1dae9d No.14071534
Which do you prefer anons? Realistic or Skimpy?
ec1b46 No.14071558
Alright, how do we "fix" armor? Every RPG has it so it's a damage sponge. Some games even have "evasion" armors that give you a dodge chance, but it's still the same fucking thing at the end of the day.
>Absorb damage
>Avoid damage
>Shitty light/medium/heavy model
>Shitty cloth/leather/mail/plate model
507723 No.14071570
We have this thread every single fucking day
311862 No.14071575
>>14071534
whichever as long as the girl is hot.
0fd2ee No.14071576
>>14071558
what is wrong with this though?
Go play overwatch where everything is cosmetic if you feel that way
03db77 No.14071583
Full armor but highly sexualized.
Realistic armor is alright and bikini armor is gay.
af9c90 No.14071590
Why not both?
>>14071558
I really like the idea of armor acting as a secondary health with different properties (so certain damage types do very little/nothing to it), but it doesn't regenerate and can't be "healed" except for out of combat at a blacksmith.
It means that stripping armor is paramount to opening up different avenues of attack, vs just "hurrdurr do more damage to win".
>>14071576
>IF IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE X, THEN YOU MUST WANT IT TO BE Y!
kys
1dae9d No.14071591
>>14071558
Personally, I like New Vegas way of doing it where it gives a base reduction in damage, but also an absorb amount that negates damage up until a point.
>>14071575
What if she's wearing a helmet?
e6ff29 No.14071612
>>14071558
The only problem with armor absorbing damage is that the person inside it always has three hundred HP instead of three, and that nobody's bothered to make a combat system where wrestling a knight to the ground and then slipping a knife through his armpit to his collarbone is possible.
311862 No.14071625
>>14071558
Nothing wrong with the light and heavy approach, it could even be implemented right if instead of focusing on the damage reduction aspect they also use the light armour to boost resistances against hits that deal status effects.
>heavy armor: standard damage sponge, more prone to get hit, low resistance against status effects
>light armor: less damage reduction, mobility lets the player avoid hits reasonably (no master ninja evader shit), high resistance to status effects
It's not even a new approach but i enjoy it greatly when is present in a game.
>>14071591
Then i would hope there is a cutie under the iron mask.
03db77 No.14071636
>>14071591
>What if she's wearing a helmet?
It better be fucking closed.
I'm honestly trying to find metal armor but the only fully armored girls I can easily find are wearing sci-fi armor, sorry about that.
6d1bf4 No.14071669
6e916f No.14071677
>>14071534
>bikini armor
I guess if I wanted my character to look like some shitty Skyrim mod designed by a twelve year old.
Real armor or get fucking impaled.
1dae9d No.14071683
>>14071636
Dragons Dogma have some pretty good ones.Like the full hemlet that has a visor that opens while in towns but stays closed outside. I loved that one as a warrior.
94bcae No.14071691
I like realistic armor like the 2nd pic, but plate/chainmail on women is my fetish so I'm definitely biased. Not that bikini armor isn't nice, it's just too jarring or retarded sometimes. Really depends on who's wearing it
e6ff29 No.14071694
>>14071677
I love these pictures a lot because they're exactly as full of retarded fantasy nonsense as bikini armor is but they pretend they've got realism on their side.
ec1b46 No.14071696
>>14071612
>Armor is always tied to endurance and strength
>Instead of heavily protecting a weak-ass little fucker inside that dies easy
This is so obvious, wow
311862 No.14071706
>>14071636
i give up, the only fully armoured pics i have right now are of samus thin clothed females galore though
302f1a No.14071712
>>14071677
Nice dubs but
>women
>armor
I guess you want your character to fall helplessly to the ground while she is beaten to death with hammers? You know armor is heavy as fuck and women are weak as shit, right?
311862 No.14071731
>>14071677
>>14071712
full metal armors are pretty useless against the ol' oil and fire too, but what these realistic buffoons don't realise is that there was a lot more to battles than simple sword clashes in the past.
f6665b No.14071749
>>14071534
Pic 2 is by far the best
Women in cool looking full coverage plate armor is my fetish
I don't have access to my folder right now so this is all I have
dcb824 No.14071761
Why do you only want to talk about fake females all the time? Do you ever get laid? Does it ever get old just talking about not-real girls all the time? There's more to video games than that. There's more to anime than that. There's more to fucking life than that.
311862 No.14071771
>>14071749
might as well post what i have, some are non vidya though.
ef0734 No.14071773
>>14071534
I was going to say I like skimpy more, but actually it's just that 99% of games with realistic armor also have ugly women. Pretty girls in realistic armor is actually pretty rare.
f6665b No.14071779
>>14071768
Not a huge fan of titplate, especially when it doesn't even look like a separate part of the armor like that, but yeah pretty much
94bcae No.14071781
>>14071761
At last I finally see the light of truth
>>14071771
I like that first pic, pretty stylish
1dae9d No.14071783
>>14071773
Yeah, not making her with a manjaw and looking like she has BO is a good start.
>>14071749
Actually for fully armored and sleek looking plate, Joan of arc from bladestorm is pretty good.
1dae9d No.14071786
>>14071779
I think it's just cause shes got big tits tbh.
f6665b No.14071792
>>14071786
If it looks like that just because the girl has big tits, then it's not plate
Hell, if it's deformed that much just from some tits, it's not even armor, it's just clothes
311862 No.14071796
>>14071757
those are pretty good but
>5.96MB on a 1523x1827 pic
d9999c No.14071799
>you will never meet an attractive woman who can fight in plate
>you will never spar with her daily, the two of you bonding as your skills increase
Why live?
ef0734 No.14071817
>>14071799
Just go to one of those medieval reenactment thing
412d2c No.14071826
>>14071712
>implying women can't be strong
Samus, Zarya, Amazon, and company would like to have a word with you.
1dae9d No.14071829
>>14071792
Or the armor was made to accomodate the wearer, like most armor that was forged was. It doesn't help if you can barely breathe because your plate is squeezing your chest too tight, unless you're a nofun who wants the chick to be wearing a complete block and then a gambeson or a type of padding underneath.
>>14071796
I dunno anon, I just save em, I don't make em.
>>14071797
Sounds pretty gay, or korean
>>14071799
Make a game about it.
1d20d3 No.14071852
>>14071590
>I really like the idea of armor acting as a secondary health with different properties (so certain damage types do very little/nothing to it), but it doesn't regenerate and can't be "healed" except for out of combat at a blacksmith.
This is the best armour.
Base damage reduction with additional absorption past that point is OK, but not preferred. Say if you take 15 damage and you've got 5 base damage reduction and 50% damage absorption, the attack would only deal 5 damage e.g.
< total_damage = ((attack - base armour[5]) * [damage absorption])
The heavier armour should also reduce dodge bonuses and such, so that the smaller characters can favour avoiding getting hit entirely instead of just making it a game about who can wear the most padding.
>>14071829
The armour not fitting isn't the issue with titplates. It's the fact that there is a fucking dagger pointed at the sternum while wearing the armour. A blow to the chest would cause her fucking armour to stab her. A solid piece that bands across the tits, even if it has to be wider and fuller, is preferred and makes the armour-removal scene even more exciting when you see what ginormous fucking tits she's got underneath
b8a16e No.14071869
>>14071797
I can get behind this.
>>14071799
Chicks love swords, just join any hema/reenactment group/whatever nearby and get yourself a shieldmaiden.
1dae9d No.14071876
>>14071852
Irrelevant since in the real world she'd never be fighting.
22cf7d No.14071891
One thing i like about Kingdom Come's armor, if theyre telling the truth, is that attacking areas at the wrong angle will properly deflect a weapon, rather than armor just being absorption
1dae9d No.14071907
>>14071886
why am I getting furry vibes from these pics?
ef0734 No.14071942
Posting armors that are actually from video games
b8a16e No.14071973
>>14071534
Depends. While I love the way actual armor looks and sounds, the way a character is designed shouldn't be restrained by realism when it gets in the way of expressing the character. Things like general attitude, how they perceive themselves or character growth can be severely hampered by realism.
ec1b46 No.14071977
>>14071907
>Cat ears
>HURR AM I A FURRY
dfc58c No.14071980
311862 No.14072004
>>14071973
i am usually a sucker for anime style armors but the thing that bothers me with jrpgs is that while the relevant characters usually are clad in those, the background characters have pretty normal clothes.
41c2fd No.14072072
>>14071677
>Last pic filename
"Ow my skin"
1dae9d No.14072074
>>14071977
no offense meant anon, was just getting furry vibes, like redwall.
>>14071942
>chris lightfellow
Suikoden 3 was such a disappointment.
>>14071973
I'll admit i've loved a lot of armors that had way too many fucking belts.
>>14072004
1dae9d No.14072078
>>14072017
3rd is dragon quest right?
41c2fd No.14072083
>>14072078
Same artist, so don't blame you It's Chichi from Dragon Ball
6d1bf4 No.14072089
5864c8 No.14072113
>>14071558
it needs to be damage negation up to a certain amount of force on certain damage types bar piercing with specific open points for actual damage(joints, groin and eye holes)
tbh
ce6e1b No.14072167
>>14071797
Armordresses are best.
ddb4e4 No.14072205
If they're hot in it, why not?!
ef0734 No.14072236
>>14072214
That seems pretty impractical unless you can get to the battlefield on foot
424e70 No.14072293
>>14072236
Armour like that was used almost exclusively for showing off and/or foot tournaments, so yes, it would be.
b8a16e No.14072300
>>14072236
>>14072293
Yah, but it does have superior mobility, weight distribution and protection compared to the "vanilla" leg armor.
Also, rad as fuck.
5675ef No.14072311
>>14071583
These types of armor are so god damned sexy.
I can't tell if I want to fuck the woman inside or the armor itself or both.
79eb6d No.14072342
>>14071869
>Chicks love swords
They're bigger fans of nice big spears.
ef0734 No.14072345
>>14072300
>superior mobility
What if you fall down tough?
b8a16e No.14072403
>>14072345
You tend to be fucked either way, wearing a tonlet or regular plate.
A fun point about having the skirt being in contact with the rest of the upper armor is that it lowers your point of balance considerably. Normally wearing armor raises your point of balance a little bit above your normal, making it easier to tip you over(hence armorfighting usually involving a lot of takedowns and wrestling), but with the skirt it manages to make it a little bit easier to stay on your feet.
I do know that the second example comes loose with a latch behind the waist, so you can get back up with relative ease if you do fall.
d0b252 No.14072485
Add something that accents the female form, like an armored kilt, an overflowing gambeson, fur, or just good old curves.
Helmets off if you really need to prove it’s a girl.
ca2891 No.14072510
God I hate battle dresses. Or armor that is half bikini and have plate. Either go full bikini or full plate armor but don't cross. Armor with dresses like OP pic is dumb and gay, shit is gonna get dirty the mini you step outside and somehow stays clean during your entire journey through lava land and under water world? Fuck that. It tires to make them look like formal girls but just adds random plate armor on a dress. So dumb. Looks ugly too. Also why don't mages ever wear armor? Why aren't there battle mages more like The Last Air Bender where their "elemental" magic in this case is quick and more combat like. Instead it's just let me hold this book and read elf shit. Oh look, a catapult can probably haul more flaming rocks than I can per hour.
b8a16e No.14072526
>>14072510
>God I hate battle dresses.
Have some more, then.
6ef6d5 No.14072610
>>14072526
>>14072571
>exposed areas and retarded proportions
Men of taste indeed, shit taste that is.
