>After being affected by disproportionate casualties, female knights have started complaining about the impracticality of their armor
>The Grand Masters who were willing to be interviewed claim that the problem is blown out of proportions because female knights are instructed to redirect enemy blows to their chest and groin
>>46496603
>After being affected by disproportionate casualties, female knights have started complaining about the impracticality of their armor
Can't complain if you are dead.
All in all, it's a good plan to make the knights a male-only job again.
>>46496603
I gave one of my players a circlet that protected her body like a plate mail, independently of the armor worn.
She didn't opt for the bikini armor, still kept a chain mail.
>>46496677
>She didn't opt for the bikini armor, still kept a chain mail.
A E S T H E T I C
>>46496677
Should have gone with an incredibly swank uniform instead. If you're given the chance to kill with elegance and style, you fucking take it.
>>46496603
>knights
The only knights in my setting are people with armour so resistant it could withstand tank shells. The rest just goes for dodging and similar.
>>46496677
Obvious sane reaction is to get nekkid, paint yourself in feces, and claim some insane nature god is the origin of your protection.
Also bath in blood once you get the chance. Maybe start wearing pieces of defeated enemies.
Hmmm this is a fun character concept I should use this as an npc.
>>46496643
Or you could just
you know
equip female knights with actual armor instead of the stupid bullshit in OP's post
>>46496913
Damn, that is swanky
>>46496913
desu full dress isn't armour.
Why does everyone always default to bikini armor rather than setting their campaign in a location where all warriors would be half naked by default because it's too damned hot to be walking around in a metal suit all day?
That way you get to play with your magical realm without it being quite so obvious. Plus you give the dead horse carcass of generic medieval western europe fantasy land a chance to rest between all the beatings.
>>46497756
nobody in any campaign i played/ran defaulted to chainmail bikini, no matter how ridiculous the setting was. There were uniforms, armor more stylish than practical and just clothing, but none of "bikini and high heels" look that people love to riff on so much.
The whole "bikini armor" thing has become a dead cliche, something that appears more in mockery than in actual games.
>>46497014
Shut it, nerd.
>>46496913
this
>>46497858
Why is 19th century military fashion so hot?
>>46497871
>>46497893
Problem with that picture is that I can't help but feel that scantily clad women getting cut up was the artist's fetish, making it even more magical realm than straight up bikini armor.
>>46497893
>open-faced helm
She gets an arrow to the face and dies.
>>46497939
come on now, meet us halfway.
seeing the face of the protagonist is always better
>>46497937
Yeah, honestly it looks more like some armoured psychopath going to town in a specialty brothel rather than an actual fight.
>>46496643
You could also just not treat knights like they're some kind of mook infantry but rather distinguished people with lands, arms, and training, and who were willing to muster troops for their liege.
>>46497937
>>46497971
I think it's because of quality of the picture.
You don't expect someone to draw something this well if he just wants to make an insightful "haha fantasy armor amirite" comment (which has been circulated for, like, 40 years, more or less).
Like, it's effort misspent so spectacularly, you suspect there's something else.
>>46497939
Oh for fuck's sake. I suppose the Romans were known for being defeated by arrows to the face, due to their open helms as well?
Look, I know that super skimpy armour is bullshit and honestly, I don't even think it looks all that hot, half the time. But not all fucking armour has to be a totally impenetrable wall of steel that makes the wearer look like a damn robot! In case you haven't noticed, armour that was used for hundreds of years still had flaws; it was a constant balancing act between protection, weight, cost and yes, looks as well!
So by all means, laugh at bikini mail as the dumbest thing to ever be created (who was even responsible for that shit anyway) and roll your eyes at titillating anime form-fitting armour, but for fuck's sake, learn to accept when an aesthetic is just a part of the setting and don't look for flaws just for the sake of finding something to pick at!
>>46497014
This is what i never got about that argument
>MUH REALISM
>FEMALES CAN BE KNIGHTS TOO
Pick one
>>46497884
>>46498011
>don't look for flaws just for the sake of finding something to pick at!
>>46498011
>Oh for fuck's sake. I suppose the Romans were known for being defeated by arrows to the face, due to their open helms as well?
Well, given that the Romans had real problems with horse archers, yes?
>>46498011
>who was even responsible for that shit anyway
I want to say Esteban Maroto. The cunt who ruined Red Sonja.
>>46498022
Just a bunch of women whining about a hobby that i doubt they are even that interested for attention. And the occasional armor fag, but that is different.
>>46498028
>Hussar Lady
>Folies bergères
anon, I...
>>46498011
I was thinking that many female warriors would be able to swarm one female knight and put her down with a well placed body slam. Wouldn't that have been realistic?
