Someone explain "Skimpy Armors" to me.

[ElvenScoundrel]

Y'all are SO butthurt over a simple question, jeez. Y'all need to chill out. He was just curious, and I admire a man not afraid to ask questions in order to learn, even questions like the ones in OP's post.

 

I, myself, don't really use Skimpy armors like at all. The most skin I show on my female characters is belly and shoulders, and that's it. Granted, I have the TERA armor set installed, but mostly for the boots and gauntlets, since I seldom use the actual cuirasses. I find it stupid and immersion-killing when everyone in Skyrim is wearing 'sensible' iron armor or steel armor and my character is walking around with nipple plates for actual armor, a thong, and high-heel boots sounding like a hentai character when she fights. 

 

Unlike most people, I play Skyrim and every other Elder Scrolls game for the LORE. For the kind of game it is, lore-wise and visually. To break that flow is to break my level of immersiveness into this deep, rich world with probably the most fleshed-out fantasy universe ever. I like to think that for that hour or two I'm playing the game, that I AM my character, that he's my avatar in this fantastical world, and not a game that can be modded to be animu shit. 

 

That said, I do have sex mods installed but I keep it fairly 'vanilla', no bestiality etc, and when sex happens it happens if it felt right for my character. So I'm a roleplayer, deal with it.

[Guest airdance]

If we followed your logic about Heavy Armor, the Romans would get beat every single time and they would never manage to advance north of Italy, home to the Gauls.

The reason for the Roman success was not due exclusively to their heavy armour

the Romans were successful because:

• They fought as a cohesive unit
• they were highly disciplined
• they trained both in individual and group combat
• they had superior tactics

 

Still they were defeated many times on the battle field 

• the battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC  an entire army group of 86,000 men was destroyed by Hannibal.
• Teutoberg Wald  AD 9, three entire legions were lost to poorly trained and very lightly armoured Gauls.
• Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar)was killed in fighting at Carrhae that took the lives of 20,000 Romans. Another 10,000 were captured.
• On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Once again this defeat was suffered at the hands of poorly trained and lightly armoured troops.

 

[winny257]

why are the knights extinct?
 

1 because they were too slow. immobile in their armor.
2 wanted a knights once in love (sex) make, he had to his armor take as his loss was over.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

warum sind die ritter ausgestorben ?

1 weil sie zu langsam waren . unbeweglich in ihren rüstungen .
2 wollte ein ritter  einmal liebe ( sex ) machen , mußte er seine rüstung ablegen da war seine lust vorbei .

[winny257]

 

If we followed your logic about Heavy Armor, the Romans would get beat every single time and they would never manage to advance north of Italy, home to the Gauls.

The reason for the Roman success was not due exclusively to their heavy armour

the Romans were successful because:

• They fought as a cohesive unit
• they were highly disciplined
• they trained both in individual and group combat
• they had superior tactics

 

Still they were defeated many times on the battle field 

• the battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC  an entire army group of 86,000 men was destroyed by Hannibal.
• Teutoberg Wald  AD 9, three entire legions were lost to poorly trained and very lightly armoured Gauls.
• Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar)was killed in fighting at Carrhae that took the lives of 20,000 Romans. Another 10,000 were captured.
• On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Once again this defeat was suffered at the hands of poorly trained and lightly armoured troops.

 

 

yes yes the Teutoburg forest is in my homeland (Germany) since the Romans got the ass full.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

ja ja der Teutoburger wald liegt in meiner heimat ( deutschland ) , da haben die Römer den arsch voll bekommen .

[gsguns]

why are the knights extinct?

 

1 because they were too slow. immobile in their armor.

2 wanted a knights once in love (sex) make, he had to his armor take as his loss was over.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

warum sind die ritter ausgestorben ?

1 weil sie zu langsam waren . unbeweglich in ihren rüstungen .

2 wollte ein ritter  einmal liebe ( sex ) machen , mußte er seine rüstung ablegen da war seine lust vorbei .

Crossbows

[TheSGC]

 

 

If we followed your logic about Heavy Armor, the Romans would get beat every single time and they would never manage to advance north of Italy, home to the Gauls.

The reason for the Roman success was not due exclusively to their heavy armour

the Romans were successful because:

• They fought as a cohesive unit
• they were highly disciplined
• they trained both in individual and group combat
• they had superior tactics

 

Still they were defeated many times on the battle field 

• the battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC  an entire army group of 86,000 men was destroyed by Hannibal.
• Teutoberg Wald  AD 9, three entire legions were lost to poorly trained and very lightly armoured Gauls.
• Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar)was killed in fighting at Carrhae that took the lives of 20,000 Romans. Another 10,000 were captured.
• On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Once again this defeat was suffered at the hands of poorly trained and lightly armoured troops.