50a224 No.14072635
Can't say I feel particularly for muscular girls, but bikini armours are absolutely shit.
Why? Because they're basically naked. Undressing them does absolutely nothing, and it takes a real whore to wear something like that in the open. Plowing the spoils of war is only fun if they're unwilling, you know?
b8a16e No.14072641
>>14072610
>HURR FULL PLATE ONLY
>WHO CARES ABOUT WEIGHT, COST, EASE OF USE AND EQUIPING, RIGHT?
You do realize that historically speaking, less is more, right?
7b9475 No.14072677
I prefer discussing video games.
d25267 No.14072696
>>14072641
>HURR
Shit my bad, you're a cuckchanner.
b8a16e No.14072711
Hooktube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>14072688
>>DURR MOBILITY
Yes, yes. You can fight with armor, everyone knows that.
>still to heavy to lug around without a squire when not worn
>still costs a fortune
>still requires considerable training to be effective with and a protein rich diet
>still requires a squire to get into
b8a16e No.14072753
Instead of full plate, let's see what people actually used and carried in their everyday lives as armor. You know, stuff which doesn't get in the way, isn't a huge pain in the ass to keep from rusting constantly and isn't so expensive that you're essentially carrying a fortune on yourself for everyone to see.
First up, the almost universal in applications; the rondel! Strap it to your hand, a small shield that can be worn even on your sword hand to cover the back of the hand! Put it on your joints, put it on your belt! Hell, put it on your full plate on those hard to cover spots like the front of the armpit and the side of the knee! 10/10 armor piece!
Second up, the one already introduced just now! The jack of chains! Cheap, cheap, cheap! Light, light, light! Any smith can make them, any soldier can afford them, anyone can wear them all day every day while they offer considerable protection against most strikes, cuts and blows. 9/10, kind of bothersome to put on but worth it.
Lastly, one of the oldest on this list, yet also the one which has seen use the longest into the modern era! Even as firearms pushed out the cuirass and heavy plates, people still wore the gorget right up until the second world war! Offering protection around the throat and collarbones, it reinforces one of the weakest parts of the human body for essentially no downsides! Light, cheap, can be worn with nigh on anything! So fashionable armies still wear them as ceremonial pieces! It will save your life, so make sure to always wear it! 10/10.
Oh and helmets, I guess. But everyone knows about helmets.
f0ad95 No.14072768
>>14072711
>not having a squire
Look at this peasent. Look at how sad of a being he is.
d034f4 No.14072773
496c42 No.14072781
>>14072753
Seems utterly worthless considering that that sort of armor is worthless against anything that is used to stab with. A poor man's mail at best.
98907e No.14072791
>>14072641
>>14072753
Regardless of your questionable sexuality, thank you for introducing me to the jack of chains.
b8a16e No.14072804
>>14072768
I have a stick and I know how to use it, back off.
>>14072781
Sure, but as most any style of combat which is not based around solely using thrusts say, "always begin with a strike (and then transition into a thrust)", since thrusts are much more easy to parry and avoid comparatively.
496c42 No.14072817
>>14072804
Yeah but at the end of the day it's still useless against any sort of thrusting weapon. Why not just use mail or plate, if you can afford it? Beggar's armor for Beggars, and so on
98d7bb No.14072829
>>14072817
Unless you pissed off the guards the only thrusting weapons you should be dealing with on a potential day-to-day basis in your home going about your day are daggers and swords. If you're being raided by bandits you've got other things to worry about like having your own weapons ready and GTFO or fight to defend your home.
b8a16e No.14072837
>>14072817
>Why not just use mail or plate
As I detailed above, it's heavy, it's expensive and its cumbersome.
Maille in particular is extremely heavy in comparison to plate and plate rusts like a motherfucker when you wear it. And since you want to have plate be relatively thin to keep it light, it is also susceptible to rusting through so you really want to keep it out of harms way.
Besides, you're still wearing a gambeson underneath and that's like a modern stabproof vest. The armor pieces I talked about are used to protect the parts most vulnerable in fights. Even with a gambeson or a maille, your throat and collarbones are highly vulnerable to hard blows so you really do still want a gorget. A full plate includes a gorget, too.
The rondel is for the back of the hand which is the most vulnerable in any fight and can be worn anywhere whereas proper gauntlets are really restrictive when it comes to everyday tasks and dexterity.
And still like I said, thrusts are easier to defend against with your weapon if you know what you're doing. Even dodging it is easier, since it's not a line but a point.
e334f7 No.14072853
>>14071869
I prefer gunmaidens thank you very much.
>>14072837
Just blue and wool wax your mail.
1a4554 No.14072860
>>14072837
Proof that the image people have of medieval fighting- people walking around with chain mail always on, plate armour in abundance, heavy swords as standard equipment- is completely retarded and fantastical to begin with.
496c42 No.14072867
>>14072829
Yeah, that's kind of my point though. It's not really good for day to day shit since alot of day to day weapons you might encounter are primarily thrusting weapons.
>>14072837
Eh, it rusts, but so what? If you can afford it and the costs of maintaining it and preventing rust, it's the superior choice. As for gambesons being stabproof, I doubt that. It'd be much harder to cut than to stab through, and if it was stab and cut proof, nobody would ever have worn anything but gambesons.
As far as weight and being cumbersome goes, it's not really, the other anon posted a video showing that you can get a full range of motion with plate; Which is far heavier than Chainmail, as you wrongly claimed. Chainmail only weighed, at most, around 60-80lbs, and Plate a few dozens more.
With rondels, I don't think that's a problem. Nobody walked around wearing gauntlets all the time, but I don't think they wore rondels either.
As for thrusts being easier to defend against, please provide proofs, because I have no reason to believe you and experience has taught me otherwise.
98d7bb No.14072882
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>14072867
>Yeah, that's kind of my point though.
>
> As for gambesons being stabproof, I doubt that.
You know nothing.
c24263 No.14072894
>not having a wind fetish
6e9f0e No.14072898
I think bikini armor is probably far and away the most protective thing a woman can wear, honestly. Because, realistically, any random untrained, unarmed peasant man in rags is going to beat her in a fight no matter what she's equipped with, and if she's in bikini armor at least he'll know she's a woman and might keep her alive for struggle snuggles rather than just beating her head in with a rock or some stick or something.
496c42 No.14072902
>>14072882
>Chainmail test
>This proves gambesons were stab-proof
You proved my point for me, and I didn't even have to go looking for it. Thank you.
b8a16e No.14072906
>>14072853
>mail
As in the chain armor or the plate? Chain maille moves around constantly so both any kind of wax and rust gets worn off pretty quick, giving it a nice patina. Plate is the real bitch. Wax was a common way to deal with it(and a thousand other things, bee's wax was used for fucking everything) but I am not aware of any bluing methods for plate in the medieval eras. So usually as you sweat and move around, often rubbing fabric against the plate, the wax gets removed slowly. Add in sweat, grime and water and rust becomes a serious issue.
>>14072860
Acceptable breaks from reality, I suppose. Though I'd love to see some "rogues" using langes messer. That's the real jackass weapon that a cutthroat would be using.
>>14072867
So now you are not only lugging around a heavy piece of armor, you're also lugging around all the bee's wax you need to keep it from rusting on you every day.
>As for gambesons being stabproof, I doubt that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMYv5wtNm8
It's not entirely stabproof, but it does marvels. Also, it breathes and is much much lighter than plate.
>nobody would ever have worn anything but gambesons.
Same issue as with maille; it's inefficient at stopping blunt trauma. You get internal bruising and broken bones if you get hit. A plate's effectiveness stems from how effectively it disperses the force.
>Which is far heavier than Chainmail, as you wrongly claimed. Chainmail only weighed, at most, around 60-80lbs, and Plate a few dozens more.
No, see the amount of material used in a ring compared to a shell for the same area on the body is more, so there's more metal there. It's heavier and since it's so flexible it all rests on your shoulders and your hips(if you have a belt, which wasn't always the case). Plate disperses the weight more efficiently since it supports itself and is tied to the gambeson worn beneath(which is why you see strings on the outside of gambesons.)
>but I don't think they wore rondels either.
Rondels(and bucklers, which are just a little bit bigger rondels, really) were worn on your belt as everyday items, though. That's the point, they're so light you can take them everywhere.
>As for thrusts being easier to defend against
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0D4u4Aeks
Also, consider the Strong and Weak of a sword for example. If you extend the point straight at them, it is relatively easy to bind it and then push it to the side due to leverage since you're at a wider distance. The longer the weapon, the easier this becomes.
If you look at manuals as well, you generally see thrusts used as finishers when you've outmaneuvered the opponent after entering with a blow. Like in messerfechten, where you usually grab and grapple them before stabbing them.
98d7bb No.14072925
>>14072902
Actually I just posted that cause nobody else did.
Gambesons are about roughly 15-45 layers of heavy linen or wool depending on why it's being worn, you are not going to be able to go through that very well without the ice pick grip with a dagger and you could only reliably get in close for a thrust with a sword if the other guy didn't have his own sword drawn out. Even the slashing that could get through a gambeson reliably required the blade to be minimum very sharp but ideally razor sharp.
6ef6d5 No.14072930
>>14072882
Seeing these videos always makes me wonder where and how the metal was produced, metalurgy has come a long way since those times and I doubt any mail today is made with metal produced with the same methods as back then.
b8a16e No.14072933
Hooktube embed. Click on thumbnail to play. Not really a gambeson, but a fascimile of one. Multiple layers of fabric gives you quite a bit of resistance to stabs.
f5d7cc No.14072945
>>14071677
>"fantastic realism"
>double headed axe
>giant horns that make doorways a hassle for this heroine
>less realistic than the manga depiction, which is skimpy but at least somewhat grounded
I don't get it. Exaggerated mythology might have been more appropriate.
496c42 No.14072960
>>14072906
Yep, and I don't have a problem with lugging it around if It's going to save my life, and neither did anyone else.
As with blunt trauma, yes, but that's a given. The gambeson underneath the mail should help cushion it, but it's rather difficult to stop blunt force at all.
And no, going by the weight of authentic full plate and full chain (That covers all parts of the body), plate still weighs more than chain. When it comes to weight dispersion, of course you'd use a belt. Its lower overall weight makes it not a whole lot different, in practice, it's the flexibility that counts more.
My mistake in regards to Rondels; I was referring to wearing them on your fist, as if you were always ready to use them. Wearing them on a belt seems perfectly reasonable.
On thrusts, the video kinda supports my claims, rather than argues against it. Plus, you're arguing that you'd wear that sort of skimpy metal armor armor for everyday use right? I don't think you'd be completely able to see and stop a blow if someone were just going to attack you with a dagger or the likes. As for the strong and weak, that's not going to help much, you still have to see and react in time to stop the blow, and that window of opportunity is pretty small when it comes to thrusts. The manuals that I've seen don't really argue against that either; a thrust is deadly and works to finish people off far better than a cut.
>>14072933
Resistant, yes, but not stab-proof, and something tells me if they were as effective as they were made out to be, Knights would've been wearing three gambesons in battle rather than layers of gambeson, chain, and plate.
e46988 No.14072983
>>14071534
>Which do you prefer anons? Realistic or Skimpy?
Living
ca2891 No.14072993
>>14072610
Thanks for backing me up buddy. Good poster, I like you.
e334f7 No.14072999
>>14072906
The chain. I rarely have rust on my set due to the bluing and a hit of wool wax, hell the wool wax soaks into the gambeson always leaving some coating on said chain if I reverse it now and then. Of course chain with gun blue is farb like a guy wearing a DDR jacket at a ww2 event but whatever.