If I had a bodyguard harem I'd have them learn jujitsu or it's fantasy counterpart.
>>46498067
Yes, she's from the cabaret, and?
All the rest are noblewomen, not officers (well, some may be honorary officers), but they're still in uniform.
And still pretty hot
>>46498044
And yet they had no problem fighting Persians, Hebrews, Egyptians and other cultures that had extensive archer elements in their armies. Their problem with horse archers was more to do with
>The Huns and other cultures who used a lot of mounted archers arrived when the empire was already falling apart
>Roman foot troops couldn't keep up with the speed mounted forces could maneuver
>Roman cavalry was SHOCKINGLY bad
>>46498067
Are you thinking of winged hussars? There were more than one variety, you know.
>>46498022
Okay, let's talk force multipliers. When you're on a warhorse, in heavy armour, with a background that afforded you time and means to train in combat, it suddenly matters a lot less if you're a man or a woman. The difference is small enough that you can ride down infantry just as well as the next man, which is what heavy cavalry were typically used for; breaking the enemy's infantry line, once yours has pinned them in place.
Now, in a joust, you might be on more even footing, or even at a disadvantage, but in open battle, your training and equipment compensate a LOT for weaknesses.
That's not to say that women warriors didn't have other problems. The menstrual cycle, risk of pregnancy and slightly lower endurance, as well as discipline problems in a mixed force are factors to consider, as well as the fact that men are flat-out more expendable and easier to replace than women. But all things considered, the idea of a woman fighting, especially as a member of the nobility, isn't as far-fetched as you think.
>>46498044
The open faced helms were fine because they had a big ass shield in front of it, the problem with the parthian horse archers was the arrows were going THROUGH the shields.
>>46498011
You're over reacting to a shit post, but in a way that is an actual flaw. That's an open face sallet she's wearing, she really would be better wearing the sallets visor, with it german armour was fucking impenetrable. She's giving her opponent something to aim for.
>>46498144
Your understating the endurance aspect.
Even though modern weapons require zero strength to use and troops are mostly driven everywhere, the difference in endurance is still one of the major reasons why women are kept of the frontlines, they can't march under load and they're far more likely to get injured.
In a feudal army they would've marched everywhere, carrying a lot of their gear while in armour. Battles weren't over in a matter of minutes, they'd be expected to fight for hours, many ran for an entire day if not several days. Bringing women to war as soldiers would've been a waste of time.
>>46498289
>Even though modern weapons require zero strength to use
You highly underestimate recoil. Really takes a toll after a while.
>>46498144
>but in open battle, your training and equipment compensate a LOT for weaknesses.
Yes, because in open battle knights only trample down enemies. Of course the enemy infantry hasn't been trained to hold the line against an enemy charge, and of course the enemy heavy cavalry will sit still and politely wait until you're done trampling the peasants.
That's not how battles work you dingus. Charging in very well means you might be stuck in a prolonged fight against heavy infantry. And even if you manage to cause a route, enemy cavalry will almost certainly retaliate. Hell, for the sake of strategy you might even be ordered to forsake a charge against infantry to charge and lock the enemy cavalry in place.
If cavalry charges were really this easy and didn't demand a lot of strength, knights wouldn't be trained literally from childhood.
And this is why I'm disappointed: ladyknights are my fetish but women are simply too physically and mentally incompetent for combat roles. They lack the muscle mass, they lack the testosterone, they lack the mindset, they lack the loyalty, they lack the courage and they lack the selflessness. Yes, I'm fucking mad, what gave it away?
>>46496603
>women
>combat
not in my setting faggot
>>46498373
>implying female "knights" arent just meant as sexual relief for the men
My sides.
>>46497893
As was covered in a previous thread, that picture is incredibly shit.
The so called 'realistic' armor that the other woman is wearing is jousting armor that didn't exist until well after the invention and use of gunpowder weapons. So she shouldn't be fighting people with daggers, she should be fighting people with pistols. And she should barely be able to walk and be clumsy as fuck. And the level of protection provided by that armor does shit to negate a 6 to 1 numerical advantage because it takes a single one of them to single tackler her and knock her to the ground to render her totally fucking helpless to getting held down and shanked. Hell, many of the wounds we see there are not even immediately fatal, decapitation being the obvious exception.
The only way this picture works in any way is if armorlady is a trained soldier and everyone else in that picture has never held a weapon before and has no concept of tactics or discipline whatsoever. In which case what they are wearing was the least of their problems and being in fullplate wouldn't have saved their lives anyway.
>>46498389
So you and an empty table with an open notepad file no one will see?
