tended to mimic the D&D trope. So I am very familiar and comfortable with negatives being applied due to things like encumbrance, using a weapon you aren't skilled in, wearing armor you really shouldn't, status effects, etc. Those don't bother me at all so long as they are balanced and far and most of the time they are optional. I chose an action that causes the negative to be applied. I can just as easily remove it.

Now, many newer generation players would probably be much less keen on that. You might be able to over come that if you have very balanced game play that doesn't feel punishing.

Most likely, the majority of players would not prefer negative stat values being applied. But as I have learned from just a short time participating in this forum, there are a lot of players with a wide variety of opinions and it is very likely that something you want for your game won't be appreciated by some group of gamers.

But, since I never plan on being a real game developer or make any real money from any game I create, that doesn't really bother me. If I am investing my time and energy, I choose to make the type of game that I would like to play.

It's all about me.

 

[pawsplay]

If it were my game and I wanted to implement this, I would probably just create different equipment slots for Coat and Armor.

 

[Frostorm]

If it were my game and I wanted to implement this, I would probably just create different equipment slots for Coat and Armor.

The issue is that the armor(s) might not be a "Coat" or any other similarly specific term. It could range from stuff like a: Breastplate, Brigandine, Hauberk, Tunic, Gambeson, Doublet, Robe, Shirt, Cloak/Cape, Coat/Jacket, etc... So if I were to split the "Body" slot into 2 separate slots, then the names given to such slots would have to be an umbrella term that could encompass all sorts of armor/attire.

 

[pawsplay]

What's wrong with coat? Coat of plates, mail coat, buff coat, etc. A gambeson is a coat.

 

[Frostorm]

What's wrong with coat? Coat of plates, mail coat, buff coat, etc. A gambeson is a coat.

Well, I guess it's more to do with how I name slots by body part rather than article of clothing. For instance, I have a Head slot, not a Helm slot. And also a Hands slot, not a Gloves slot. And so on and so forth...

Edit: However, IF I did split the "Body" slot into 2 slots, I'd have to remove one of the "Other" slots since my 960x540 screen resolution provides enough room for exactly 8 slots in total.