 

This. Armor is a facet of warfare, but not the entire story. Consider the Crusades. Most of the time, the Europeans were far more heavily armored than their Muslim/Saracen/Persian counterparts. Yet, ultimately, the Crusades failed at one of the main goals, taking Jerusalem. Why? The Arabs had some metallic armors, but largely wore either leather chaps or light overlocking plate armor. Why? Because they knew that even if a force of knights is marching on you, you can run circles around them with either foot or mounted archers and just shoot them to death. Heavy armor really only has an advantage in close, close combat, and even then, a skilled enough enemy can dance around you while you labor in heavy armor and try to swing a 2h sword. And even if you don't win right away, you will force crazy levels of fatigue on your enemy, both on wearing the heavy armor and maintaining it. Therefore, why bother?  

Or look at the Mongols. Very lightly armored, fast-attack based units. They curbstomped a lot of people.

And it's not even limited to infantry/mammal cavalry. Look at tanks. Towards the end of WWII and into the Cold War, everyone realized that making a super-heavy tank was useless when you could slap a howitzer on to a couple of MTs, modify the suspension and track a bit, and just toss them at the heavies. It's far cheaper and far more practical.

Now, full-body armor and powered armor systems don't and can't count, largely because they introduce certain abilities (namely, complete bulletproofing, or in sci-fi, absurd levels of protection due to materials used and usually some sort of energy shield), but in terms of modern and the past, lighter armor or even seemingly impractical armor isn't really wrong.

 

edit

just also wanted to note - the Romans failed so hard at doing anything in most of Britain. And those tribes were not heavily armored at all. And often fought with wooden weaponry. Yet they still beat back the Romans time and time again.

[Athenaa]

This is Loversab... home of the erotic, sex, skimpy, kinky, fetish, imaginative and perverted mods of the ElderScrolls series and alike (Fallout).

What are you even doing on this site asking that question XD

 

[gsguns]

 

 

If we followed your logic about Heavy Armor, the Romans would get beat every single time and they would never manage to advance north of Italy, home to the Gauls.

The reason for the Roman success was not due exclusively to their heavy armour

the Romans were successful because:

• They fought as a cohesive unit
• they were highly disciplined
• they trained both in individual and group combat
• they had superior tactics

 

Still they were defeated many times on the battle field 

• the battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC  an entire army group of 86,000 men was destroyed by Hannibal.
• Teutoberg Wald  AD 9, three entire legions were lost to poorly trained and very lightly armoured Gauls.
• Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar)was killed in fighting at Carrhae that took the lives of 20,000 Romans. Another 10,000 were captured.
• On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Once again this defeat was suffered at the hands of poorly trained and lightly armoured troops.

 

 

yes yes the Teutoburg forest is in my homeland (Germany) since the Röme got the ass full.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

ja ja der Teutoburger wald liegt in meiner heimat ( deutschland ) , da haben die Röme den arsch voll bekommen .

 

 

The greeks also fought as cohesive units. The phalanx was strong not only because the interlocked shields and long spears, but also because the mass. Wearing heavy armor will increase the unit mass, consequently, making the unit more cohesive.

 

One more reason for the use of armor

 

 

1)Battle of Cannae: Hannibal was too awesome

2)Teutoburg: It was an ambush, led by Arminius of the Cherusci. Being a commander in the roman army, he knew the routes in which Romans would pass through. He decided to form an alliance with the local tribes and betray the legions.

 

3) They were defeated because Crassus made a really dumb decision. First of attacking Parthia without the Senate consentment and second, because, he decided to take the shortest route. He also declined the help of Armenians.

[winny257]

 

why are the knights extinct?

 

1 because they were too slow. immobile in their armor.

2 wanted a knights once in love (sex) make, he had to his armor take as his loss was over.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

warum sind die ritter ausgestorben ?

1 weil sie zu langsam waren . unbeweglich in ihren rüstungen .

2 wollte ein ritter  einmal liebe ( sex ) machen , mußte er seine rüstung ablegen da war seine lust vorbei .

Crossbows

 

 

there's the  scots  have much better, the only lift her kilt (skirt) high and can start right away (fuck) haha.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

da haben's die schotten viel besser , die heben nur ihr kilt (rock) hoch und können sofort loslegen ( bumsen) haha .

[TheSGC]

 

 

 

If we followed your logic about Heavy Armor, the Romans would get beat every single time and they would never manage to advance north of Italy, home to the Gauls.