98d7bb No.14073004
>>14072960
>Yep, and I don't have a problem with lugging it around if It's going to save my life, and neither did anyone else.
It was common practice to ditch the top part of the helmet once the battle got down to down and dirty sword fighting between a few men because it was too cumbersome for them to deal with two metal helmets at the same time. This was during the time of the iconic bucket helmet. Being able to see and breathe was more important, which is why the bucket helmet lost favor compared to most helmet designs since men preferred the risk of getting stabbed through the face. When knights weren't actually prepared for war or doing important duties where they were expecting potential fights with important tasks they stuck with wearing patches of their plate with their gambeson or an entirely different gambeson a padded jack. Because they didn't need to wear the whole thing all the time.
>Knights would've been wearing three gambesons in battle rather than layers of gambeson, chain, and plate.
Knights and Men-at-Arms only wore that much when they went out to fight in battles during war and border skirmishes or just on gaurd duty or something because you were facing off against such nasty things like polearm charges on horseback which would rip right through the comparatively low quality metal of your plate and mail, and maces. And it's padded jack + maille, or gambeson + mail + plate the gambesons worn with plate had to have less layers for everything to fit.
>I don't think you'd be completely able to see and stop a blow if someone were just going to attack you with a dagger or the likes
Where do you think cloak and dagger comes from?
b8a16e No.14073005
>>14072960
>Yep, and I don't have a problem with lugging it around if It's going to save my life, and neither did anyone else.
No you wouldn't and no they didn't. Shit just gets in the way.
>authentic full plate and full chain (That covers all parts of the body), plate still weighs more than chain
Full body plate weighs less than full body maille, even if you don't believe it. Less metal is less metal.
>of course you'd use a belt
Historical accounts are divided. Early crusaders with the long-ass maille shirts tended to not wear belts iirc.
>in practice, it's the flexibility that counts more.
But that's what makes it heavier to wear compared to plate. The plate is tied to the gambeson so it's dispersed over the whole body. The maille bunches up and hangs off of specific points on the body, concentrating the weight there. It's one hell of a shoulder work out, let me tell you.
>On thrusts, the video kinda supports my claims, rather than argues against it.
4:29 onwards.
>I don't think you'd be completely able to see and stop a blow if someone were just going to attack you with a dagger or the likes.
Assuming the element of surprise, sure. But in that case any attack would drop you, really.
>As for the strong and weak, that's not going to help much
See the thing is, if I hold a blade in the way and you just thrust at me. So long as I have contact at the weak at the start, your blade will go off-line and miss me as you complete the thrust. The extended weak of a thrust is easy to displace, it's just physics.
>window of opportunity is pretty small when it comes to thrusts
No, as the video I posted points out, a thrust takes a relatively long time to bridge the distance and are difficult to modify indes like a blow is. Like the part I specified earlier says regarding the manuals, it says "enter with a blow, then thrust".
>a thrust is deadly and works to finish people off far better than a cut.
Certainly, but it is easier to ward against and more difficult to change into another attack when it fails to connect.
>Resistant, yes, but not stab-proof,
Stopping 2 out of 4 arrows from a 100 pound warbow at extremely close range should be good enough for anyone who isn't expecting to get into a fight. Also >>14072933 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso&t=120s
>Knights would've been wearing three gambesons in battle rather than layers of gambeson, chain, and plate.
Well, no. To get equivalent protective value, the thickness grows such that movement becomes impossible and the heat of wearing it would become unbearable I'd imagine as well. Also, it wears down much more quickly so in a prolonged and desperate struggle it would eventually be broken. A piece of plate armor or maille will usually take a hell of a lot more to break, so when you do need absolute protection, then it's just better to go through the extra effort. When you're not at war though, fuck that noise. Gambeson so fucking comfy.
>>14072999
Acceptable breaks from "proper gear", I'd say. If bluing was a known technique you can be everyone would have been doing it a thousand years ago.
e334f7 No.14073016
>>14073005
I guess, almost makes me want to get a good set of plate and case harden the shit outta it.
b8a16e No.14073025
>>14073016
I've love a shear-thickening fluid treated gambeson. Shit would be bulletproof.
496c42 No.14073036
>>14073004
I can buy that, when helmets were inferior they'd be ditched in favor of mobility and sight. That actually makes alot of sense. Although I'd still think they'd wear either chainmail or just ordinary clothing (Ordinary for their status) if they're not immediately expecting a fight.
And hey, I'm not the one who thinks that an ordinary street fight is going to involve fancy poses and posturing.
>>14073005
Yes I would, and yes they did. You can deny that all you want, but the historical evidence shows otherwise.
And no, full mail still weighed less than full plate. A full suit of mail would weigh 60-80lbs at the very most, while Plate would weigh upwards of 60 Kilograms. If you're just going to say 'Nuh uh', nobody is going to take you seriously, you know.
As far as belts, I don't believe you. Likewise with flexibility, it's not 'heavier', it's just not as easily dispersed, but a belt fixes that rather handily, you'd know that if you'd wore it as you wish to imply you did.
4:29 Onwards mentions nothing about thrusts being ineffective, the opposite really.
And no, not really. A slashing attack won't drop you, or even always lethally injure you, but a good stab, yeah, those are pretty lethal. A gambeson would do a bit to resist that, but some skimpy metal armor wouldn't do anything whatsoever against it.
Ehh, relatively long? I don't think you've seen much in the way of knife fights. It's pretty quick and brutal, much more so than just slashing, really. And it's not much easier to ward against, and it's not particularly hard to change into a different attack; You could just turn it into a slash, afterall.
As far as arrows go, they have notoriously poor penetration, and even skallagrim admitted that his gambeson replica wasn't exactly right and probably wouldn't function the same. Plus, again, just apply a little common sense. If it were that immensely effective, there'd be no use for other armor. That is why, of course, other people did wear less universally useable, yet far more protective armor, because Gambeson was not as great as you believe it is, in the end, it was just padding.
e334f7 No.14073038
>>14073025
>shear-thickening fluid
The only downside I can see to that is you'll still get blunt force trauma and said gambeson might become solid like a rock
27983a No.14073047
>>14072205
People who pull the “realistic armor on women!” Meme are all either feminists or realism autists that probably have six gorillian mods installed on a copy of Skyrim, roughly half of which have the work “realistic” in the title
ca2891 No.14073056
>>14073025
And where is that armor now? Nowhere to be found. Which is why people today buy AR500 cause it works, cheap, and reliable.
12c8d8 No.14073070
>historical armor!
>fantasy armor!
Fucking please. Powered or go home.
f6665b No.14073099
>>14073070
Most power armor is pretty gay compared to a mech
98d7bb No.14073106
>>14073036
>Although I'd still think they'd wear either chainmail or just ordinary clothing (Ordinary for their status)
That would be a gambesons, those were pretty standard clothes for everyone. It's like you'd want your bare flesh cut open.
>And hey, I'm not the one who thinks that an ordinary street fight is going to involve fancy poses and posturing.
Streetfights during that time are a complete unknown, outside the wicked cloaks they used which were effective against daggers it's generally unknown what it looked like in practice. Only the fighting manuals are left, and they teach basic stuff like how to lock another guy's sword thrust and wrenching it away while keeping your sword ready to hit him at the same time. From all the sparring videos I've seen the thrust opening only works if you're faster and catch the other guy off guard otherwise you're wide open.
>And no, not really. A slashing attack won't drop you, or even always lethally injure you, but a good stab, yeah, those are pretty lethal.
The period we're talking about is generally a given that any serious cuts or stabs are far, far more lethal then you assume them to be purely because of shit medical care. Getting a serious cut and you're as good as dead from the infection.
>but some skimpy metal armor wouldn't do anything whatsoever against it.
You keep mentioning this but rondels were as thick as plates used in plate armor since those circular things attached to the shoulders in some plate armor pics are rondels. Jack chains are more for protecting your bones from breaking. Gordets are a piece of plate. And this stuff may have been lower quality metal but it's not like a tin can.
b8a16e No.14073167
>>14073036
>A full suit of mail would weigh 60-80lbs at the very most, while Plate would weigh upwards of 60 Kilograms.
<"A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg. The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armour was spread evenly throughout the body."
Where the fuck are you getting your numbers from? You're literally doubling numbers on top of switching units.
>but the historical evidence shows otherwise.
You mean how blossfechten manuals are ten times more prevalent than harnischfechten ones? Or how every Italian, German and French master places primary importance on learning to fight without armor?
>As far as belts, I don't believe you.
https://youtu.be/gYpFtVQlgLc?t=8m46s
>you'd wore it as you wish to imply you did.
I sold mine, actually. But have another old picture from when I opened the box.
>4:29 Onwards mentions nothing about thrusts being ineffective, the opposite really.
It literally shows what happens when you stab; guy in blue strikes, displaces and then kills the guy who stabs. And both the manuals he then shows also advocate for striking first. Good job, failing to understand a 30 second clip. Actually listen to what he says; stabbing is slow and cannot change in mid-motion as well as a strike. The strike allows you to indes change and adapt to what the opponent is doing, allowing you to react and win against someone who for example stabs.
>And no, not really.
Yes really. Cuts are quite effective at killing people, as the military sabre reigning the battlefield as thrusting swords saw more use as civilian dueling weapons throughout history attests. Hell, in the "Swordsmen of the British Empire" there a several cases where an Englishman manages to run through an opponent only to get taken out by the would-be slain opponent as they continue to hit him. This is why HEMA takes the double hit so seriously, too.
>Ehh, relatively long? I don't think you've seen much in the way of knife fights.
What are you even talking about? What of my post are you citing? What weapon are you talking about?
>You could just turn it into a slash
A knife, perhaps. But longer weapons, which saw use in battle rather than civilian use, almost universally advocate the cut-into-thrust over a thrust. With the point extended, to go into a cut you have to pull back the sword and then go forward which is very slow. Hell, the Germans have a term purely for punishing such a movement, called the nachreissen.
>because Gambeson was not as great as you believe it is
Christ, I can't even imagine what kind of strawman you're making me out to be inside your head. Gambesons saw nigh on universal use on the battlefield by anyone who could afford them, including men-at-arms and drafted peasants who could afford it. Will it stop everything? No. Will it protect you for cheap? Yes. Is it much, much more comfortable and reasonable to wear in everyday life? Yes, yes it is. No one walks around every day wearing a plate chestpiece for goodness' sake.
12c8d8 No.14073183
>>14073099
Good thing this is an armor thread, not a mecha thread. Most mecha suck compared to iceblocks with bubblegum in them, but that's not the point.
b8a16e No.14073209
>>14073038
Nah, it disperses the blunt force quite well from what I can tell. And it softens up as soon as the impact is over. Marvelous stuff.
>>14073056
>And where is that armor now?
In prisons and police forces around the world. Being able to halve the amount of layers in a kevlar vest and also turning it stab resistant is just too good to pass up. Not that it will stop an assault rifle round, that's what steel plates are for.
>>14073156
>ribs, inner and outer thigh not covered by plate
Those are the parts where you usually get hit, rather than the direct front.
>no side of the knee protection
Just asking for a shattered knee, really. It's overdesigned, but looks pretty rad.
496c42 No.14073230
>>14073106
Gambesons all the time? I don't buy that. Alot of nobles and commoners were shown wearing clothes that look absolutely nothing like gambesons, and have no padding to speak of. I'm sure it was worn, but by everyone? I'll need some evidence to believe that.
