Submitted by autism_guy_69 t3_zjw9dr in history
hughjass6939 t1_izynlpf wrote
Reply to comment by thegagis in How many knights in Armor would be on a battle field? by autism_guy_69
>Modern testing indicates that armour was typically extremely effective at protecting against blows from all sorts of weapons and an armoured warrior had a tremendous advantage against any unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.
This is cool to hear. I always wondered when watching movies - what the hell is the point of their armor if literally not once in my movie watching history have I ever seen armor actually stop or deflect a blow from anything?
Makes sense that it's not actually realistic.
thegagis t1_izyo1t9 wrote
Yeah, unfair advantages make for bad stories or bad games.
Real life warfare is all about stacking up as many and as unfair advantages as you possibly can. This applies troughout history up to this day. Makes it hard to sometimes remember that its something that storytelling and game design deliberately get wrong.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments