What should a female breastplate really look like

[Ffordesoon]

Just gonna leave this here:

 

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you

[TrashMan]

 

You are actualy less likely to get back-stabbed in a 15000 vs 15000 fight then you are in a 5 vs 10 one.

So no, you won't really worry less aboutarmor nad more about agility.

 

 

Thing is though, you're an adventurer and a traveller, not a foot soldier...you might have to swim, you might have to climb, you might have to squeeze through a small gap, you have to carry your armour everywhere you go, you'd have to sit down in it to eat since there is nowhere to put it and it would be awkward to take off and put on, you don't have a squire to carry your stuff,(probably) you don't have wagons(probably)

 

I don't really see the point in plate armour in these situations...the fact that games tend to have you fighting all the time and don't simulate all aspects of life leads to unrealistic choices working the best.

 

That's not to say you couldn't have a breastplate though...and I reckon having some that are form fitting and some that aren't would be best...keep everyone happy .

if there is plenty of armour types that don't all look the same, and no ultimate "best" armour then it's up to the player if they want the team in uniform or not.

 

 

I take it you never worse armor, because if you did, you'd know that if you were to go swimming you wouldnt' wear ANY.

 

Chainmail - so common to adventurers - is almost as heavy as plate and twice as uncomfortable, as it puts a lot more pressure/weight on the spine.

Leater, when wet, becomes heavy.

 

If you have to climb, anything other than leather will slow you down - even tough you can climb in full plate. You can sit in it and move without a problem - it was made for a full range of motion in mind.

 

Squeezing trough tight spots?

Dunno man. But all of those examples are VERY situational and unlikely.

 

Plate is difficult to carrry, but so is chainmail. Plate take the longest to put on, but when are you really in such a hurry?

 

 

If you want to talk realism, adventurers wouldn't even travel without horses

[Jaybanger]

I have a feeling back then,

 

Women would have just had to deal with it, because the sexes were not equal.

There is definatly a difference between male and females types in todays armours, however back then they wouldn't have cared for womens comfort.

[TrashMan]

 

Someone who wears no armor in the first place isn't any less stupid than someone who wears no-armor-that-happens-to-be-in-the-form-of-a-specific-aesthetic-style-that-they-personally-place-value-upon.

It IS a party-based game. One character could rely upon another to "tank," while the first only strikes at opportune moments, in opportune ways.

Also, since it was brought up that something as functionally useless as a chainmail bikini could be enchanted to actually provide, say, the same level of armor as full leather or chainmail, I don't see how that person should "pay for their stupidity" of happening to go through the trouble to provide their body with protection that just happens to come in the form that they prefer in a purely subjective fashion.

In short, no one said anything about not paying for being stupid.

 

Have I ever said that everyone has to wear plate?

I don't think so.

 

My point is that if you want the best protection, you get plate.

 

Nothin else should provide the same level of protection. Not even close. Especially not chainmail bikini's. They are a stupid idea for multiple reasons - the least of which being visual.

[Rostere]

I have a feeling back then,

 

Women would have just had to deal with it, because the sexes were not equal.

There is definatly a difference between male and females types in todays armours, however back then they wouldn't have cared for womens comfort.

 

It's not an issue of comfort. Plate armour should not fit tight and has several deeper layers of clothing and padding. It also has an ideal shape to deflect blows. Compare this all to how modern tank armour works, it's the same underlying principles.

 

This has nothing to do with comfort. Even if it had, the female plate armour would only differ on how it is fitted to the hips where the breastplate would start higher up compared to the male versions (see earlier discussion of modern female body armour - however this would arguably not even be visible from the top- down view of PE), and invisible details in clothing under the armour.

 

I can see the argument for a Cleric wearing elaborate armour for religious purposes, but this still leaves no room for "boobplates".

[Merlkir]

Just gonna leave this here:

 

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you

 

I was wondering if someone saw that. I'll leave THIS here.

 

http://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/2013/05/in-semi-defense-of-boobplate.html

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

Just gonna leave this here:

 

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you

I was wondering if someone saw that. I'll leave THIS here.

 

http://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/2013/05/in-semi-defense-of-boobplate.html

I think the comment at the end is worth reading and sums up my own feelings on the matter. The article itself suffers too much from assumptions, lack of understanding and outright incorrect facts to be able to make a good case either way. Edited May 10, 2013 by FlintlockJazz

[JFSOCC]

 

Contrary to what some think ,300 is not historicly accurate at all.

Crap. I was sure it was actually the story told by a still-living Spartan. That's why I simply stated it was historically 100% accurate, instead of inquiring as to the actual practices of the Spartants of old.

 

I have a friend doing his thesis about the professionalisation of armies in ancient Greece. He comes up with anecdote after anecdote on how the Spartans sucked.

Thermopile, they were aided by about 4000 Athenians, (who were definitely not just craftsmen pressed into service)

the "revenge" battle you briefly see at the end of the movie 300, they were slaughtered again.

In fact, they lost most of their engagements. They did however, have inflated egos. In one battle with Athens, Both parties agreed to send 300 of their best, when the battle ended, it was 2 Athenians left vs 1 Spartan left. The Athenians were like "We outnumber you 2-1, what's the point in continuing? we've won" went home and declared victory, the Spartan who remained went like "The Athenians fled the battlefield, clearly we've driven them off, we won" and that's the story he told when he got home.

[PrimeJunta]

Must-read essay on Sparta and that homoerotic movie you're talking about.

[Merlkir]

Wow. While he's right in a number of things, that is one horribly written, generalizing and biased article. Man.

[Rostere]

Wow. While he's right in a number of things, that is one horribly written, generalizing and biased article. Man.

 

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

[Dream]

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

Edited May 10, 2013 by Dream

[Ffordesoon]

 

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

I'm not taking a side when I say this, because I haven't actually seen 300, nor do I care to. Also, I have very mixed feelings about film adaptations of historical events in general, especially when the portrayal of the events being adapted is itself filled with errors both accidental and deliberate. So I'm not saying "300 bad, Captain America good" or anything.

 

But I believe the flaw in your argument there is that Captain America does not purport to be a true story in any sense. 300 does. So there is a reasonable expectation on the viewer's part of some historical accuracy, even if artistic license has been taken. Whereas I don't think anyone of reasonable intelligence would assume the real World War II was won when Captain America defeated the Red Skull.

[Dream]

 

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

I'm not taking a side when I say this, because I haven't actually seen 300, nor do I care to. Also, I have very mixed feelings about film adaptations of historical events in general, especially when the portrayal of the events being adapted is itself filled with errors both accidental and deliberate. So I'm not saying "300 bad, Captain America good" or anything.

 

But I believe the flaw in your argument there is that Captain America does not purport to be a true story in any sense. 300 does. So there is a reasonable expectation on the viewer's part of some historical accuracy, even if artistic license has been taken. Whereas I don't think anyone of reasonable intelligence would assume the real World War II was won when Captain America defeated the Red Skull.

 

Anyone who goes to see a movie that has this:

as advertising for it and expects ANY degree of historical accuracy is out of their god damn mind.

[BruceVC]

 

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

 

 

Why wouldn't you use Captain America as a accurate historical view of WW2? Are you suggesting that Red Skull wasn't real?

[Ffordesoon]

@Dream:

 

But it is based in fact, however loosely. There really were three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae who all bit it, right? I mean, there's basically wholesale invention on top of that, but it's not a story that Frank Miller made up. It's not even the first time the story was turned into a film; Miller himself has said on numerous occasions that the inspiration for the book was a film called The 300 Spartans he watched as a kid. Whereas Captain America is a story we are all aware some creators absolutely did make up. That's the difference. I agree that anyone who went into a movie with that poster believing the film would be a faithful retelling of historical fact is a dumb person, but as you may have noticed, there are quite a lot of dumb people.

 

That said, I should mention that the "factual" story of the three hundred Spartans is as "factual" as ancient history ever is, which is to say we don't know with any degree of certainty what actually took place, but we do know what was said to have taken place by those who kept records of such things. But for the purpose of this discussion, that distinction is academic.

[Agremont]

I wonder how many pages this thread will reach before the release of P:E.

[Agiel]

How many threads more like. This is at least the 4th such thread on the subject (the other three were simply extensions of the first since the mods don't like the actual threads going over 25 pages).

[BruceVC]

I have a good idea, lets see how many pages we can reach discussing how many pages this topic can reach?

 

I know, I know..I'm hilaaaaaarious

[TrashMan]

 

Contrary to what some think ,300 is not historicly accurate at all.

Crap. I was sure it was actually the story told by a still-living Spartan. That's why I simply stated it was historically 100% accurate, instead of inquiring as to the actual practices of the Spartants of old.