I don't imagine a medieval knife fight to be much different from a modern one, except for the sirens that follow when the fight is over. and modern ones involve alot of very quick stabs, followed by a very quick getaway. As far as fighting manuals, I doubt the average commoner was well versed in them, and I really don't see your point in saying that thrusts were ineffective when they clearly weren't.
I don't buy that either. Infection was a danger, but not that dangerous, and not meaningful within the context of a fight. The guy you slashed 5 times can die of an infection a few weeks later, but if he still killed you with one good stab, it's pointless. A solid puncture wound is often immediately crippling, a cut, not so much.
Rondels can be as thick as you want, but they still aren't covering much. The slope on them also seems like a bad and utterly ineffective way to defend yourself, since any sort of stab directed towards them would be redirected towards your less armored bits. The lack of coverage won't really help with thrusts.
>>14073167
Oh, old historical books and the word of hema instructors and such things. Useless sources of course, your non-existant ones are far superior.
As for blossfechten and harnischfechten, that still doesn't support your claim that full plate was apparently useless and gambeson made you unkillable.
And in regards to belts, you're shooting yourself in the foot when Matt goes on to say that belts usually weren't worn in conjunction with plate armor. You really don't seem to have a clue of what you're talking about.
That's a cool picture, but it still doesn't help your point whatsoever, especially when everyone else has disagreed with it. Or did you even watch Matt's video there?
And no, not really. It gives an example of why you shouldn't open with a thrust, but you'd be naive or downright foolish to think that applies to street fights, or thrusts in general.
Cuts are quite affective at killing people? Not at all, compared to Thrusts. You do alot more damage by messing up someone's internal organs than you do by causing mostly superficial damage.
If you don't understand what about your post I'm referring to, you might want to stop and think about what you're saying before you click the reply button.
And now you're proving my point by telling me than in an ordinary setting, where you might wear gambeson rather than a full compliment of armor, thrusts are actually effective? Come on now, atleast stay consistent.
There's no strawman when you claim things are stab-proof, then stab-resistant, and then claim that plate and chain were nowhere near as good. And yes, cheap, padded armor would see universal use; It's every effective for its cost,it serves as padding itself for if you have real chain or plate, and so on and so forth. Interestingly, you seem to have this idea that someone is saying people walked around wearing plate armor on the regular, yet nobody ever made that claim, it just seems you thought, or rather, imagines a strawman who made that claim.
b8a16e No.14073234
>>14073230
>that still doesn't support your claim that full plate was apparently useless and gambeson made you unkillable.
MAXIMUM STRAWMAN
3c2a34 No.14073241
>>14071534
>women in armour
>women fighting
I prefer them being raped as God intended. He knows they're begging for it
88e60d No.14073247
>come to an armor thread to profess that armor is invalid
>gets shit on by people who love armor and understand it
>shits up the thread further by continuing to state that full armor is
>useless
>weighty
>costly
>high maintenance
>cumbersome
>inflexible
>etc
40b1e9 No.14073279
Both look good, and both have their place. In general I prefer realistic, but it really depends on the context of the game.
c96320 No.14073311
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>14071534
>Realistic or Skimp
Realisticaly speaking women wouldn't be in pre-
>>14071712
>armor is heavy as fuck
For a woman perhaps, but not for man
Regardless of realism I think plate armor looks cooler
c96320 No.14073315
>>14073311
*meant to say Realistically women wouldn't be in pre-gun combat, because melee and archery combat required more strength
b8a16e No.14073325
>>14073230
>Oh, old historical books
Okay, show me a book where it says a full plate armor weighs upwards of 60 kilograms.
>full plate was apparently useless
Where did I say this?
>gambeson made you unkillable
Where did I say this?
>Matt goes on to say that belts usually weren't worn
"It was quite common to NOT wear a belt. If you look at historical artwork, you can see lots of, umm, people wearing maille-shirts with NO belt around the middle. but EQUALLY—"
Literal citation. If you don't understand English, that's fine, but that is literally what he says.
>everyone else has disagreed with it
It's just you and me, buddy. Argumentum ad populum are worthless.
>but you'd be naive or downright foolish to think that applies to street fights, or thrusts in general.
Okay, ignore historical manuals written by people who killed people with sharp weapons.
>Cuts are quite affective at killing people? Not at all, compared to Thrusts. You do alot more damage by messing up someone's internal organs than you do by causing mostly superficial damage.
Internal organ failure is a slow death, compared to exsanguination. As per Fairbarn-Sykes, cutting the throat, the inner arm or the inside of the leg lead to deaths very quickly and cuts as per the old manuals, cuts are always aimed at those.
Most stab wounds do no kill instantly if you do not hit a major bloodvein; compare to handguns which fail to kill 5/8 people because it doesn't cause enough bleeding and hospitals handle the infections. People literally walk off bullet wounds and ruin their lives from paying the hospital fees.
>and then claim that plate and chain were nowhere near as good
Where did I say this? Stop strawmanning you idiot. Citation literally fucking required.
>you seem to have this idea that someone is saying people walked around wearing plate armor on the regular, yet nobody ever made that claim,
See >>14073036
>>"Yes I would, and yes they did."
Someone literally made that claim. YOU literally made that claim.
You are the single-most dishonest debater I have the misfortune of ever meeting.
>>14073247
And another strawman to the pile. Where did I say, that armor is useless? And it is heavy, to the point where you need literally to have servants just to transport it for you outside of battle and have them put it on for you. It is costly, the stuff is literally custom-made over weeks and months. It is high maintenance. Carbon steel rusts extremely easily and sweat will literally overnight cause it to rust if you haven't a layer of wax on top.
f6665b No.14073332
>>14073183
Mechs are covered in armor
And since they have people inside them, the whole dame things can also be considered armor
496c42 No.14073401
>>14073325
Pretty sure Matt has a video on it. If he doesn't, oh well, it's still heavier than chain.
You can look to your first post if you want to see where you claimed full plate was shitty and gambeson was the end-all be all stab-proof armor.
You missed Matt's second statement, that they usually weren't worn with plate armor. And regardless, the historical artwork would still show mostly people in chain and plate armor, which would disprove your entire point. You're damned if you agree with him and damned if you disagree, now.
When I refer to everyone, I refer to everyone who has worn chain. Nobody really complains about their shoulders hurting or thinks its super heavy except you, the only person here who also thinks that plate armor was bad.
I will ignore historical manuals for duels and take lessons from people who have actually been in knife fights, yes, you'd do well to do the same.
Internal organ failure is not a slow death, though. If you get stabbed in the lungs or heart, you will die fairly quickly. exsanguination isn't really a big threat from mere cuts, even the image you posted shows that. lus, you do realize that those are for stabbing, right?
Nobody said they kill instantly. To disable is not to kill, please learn to read.
I'm not going to cite your own post. If you're so ramblingly incoherent that you can't remember what you wrote, you're not going to learn anything from me linking it.
Where in my post, or any of my posts, do I say that people walked in Plate regularly? I never said that even once. You should stop projecting onto others and actually read your own sources, you might learn a little.
12c8d8 No.14073407
>>14073332
So does this mean mean spaceships are personal armor?
046654 No.14073408
>>14071797
This nigga gets it. When it comes to vidya, it's all about style at the end of the day.
98d7bb No.14073422
>>14073230
>Gambesons all the time? I don't buy that.
Gambesons, brigadines, and tabards were worn regularly. It's quilted linen and wool this is the medieval period where noblemen who became knights were expected to be able to fight. Gambesons that are 7-14 layers is basically clothing during that time it's also affordable for commoners.
>I don't imagine a medieval knife fight to be much different from a modern one
Everyone is armed you know, only the most lowly peasant didn't at least have a short sword.
>and I really don't see your point in saying that thrusts were ineffective when they clearly weren't.
I didn't say they weren't? I said if you were going to open with them then you have to be fast and catch them off guard. Just so we're clear I'm talking about a sword, not a short one that's basically the length of a machete, I mean a long sword which were typically 27 inches long or more ( a meter is 39.37 inches) missing a thrust and being able to recover is only possible if your at the very edge of your reach and that's not worth shit. And they had guards to catch and hold the blade so you can't just angle it without strong arming it to aim.
>I don't buy that either. Infection was a danger, but not that dangerous, and not meaningful within the context of a fight.
You are taking the readily available modern medicine both drugs and other things for granted, wounds from being cut deeply would regularly kill the man weeks later from infection treatment usually involved shoving poisonous mercury into you and sewing you back up without anesthetics. The "kill them with one good stab" would only be possible without a helmet and without a gorget otherwise adrenaline means he can kill you in turn which was semi-common because torso stabs aren't exactly reliable and chances are good your dagger might be caught in his gambeson eventually. People survived getting stabbed wearing gambesons.
>The slope on them also seems like a bad and utterly ineffective way to defend yourself, since any sort of stab directed towards them would be redirected towards your less armored bits.
Did you actually listen to the guy who told you the rondel was used outside a full plate suit to protect the back of the hands? At all?
959359 No.14073423
>Starting this meme thread with a picture of Forte
b6d16e No.14073445
I think the combination of health armor and flat damage-reduction type armor is the best, if coupled with a good variety of enemy attacks and scenarios. Then the player has to make a choice about what kinds of armor to wear based off of organic game elements like base attack-damage vs number of attacks, and there are trade-offs between survivability and tankyness. The key is in the flat damage-reduction. Compare XCOM: Long War and League of Legends.
LoL has mostly health items and *percentage* damage reduction items, which means that tanks inevitably build both according it an algorithm that results in the maximum effective health. There are some exceptional abilities, like percentage based damage, that alter the optimal build in a minor and predictable way, but these feel like shoehorned elements in an arbitrary complex game that test your game knowledge and not creativity or problem solving, not to mention the distinction between attack and magic damage or penetration.
Long War, on the other hand, has various tanking items and abilities based around damage reduction and health. Their utility synergizes in a manner that depends situationally on the type, combination, and number of enemies encountered, and the tactical imagination of the player. There is also an interesting strategic element, where troops incur more fatigue and penalties when their health drops too low. The system accommodates multiple strategies while optimization is ambiguous and interesting.
b8a16e No.14073450
>>14073401
No, where the fuck does is say that plate armor weighs upwards of 60kg? Citation fucking required asshat.
>first post is >>14071869
CITATION FUCKING REQUIRED
>>14073401
>You missed Matt's second statement, that they usually weren't worn with plate armor.
Yes, and there was a "but equally" there as well. This effectively turns the statement into a logical AND operation, meaning both things are true. Literally "equally", meaning just as much, MEANING BOTH WERE THE CASE. That plate with maille was worn without belt does not mean that maille was not also worn sometimes without a belt.
>the historical artwork would still show mostly people in chain and plate armor
No, he is referring to the first conditional in the sentence. Grammatically he cannot be speaking of the second half when he is referring to the historical pictures as he he says "BUT equally—". That's how the English language works.
>I refer to everyone who has worn chain.
A quick google search will find you a good dozen results of people complaining about aching shoulders. Have you ever worn it for a full day? I have. Have you ever walked 15 kilometers while wearing it? I have. Shit is fucking heavy to wear for 10 hours.
>the only person here who also thinks that plate armor was bad.
When have I said that plate is bad? CITATION REQUIRED once fucking again. I have done nothing but heap praise on plate as defensive equipment, saying how effective and light and superb it is at keeping you fucking alive.
