average damage comparison, on the way to single roll combat

 I leave this here for me to consult thereafter

They are tables that compare the average damage of a strike VS ascending ACs, assuming d6 damage, d6+1 or d8 damage and d6+2 or d10 damage. 

Below is the same table if we assume a 2d6 to hit roll, with the roll excess over AC being the damage done. This rends that the most accurate ACs to convert would be base 5 to plate 8; or using instead 2 types of armor (light and heavy) and make it base 6, light armor 7, heavy armor 8. Shields would either be straight up better than in d20 or can be used as "shields shall be splintered" only (though I really dislike that approach)

Same table, but using ACs from 0 to 6, with attack rolls being made with d6, d8, d10 and d4. Again, excess over AC is the damage dealt. 

I'm uncertain on this one. The most obvious port would be to use d6 as common weapon damage, then 1 as base ac, light armor as 2 and heavy as 3, with 4 being the additional shield. Then using increments in damage die size as the equivalent of character bonuses-to-hit on level ups. According to this sophisticated charts, just using a d8 would increment as much average damage as a +6 to hit in d20 (which is a level 10 fighter in S&W). D10 and d12 would be reserved for monsters.

There is also option 2, to use d8 as the common martial weapon damage, and then make it so Base AC is 2, +1 leather. +2 plate, +1 shield. 

This method, however, only deals with averages, but the theory says that this will make combats have less "miss" results, but hits will normally deal less damage than with separate rolls for hit and damage (even if in the end the monster takes the same amount of turns to drop).