>>46498396
Sadly that's pretty much what women in the military today are: overpaid prostitutes funded by the taxpayer.
>>46497937
>>46497971
I bet you wouldn't say this if it was men getting cut up. Be honest: seeing women getting slaughtered makes you uncomfortable so you're looking for a justification that discredits the artist. Which explains precisely why women shouldn't be fighting in the fist place: a man can die no problem but a single woman gets WOUNDED and it's a national fucking disaster.
>>46498438
too close to home, anon
On topic, however, I think that if you're trying for a 100% realistic game, then you should obviously not have ladyknights. Sexual Dimorphism in humans is an actual thing, and women are just less physically capable than men.
That being said, no one ever runs a 100% historically accurate game, and if you're willing to put magic and elves and studded leather in your setting, then you need to think of a pretty damn good reason to so severely limit your player's rp options by disallowing access to half of the gene pool.
>>46498299
You still don't need to be as strong as a knight to be effective with them, which is why female knights are treated the way they are. It's silly to ever compare the use of a woman from our time to back then. You don't NEED that godly level of endurance for war anymore. Our current military requirements are vastly differently from medieval ones.
>>46498542
>Be honest: seeing women getting slaughtered makes you uncomfortable
Not them, but it turns me on. Still doesnt mean you have to have svantily clad armor. Having a barbarian smash her in the stomach so hard with his clib that the armor fractures along with her ribs, is pretty fucking hot
>>46498559
is it considered postmodern when people start using 'this is bait' images to bait threads?Here's your (you)
>>46498586
Nah that's just called being stupid.
>>46498542
If I saw an image of the mass slaughter of half-naked men by a guy in full armor I'd wonder why I was looking at south american colonial history textbook illustrations.
>>46498521
>today
>today
>today
>>46498605
Please point me in the direction of these south american colonial history textbook illustrations.
>>46498634
I dont get it.
>>46498605
Those Spaniards lied, bro. They didn't conquer shit on their own, and if they tried to do it to the extent they described, they'd lose in a matter of minutes at best. They provoked the tribes' rivalry to their advantage to get the shit done.
>>46498666
He's probably suggesting that's what they've always been, hence the sexy armor. Nobility had those metal dresses, so it was probably a visual analogy of how much harder it was to get into their pants.
>>46498044
Yes, I'm sure the Romans' problems with horse archers were ENTIRELY due to their open helms, and had nothing to do with the fact that they were a primarily infantry army facing much more mobile soldiers, eh?
>After being affected by disproportionate casualties, female knights no longer exist.
Fixed that for you OP.
>>46497756
So what Dark Sun tried?
Problem being that unless you're in a literal jungle a place that hot is also a place that will burn and dehydrate you for daring to show skin, so you cover everything possible with fabric.
>>46498666
Prostitution of camp followers, sutlers, vivandieres and soldiers caused massive problems prior to modern warfare. Why do you think Joan of Arc's virginity was considered surprisingly and incredibly virtuous even by the English?
>>46498667
>What is Cajamarca
>>46498418
> this
>>46498802
That shit's overdone. I wanna hear about modern weapons and time travel.
How many red coats would it take to stop a military hummer after running them down from the side?
>>46498144
>Roman cavalry was bad.
Nice meme, but Roman cavalry was very competent. They wouldn't be considered elites if they were actually that bad. People blow the instances of Roman cavalry preferring to fight on foot out of proportion in a huge way, because it happened that one time. In most instances Roman cavalry matched or defeated the enemy cavalry.
Source: literally any of the battles in which Roman cavalry contested or routed other cavalry which were considered among the best in the world at the time, almost all of which the Roman cavalry were severely outnumbered.
>>46498418
Anon, i think realism and historical accuracy was the least of author's priorities.
>>46496603
Am seeing massive reforms in the order's future
Bad armor and training?
Not to mention the cost of all those resurrections
>>46498964
I'm sure the artist was trying to make a point. But if you are going to be that insufferably smug, you shouldn't be so damn wrong.
Its like starting a sentence with "Well ACTUALLY...". If you are right its fine, but if you are wrong you can expect to eat shit over it.
>>46498802
>Atahualpa's wife, 10-year-old Cuxirimay Ocllo
>>46498220
The only reason the helmet is open-faced is to show the viewer that she is in fact a woman.
>>46498781
>Prostitution of camp followers, sutlers, vivandieres
None of those were expected to fight and whoring themselves out was part of why they were paid. Only today are these women paid and equiped to fight: the one duty they AREN'T doing.
Why I appreciate prostitutes over "normal" women is because they're honest. "Soldiers" prostituting themselves aren't honest.
>>46498582
You're talking out of your ass, women have no place on the front lines on the modern battlefield.
>>46498582
>Our current military requirements are vastly differently from medieval ones.
No they aren't, in fact they're almost identical. A modern soldier carries at the very minimum 60 pounds of gear and more often than not up to a 100 pounds.
For comparison a suit of plate armour weights about 50.
>>46498781
>you will never be a english lord
>you will never take joan of arc prisoner
>you will never have your men hold her down
>you will never rape her sweet, underage, virgin pussy
Why even live?
>>46499489
>there are 3.5 billion women on the planet, but I'm upset because I'll never get to have sex with this one particular one that I never even met, boo hoo
You should fucking kill yourself.
>>46499506
This made me laugh. I guess why even life is an exaggeration, but still, not wrong to desire something like violating joan of arc. Not even the historical one , because from what i understand she was hideous.
>>46499539
She was French, of course she was hideous!
>>46498289
>>46498582
>8 pound M16
>2 pound longsword
Guess which takes more strength. The only time fencing requires any amount of strength is in the bind, and smaller fencers spend a lot of their time avoiding positions where they end up in a competition of strength.
That said, while women do belong on the battlefield (a modern military is more or less a glorified police force, and public relations is something that women have an undeniable advantage at), and there are certainly women out there with a mindset and physical ability at least as battle ready as the average male soldier, there's probably not enough of them to make it reasonable to consider integrating women in the front lines.
>>46499875
>a modern military is more or less a glorified police force
What is your opinion on the modern police force?
>>46499939
A non-glorified police force.
>>46499539
>not wrong to desire something like violating joan of arc
>>46499875
>there's probably not enough of them to make it reasonable to consider integrating women in the front lines.
It works for the Kurds.
But the Pentagon apparently just can't manage.
>>46499939
In the US? They're a WWI army on the front lines, or at least see themselves that way. Soon they'll be digging trenches.
>>46499875
Fuck no, keep the women as poggies. They've done a lot of studies on women's effectiveness in combat and the facts are that they simply don't pull their weight.
>>46499489
>I'm upset because I'll never be able to rape an underage girl that humiliated me and my men
>>46499539
>>46499716
What source do you have on her being hideous? Because what little we do know of her contradicts this.
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=R-h3_tMbudcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=joan+of+arc+looks+hair+chest&ots=6EzCFyQ2wT&sig=phU7vUNHFNj4xoQxQUUkvCDAX7w#v=snippet&q=That%20is%20all%20we%20know%20of%20her%20looks&f=false
Consider that this source is highly skeptical and even it refers to her as being healthy, shapely and having a pleasant voice. She was never explicitly called beautiful and if she was or not we'll never know (unless some new source pops up) but she's a far cry away from being hideous.
>>46499969
There's nothing wrong with rape in England, just ask the underage girls of Rotherham.
>>46500002
Losses are acceptable for the Kurds. Losses aren't acceptable for the Pentagon, because publicity, and every woman killed is worth ten men.
>>46500002
>It works for the Kurds
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't
>>46500040
Oh wait, I forgot: I'm referring explicitly to page 18 of that source if you want to doublecheck.
>>46498289
Grunts today carry more shit than ever.
>they're in more engagements because they can be driven or airlifted from one battlefield to another
>they wear more armor, weapons, and gear than a medieval knight
>they're expected to carry their wounded out of a firefight instead of waiting til after the battle to carry them off the field
If anything, Napolean's day would have been the best time for a woman soldier
>long marches, but nothing a woman couldn't handle
>no infantry armor
>fewer engagements
>food and shit carried in a baggage train
Women in the USA do not want to fight for their country... they want shiny bric-a-brac on their uniform and get promoted to positions of actual power and turn the military into a feminist summer camp.
>>46499875
It's not just a matter of mass, it's the balance, and how they're held.
I'm pretty sure you can hold an M16 in firing position much longer than you can hold an M1911, since the centre of mass is closer to your body and you're bracing it on your shoulder.
>>46500031
When was the last time the US military was in an actual battle? Women being less effective in combat isn't as big of a deal when you're occupying a country, compared to when you're invading it. The cool thing about the modern world is that extended wars can't happen. You either have one country much larger and better equipped (USA, Russia, China) and one much smaller, or you have nuclear retaliation and everyone dies.
>>46500002
American women usually either contain more plastic than Trabant car or weight as much as one. Sometimes both. That doesn't make for a suitable soldier.
>>46500128
It doesn't matter what you consider 'an actual battle', but if I go down and my squaddie can't carry me to the lz for medevac, she has absolutely no place on the battlefield.
>>46500060
>If anything, Napolean's day would have been the best time for a woman soldier
Looks like someone doesn't know that NapoleOn (Or Napoléon if you want to be authentic) was a big fan of bayonet charges.