>take lessons from people who have actually been in knife fights
Go on, present your sources then.
>Internal organ failure is not a slow death
Most of the abdominal organs are.
> If you get stabbed in the lungs or heart, you will die fairly quickly.
Do you know why? Because the brain stops getting oxygen. What does exsanguination do? Stop the brain from getting oxygen.
>To disable is not to kill, please learn to read.
Ah, moving goalposts now? And like I mentioned earlier in the "Swordsmen of the British Empire" example, stabbing someone is a fun way to get your weapon stuck in them and a blow to the head.
>I'm not going to cite your own post. If you're so ramblingly incoherent that you can't remember what you wrote, you're not going to learn anything from me linking it.
So instead you're going to strawman and make up shit? Cool.
>do I say that people walked in Plate regularly?
Let's start at the beginning:
Me:
>>14072711
<still to heavy to lug around without a squire when not worn
>>14072906
<So now you are not only lugging around a heavy piece of armor,
You:
>>14072960
>Yep, and I don't have a problem with lugging it around
>>14073036
>Yes I would,
Thanks for playing.
b8a16e No.14073454
>>14073450
>>do I say that people walked in Plate regularly?
<"Yes I would, and yes they did."
496c42 No.14073484
>>14073422
I'm still not sure I can buy that. Tabards sure, brigandines sure, gambesons sure. They were all worn, but not by everyone all the time, and nobles being expected to fight wouldn't change that. Also, we've gone from 15-45 layers to 7-14 layers, are you messing up your numbers or am I missing something?
Sure, everyone is armed, but what's that got to do with what I said? And it does depend on the period as to how common swords were.
Oh, that's different then. I didn't imagine longswords were a popular tool during everyday fights, so I wasn't considering them. In that case, you're probably right.
I'm not taking them for granted, I'm considering it realistically. If every cut was practically a death sentence, nobody would have lived beyond their first attempts at cooking, and you could count the survivors of most medieval battles on your fingers. Sorry, but I don't believe that at all. And in regards to torso stabs, you should actually look at the results of modern knife fights, a single blow, not even particularly well aimed, can bring a person down and leave him incapacitated. Not dead, maybe, but incapacitated, and there were plenty of ways to more or less guarantee a person's death if you hit them in the wrong place with a good stab, be it slow or quick, cuts, unless you are the Hulk or a fantasy movie character, just aren't going to do that much internal damage.
And yes, I did. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is here. I'm referring to this image specifically. If someone was to strike this guy on the plate itself, the shape of it would redirect the blow straight into his arm and/or shoulder.
>>14073450
My bad, your first and most obnoxious post, if you'd rather. As for your citations, please see the prior posts.
Also, no, not really. Going by what Matt said, it seems that belts and Mail weren't used in conjunction with plate armor, there's really no reason to assume that medieval people were too stupid to figure out they worked fine without plate armor. Your attempts at sophistry won't really help you here.
Yes, I have worn Chain Armor, I even got the opportunity to wear some Plate Armor once, although I do not own any. Aching shoulders isn't really an issue. If it is, you might have posture issues. On the other hand nobody is agreeing with you accept, well, yourself.
Again, scroll up and read over your posts. If you weren't getting so assblasted at being wrong, you might realize just how incoherent you are. Especially when you claim that you were heaping praise on it, only to, a few lines in this same post, refer to your other posts where you complained about how bad it was.
I find it amusing that you want me to present sources, but your response to any disagreement is 'Well google search it!' or to give me a clip of a video that you yourself didn't even watch. Well, I'll take your lead and do the exact same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0jwpwzGpGQ Please see this for a short example on how knife fighting works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwXpXg78VQA Here, you can get a longer, lengthier explanation, also from a guy who wears chain regularly and doesn't complain about his aching shoulders
Nobody said anything about abdominal organs. You complain about strawmans but do it yourself so much, it's almost comical.
Exsanguination takes a bit longer than getting stabbed in the heart. If you can't figure out why, I suggest you consider putting away the computer and thinking about it for a while.
Moving goalposts =/= Correcting your strawman. I said disabled before, and several times, you are the one who took it to mean instantaneous kill.
Can't really call it making shit up when others are seeing the same shit I am.
So in short, you can't find any example of me saying people walked around in plate regularly? Not only are you forced to strawman, but you can't even admit your strawman. Next you'll start pretending you never criticized plate armor, or even funnier, you might start claiming that you always thought thrusts were superior to cuts.
214eab No.14073496
>>14071534
Theres no such thing as realistic female armor because historically and logically females neither wear armor nor fight in wars.
So now that we've established that female armor (and effective female warriors in general) are firmly in the area of fantasy I say that the best armor is what fits the character and setting. Sometimes that might mean a metal or even fur bikini and sometimes that might mean literally male armor fitted for a woman.
f8eaa0 No.14073497
You can't have realistic armor for women because only men wear armor and fight in reality. The only armor women can wear is kitchen armor.
50a224 No.14073503
>>14072214 That's pretty fucking hot, actually. It's like you can tell the girl inside just isn't fit for battle at all, or something
f6665b No.14073509
>>14073407
If they're single-occupant, yeah
They're just not suits
1bbdd3 No.14073510
214eab No.14073528
>>14073503
thats mens armor bruh
>>14073509
don't be autistic a ship is a vehicle
b8a16e No.14073540
>>14073484
>"It was quite common to NOT wear a belt. If you look at historical artwork, you can see lots of, umm, people wearing maille-shirts with NO belt around the middle. but EQUALLY—"
Once again, literal citation. Not in regards to plate, but purely in regards to maille worn without belt.
>Your attempts at sophistry won't really help you here
Ah, yes. Using grammar to define clearly what a spoken sentence means is sophistry. My heretic ways and witchcraft must seem mysterious to you.
>Aching shoulders isn't really an issue
Put your maille on, grab your sword and do twenty Meyer's cutting drills. How do your shoulders feel?
>but your response to any disagreement is 'Well google search it!'
When did I say this? When did I not give you a direct citation to what I am referring to? I have literally given you timestamped videos as references alongside pictures and extracts from books.
>Please see this for a short example on how knife fighting works.
So you're using the Folsom style of "shank them a dozen times" as reference to why you should thrust with a proper weapon? Does the word INERTIA mean anything to you? Do you seriously think that you can stab someone a dozen times with a sword? You know FUCK ALL about fighting with proper weapons. Hell, even in sports-fucking-fencing where you use much lighter weapons that will only get you riposted and killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgBR5Omi7_Y&spfreload=10
With a sword or a spear, you get one thrust and then it's likely you have to parry because they're still going to hit you. "Swordsmen of the British Empire" has examples of this, when people fail to block after landing a hit and getting killed in turn. THIS IS WHY IN HEMA DOUBLE HITS GIVE BOTH THE ATTACKER AND DEFENDER A WARNING.
>the metatron
Sure. Meanwhile everyone else
<http://medievalshoppe.com.au/large-size-haubergeon-aluminium-chain-mail-shirt-riveted-flat-10mm-rings/
<steel is better for absorbing heavy impacts, but for many the discomfort of having ten or more kilos pull upon their shoulders for hours at a time can really sap the enjoyment out of an event
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uw1g5MU_U
<google results pic related
Ayyyyy
>Nobody said anything about abdominal organs
I did, because the organs above the solar plexus are directly related to getting oxygen to the brain and have the same effect as exsanguination. Abdominal organs are much less likely to lead to quick deaths, as most handgun incidents in America have shown. As long as you haven't died before you reach the hospital, you're gonna make it.
In a fight, this would translate to them being able to give that one last wallop, just like described in "The Swordsmen of the British Empire". Historical accounts support this, you watch Matt Easton, you know it to be true.
>Exsanguination takes a bit longer than getting stabbed in the heart
Same cause of death; lack of oxygen to the brain. Which is easier, hitting someone in the limb/neck and cutting a major artery or running them through the heart? Where can they wear more armor, the torso or the limbs/neck?
>disabled
CTRL+F "Disable" first match is your previous post. gg, no re
>So in short, you can't find any example of me saying people walked around in plate regularly?
>>14073036
>"Yes I would, and yes they did."
gg, no re
>>14073503
>second pic for you
98d7bb No.14073557
>>14073484
>are you messing up your numbers or am I missing something?
Day to day clothing was 7-14 layers typically they're basically the stylish clothes version of gambesons cause quilted linen is quilted linen, the more serious stuff actually meant for armour was 15-45 layers. Anyways yes they wore gambesons but they wore specific colors or did ridiculous stuff with them, or simply wore it underneath. Here is one guy rocking his white gambeson attire for a photo, look how stylish that is. They also wore bigger more poofier versions too.
> popular tool during everyday fights, so I wasn't considering them. In that case, you're probably right.
Technically they're knives because of how they're attached to the hilt but that's like modifiying a machine gun so that it's "technically" not an assault weapon tier shit. They're swords.
>And in regards to torso stabs, you should actually look at the results of modern knife fights, a single blow, not even particularly well aimed, can bring a person down and leave him incapacitated.
Yes, but it's not reliable 100% the head and top part including the neck would have more protection with a helmet and gorget and some other plate so you're forced to aim lower.
>And yes, I did. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is here. I'm referring to this image specifically.
Oh the jack chains, yeah those are basically a 15th century solution to phasing out of plate armor but still needing to protect the arms. There is also some conflicting depictions of the the chains being connected to armor underneath but for the most part they'll get the job done against a sword slash.
496c42 No.14073558
>>14073540
It doesn't matter, since going by Matt's logic you're proving me right, and if you ignore it, you're admitting you're wrong. I'm amazed at how you're able to deal with simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with the same person on the same statement.
Trying to twist the truth with words is indeed sophistry.
Just fine. Your image, funny enough, only has 1 result that's even relevant. I suppose that means I'm right, since everyone else is saying their shoulders are fine. Again, lose a few pounds, fix your posture, and your shoulders won't ache.
When did you say to google search things? You do realize what you were just posting, right? You're scrambling so hard to pretend you didn't say what you literaly just said that it is not sort of comical, it is comical.
Nobody said sword, why do you think I said knife fighting? You're still wrong as well. And you can indeed thrust several times very quickly with a spear or sword.
The problem is that everyone else to you means one or two people, whereas to everyone else it actually means everyone else.
You did say things about abdominal organs because you realized you had no arguments. Now you're trying to imply that what you really meant is that exsanguination is the same as getting stabbed in the heart. You realize you can admit that you were wrong and dumb, right anon? You won't die if you do. And no, referencing the same book for a time that wasn't even medieval won't really support any of your claims, it just makes you look like even more of a lunatic.
Next you'll try and tell me that getting shot in the head and getting hit in the head with a hammer are the same since they both involve blunt force trauma and a shattered skull.
Funny enough, the same is true of you if you look up 'instantly'. for some reason you like to tell me what I actually believe and said and why that's wrong rather than actually address what I said.
And still, you can't find a single example of me saying people walked around in full plate regularly. It's like you've had a mental breakdown because you realized you were wrong and had no way to recover from it.
f6665b No.14073573
>>14073528
>don't be autistic a ship is a vehicle
Yes, and it is also covered in armor, and the craft as a whole is meant largely to protect the occupants as well as transport them
50a224 No.14073580
>>14073528
>>14073540
Nuh-uh, YOU guys are gay. I KNOW a man would never wear a skirt, and don't you try spreading your delusions to me
98d7bb No.14073591
>>14073558
>And you can indeed thrust several times very quickly with a spear or sword.
