Please include women with shirts on.

[dan107]

Chainmail bikinis in Project Eternity would feel just as stupid (and unrealistic) as half- naked women with flak bikinis in a Modern Warfare game.

 

I think you missed my point. Women in chainmail bikinis fighting men is completely unrealistic. So is women fighting men in heavy armor. What they're wearing is pretty much irrelevant here.

[The Sharmat]

Even if I were to accept your premise, how is saying "X is unrealistic, therefore adding Y to X and making it even more unrealistic is ok" a valid argument?

[Darji]

Yes but not in a plate or very heavy armor...

Neither did the men in her army, in general.

 

These armor were for prestige and not really for fighting in real battles. Maybe in some tournaments.

Not entirely true. The era when plate was really great protection was brief, but it did exist. And it wained due to the proliferation of the crossbow, and later gunpowder. If your setting has neither, heavy gothic plate could be a great force multiplier.

 

Also: average weight of plate armor? 50 or so pounds. Modern female soldiers (though not front line general infantry, as most militaries, wisely in my view, don't allow it) carry more in their kit anyway.

 

This is a useful thing for you to read, I think: http://www.metmuseum...ams/hd_aams.htm

 

I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^

 

So you are willing to make concessions to gameplay that go against realism, however minor? Why not just ignore the penalty altogether then, rather than saddle male characters with an utterly arbitrary stat penalty for the sake of balancing female characters' stat penalties?

 

EDIT: Where did you get the idea that even with armor on, you're dead in one or two hits anyway? Why do you think people even bothered to make armor if that was the case?

 

1. I know that also non leader wore these but it was not really the normal since it was still very expensive. For example in the middle ages in Germany people actually had to pay for their armor, If they could afford such costly armor they could wear it bust most of them could not and and not such armor. Prestige leaders and also highly ranked knights and rich people were wearing such armors.

 

2. I would also go for no penalties I just try to go against this "this is not realistic when woman wear revealing armor" argumentation. Again it is still a fantasy game and almost everything should be allowed. But that's up to the developer or designer. And since I trust Obsidian I have no real fear that they actually would but bikini armors in this game since it does not even fit their style.

[Malcador]

Odd that this 'request' even has to be made, heh.

[Darji]

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

That is an entirely different arguement altogether, and one that has far more merit than realism. If you want to say, "I want a game where I play a badass female fighter that kicks everyone's ass and screw realism", more power to you. All I'm saying is don't use realism as an arguement in a situation that's quite absurd to begin with.

 

I also agree. If you go with this argument you have a point if you try realism you just fail.

[Volourn]

I won this discussion a few pages ago. Even SAMMAEL agreed with me. Case closed so no need to further debate it.

[dan107]

Even if I were to accept your premise, how is saying "X is unrealistic, therefore adding Y to X and making it even more unrealistic is ok" a valid argument?

 

Once you've established that X is unrealistic in and of itself, realism goes out the window. You can have X+Y, X+Y+Z, X+Y-A*X^2, etc. At that point, if X is present, it's a purely stylistic choice, and realism is not a valid arguement for either side.

[The Sharmat]

1. I know that also non leader wore these but it was not really the normal since it was still very expensive. For example in the middle ages in Germany people actually had to pay for their armor, If they could afford such costly armor they could wear it bust most of them could not and and not such armor. Prestige leaders and also highly ranked knights and rich people were wearing such armors.

Roman Legionnaires of a certain time period were required to buy their equipment as well. It didn't stop them from deploying tens of thousands of men. Armor is not as expensive as some people think. Though of course it depends on the socio-economic conditions of the area we're speaking of.

 

Fun fact: Chain was actually more expensive than plate unless you went REALLY fancy with the plate armor.

 

Edit for Dan107: No, it doesn't work that way. Realism applies to the logical, internal consistency of the setting. Magic isn't real either. That doesn't justify all humans being able to breathe underwater with no explanation. At least throw out a "someone cast a global ritual to make everyone breathe underwater" justification at me.

Edited September 16, 2012 by The Sharmat

[Darji]

1. I know that also non leader wore these but it was not really the normal since it was still very expensive. For example in the middle ages in Germany people actually had to pay for their armor, If they could afford such costly armor they could wear it bust most of them could not and and not such armor. Prestige leaders and also highly ranked knights and rich people were wearing such armors.

Roman Legionnaires of a certain time period were required to buy their equipment as well. It didn't stop them from deploying tens of thousands of men. Armor is not as expensive as some people think. Though of course it depends on the socio-economic conditions of the area we're speaking of.

 

Fun fact: Chain was actually more expensive than plate unless you went REALLY fancy with the plate armor.

 

Edit for Dan107: No, it doesn't work that way. Realism applies to the logical, internal consistency of the setting. Magic isn't real either. That doesn't justify all humans being able to breathe underwater with no explanation. At least throw out a "someone cast a global ritual to make everyone breathe underwater" justification at me.

Yeah but plate was also not very useful in combat.

 

As for the Romans: Yes the Romans won mostly with tactics and also manpower. But depending on your stand in the society you had certain positions in a army and those who actually could afford armor were fighting on the frontlines because for them it was a chance to success and honor. People actaully wanted to fight there back than. ISadly I forgot how this hierarchic system was called...

 

If I remember correctly from my university days XD

Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji

[dan107]

Edit for Dan107: No, it doesn't work that way. Realism applies to the logical, internal consistency of the setting. Magic isn't real either. That doesn't justify all humans being able to breathe underwater with no explanation. At least throw out a "someone cast a global ritual to make everyone breathe underwater" justification at me.