Did you know that one of the reasons why the idea that Napoleon was short persists? Because he was constantly surrounded by the Old Guard who had a minimum height of 1.80m (at least 10cm above the average of the time). They were supposed to be big and strong because these guys were expected to engage in bayonet chargeswhile singing about fried onions, I kid you notnear the end of a battle in order to break the enemy.
Fighting someone with a pointy stick without armor is a lot harder than fighting someone with a pointy stick and armor, because if you're only carrying clothes you need to make every attack count: if you don't knock an enemy down instantly, he can stab you back and you're fucked.
At best women would be suitable as Voltigeurs, and those guys had to run back and forth all the time to stay outside their enemy's range of fire. This is why in the Napoleonic period women were mostly vivandières: cook-prostitutes.
>>46500128
>compared to when you're invading it
You answered your own question.
We shouldn't be occupying countries for decades just to "bring them democracy".
>The cool thing about the modern world is that extended wars can't happen
GWOT is in year 15 anon. You can whinge about how it's "not a real war like muh dubya dubya too" but real war shit happened and continues to happen.
And things are stable and cool until they aren't.
In the next one, women in combat units will either become something like transsexuals, put into all women "combat units" that patrol safe zones, or you'll start hearing about male soldiers fragging the women in their unit.
>>46500211
I didn't think of that.
>>46500061
>it's the balance
Balance of a longsword is usually around a hand's width from the guard. It's surprisingly easy to maneuver, especially with two hands.
>and how they're held.
I'm pretty sure I can hold a longsword in Posta di Finestra (Ochs for you Germans out there) longer than I can hold an M16 in firing position. Even the scrawniest girl could hold Posta di Donna or Boar's Tooth all day long.
>>46500203
That female squaddie might be able to keep you from going down in the first place. Remember that if your directive is "kill all baddies" and you kill all the baddies, you'll have a new wave of baddies formed from the enraged families of all the baddies you killed. "Kill all baddies" is a poor strategy unless it involves saturation bombing and glassing the entire country.
>>46500328
GWOT is just an extension of the war on drugs. The only difference is that we're sending our military out to get killed by the baddies we created instead of sending our police out to get killed by the baddies we created.
>>46500506
>That female squaddie might be able to keep you from going down in the first place.
Maybe she can, maybe she can't. The point is that at some point someone is going to get wounded, that's unavoidable, and she'll have to pull her weight. If she's the closest to that guy that means she has to carry him off the battlefield, even (or perhaps especially) if that guy is a 2 meter tall, 100 kg heavy hunk of muscles.
>>46500393
Something tells me that hand to hand combat is a little more rough and strength oriented than you think.
In a one on one fight with a man in his physical prime, a woman has much better chances with a gun than any melee weapon. A hundred times out of a hundred. Being able to strike fencing poses has nothing to do with it.
>>46500040
No sorry, maybe the english part was confusing. I wouldbt mind being a demon or alien and fucking her brains out either.
>>46497756
Maybe I want my walking tanks, fancy-dress fencers, loincloth barbarians, and bikini warriors all in the same setting.
>>46496913
I recently started playing a weekly D&D Adventurer's League at my LGS. Character is a rogue/thief and I've been stealing an item of clothing from every major enemy we defeat. So far I'm sporting a few rings and a sweet ass pirate hat. Unfortunately BBEG of the last session got away when we almost died, so I didn't get to add anything new to my apparel.
>>46500755
I don't think you understand how frighteningly little strength it takes to kill someone. Just walking forward with your sword out is enough to put the point straight through a person's sternum. Mail makes things a bit harder, but not nearly as much as you might think.
Basically any thrust to the torso you see in any sort of fencing would be enough to kill a person with sharp weapons. Any cut to the arms or legs is enough to cripple them, to be followed up with a killing blow. This is why fencing (except for sport fencing, which is a fucking joke) is all about striking without being struck.
Speed, endurance, and skill are the most important things in fencing. Strength doesn't really play into it, except that against a weaker opponent you will want to force them into contests of strength if possible, and against a stronger opponent you will want to avoid them. A properly executed parry redirects an attack rather than blocking it straight on, so it doesn't take much strength to parry and a stronger, more powerful attack isn't much more likely to connect than a weak one.
I for one encourage women on the battlefield. When you win, you can tkae some prisoners and have some fun. Fuck the geneva convention
>>46501899
I encourage women on the battlefield so I can brutally blast those stupid slores with shotguns.
>>46502328
>shotgunsNobody uses those antiquated things on the modern battlefield, except for the niche role they have in breaching.And even then, the riflemen go in first.