Depends on the sword type, a gladius can't thrust forward only upwards and sideways the grip physically prevents you from being able to move your wrist at all. Since it's designed to be used in a shield formation where the enemy is right up to the shield wall that's a design feature. The long sword is specifically designed for it on the other hand but if you just thrust forward without any windup the other guy can just stay 7 inches out of your maximum reach and you couldn't do shit to touch him.
4a6d12 No.14073609
Realistic for men, slutty for the sluts.
b8a16e No.14073610
>>14073558
>It doesn't matter, since going by Matt's logic you're proving me right, and if you ignore it, you're admitting you're wrong. I'm amazed at how you're able to deal with simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with the same person on the same statement.
I'm amazed at how you can disregard Matt not wearing a belt with his maille as well. Is he wearing invisible plate?
>Just fine. Your image, funny enough, only has 1 result that's even relevant
Aaand ignore the video of the reenactors and the reenactors selling lighter aluminum maille for people since they know actual steel is heavy to wear. But sure, lowest hanging fruit and all that.
>You're scrambling so hard to pretend
>When did you say to google search things?
Let's see what I said >>14073450
<"A quick google search will find you a good dozen results of people complaining about aching shoulders"
Did I tell you to google a source? Or did I point out the commonality of shoulder ache with maille? This should be pretty obvious, since I literally pulled out a video stating that it's tiring to wear maille as a reenactor just in my last post from that very same google search.
>And you can indeed thrust several times very quickly with a spear or sword.
https://youtu.be/LgBR5Omi7_Y?t=2m11s
Even sportsfencers can tell you're full of it. "That's garbage." You have literally never done anything HEMA, have you? Have you ever sparred or do you just watch anime and think you can atatatattatatata against someone or something? Jesus fucking Christ.
>You did say things about abdominal organs because you realized you had no arguments
Jesus Christ, where do I even begin with you. Let's try this:
<"When major organs — the heart and brain especially — and blood vessels are avoided, the chances of survival are good, they said. The catch, of course, is that there is no science to preventing a bullet from hitting a vital part of the body."
<If a gunshot victim’s heart is still beating upon arrival at a hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival, Dr. DiMaio said. (People shot in vital organs usually do not make it that far, he added.)
<Shots to roughly 80 percent of targets on the body would not be fatal blows, Dr. Fackler said. Still, he added, it is like roulette.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html
Folsom-style shankings work because you stab someone thirty times and then you grind the knife inside them for as much damage possible and even then the prisoners usually die from bleeding to death.
If you look at sword manuals, you only stab from a bind or from a ringen, because that's the only way you can make sure to keep them killing you as your sword is inside of them. Same is true in dagger as well, you offend but seek to control their weapon before you try to kill them because otherwise as Talhoffer puts it "God preserve us all". Even youtube "knife fighters" agree with that sentiment; fuck knife fighting because no one walks out of it unscathed. You don't stab and drop someone with one move with a knife, as your own videos point out, so why would you think that it's reasonable to do so with a sword or a spear?
>referencing the same book for a time that wasn't even medieval won't really support any of your claims
<referring to a book about literal swordfights
<has no bearing on swordfighting
Absolutely fucking retarded. You're braindamaged, buddy.
>And still, you can't find a single example of me saying people walked around in full plate regularly.
>>14073036
>"Yes I would, and yes they did. "
gg, no re.
1c82ad No.14073615
>>14071534
If it doesn't make sense, just throw in some magic gems and a protective aura on the bikini armor. Problem solved.
23946e No.14073618
>>14073332
Mechs have enormous target profiles and cannot hull down in any way, they're visible to enemy anti armor from 25 miles away. Their armor also needs to be light enough that the mechs already retarded weight thanks to square cube law doesn't make it fall over the millisecond it lifts its foot half an inch of the ground. Mechs are retarded.
496c42 No.14073620
>>14073610
So you're saying that because Matt didn't wear a belt nobody did? I guess you really don't read your own posts at all.
That doesn't help your point though, re-enactors aren't exactly shining examples of modern knights.
Yes, your own words are 'google search it'. Although despite that it became evident very quickly that even you didn't, since you barely got anything of it.
Sportsfencing doesn't translate to reality. When it comes to a real fight, it's a pretty good idea to stab someone repeatedly. And no, don't project onto others the fact that you don't do HEMA and you watch anime, we already know from the way you act.
That's a cool story and all, but you're still just proving my point since the entire thing was you saying cuts are better than thrusts. They aren't. Get over it.
Except they literally do point it out, you should watch them. A single stab can (emphasis on can) drop a person instantly. You seem to think in absolutes, which is why you can't comprehend yourself being wrong.
Referring to a book that has nothing to do with the time period being referred to is kinda pointless yes. But if you actually did that, you'd learn you were wrong, and you can't have that.
It's funny, you keep taking one out of context sentence and trying to imply it was me saying that knights always walked around in full plate, but I didn't say that and nobody else did; that's just one of your delusions. If you still can't get it through your head, I implore you to stop posting and try to actually watch some videos on the HEMA you pretend you do.
832e3f No.14073623
Full plate armor for dudes, bikini for girls.
12c8d8 No.14073635
>>14073618
Yeah, but they're super cool. Might as well whine that your character doesn't get shot in the gut and die whimpering over hours of game over cutscene in no mans land. If it isn't better than reality, it isn't worth playing.
832e3f No.14073648
>>14073635
I love mechs, I don't care how unfeasible or unrealistic they are.
It's just mesmerizing seeing machinery complex enough to imitate humanoid form perform high energy actions such as combat.
5967cc No.14073651
>>14073635
Are these two chucklefucks trying to get themselves killed with the backblast? I know Feddies are subhumans, but this is really too much.
832e3f No.14073662
>>14073651
I'm not up to speed with OG gendum universe, but why did Zeon lose again?
b8a16e No.14073669
>>14073620
>Matt didn't wear a belt nobody did?
You can't help it, can you? You strawman as easily as you breathe.
ONCE AGAIN, "but equally" means he is describing different reasons and different circumstances. I am not saying people didn't wear belts with maille, I am saying there is historical precedence for some people not wearing a belt.
>hat doesn't help your point though, re-enactors aren't exactly shining examples of modern knights.
But they do wear maille armor on for hours and hours and hours while doing activities similar to what was done in historical context, thus they are the closest facsimile we have.
>'google search it'
I love how you use citation marks wrong. I did not tell you to google search anything nor did I say "google search it".
>Sportsfencing doesn't translate to reality.
Obviously, which shows just how far removed you are from reality when even they know you're fucking wrong.
>When it comes to a real fight, it's a pretty good idea to stab someone repeatedly
You're conflating it being good to cause multiple stab wounds with "being able to stab someone repeatedly as the first move" which is literally garbage fighting.
>you don't do HEMA
Nigger, here are my feders. I have trained from the ground up more competent fighters than you are.
>was you saying cuts are better than thrusts
Not just me, the historical manuals say it is better. More-fucking-over, historical records agree. You try to kill someone with a stab and you're likely to die as well.
>A single stab can (emphasis on can) drop a person instantly
Can.
But rarely. More often than not, with a thrust, both get injured.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5ozOBEuROw
Two guys stab each other in a historically recorded duel.
See: https://www.quora.com/History-What-was-the-actual-risk-of-dying-in-a-duel
>A sample of sword duels found that more than 20% of the combatants were killed, and barely half escaped uninjured. In the second half of the 18th century, pistols overtook swords, and the mortality rate dropped to below 6.5%. (R.B. Shoemaker (2002), "The Taming of the Duel: Masculinity, Honour, and Ritual Violence in London, 1600-1800," The Historical Journal, 45(3), p. 528).
>The book Spada 2 has an article called "The Medical Reality Of Historic Wounds". In it the author had looked up the results, what he could find that is, of about 200 years of rapier duels. He found a few thousands and recorded that your odds of dying as a direct result of the duel, on that day or a few days after, was fairly high also the odds of both combatants dying was 5 in 8.
>http://fencing-future.com/cntnt/eng/fehtovanie9/eng_history/nemnogo_o_.html
>This is confirmed by Parisian records, according to which for several years running every second duel ended in the death of both duelists.
Thrusting gets you killed.
b8a16e No.14073674
>>14073669
Let me just double post this for extra clarity.
Also the odds of both combatants dying was 5 in 8
This is confirmed by Parisian records, according to which for several years running every second duel ended in the death of both duelists.
496c42 No.14073701
>>14073669
That's what you said, it's not a strawman. You can quit projecting anytime, my boy.
Ehhh no not really.
Suddenly you're very obtuse and exact about the things you say, and if they aren't word for word, you didn't say it or anything like it, but for me or anyone else, you are fine to basically make shit up about what we've said. Yeah, no, you're full of shit and so asshurt at being called out that it's hilarious.
The fact that you must look to sources that aren't based in reality would make you removed from reality, not me.
The knife fighters all disagree. I will take their word over yours, easily.
I don't care what swords you own bud, you don't use them, you might as well not have them. And it's amazingly obvious that you don't use them for anything other than taking pictures. Infact, I'm doubting even that a bit.
They don't though, the historical records were pretty clear on thrusts being superior, hence why thrusts are always finishing, killing blows.
Not even rarely, it's fairly common.
Also, your logic is still very flawed. You claim thrusts were ineffective and not used, but then you use historical records on people dying from fighting, and say that somehow proves thrusting is ineffective. You do realize you're either admitting they used thrusts mostly or you're admitting you're wrong, right? The self contradictions with you are endless.
None the less, I'm going to bed soon, so I'll make it clear here so nobody else has to read your paragraphs of asspain.
TL;DR for the entire argument
Thrusts were more effective, Full Plate was the most effective form of armor, Gambesons weren't super effective, and chainmail weighs less than full plate and is more effective than gambeson at stopping any sort of edged weapon,
12c8d8 No.14073702
>>14073651
Gundam rockets don't have backblast. No Idea why, but it's shown several times that they can be used even inside ships.
b8a16e No.14073712
>>14073701
>That's what you said
Where did I say that nobody wore belts with maille? Where?
>thrusts
How fucking dense are you? Thrusts suck because they get you killed. They do not reliably put down you enemy without getting killed as well.
THRUSTING GETS YOU KILLED
>http://fencing-future.com/cntnt/eng/fehtovanie9/eng_history/nemnogo_o_.html
>This is confirmed by Parisian records, according to which for several years running every second duel ended in the death of both duelists.
>chainmail weighs less than full plate
It is still more metal per area covered, you fool.
496c42 No.14073723
>>14073712
If you stopped foaming at the mouth in your impotent rage, you might realize where you said that. Alternatively scroll up and check, but fact checking is hard for you.
Also, not really. Thrusts work fine, why else do you think the most widely used weapons were thrusting weapons first and foremost? I suppose you're gonna start telling me that your Hema instructor also teaches you to slash with spears, to draw cut with knives, and that you should use bayonets like hacksaws.
And no, not really. You could, if you actually did go out sometime, compare the weight of Full Plate and Chainmail, but you never will so its a moot point. I'd take a page from your book and tell you to google search it, but I think it's funnier to just tell you you're wrong.
Before I go to sleep 'Let me just double post this for extra clarity'
Thrusts were more effective than cuts, Full Plate was the most effective form of armor, Gambesons weren't super effective, and chainmail weighs less than full plate and is more effective than gambeson at stopping any sort of edged weapon.
