Female Armour

Users who are viewing this thread

Huh. Neither could I. Maybe it's just been talked in the various game threads instead.

Okay, my 2cents.

This is okay:
Golden_Axe_Coverart.png
Because they are both ridiculous.

This isn't okay:
110822_tera_8.jpg
The men have proper, bulky armor that shields them, while the women are in stripper gear. Though TERA isn't the best example because it does include stripper-armour for male as well, though it does not include proper armour for men.
 
What about non-armour sexualisation? I'll admit my mod will have some risqué clothing:
1434207431-female.png
bookofworships.png

Not clothing but nudity there

Of course, the armour that is stronger as it reveals more and more of the woman's body is ridiculous. I was thinking more this type of thing:

boob-cup-armor1.jpg
 
There is no reason for a boob plate and it actually weakens the structural integrity of the armor. Modern kevlar vests certainly squash the girls in but not so badly that it would affect your performance in physical activities. I would think that it's the same for medieval armour.

As for nudity in general in your mod, that's entirely up to you.
 
What about their hips being wider than their waists? Wouldn't say, a mace hit to the waist cave in the armour if the girl was wearing male armour?
 
You have to come up with some sensible reason she is wearing what she is wearing - Vestal virgins or Pan Am stewardesses each have their dress code. This goes more for generic cleric or sorceress type of characters, but I think Chainmail bikini - or better: non-practical armour as such - s rather stupid, but can be a sign of status, similar to bringing freshly ironed uniform into a fight. So if the female in question has some ceremonial or commanding role she can be wearing practically everything. Hollywood actress' gowns are impractical to wear on NYC streets, but she does not care because that is not exactly what she does. Similarly, should your female's job be riding around the battlefield and waving banner of whatever, she can very well be wearing chainmail bikini (although there we come into conflict with a fact that generic chainmail bikini are unbelievably hideous). Such female just should not have slaying monsters or enemies as her primary job.
 
I illustrated what I meant:

1434209702-armourfem.png

Padding would solve the problem, but if you had none (say a light tunic underneath) would it not be very impractical?
 
Most women aren't shaped like that. Mount and blade's "feminised frames" are pretty silly and make women into ridiculous stick figures. I can't find any at the moment but women in full suits of armour are indistinguishable from men. Even chainmail that hangs off the frame isn't easy to differentiate.

Even so, huge gaps between the plate armour and the person are an advantage if anything. The last thing you want is for the impact to travel right through the armour into your skin.
 
One would always wear padding underneath. Plate mail was custom fitted anyway, wasn't it?

Ben makes good points. Obviously ceremonial armour is a historical thing as well.
 
I see! That makes perfect sense, and it's quite interesting that even Kevlar today is still like that. Was there also perhaps the idea of women wanting to pass off as men on the battlefield?

Why did you mention ceremonial armour?

And what about this? I find it looks a bit big for the girl (this is from my mod, so not a vanilla armour)

1434211155-mb47.jpg

1434211155-mb49.jpg
 
Female faces on warband armour looks strange because they're not in proportion.

tumblr_mhz3ohFUGc1rcq9lto1_500_zps7c1549b8.jpg
IMG_3651.JPG

There's no fundamental difference in the proportions of male and female frames.

TheVideoGameInn said:
Was there also perhaps the idea of women wanting to pass off as men on the battlefield?

Very rarely, and more often than not the stories we have are probably apocryphal or pejorative. For example some Syrian historians claimed the templars were low on manpower and that unhorsed knights turned out to be women.

More common was women (mostly nobility) fighting to defend a city or fort, and they quite often wore armour even if they didn't expect to be at the front line. During the defense of a city when the inhabitants could expect to be slaughtered if they lost, women would take to the ramparts and throw javelins or rocks or what have you. It's not ridiculous to suggest that a few of them might have worn some makeshift armour like the kind that were found at the battle of Visby.
 
Unless you have rock breasts and hips of steel Lamellar is going to press your figure even more. Most armour, even cloth-based armour, is a few inches thick from skin to outside, more than enough to turn most people into featureless tubes. If (leather/metal-based) armour was malleable enough to perfectly fit to the user's body it would have been useless.
 
Right! So essentially, women AND men looked like tubes or had unrecognizable frames underneath the plate.

Is this a good example?

Brienne-Of-Tarth-women-of-westeros-30785434-517-629.jpg

Maybe it's just my imagination, but she does seem to have thinner arms.
 
I got curious about all this, by the way, after seeing the atrocious female reframe of my models. They made them into tubes! So I'm trying to model my own female frames. But apparently, no need for most armours then?
 
Real questions is why developers make boob plates. Why ? Yes, if she is in a commanding role, she can wear but in games, people is fighting and chainmail bikini can't protect you. Today, every RPG has this type of armors.
 
Someone mentioned ceremonial armours. I'm 100% positive that if there had been more women fighters in history, they would have gotten boob plates and armour showing off their bust, hips and back. After all, look at all the noblemen during some periods who had codpieces!

Codpiece_of_Attention.png


Do you really want your stuff in there?
 
Back
Top Bottom