>>46502396
I think the point was more about killing women than the type of weapon.
>>46502414
I got that point just fine, but I'm too autistic to skip on correcting someone.
>>46496603
>it's a "passive aggressively bitch about boob plate and chainmail bikinis" episode
>>46502396
>except for the niche role they have in breaching. And even then, the riflemen go in first.
Then what are they even for if rifles get the job done anyway?
>>46498022
>Realism
>Not considering the exceptional cases that exist in real life
pick one
>>46504191
>exceptional cases
>being the norm
Pick one
>>46504151
Home defense
>>46504204
>Knights
>Norm
Go on about how every foot-soldier in your realistic setting has full-plate and a horse
>>46504276
Prettttty sure i said nothing like that. Try harder anon
>>46498921
But romans used auxiliaries as cavalry a lot, most notable case caesar and his germanic bros.
>>46504222
No, that's what, again, rifles and handguns are for.
>>46504151
Opening locked doors safely with frangible rounds instead of getting rebounded lead and copper all up in your face from trying to shoot them with bullets.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ucGUNjh.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>46504276
>every foot-soldier in your realistic setting has full-plate and a horse
Changing subject, how can i make a semi-realistic setting where every soldier has full armor and a horse?
>>46504433
>rifle
>home defense
Unless you are living on a homestead, that is a bad idea m'kay
>>46504450
There are regulations imposed by the rulers about the equipment one has to bring during campaign, horse and full armor are required.
>muh money
The less fortunate will have to get together and supply a single soldier in a group of 3, 5, 10 or whatever, depending on their social and aconomic standing
>>46504450
They would need to be in a region with fuck huge amounts of iron and those controlling the army have just as much money at their disposal. Plate armor was stupidly expensive to make as it required someone what had been training for years, maybe even decades, to get right. If they had more basic forms of armor, such as chain mail it would be much less expensive but still far from cheap.
Everyone being mounted is a different story. While still expensive, because you have to train the horse until it's battle ready and then you got to feed it, but how expensive is based on what they get used for. If you simply want your troops to be able to cross the battlefield rapidly then dismount and act as infantry the horses wouldn't need to be great horses. If you want everyone to be doing shit like winged hussars, with both the rider and horse being heavily armored and the horse being bread and trained to be fearless than you'll need a kingdom that is stupidly fucking rich. I don't know much about how much things costed but the price would be insane.
So the short answer is be wealthier than the Roman Empire.
>>46504561
5.56 is less likely to be lethal after penetrating drywall (which anything will, short of light birdshot) than handgun cartridges and buckshot.
>>46504658
Im gonna need to a source on that. At least for the handguns.
>>46504276
Most knights didn't have plate or a horse though.
What are you even on about
>>46497937
The picture is just an continuation of an old ass picture, attached here.
tl;dr armorfags suck
>>46504701
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Ammo_Oracle_Mirror.htm#556indoor
5.56 projectiles have less mass than handgun rounds and rely on velocity in order to cause damage. That velocity drops off pretty quickly after going through a wall or two.
>>46496603
I like the qt on the right much more than the dumb skank
>>46504701
I'm the original guy who pointed out that shotguns in the modern world have a very niche role, not the guy you're responding to, but 5.56 is essentially a very fast and long .22 diametre bullet. When it hits something, even a drywall, it's going to destabilise and dump a lot of energy. If it does penetrate, it's gonna keyhole like fuck (ig it stays in one piece) and do very little damage, whereas 9mm and buckshot by extension (00 buck is like 9 9mm bullets in a shell) are slower and heavier, thus retaining their energy better when penetrating targets. Also, the smart person would use jhp/jsp/frangible rounds for home defense. Those are devastating on soft targets, but penetrate like ass.
I'd give you graphs, but I don't have them on my phone. But google should give some results.
>>46504841
Both pictures are still better quality in terms of content and production than the bikini armor advocate response to >>46504841
Awful.
Couldn't even be bothered to find out what a skull looks like.
>>46504450
Late middle ages/early renaissance? When (the greatest) European kingdoms got a lot more centralized and the nobility was getting displaced by men at arms? The existence of full plate and firearms in D&D seems to support this timeframe.
>>46504934
>frangible
Nothx, I don't want something that a leather jacket with a quilted liner will stop.
I've always been fond of alternating shot with .38s and plates. Other people swear by alternating shot with .45 long Colt.
![programming-sprite-kit-or-unity[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cSnpJa3.jpg "programming-sprite-kit-or-unity[1].jpg")
So... nobody's going to adress the whole "female knights are instructed to redirect enemy attacks to their groin" thing?
>>46505274
Sure.