 

Obviously we're talking about realism specifically vis-a-vis women fighting men in combat. Didn't think I had to specify that. Magic, dragons, etc. have nothing to do with it. Unless the setting fundamentally redefines what it means to be a man or a woman, my arguements hold.

Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107

[The Sharmat]

Depended on what kind of weapons we're talking about. Piercing weapons? Arrows? Hacking weapons? Draw cut weapons? Equipment standards changed quite a lot when plate became more common, and that's because plate WAS effective against certain kinds of weapons. You started seeing shields discarded, two handed weapons becoming popular, and a heavy focus on piercing things like war hammers (which are often confused with mauls in RPGs) and flanged maces. Generally I'd probably prefer a chain hauberk. Though they're really heavy and expensive.

 

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

Edited September 16, 2012 by The Sharmat

[dan107]

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

 

What are you talking about? The standard of realism is the same. Once you've established that there is magic in the world, physics goes out the window. Once you've established that there are "magical" (for lack of a better word) women able to beat men in armored combat, the realism of armor goes out the window as well. If a wizard can use a fireball to destroy a building, it doesn't really matter if the exact temperature of the fire may not be enough to burn stone. Likewise, if a woman can beat a male fighter in combat it doesn't matter if she wearing plate or a bikini. Both scenarios are pure fantasy.

[The Sharmat]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

[Darji]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Yes but having magic changes the way people engage fights. for example if its a magic that can be focused on a person instead of a location you actually need some armor that could reflect that. If its centered on a location than maybe its better to actually be able to move fast instead of having heavy armor.

[dan107]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.

[Delterius]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor?

[dan107]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor?

 

Not at all. At that point it's a purely stylistic choice. What kind of "realistic" protection it provides should no longer enter the arguement, since the situation is unrealistic to begin with.

[nikolokolus]

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

 

What are you talking about? The standard of realism is the same. Once you've established that there is magic in the world, physics goes out the window. Once you've established that there are "magical" (for lack of a better word) women able to beat men in armored combat, the realism of armor goes out the window as well. If a wizard can use a fireball to destroy a building, it doesn't really matter if the exact temperature of the fire may not be enough to burn stone. Likewise, if a woman can beat a male fighter in combat it doesn't matter if she wearing plate or a bikini. Both scenarios are pure fantasy.

 

Sort of like Joan of Arc?

[Darji]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor?

No but there would be nothing against bikini armor except the argument which Catamite made:

 

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

 

This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim.

[dan107]

Dan: Why does one standard of realism apply to every other fascet of the game but female fighters?

 

What are you talking about? The standard of realism is the same. Once you've established that there is magic in the world, physics goes out the window. Once you've established that there are "magical" (for lack of a better word) women able to beat men in armored combat, the realism of armor goes out the window as well. If a wizard can use a fireball to destroy a building, it doesn't really matter if the exact temperature of the fire may not be enough to burn stone. Likewise, if a woman can beat a male fighter in combat it doesn't matter if she wearing plate or a bikini. Both scenarios are pure fantasy.

 

Sort of like Joan of Arc?

 

Read my posts from earlier. Joan of Arc was a spiritual leader that inspired the MEN around her for religious and patriotic reasons, and was at all times surrounded by some of the finest bodyguards in the world. There is no verified record of her having ever beaten a man in one on one hand to hand combat.

[Delterius]

Not at all. At that point it's a purely stylistic choice. What kind of "realistic" protection it provides should no longer enter the arguement, since the situation is unrealistic to begin with.

 

I'm sorry, I do not follow. You said that the world's logic estabilished that women are equal fighters to men. According to that logic, if men need to cover as much of their skin as possible, so do women. If women don't, neither do man. And considering the cost and weight of materials involved no, its not a stylistic choice.

 

 

This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim.

I never claimed realism, I claimed internal logic.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[The Sharmat]

In your setting, Dan, why would anyone bother with armor at all? It's heavy, limits vision and movement, and is stiflingly hot.

[dan107]

But if you have magic you haven't thrown physics, logic, and consistency out of the window. You've just replaced one set of physics for another. Violate your setting's physics willy-nilly and you'll rapidly have an inconsistent, incomprehensible, unenjoyable mess of a story.

 

Indeed. Therefore once you've established a fantasy world where women are equal fighters to men, you might as well run with it. At that point any discussion of how bikini armor is unrealistic becomes irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't that imply that all armor would be bikini armor?

No but there would be nothing against bikini armor except the argument which Catamite made:

 

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

 

This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim.

 

Absolutely. And like I said in response to him earlier, that's a perfectly valid arguement. My whole beef is with people saying that women should wear plate while fighting men because it's REALISTIC. It most certainly is not.

[alanschu]

Just so you know, there is a reason why even in the 21st centrury, a time when physical strength is less important in combat than it has ever been the overwhelming majority of the world's militaries do not allow women in combat units. That reason is that men are far superior physically. That difference is only exacerbated in hand to hand combat. The idea of a woman being able to defeat a trained male fighter in sword combat wearing heavy armor is fantasy, period. Whether she's wearing full plate or a string bikini doesn't make it any more or less realistic.

 

Whatever your reasons for not wanting to see chainmail bikinis may be, realism has nothing to do with it.

 

 

Onna Bushi were specifically female warriors in feudal Japan. They often fought alongside male Samurai (as they themselves were considered part of the Samurai class)

 

To state that a woman defeating a man in combat (armored or otherwise) is fantasy is probably one of the most arrogant, ignorant, and sexist things I've seen posted on a forum in a long time.

 

While I'll acknowledge that men have biological advantages when it comes to physical strength, all it does is bias the result. It doesn't make it deterministic.

Edited September 16, 2012 by alanschu

[Longknife]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

 

Because you try convincing someone to support your cause by showing them your ****.