Let me elaborate on my previous post. Helge, as I know you are someone who is keen on historical correctness, I have to point this out. AFAIK there are no sources or depictions of warriors going into battle wearing expensive rings and heavily embroidered tunics during the viking age, while there are sagas describing in detail that someone would wear their most fabulous garments to a feast, with all the gold and silver rings and such. The Celts would wear torcs and Scandinavion warriors could wear amulets with a certain significance of course, but usually not the same stuff you will also wear to feasts and weddings. There are of course a lot of rich stuff found, but saying that someone would wear that into battle when it's not in any way verified is 'fantasy' and it's not something I'd even be willing to assume.
I also have to admit I don't know about every archeological source found, so if you have one where you see a warrior in battle wearing finger rings, very rich and embroidered tunics and bracelets and amulets which have no clear significance to the fighting, please share it to prove me wrong. I will share this from the tapestry of Bayeux to prove my point:
I really like some of the torcs, scabbards and belts you linked to however, and more adornment belonging to the culture of the factions we currently have would be awesome of course. Noblemen, leaders and rich men could wear their most expensive battle garments to show status, such as for example the helmets we already have in Vikingr, but that is still battle garment. Although even assuming they would wear their most expensive battle garments to the thick of an actual combat is still 'fantasy', considering for example the Sutton Hoo helmet (granted, a bit earlier than the viking age) and other expensive gear found, were not suited for battle. I personally think very rich men would have ceremonial gear to show off their status, but when in actual combat you would switch to your more practical and more expendable equipment.