 

I dunno how it was possible to miss that bit of sarcasm, but you did it.

 

 

 

There are quite literally more sources of striking in a large battle, thus the armor statistically is more likely to protect you.

 

When you're fighting one-on-one, you KNOW the guy isn't going to hit you from the side, or from behind, or above, or suddenly ride in on a horse, or launch arrows from a distance.

 

Once again. True, you just won't go "Okay, cool" when I make a point. You have a mighty need to misconstrue it, like I said anything about backstabbing being the leading cause of death among historical melee soldiers, much less stressed that.

 

In large battles you fight in formations. Meaning you have your own guys from the left and right and behind. So not really. Only when the formation breaks.

 

Also, just because you are an adventurer, doesn't mean you will be fighing 1-on-1. You may (and probably will be) outnumbered.

Not to mention that dodging weapons in RL is bloody difficult (unless you fall back), making parrying or armor your prime defense.

 

 

 

 

Curses! Foiled yet again! Because I said "since something's going to happen, we might as well make sure we in no way moderate it!"

 

I'm just going to start pretending your arguments are actually valid replies directly to the things I was saying. Maybe it'll work like reverse psychology, and, in an effort to side-step what you perceive as my argument, you'll sidestep the pretend one and actually address the real one, inadvertently.

 

Ya know, if you just continue ranting about me on and on, I will just stop responding to you completely.

 

Hearing "you dont' understand my point, and are wrong" for the 50'th time is getting boring.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Ya know, if you just continue ranting about me on and on, I will just stop responding to you completely.

 

Hearing "you dont' understand my point, and are wrong" for the 50'th time is getting boring.

 

 

 

Trashman personally I'm finding your interminable debates very entertaining so please don't stop this discussion, its anything but boring.

[TensaiOni]

 

I have a friend doing his thesis about the professionalisation of armies in ancient Greece. He comes up with anecdote after anecdote on how the Spartans sucked.

Thermopile, they were aided by about 4000 Athenians, (who were definitely not just craftsmen pressed into service)

the "revenge" battle you briefly see at the end of the movie 300, they were slaughtered again.

In fact, they lost most of their engagements. They did however, have inflated egos. In one battle with Athens, Both parties agreed to send 300 of their best, when the battle ended, it was 2 Athenians left vs 1 Spartan left. The Athenians were like "We outnumber you 2-1, what's the point in continuing? we've won" went home and declared victory, the Spartan who remained went like "The Athenians fled the battlefield, clearly we've driven them off, we won" and that's the story he told when he got home.

 

 

Can't really comment on everything here, but as the "revenge" battle, you mean battle of Platea? From what I know, Spartans - while they weren't the only one fighting there - were hardly "slaughtered".

 

Must-read essay on Sparta and that homoerotic movie you're talking about.

 

This article is getting too worked up about a movie based on a comic book (even if the comic was based on real events), and actually, is as "hurting" to Sparta as the movie itself was.

Sparta was actually quite innovative and cultured in it's early days (pre Persian wars, more or less). For example, all citizens were equal (at least, in ancient standards) and they had a political system that contained many elements of a democracy about 100 years before Athenian democracy.

[JFSOCC]

you're right it wasn't that battle. It was the battle of Tegyra. 1200 spartans vs... 300 sacred band

[Rostere]

 

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

 

 

So what if I made a movie about WW2 with the only difference from history that there were no genocides, and the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan were the significant atrocities of the war. Even if I stated it's fictional people would surely accuse me of trying to change our view of history.

 

There's a common interest in knowing our shared history. It's hard to say what is OK and what is not, I would say the only way we can determine that is by looking at the effects of movies such as 300. Obviously there are a lot of stupid people and 300 did not do anything to help them with an accurate picture of history. The effect can only be reversed, in my opinion, by criticizing 300 for it's detrimental effect on our knowledge of history.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Ya know, if you just continue ranting about me on and on, I will just stop responding to you completely.

 

Hearing "you dont' understand my point, and are wrong" for the 50'th time is getting boring.

 

 

 

Trashman personally I'm finding your interminable debates very entertaining so please don't stop this discussion, its anything but boring.

 

 

The audience does have a different perspective on things, true...

 

I do belive you were suposed to (to conform to the Internet Posting Standard) post something like this tough:

 

Edited May 12, 2013 by TrashMan