But you DO want something that won't cross the road or penetrate a shitty American wall and put a hole in your neighbor.
>>46505298
>female knight
Who cares? They are just fap bait.
>>46505997
this
>>46505968
Pretty much anything that will stop anyone with any reliability will penetrate four shitty American walls in succession. There's not much you can do to get around it.
>>46505968
That's why the first shell is shot. If they're wearing anything heavier than a wool coat but lighter than a Type III-A vest with plates, then the second shell solves that problem. If they're wearing heavier than a Type III-A with plates, then GG NO RE, you were fucked BEFORE the stormtroopers kicked your door.
>>46506323
Pretty much this, the frangible/very light 5.56 rounds do a good job of dumping energy, but anything thats hitting hard enough to kill a person isnt going to have any trouble killing drywall.
Placement, placement, placement. Which is another point in the rifle's column. Its much easier to re-aquire sight picture and land followup shots with a rifle than it is with a handgun or shotgun.
>>46497893
why does she have gold armor is not the weakest and heaviest of metal,s ?
>>46498418
You are so wrong it's hilarious. Your understanding on Joust armor is awful that it makes me question your understanding of armor as a whole. Light armored people with daggers wouldn't have as easier time as you think 'tackling' down a trained knighted. We are talking about someone with a larger weapon and less concerned for protecting body parts. I fought people who had literaly ten centimeters more arm than I did, swords at same size, and the difference was brutal. I tried fighting with one handed sword agaisnt a two handed sword, and the thirty centimeters of extra blade are brutal advantage too. But not only that, the fucking weight and momentum of a two handed blade means someone using a one handed sword can't even parry it proper. Even if holding it with two hands. You half sword or that vertical strike takes your shoulder off. Have you ever tried on plate? It doesnt slow you down almost any, and it gives you a massive advantage in balance and tossing your weight agaisnt people. And 'finding' a gap in full plate is not easy at all. You are trying to slide something through small gaps on a moving, unwilling, armed person. And below then you have mail and leather.
Fuck the fact it's women on armor. Ignore that. I'm telling you, full plate armor and a longer weapon is more than advantage enough to take on a group of six people with no armor and daggers. You will literally take one of the fight on each swing you hit. Not because instant kill but because the fuck they gonna do against your sword? DODGE? There's a reason armor was invented and people parry blows. Dodging is super difficult and super risk and fucks your stance something fierce. Hell even in brawling and boxing something folks will take a hit to the face when it goes past their black rather than making this stupid big leap backwards, because if they do, the adversary just gonna lunge and punch their faces in.
Fucking niggers.
>>46506902
this is the thing that matters. not that it's a bikini, but because it's gold.
>>46506523
>not making the third shot illegal armor-piercing handgun rounds
>>46504841
>>46497893
>>46496603
forget you all.
i already preordered.
>>46508269
y tho
>>46508269
feels likeit would be better for slaaneshi converts
>>46504293
The entire purpose of that post was to highlight the oddity using averages to estimate specifics & how oddities already exists too within the settings already.
![[HorribleSubs] Re Zero kara Hajimeru Isekai Seikatsu - 01B [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.50_[2016.04.07_01.20.07].png](https://i.imgur.com/BOy4cRL.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Re Zero kara Hajimeru Isekai Seikatsu - 01B [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.50_[2016.04.07_01.20.07].png")
>>46496603
Are bikini armors really a big problem in many people's games?
I see threads about this shit all the time but in my 15 years of gaming I never, ever saw a player who wanted bikini armor or a GM who had NPC's use it.
>>46504834
That's point, that it's really odd to play the "realism" card regarding settings where such a thing can occur.
>>46497115
No shit sherlock, that wasn't what they were talking about.
Am I the only one who thinks chainmail bikinis would work? I mean, let's say your a savage barbarian or whatever, and this sexy little thing barely wearing anything flounces out. You're not gonna want to kill her, you're gonna want to take her prisoner as rape-meat. Meanwhile, some bull-dyke in full platemail, SHE looks dangerous, that's someone you're gonna take seriously.
>>46496603
>the "well armored" one in the back still has bare thighs
How do you fuck even this up?
>>46504450
Everyone has full munitions plate pretty much in the high middle ages.
Horse maybe not.
>>46505298
What's that filename about?
>>46498005
It could be for money
>>46496643
>Can't complain if you are dead.
They can if you bring them back from the dead to fight for you again. Losing a veteran soldier just because they died once seems wasteful.
>>46512556
Someone post the greek hoplite armor one
>Oh come on, pecplate? Unrealistic
>>46497884
>corsetted
>actual warrior
>>46498964
It's to jerk off to dead chicks right?