912ec8 No.14073729
I like them bio-mechanical
Like in Warframe or Guyver.
b8a16e No.14073736
>>14073723
>Full Plate
Coming from the guy who claims plate weighs 60+ kg, this is hilarious.
55292b No.14073738
>>14071534
>Realistic or Skimpy?
on men I prefer realistic, women should be in the kitchen
832e3f No.14073745
>>14073729
>wrframe
>gameplay wise you can put on and off your armor at any time, like in classic tokusatsu, having different stats and abilities with it on and off
>lore wise you are controlling it remotely and are teleporting through it back and forth
Why digital extremes are such retards?
b8a16e No.14073754
>>14073745
>slash with spears, to draw cut with knives
Fiore spear actually uses blows and polearms use blows as well. Pull cuts with knives are actually great, too.
142a94 No.14073756
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>14073311
I think this one is more appropriate for the thread. skip about the first 2 minutes
bb485a No.14073757
>>14071797
Mein negro of impeccable taste
65a3a6 No.14073758
>>14071612
That's a HP scaling issue, not an armor system issue.
Remove HP gain on level-up. Problem solved.
3518fe No.14073762
one thing i can't stand about armor in many games is when someone is only wearing a single pauldron, or a single gauntlet, or something like that. why the fuck don't they just put on another one? it makes no sense. is it like a gentleman's rule in-universe, "thou shalt not strike an enemy in a spot where he's unarmored for the purposes of fashion, it is bad manners". boggles my mind. pic related.
65a3a6 No.14073765
>>14072167
SHIT
SHIT
SHIT
SHIT
bb485a No.14073775
>>14073762
For some characters I'm pretty sure the sword arm doesn't have a pauldron or the like to allow a full range of motion.
b8a16e No.14073782
>>14073762
Well, historically speaking the left side of the plate armor was thicker than the right. Because most fighters are right handed, most blows will those come at you from the left(their right) so you need more protection there and can lessen the overall weight by making the armor thinner where it doesn't need as much protection.
Similar things can also be seen with gauntlets, where the main hand which might need more dexterity may have a fingered gauntlet while the other hand may have a mitten gauntlet. Or vice versa; it's entirely up to the owner or the set.
Also, something I've noticed with my Axel Pettersson gambeson, which I've added shoulder pauldrons too, is that if you have one the right shoulder armor it can be difficult to get into certain high guards where you need to cross your hands.
7dfabf No.14073785
>>14071677
Stop being an autist.
46e53e No.14073795
>>14073756
Following video game logic, I assume barbarians are focused on low defense and high atack, so it makes sense for them to fight in loincloth and chainmail bikini.
Paladin/Knight = Slow tanker class with high HP and defense but medium atack
Barbarian/Amazon = Fast hitter class with low HP but high speed and high atack.
b8a16e No.14073806
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Looking into it, based on staff, spear and polearm manuals the adage "enter with a blow" seems to hold true there as well.
The first play seen in this video also exists in longsword and one-handed sword manuals; you step into range with a wide blow which forces them to react and then you go around with a thrust. Strike first, thrust second.
62dbf9 No.14073812
Depends on the setting and the tone of the game.
If it neatly fits into the world, then it is good, if it clashes then it is bad.
The only kind of armour that I absolutely hate is bikini and the retarded half naked barbarian designs in a world where proper heavy armour exists.
Barbarians sometimes fought completely naked in ancient times but that was for the shock value and not something that was very common.
I think ancient Greeks also fought more exposed than covered, but only in the very early period. I think. Someone ought to correct me.
>>14071749
>>14071768
>>14071783
>>14071797
>>14072167
These are all good.
Contributing with Valkyrie Profile girls who I want to do moral things with.
142a94 No.14073822
>>14073758
>Remove HP gain on level-up.
Are you fucking retarded?
That's the worst way to """""fix""""" the problem that anon was talking about. The better choice would be to have it so that instead of armor just blocking x amount of damage, have it block x% of damage. So lets say you have 100 health and Mr. evil boss man has an attack that does 100 damage. If you have shitty leather armor that has a 5% armor rating, then you would still have 5 health after the attack. If you have full steel plate armor with a 30% armor rating, then you'd have 30 health after taking the attack.
Another option would be to have a percent chance that the armor absorbs a set amount of damage. So, going back to the 100 health example. If you have an armor that has a 85% chance of blocking 60 damage. Then you would have an 85% chance to still have 60 HP after the attack, and a 15% chance to just die. That way you could simulate the "he found a chink in your armor and stabbed you through the armpit and into the lungs, you're fucking dead." situation.
b8a16e No.14073827
>>14073812
Greeks seemed to fight naked, aside from armor. Though it may have just been due to heat. Or then the vases are just the ancient world equivalents of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan movies.
Celts seemed to fight naked but painted blue. Both got whopped by the Romans who wore clothes, so that shows them.
7e70c5 No.14073829
>>14071534
All of it us unrealistic. I like both modest and skimpy armors on women in my fantasy.
46e53e No.14073832
>>14073827
I think they fought naked during sports and the small battles between cities (that weren't far from a non-lethal duel)
But against foreigner enemies I doubt they would go to battle with the dongs hanging out.
b8a16e No.14073838
>>14073832
Well, they might have been showing off their smaller penises. After all, large dongs were a sign of beta males.
46e53e No.14073839
Realistic amor, skimpy armor, ornated dress armor… the best option is no women in the battlefield at all. They are limited supporting roles or just stay out of battle and take care of home and the children
31a478 No.14073850
>>14073756
In winter, barbarians need to wear something that protects them from cold. Then again, maybe they got antifreeze in their veins
b8a16e No.14073856
More so than women wearing armor, seeing them always being archers annoys me. Archery is literally about upper body strength, which women have about half of your average man, yet be it a jrpg with a cookie cutter waifu or a feminist self-insert stronk womyn, it seems like only women should use bows.
46e53e No.14073862
>>14073856
I give it a pass if they are elves.
2fa9fa No.14073871
>>14071534
That Mandalorian sports bra is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while but I can't look away. Is that the point, distraction?
b8a16e No.14073872
>>14073862
Was it even a Tolkien thing? I can't remember, it's been too long since I read LoTR.
Hell, most proper warbows exceed a 100 pounds in draw weight, which should be more than any of those dainty noodle-arms actually weigh. I'd be surprised if any of them could do a single pull up, much less manage to draw a bow.
88e60d No.14073891
>>14073872
Drawing a bow in and of itself will work the muscles necessary to fire as long as you're practicing constantly; training with a bow every day will eventually turn a person into an archer and allow for creating a strong soldier. However I agree that it should reflect in the art that they have very good muscle mass
6ef6d5 No.14073896
>>14073871
Wait a second, is there a new mare holic out or have I missed some other good shit?
2fa9fa No.14073926
>>14073896
Don't ask me, I don't go for horse pussy
8d699c No.14073960
Bikini, makes it easier to rape the woman and take her home to breed.
a50f23 No.14073971
>>14073891
>Drawing a bow in and of itself will work the muscles necessary to fire as long as you're practicing constantly
>muscles necessary to fire
>bow
>fire
88e60d No.14073991
a50f23 No.14074027
>>14073991
Anon, you obviously lack the autism to be part of this thread, if you get involved, you'll only get memed on.
b8a16e No.14074035
>>14073891
Here's some autism:
Well, given that on average women have only 40% of the upper body muscle mass of men, it makes no sense to even make them try.
Honestly, the only weapons which make sense for women are rapier and mechanical crossbows. A rapier's point will punch through so easily that you never should need to force it, so women's lower body strength should be enough to allow them to use it efficiently.
2b2796 No.14074100
>>14073872
In the Lotr, Elves do seem to use bows more frequently and skillfully than the other races, including Legolas. They are all male elves though, and nothing indicates that they fit the lala-homo stereotype we have today.
9efc4b No.14074136
>>14071591
I like it better with the helmet on.
8d699c No.14074203
If women are fighting it means that the nation is weak and out of good men. Therefore one must rape her so she acknowledges her place and then take her home to breed her further. its for the good of the kingdom really.
a53ca5 No.14074254
>>14074136
>>14071636
Great taste. Hell, I'd even consider an armor that's only a helmet.
5090f7 No.14074283
>>14071826
That depends on the genre you're going for. Because if we're talking anything like realism, they can't. Don't make me bust out the graphs and videos of power-lifter women losing arm wrestling contests to skinny IT guys that have never lifted more than their game consoles.
t. /tg/
b4e55e No.14074293
>>14074283
how can that be if they are training and lifting that they lose to someone who doesnt lift?
a53ca5 No.14074299
90ee1a No.14074317
>>14074293
because that sweet youtube ad revenue from sexually frustrated yougins
b4e55e No.14074324
>>14074305
>crossfit girl
I think i see the problem. no one takes crossfit seriously for a reason. I still not too convinced that a girl thats training right would lose to some guy that doesnt do anything yet
5090f7 No.14074331
>>14074293
>>14074328
Despite what Tumblr tells you, women are biologically nothing more than housekeeper and childbearing units. Any value past that is one we ascribe culturally, not factually.
You know that guy that comes to a multiplayer co-op game and does something retarded in his build for 'flavor', but pulls down the rest of the party in the process? That's women trying to be strong. Or women trying to be professionals, for that matter.
a50f23 No.14074364
>>14074328
>comments disabled
Probably an endless well of pure butthurt and someone just had to cover it, what a waste.
88e60d No.14074365
>>14074331
>not adding things to your build that you enjoy playing
>min maxing your shit so you get the highest numbers rather than having fun with building a character
I can understand that picking a wizard and leveling strength is retarded, but being an occultist with a giant wheel that summons up the strength of an old crusader and doing a mixture of strength and wisdom is just something fun to do. Don't talk shit about flavor m8, talk shit about the retards that nurture poor decision making
5d6e55 No.14074375
>>14071583
I wonder if the male form is ever as appealing to women as the female form is to men.
5090f7 No.14074437
>>14074365
Nigger I build for flavor aggressively. But it's gotta work, too, or you're just a showboat that everyone wants to shut the fuck up and/or leave the game so somebody of value can take your spot.
It's insecure gloryhounding that leads a woman to become a doctor instead of raising four of them.
88e60d No.14074451
>>14074437
I totally agree I just wanted to get mad because you started talking shit with an improper comparison.
4e7c48 No.14074941
>>14074375
Good question. I think that’s a no since it would be harder to get attention.
dabd6f No.14074966
>>14071534
Every single one of the armors in the OP suck dick (in more ways than one).
>>14071826
>Zarya
Found the goon, >>>/out/
c67d87 No.14075264
Why do armor threads always turn into a full plate vs gambeson battle? Why do we always pretend that munition-grade armor wasn't a thing and that everybody didn't stitch metal plates into the back of basically everything? Why is the best pic in the thread the first picture in the OP?
abf433 No.14075357
>>14071534
Each one has its place. As long as a game stays consistent in its tone and suspension of disbelief, I can enjoy either.
9dc812 No.14075391
>>14074035
Rapiers take a large amount of physical effort to use because they weigh 1.5kg like any other sword but you have to hold them in one hand and in proper rapier technique you have to do lunges that take place far away from your body and usually high above your head or off your centerline. Longswords are the easiest swords to use. They are barely heavier than rapiers but you hold them with both hands and longsword technique almost never forces you into extreme postures that require a large amount of athleticism. You literally exert yourself half as much using one.