The reason for the Roman success was not due exclusively to their heavy armour

the Romans were successful because:

• They fought as a cohesive unit
• they were highly disciplined
• they trained both in individual and group combat
• they had superior tactics

 

Still they were defeated many times on the battle field 

• the battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC  an entire army group of 86,000 men was destroyed by Hannibal.
• Teutoberg Wald  AD 9, three entire legions were lost to poorly trained and very lightly armoured Gauls.
• Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar)was killed in fighting at Carrhae that took the lives of 20,000 Romans. Another 10,000 were captured.
• On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Once again this defeat was suffered at the hands of poorly trained and lightly armoured troops.

 

 

yes yes the Teutoburg forest is in my homeland (Germany) since the Röme got the ass full.

 

german \ deutsch !

 

ja ja der Teutoburger wald liegt in meiner heimat ( deutschland ) , da haben die Röme den arsch voll bekommen .

 

 

The greeks also fought as cohesive units. The phalanx was strong not only because the interlocked shields and long spears, but also because the mass. Wearing heavy armor will increase the unit mass, consequently, making the unit more cohesive.

 

One more reason for the use of armor

 

 

1)Battle of Cannae: Hannibal was too awesome

2)Teutoburg: It was an ambush, led by Arminius of the Cherusci. Being a commander in the roman army, he knew the routes in which Romans would pass through. He decided to form an alliance with the local tribes and betray the legions.

 

3) They were defeated because Crassus made a really dumb decision. First of attacking Parthia without the Senate consentment and second, because, he decided to take the shortest route. He also declined the help of Armenians.

 

Again, why do you think the knights were phased out? Why does no one wear full-body Kevlar armor nowadays? Why are HTs obsolete? Because people realized, progressively, that heavy armor is fiscally impractical as well as inhibitive to the users of it.

[Yaz]

You can have your skimpy armors alright, but there is one thing that bothers me and that is the lack of full plates and non skimpy light armor for females. I'm still a beginner at 3d modeling and no one is interested on making those.

[idonotlikeusernames]

Armoured clothing and Cars for your average VIP are a real growth industry on the other hand. Of course the trick is that most of these are really designed to look as much like their unarmoured counterparts as humanly possible.

[bob11]

Are we seriously invoking historical arguments for a magical fantasy setting...?

[winny257]

we come back again to the reality.
 

can any one tell me if ever fought woman in a Roman legion, or put a woman in a knight armor?

the only one I know was the virgin of Orleans (france).

 

german \ deutsch !

 

kommen wir nochmal auf die realität zurück .
kann mir einer sagen ob jemals eine frau in der römischen legion gekämpft hat , oder eine frau in einer ritterrüstung steckte ?

die einzige die ich kenne war die "jungfrau von Orlean" ( frankreich ).

[gsguns]

You can have your skimpy armors alright, but there is one thing that bothers me and that is the lack of full plates and non skimpy light armor for females. I'm still a beginner at 3d modeling and no one is interested on making those.

This.

[gsguns]

Are we seriously invoking historical arguments for a magical fantasy setting..

It initially started as fantasy only but this thread has evolved to both

[gsguns]

we come back again to the reality.

 

can any one tell me if ever fought woman in a Roman legion, or put a woman in a knight armor?

the only one I know was the virgin of Orleans (france).

 

german \ deutsch !

 

kommen wir nochmal auf die realität zurück .

kann mir einer sagen ob jemals eine frau in der römischen legion gekämpft hat , oder eine frau in einer ritterrüstung steckte ?

die einzige die ich kenne war die "jungfrau von Orlean" ( frankreich ).

Game logic (women fighting) along with real logic( armor use).

 

So, if the game allows you to play as female, it will also need to allow the logic of armor.

[gsguns]

 

 

Funny thing is, arrow tips were developed that would pierce the thickest of plate armor pretty much making it useless, most battles began at long range first. But what does any of that have to do with realism and immersion and lore.

This is becoming hard to compare.

 

While in ancient battles, the missile units would stay 100-200 meters to fire their missiles ( less if javelin), Skyrim's archers get really close to shoot them.

 

The longer the range, the less penetration the arrow will have. Since in  Skyrim, is usually close, the arrow still retain a high speed, only decreasing by a little.

 

So unless, the bow is fired close to the target, I don't think it would heavily penetrate the armor. ''Pretty much making it useless'', it wouldn't be useless, it would still save your live but potentially leaving you disabled.

 

 

I have a feeling this is about to evolve (devolve?) into a thread about the logic behind real world armor.

 

 

Your prediction was right

[winny257]

 

we come back again to the reality.

 

can any one tell me if ever fought woman in a Roman legion, or put a woman in a knight armor?

the only one I know was the virgin of Orleans (france).

 

german \ deutsch !