>>46507194
Jesus Christ. What a faggot.
>>46514001
There is litterally nothing wrong with enjoying snuff
It doesn't neccesarily have to be realistic however
>>46497871
>>46497858
>Those riding crops>Unnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnf!
>>46514029
Hey I'm not judging. I like a good rape now and then myself. I wish other people were as open minded.
>>46513748
The males clearly have armor that covers their thighs in that image. No reason for the women not to have it too, then, other than magical realm.
>>46500002
Kurdish women soldiers are shock troops who are effective primarily because of the ISIS beliefs about getting killed by a woman.
>>46514322
>Implying they're not entirely around for propaganda
>Implying ISIS or anyone can tell the gender of who's shooting at them from 300+ meters away.
>Implying women in infantry actually matter.
>>46514395
>Implying they're not entirely around for propaganda
That too.
>>46508745
It's not something that usually shows up in games, but it's rampant in a lot of gaming artwork, and that's what bugs some people.
>>46514322
This is in no way true. The PKK use women because of their strong Marxist roots and desperation as a stateless besieged ethnic group.
The presence of women in combat has always been minimal and usually due to desperation as all the young men are dead. Even the Soviet Union who had 80 years of female soldiers only ever had 10% of their fighting forces being women.
It's a really bad idea to send your women to die in combat unless you have no other choice.
>>46499296
You know at Agincourt most of the knights fought with their visors open, because visibility is more important than the protection the visor offers.
It's one of the reasons the longbows were effective, they forced the French to keep their visors down, obscuring their vision and imparing their ventilation.
>>46499296
If you wanna call that a woman, sure.
>>46507194
This is some advanced autism, anom
>>46515470
Aw fuck, *anon*. I need to lay off the alcohol...
>>46498054
Wasn't Maroto. the signature is "M. Jakubiec 2015."
>female
>complaining
sounds about right.
>>46516576
Max kek
>>46514914
>It's one of the reasons the longbows were effective
Except Agincourt was famous for how many knights were captured and the longbow was generally effective against lesser armored opponents (of whom there was no shortage don't get me wrong).
>>46515470
>Tells everyone how it really is.
>"Autism"
>>46498418
>Spouts tired old cliches based on a complete lack of understanding of how armour works, XIXth century bullshit that everyone learns but which has no basis in reality.
>"This".
This is why we can't have nice things.
>>46496603
No, no,no, that's suppposed to be Underware. You wear the armor ontop of it. The boob plates are just to keep your tits from chafing on the brestplate.
>>46512042
See, heres the thing: Neither of those outcomes are favourable or desirable and only one option provides enough protection to put up an actual fight against an armoured or well armed opponent
>>46512042
>>46520645
Actually, under European tradition you wanted to capture the well armored ones alive.
Gear wasn't issued, it was bought by the individual so if someone had lots of armor they were really, really wealthy. That meant you could capture him/her and force them to pay a ransom. If you were good at that you could actually make a good living taking your enemies captive and either ransoming them back to their families or selling them into slavery.
That's what William the Marshal did and he eventually became one of the wealthiest men in England.
But seriously, a chainmail bikini is only good as underwear. Like a padded codpiece but for women.
>>46497871
The hat on the left. It is Glorious. I MUST HAVE IT.
>>46522505
>Like a padded codpiece
...is that a thing?
>>46524639
yes. Getting kicked in the genitals hurts without it and it carries the advantage of one, making your dick look bigger cause no one knows how padded, and two of being more comfortable to wear for an extended period.
>>46524686
>making your dick look bigger
Medieval Europe, you weird.
>>46524733
There are sets of armour which are covered in lewd and suggestive images, some of which amount to giving your opponent the middle finger. Europe is less so weird, more so we are creative.
>>46508745
It's one of those things that I think only really comes up in fantasy artwork at this point, and not in actual gameplay.
Among other things, in most settings fantastic enough to have bikini plate they also have mithral, and since mithral chain shirts or plate armor are ridiculously light while also being stronger than steel, only a moron or someone from a non-armored class wouldn't opt to wear those instead.
>since mithral chain shirts or plate armor are ridiculously light while also being stronger than steel, only a moron or someone from a non-armored class wouldn't opt to wear those instead
I can already see it before me: street vendors who advertise chainmail bikinis, chainmail gentlemen's thongs, chainmail dominatrix suits and chainmail French maid uniforms for the adventurers who want to spice up their sex life without having to give up on adventuring. They also have bondage ropes that double as combat whips, in case you get caught by surprise and can't quickly grab a more suitable weapon.
>>46525715
fuck give me mithral chain shirts and i'll forgo the heavy armor.
