Mount&Blade fashion.

[killer-blead]

For several days now I've been botherd by the fact that people will not wear armour to protect themselves simply because they don't look "cool".  Why?

some people do not wish to use shields simply because they make them look ugly or low tiered units.
they do not wish to wear plate because that would make them look like a "tin can"

People will get more worried about if they look cool in battle or not instead of protecting themselves from blows.
blows mean blood and blood never makes you look good ever thought about that?

This isn't a hate thread for the people who think Fashion above protection. It's just hard for me to understand why people would like to look good on mount&blade. it's not like the lords care or your soldiers.

it feels to me that you wouldn't look cool anyway with blood all over your body and arrows (&other projectiles) stuck in your body.

I would like to hear what your opinion is about people who prefer looking good over protecting themselves?
also if you are that kind of person tell my why do you prefer it?

 

[killer-blead]

just to name some:

I use 2 shields constantly, in large scale battles/siege its a good lifeline....especially when you're fighting the nords, their axes destroy shields very quickly!

I dont use board shields....basically because of the style factor 

Discuss.

I never use shields because they never last through a large battle. They look ugly, make you look like a low tier soldier, and well, looks damn ugly compared to wielding a big bad ass weapon.

Go light and look cool, you won't look like a walking tin can!

Light typically looks better, so i'll vote for that.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

 

[G36E]

Where's the third option? Heraldric mail with surcoats are awesome AND protective.

 

[killer-blead]

Where's the third option? Heraldric mail with surcoats are awesome AND protective.

i think if i put a third option like: cool armour & good protection it would become quite obvious what they would pick. 

 

[djude]

I wear the armor that gives me the best protection, always....i might tend to skip out on the most powerful helmet because i dont really want to hide my face!

Also:

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

 

[MelkorB]

If they think they look cool barechested and manage to stay alive that way, Let them.
If they refuse any armor because of the looks and lose each battle they're just fools. (or pussies: the "I refuse shield and play at 1/4 damage because otherwise these archers kill me too easily" approach...)

Personally I go with the roleplay/historical approach.
I play a Nord commander/Huscarl -> Chainmail (saving for heraldic with surcoat. not really historical I presume, but I'm commander after all so a little bit difference between me and my fellow huscarls is allowed ) two handed axe, nordic sword, huscarl shield.

Ofcourse I pick my armor also because it looks cool (I have to wear it ffs) And Fact of the matter: I do like the Viking looks!

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

Why? It happened.

 

[G36E]

Where's the third option? Heraldric mail with surcoats are awesome AND protective.

i think if i put a third option like: cool armour & good protection it would become quite obvious what they would pick. 

And pray tell why exactly that is a bad thing? You missed out on some 50-60% of the armours available in M&B with your options there.

 

[MelkorB]

exactly why I haven't voted yet. Option a does not apply. nor does option b.

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

Why? It happened.

Full plated archers?

 

[Ludial]

I didn`t vote, because I don`t fight naked. Yet what I wear(nomad armor or light leather) is not exactly armor. It`s thick leather that provides some degree of lifeline for accidents while allowing me to be mobile and *cough* looks better than plate; yes, I hate the look of the heavy armors, but it`s more related to how I see them(especially plate) as iron coffins. They slow me down so much, they have me K.O. much more often than light stuff.
And I like the way my char resembles some sort of freelance rogue; I hate the lords.

 

[Berpol]

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

Why? It happened.

I only remember the Gondorians in the Lord of the Rings movie and that didn't happen.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Archers wore what they could afford to wear, and some could afford plate armour.

 

[Adorno]

A good battle starts in the dressing room, and works its way onto the field.

That's how you get the ladies 

 

[Kleidophoros]

Its about roleplaying, i wont be running around in plate armour carrying a longbow for example.

Why? It happened.

who? and even if you can give me a few examples or such it still looks ridicilous.

When i first started playing the game i did try everything, wearing winged helmets with plate armour riding a courser with a warbow; i was just trying stuff and getting to know the game but not any more.

 

[tommylaw]

I use cool looking byrnies or hauberks, I'm good enough not to rely on big armour.

 

[Millenium80]

I'll have to say light and cool is up my alley. I use a warsword, but remain nimble enough to avoid practically all enemy attacks.

 

[Troll]

That cool looking armor just because it wouldn't really be fun to be invincible. I mean "perfect defence no Damage at all". Anyways in game I use Lamellar armor because it looks good enough and gives good protection.

 

[Kalnia]

Archers in my knowledge would wear mail halbaurks or mail shirts if they could afford them or simply paaded haurbegeons. Plate armour restricts movements and archers are traditionally lightly armoured ranged units used to weaken an enemy appraoch. If they get into melle then theres something wrong, although the lack of armour in the battle of Azincourt for archers was a bonus as they were faster then the French Knights who were stuck fast in mud. Even with a speed bonus though, they couldnt stand a long fight. You wanna ask ludial, hes the archer type.

And I choose banded armour, leather boots and glvoes and a nord helm. I think that the kit for a huskarls is good enough for me, and armour isnt needed for ranged unit protection if a huskarl round shield is up as you run towards them.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Archers in my knowledge would wear mail halbaurks or mail shirts if they could afford them or simply paaded haurbegeons. Plate armour restricts movements and archers are traditionally lightly armoured ranged units used to weaken an enemy appraoch. If they get into melle then theres something wrong, although the lack of armour in the battle of Azincourt for archers was a bonus as they were faster then the French Knights who were stuck fast in mud. Even with a speed bonus though, they couldnt stand a long fight. You wanna ask ludial, hes the archer type.

That be as it may, there are a fair few accounts of archers wearing plate armour. Obviously they're not fully kitted out as a horseback knight would be, but still some pretty serious protection.