Fordorsia wrote:You need to explain what you mean by trade off.
Basically when switching from the bascinet to the armet there are several separate changes happening at the same time:
1. The helmet shape changes toward a more head conforming one. Thus offering better protection at a presumably greater cost. This is something that's not up for debate right now since it is simply a move for the better.
2. The visor shape changes from a more protective pointy shape to a less protective flat shape that offers better visibility in exchange for less protection due to a less pronounced deflective surface.
These are two distinct changes that happen at the same time but should not be lumped together.
When going from the houndskull to the armet, the only trade off is that you're dumping the terrible visibility of the houndskull for the superior protection, visibilty and comfort of the armet.
That's the thing. The hound skull will have better protective qualities than an armet visor because its pronounced shape will more readily promote glancing and absorb bludgeoning impacts as well as the sheer volume of air providing a standoff against weapons meant to poke through. The armet trades that for a more comfortable visor design.
So my question is what is it that brought upon this change? Why did the knight of the day decided he could survive without the superior protection of that larger visor? Did the helmet shape mean the extra protection was unnecessary? Did they just decide that "fuck it" the uncomfortable long snout wasn't worth it?
Nothing really changed to bring about the armet, like how improving armour protection overall brought about heavily tapered arming swords then the longsword. People just figured out a good way to protect the whole head without restricting it, which wasn't really a huge advancement in the arms race since weapons were already specialized for anti armour work.
Again you are confounding the visor to the helmet. Two separate things.
