Hello,

Some weapons ignore the effects of FArm (2HCC and Elephants in melee ; firearms and sometime crossbows/powerbows for shooting).

I guess this is because of the enormous energy and/or small area of application of the attack which means that wearing a full plate offers no benefit over a simple reinforced leather or small chainmail.

If so, I wonder how logical it is that these same circumstances lead to those weapons upgrading against Unprotected targets, where the upgrade compared to Protected stems from them being more vulnerable...

How is such a perforating attack more deadly to a naked Pict warrior than to a Viking huscarl ?

Best,
Antoine

EDIT : I removed references about artillery, which were irrelevant

You might want to look at the shooting table again.  Artillery do not get an upgrade against unprotected targets and there is no downgrade for Fully Armoured from artillery!

I stand corrected for artillery and will modify the first post accordingly.

My point still stands for others though, why would a musket ball do more damage to an Unprotected target than to a Protected one ?

Best,
Antoine

There could be logic in there being no upgrade, however, having some armour protection does reduce the effect as getting through it takes energy out of a missile so maybe not entirely clear cut.

If the attack has enough energy to bypass a full armour, I doubt the energy loss from a light armor would be enough to make a difference, it does not seem coherent or realistic.

I think you are somewhat simplifying armour here, but as I said there would be logic in there being no upgrade for Firearms against Unprotected.

However, it isn't going to change anytime soon, but something to note for the future.

Aren't there instances where layers of cloth etc worked better against arrows than plate etc? I also have a vague memory of some (probably mythical) story where Richard is showing off to Saladin at a truce meeting by splitting metal plates with his sword so Saladin produces a silk cushion which Richard can't damage and Saladin then halves it with his razor sharp scimitar. There's also the idea that Scottish Schiltrons suffered badly to English longbow because they had so little protection (compared to, for example, English troops of the period) which might be seen as Unprotected vs Protected and Powerbow.

I guess I'm saying that the whole thing is complicated and you are never going to cover all the possibilities with three levels of armour. It's one of those compromises you have to make to have a useable set of rules.

Dave, to refresh your vague memory you could do worse than visit your ladybird collection?
Lance.

Ahh - I knew it was some reliable source      

In reality those weapons don't completely ignore armor. I don't know about you, but if I had to fight someone wielding a pole-ax I'd prefer to do it wearing a full set of articulated plate . But MeG (for good and ill) doesn't have the granularity for partial effectiveness. So given a choice between anti-armor weapons having no benefit against armor, or ignoring it completely, the later is a better compromise from a gameplay perspective. But having armor is still better than none.

That said, I personally think unprotected shouldn't be a drawback (and maybe even a benefit) against elephants. The only protection is getting out of the way!

I understand the elephant case, yet, elephants are rarely alone, they usualy are supported by light troops escorting them and have people on top of them with javelins, bows, pikes to protect the elephants