 

kommen wir nochmal auf die realität zurück .

kann mir einer sagen ob jemals eine frau in der römischen legion gekämpft hat , oder eine frau in einer ritterrüstung steckte ?

die einzige die ich kenne war die "jungfrau von Orlean" ( frankreich ).

Game logic (women fighting) along with real logic( armor use).

 

So, if the game allows you to play as female, it will also need to allow the logic of armor.

 

 

logically true that women were a chastity belt a good girl at home, moment during their men went to fight.

skyrim is illogical, so it is illogical to wear a heavy plate armor. would be logical, but it is better to wear something light. For this reason I love tight armor, I want a crisp ass look especially swaying breasts. and nothing bingt me from!

 

german \ deutsch !

 

logisch wahr , daß frauen mit einem keuschheitsgürtel ganz brav zu hause blieben , wärend ihre männer in den kampf zogen .

skyrim ist unlogisch , also ist es auch unlogisch eine schwere plattenrüstung zu tragen . logisch wäre , besser ist doch etwas leichtes zu tragen . aus diesem grund liebe ich knappe rüstungen , ich will einen knackigen arsch sehen vor allem schaukelnde titten . und nichts bingt mich davon ab !

[Gᴀʟᴠᴀɴɪᴢᴇ]

Sure, it may be immersion breaking for you, but some think otherwise.

For me, I like to imagine Skyrim as a ancient time rather then another world, I like to picture Skyrim as a time when people didn't care for clothes, after all, until recent history this was a general value, it was common for people to be naked and/or wear little clothing in early history. 

[dboura]

we come back again to the reality.

 

can any one tell me if ever fought woman in a Roman legion, or put a woman in a knight armor?

the only one I know was the virgin of Orleans (france).

 

german \ deutsch !

 

kommen wir nochmal auf die realität zurück .

kann mir einer sagen ob jemals eine frau in der römischen legion gekämpft hat , oder eine frau in einer ritterrüstung steckte ?

die einzige die ich kenne war die "jungfrau von Orlean" ( frankreich ).

 

Not sure if you meant that as rhetoric or not (having an obvious answer in other words) But as for Roman's the answer is no. Women were not allowed in the military, some people think there is a slim chance some were allowed in the civil military but only if they were wife to a highly recognized man.

 

As for women in Knight armor. While its build is not typically made for women historically, if they're not overly endowed the chest piece could fit and any in history that I have heard of wearing it, had used means of pushing them back into their chests (though I would imagine that to be very uncomfortable seeming that some used large belts around the breasts), Mainly being Joan of Arc (as you mentioned)  or Hua Mulan (while she has been accepted as really existing there is still some question to it as not much evidence is actually there).

 

[gsguns]

Sure, it may be immersion breaking for you, but some think otherwise.

For me, I like to imagine Skyrim as a ancient time rather then another world, I like to picture Skyrim as a time when people didn't care for clothes, after all, until recent history this was a general value, it was common for people to be naked and/or wear little clothing in early history. 

NPCs will complain about you being naked, some will order you to put some clothes on, etc. So, since Bethesda created the world, in their vision , it is not common in Tamriel to be naked.

[gsguns]

 

we come back again to the reality.

 

can any one tell me if ever fought woman in a Roman legion, or put a woman in a knight armor?

the only one I know was the virgin of Orleans (france).

 

german \ deutsch !

 

kommen wir nochmal auf die realität zurück .

kann mir einer sagen ob jemals eine frau in der römischen legion gekämpft hat , oder eine frau in einer ritterrüstung steckte ?

die einzige die ich kenne war die "jungfrau von Orlean" ( frankreich ).

 

Not sure if you meant that as rhetoric or not (having an obvious answer in other words) But as for Roman's the answer is no. Women were not allowed in the military, some people think there is a slim chance some were allowed in the civil military but only if they were wife to a highly recognized man.

 

As for women in Knight armor. While its build is not typically made for women historically, if they're not overly endowed the chest piece could fit and any in history that I have heard of wearing it, had used means of pushing them back into their chests (though I would imagine that to be very uncomfortable seeming that some used large belts around the breasts), Mainly being Joan of Arc (as you mentioned)  or Hua Mulan (while she has been accepted as really existing there is still some question to it as not much evidence is actually there).

 

 

And what about auxiliary camp?

[dboura]

Don't ever recall seeing anything about one in Aux, only the wife of Germanicus (a roman General) in the citizens unit during a battle around Rhine.

[gsguns]

Don't ever recall seeing anything about one in Aux, only the wife of Germanicus (a roman General) in the citizens unit during a battle around Rhine.

Congratulations, you just posted the 100th comment.