Cutting doesn't require strength. With proper technique even a kid could cut through a gambeson and the arm inside. The act of dealing damage with the sword itself is trivial. The part that requires strength is physically besting the opponent to put yourself in the position where you can perform the cut or thrust.
ca2891 No.14075436
How come we don't talk about modern armor? Or futuristic armor? I like em in small exoskeleton suits or small sized human sized mechs.
1ab065 No.14075517
>>14071677
mah nigga
>but in the first image, the "photorealism" breastplate makes even less sense than the ones of the other girls, because of it's shame and how long it is she wouldn't be able to bend at all
c96320 No.14075524
>>14073795
Videogame logic is shit
Armor isn't that heavy, full plate armor weighs about as much as the gear a modern soldier wears
Really, a Knight would have lower stamina since it's so stuffy under all that gear
309cfb No.14075530
>>14071797
Correct.
I don't dislike chainmail bikinis, though, certain characters just wouldn't work with anything else (Amazon from Dragon's Crown)
c96320 No.14075565
>>14073872
Tolkien's elves were no weaker than humans, infact they may have been stronger, I don't remember
It's not a Tolkien thing, people just saw legolas using the bow and associated it with all of elf-dom, along side his blonde hair fun fact the books never say the color of his hair, it said his father had blonde hair but never mentioned him, elves had a variety of hair colors and blonde wasn't the average one
388452 No.14075614
>>14071534
Realistic, not because it's realistic, but because girls in full plate gets me rock fucking solid.
309cfb No.14075615
>>14074283
>>14071826
>>14074293
It's more than just being weaker or unable to keep up with men, women are substantially more fragile than men. Female athletes do tremendous damage to their bodies, women soldiers in a premodern setting would have to retire as a result of crippling injuries after just a few years, assuming they weren't killed outright.
http://archive.is/QzuHE
03db77 No.14075646
>>14075614
My absolute nigger
03db77 No.14075674
>>14074375
>that assault
Every time
000000 No.14075682
>>14073795
Barb/zon frequently have high health as well, and leave the low health to the wizards and rogues.
>>14075436
We have power armor threads semi-frequently. Go make one.
3d871f No.14075741
>>14071534
> Realistic
So no women in combat roles because they're not strong enough?
5090f7 No.14075938
>>14075918
>2nd image
Fuck, saved. Tactical Fantasy is my fetish.
d5a0ff No.14075951
>>14075938
In that case have the others.
b4e55e No.14075956
>>14075615
this is a problem with both girls and with boys. I did sports in high school and there would be some guys who were always injured in my school and others. is sports something thats just dangerous to do?
a0f18b No.14076224
>>14073702
Those rockets don't seem to fire actual rockets.
bc2a29 No.14076347
Are there any games where you can romance easily flustered males in armor?
a0f18b No.14076353
>>14073723
>widely used weapons were thrusting weapons first and foremost?
The most widely used weapons were polearms and that includes large axes like the danish axe and two handed maces or warhammers, they had reach and a full swing from that shit can break your bones even with the padding underneath. Only a dagger, half-swording with a specific type of sword, and arrows used like a dagger could get through the very small amount of openings to reach the head and even then there was a specialized dagger called the rondel dagger specifically made to breakthrough maille but it was only good for executions because you had to brute force it through with pure strength. Swords were widely used more as purely a sidearm and something you'd carry with you off the battlefield.
And if gambesons were shit nobody would use them.
03db77 No.14076625
f6665b No.14076698
>>14073745
They didn't even introduce the ability to do that until this year, the egg came before the chicken, they wrote themselves into a corner
Really the most retarded part is the long range teleport, they should have slipped in a line somewhere about you moving to exist in the frame as a kind of disembodied energy "soul" instead of just a remote psychic link
>>14075918
>>14075938
>>14075951
I wish valkyria chronicles was more like this
28b59b No.14076736
>>14071636
>ctrl+f haven
>1 result
11bab4 No.14076841
>>14073762
To be fair, Sven fires his gauntlet like a rocket.
d0c8ee No.14076983
>>14072167
>Don Quixote
Where's the cooking pot? This is very important
03db77 No.14077363
>>14071706
>samus
Nothing wrong with that
b8a16e No.14077366
>>14075391
Yes, but those exertions are upon the lower body. Longsword relies often upon the bind, where you should seek to be strong even if you shouldn't be striking with nothing but brute force. In rapier, you only need the physical condition to be able to move. In longsword, you contend against an opposing sword and have to move based on the results of the bind.
>The part that requires strength is physically besting the opponent to put yourself in the position
Exactly my point. If a man and a women perform an oberhau at each other, the man will win the bind everytime. This means the woman always has to be on the weak and the man will always have more control since he can choose whether to be strong or weak but the woman can't.
Rapier, is about positioning and the thrust requires almost no exertion beyond reaching out with a step.
dca96d No.14077415
>realistic female armor
>women weren't involved in any fighting and those that were were a handful of token cases cherrypicked throughout history
Realistic female armor would be them wearing plain clothes
7c0acf No.14077419
>>14077415
I guess people will have to start using "practical" in place of "realistic" since you autismos need to post this shit multiple times every thread.
9dc812 No.14077471
>>14077366
>Yes, but those exertions are upon the lower body.
I absolutely disagree, my dude. I have a rapier (a Meyer rapier, so a sidesword really) and my shoulder/back feels like it is exploding after 5 minutes of sparring while I can fight with a feder for hours. It's because of the distance you have to thrust in order to keep your body safe against an opponent's rapier. It really requires the entire body.
And I wasn't saying a woman could fight as well as a man, just that a rapier isn't necessarily better for them. I think in terms of the minimum required level of athleticism required to use a weapon remotely effectively the longsword is the easiest.
f305b0 No.14077498
>>14077419
Actually that would trigger autismos like me who don't like the words practical and realistic being conflated in the context of armour, given that historically some armour was infact non-practical yet worn. i remember someone on /tg/ posting a weird as fuck set of infantry issue armour (i think from china?) that had a fucking hole in the chest for no reason.
You can't win anon.
accept your fate.
b8a16e No.14077540
>>14077471
>It really requires the entire body.
Yes, I don't doubt that, but with a lighter body and with the greater emphasis on positioning rather than handwork, I still say that for a woman a thrusting sword would be the superior alternative.
>I have a rapier (a Meyer rapier, so a sidesword really) and my shoulder/back feels like it is exploding after 5 minutes of sparring while I can fight with a feder for hours.
Huh, that runs entirely counter to my training with thrusting swords. Though admittedly mine is rather thin, to the point where I wouldn't even bother trying to cut with it. To me it feels quite light, the bloody footwork aside. And in the two tournaments I've been, longsword was divided by gender while the rapier+dagger wasn't, but I can't actually remember if any women made it into the rapier+dagger tournament.
Well, what do you think about a smallsword instead?
9dc812 No.14077622
>>14077540
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I've been in some coed longsword tournaments and the results were as you'd expect. I support separate gender leagues in tournaments and I know many women in HEMA agree with that philosophy too.
b8a16e No.14077634
>>14077622
Nice. Mine's a "sharp" but the tip is blunt enough that if I put a rubber stud on it the blade will bend enough for the rapier to be harmless. But yeah, that does look a bit heavier.
2c74f8 No.14079148
>>14079143
>>14075938
>>14075951
I think I found my new fetish, thanks guise
5503b1 No.14079168
>>14071694
Go on? Is it the lack of rib cages in the last two images?
b36dd1 No.14079169
>>14079143
I also love photos of people wearing armor in WW1
f8e76b No.14079172
>>14071677
As much as I prefer armor to appear relatively functional, I do not think artist #1 knows what "photorealism" actually means. Or just "realism", for that matter.
b36dd1 No.14079179
>>14079172
Great taste my man
9110a9 No.14079194
>>14071534
>Realistic or Skimpy?
Neither, form-fitting full body armor is the only good answer.
>>14075938
>>14075951
>>14079143
>>14079173
Good god it looks like shitty steampunk mixed with tacticool
b36dd1 No.14079196
Now back to grils in armor
5503b1 No.14079201
That reminds me, I had this image somewhere.
13555d No.14079228
>>14071534
A womyn wearing full armor is NOT realistic under any circumstances.
f6665b No.14079235
>>14079228
>womyn
Are mgtows co-opting feminist terminology now
36700e No.14079256
>>14079236
>pathfinder
Now you got me posting this.
5503b1 No.14079262
>>14071694 (re)
>>14079168 (me)
Can I get someone to help me understand this?
6db88c No.14079282
>>14079262
>(me)
We have IDs here.
Maybe it's a comment on the first pic's questionable use of "realism", as others have pointed out.
b36dd1 No.14079297
>>14079256
I love these designs, love the clothes and how the artist bothers to draw all the stuff the adventurers would carry on them. But why the low quality on these images, Anon?
a5fbb5 No.14079301
>>14079256
Why the fuck do these artists always cram as much fucking shit onto the character art as they can? It's like they try to display every goddamn thing you can conceivably carry and it ends up looking impractical and overdone.
>belts belts belts
>daggers, offhand blades, boot blades, throwing blades
>buckles buckles buckles
>potions, scrolls, spell components
>pouches pouches bags bags pouches
>belts belts belts
its ugly as fuck
1d0387 No.14079308
>>14079262
womyn can't fight for shit, reddit. thus, it doesnt matter what they cosplay as. can your tiny brain comprehend this?
1d0387 No.14079318
>>14074437
>It's insecure gloryhounding that leads a woman to become a doctor instead of raising four of them.
Becoming a physician isn't as hard as you think, lots of women are smart and industrious enough to do it. Just a lot less than men though.
67b421 No.14079319
>>14071799
Are you a virgin senpai?
23946e No.14079363
>>14079301
>these artists
It's just the one artist actually.
6f78da No.14079406
>>14079363
And he's shit at his job. In both of the examples you posted I can't settle my eyes anywhere; everywhere I look it's just more and more details. Reminds me of when I did so much crosshatching the nib acquired the tendency of tearing through the canvas.
5d63a7 No.14079451
>>14071761
To make it short, if you lack something you'd want to have, you are more likely to have it on your mind often than if you could have it whenever you want. And sex is undeniably one of base drives permeating human brain.
e67ed2 No.14079464
>>14079406
If your adventurers don't jingle and jangle with years of accrued mementos, backup plans, superstitious wards and charms, and hell, even colorful pieces of cloth they found in a foreign land, you're doing it wrong.
b8a16e No.14079499
>>14079406
>>14079464
>tfw you will never be a landsknecht, wearing gaudy clothes despite propriety laws, with a fuckhueg hat and a manly as fuck mustache
Why even live?
6f78da No.14079523
>>14079464
There's limits to overdesigning; put in as many knick-knacks as you want, but past a certain point it just turns into white noise (case in point : Nomura).
b8a16e No.14079530
>>14079522
That bow would be entirely useless; the brace height is waaaay to big.
fd2e93 No.14079746
>>14076353
Adding to this, thrusting weapons were either situation specific (pikes in a pike formation) or specialized for certain conditions (heavily armored opponents fighting each other)… and even then they were mostly side-arms.
1d0387 No.14079769
>>14079499
>krub stole saltz' sword
y
59e269 No.14079777
Bikini armour anything else is feminist shit
6db88c No.14079898
>>14079868
>>14071797
>not carrying a lab of iron in front of you
b65754 No.14080001
>>14071757
first one is a guy, it's gran from granblue fantasy.
the female char does have some cool armor though
bfd85e No.14081113
>>14079603
>filename
thats not from destiny it's LMS, not a vidya game just some guys personal IP