Mount&Blade fashion.

[duracell]

I love the coat of plates, gives high defence and looks cool at the same time 

 

[killer-blead]

Ever considered that some people wear the less protective armors because of the speed factors? And because it looks better?


But honestly, I wear the same type of stuff my soldiers wear, usually. As was mentioned earlier, it's all about roleplaying.

considerd but dropt that idea when making this thread. i know people wear them for the speed bonus but thats not what this thread is about.

 

[RalliX]

I CANT DECIDE!!!!!

DOOM, DOOM, DOOOOOMM!!!!!

 

[Niv]

As long as it doesn't get in the way of my playing, I'm not fussed at al what I wear. When I first started I wore nomad armour briefly, even though it made me look like a twat!

The winged helmets get in the way of my sight when I'm aiming a bow, so I always use great helmets. Apart from that I'm not worried, whatever gives me the most protection.

And yes, I do wear plate armour and carry a warbow ^^ I'm a decent shot too!

 

[Kasimir]

I like to roleplay, so I will equip my characters with what I think suits them.

What gives the best in-game bonuses is not always the most appropriate/realistic gear. For example, a great helm for an archer would make it difficult to see fully and aim. So no great helms for characters/companions who use ranged weapons, I try to keep away from helmets with big noseguards or the like with missile companions as well.

I like kettle hats and bascinets for archers, or leather warrior caps and footman helmets early on, as the design on them allows full vision. Melee guys get full face-covering helmets.

Two items I strongly dislike are the plate armour and the nordic helmet.

- The plate armour has this two-piece breastplate & plackart set (the plackart is the piece covering the lower torso) which I think is a really silly design, it creates a weak spot in the torso which doesn't need to be there and adds unnessecary bulk. There are also no plates covering most of the arms. I can't see my character wearing armour with such obvious flaws.
- The nordic helmet has these big spectacles which in practice would guide weapons towards the eyes. I think it doesn't deserve the +40 head armour.

If there is plate armour with a proper breastplate and arm protection (ideally not black armour - since I'm not trying to play a black knight) then I will use that happily.

 

[Gabeed]

Ever considered that some people wear the less protective armors because of the speed factors? And because it looks better?


But honestly, I wear the same type of stuff my soldiers wear, usually. As was mentioned earlier, it's all about roleplaying.

considerd but dropt that idea when making this thread. i know people wear them for the speed bonus but thats not what this thread is about.

Nevertheless, the wearing of factional-looking armor is a valid argument.  I don't know how many screenshots I've seen with Vaegir and Nord character wearing full plate and that crazy Teutonic Knight winged helm.  I see that as far more ridiculous than not wearing the best armor all the time.  I wear cuir boillis, byrnies, and banded mail.  Not the best armors, but certainly not awful, and they fit the Rhodok theme really well.

Same thing goes for weapons, incidentally.  If the Iron Staff's model was changed and its name was changed to Great Iron Maulspear or something, tons of people would use it, since it does tons of bludgeoning damage and can be used with a shield.  But since it's rather weird-looking, not a lot of people use it.

 

[Untitled.]

- The nordic helmet has these big spectacles which in practice would guide weapons towards the eyes. I think it doesn't deserve the +40 head armour.

How come the vikings actually used helmets like that? There's some things I could about the helm but I don't want to argue with you. 

 

[Zilberfrid]

Definately the looks good option here, I now use a brigandine for my heavy fighter, most characters linger in Byrnie for a very long time, and have been known to don Kettle hats to a siege. I hardly ever use arm protection heavier than leather gloves, or leg protection heavier than splints (I like those).

 

[tommylaw]

I do wish the brigandine wasn't pink.

 

[Zilberfrid]

Hehe, my heavy fighter is a girl, she doesn't mind

 

[Kasimir]

How come the vikings actually used helmets like that? There's some things I could about the helm but I don't want to argue with you. 

I wouldn't see it as argument if you know the advantages of them - I always welcome the chance to learn more.

Thinking about it, I imagine they would be excellent against cutting blows to the face from weapons such as seax and axe, and edged sword blows, but I still think very risky against sword thrusts or spears.

The part about them guiding weapons towards the eyes is actually recounting the experience of reenactment groups such as hurstwic - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_helmets.htm

Anyway, here is the relevant portion.

Other styles of helmets have been found. The well known helmet (left) found at Gjermundbu in Norway has a spectacle-like covering for the face. A modern reproduction with a similar style is shown to the right. The spectacle style is somewhat frightening both for someone on the outside looking in, and for someone on the inside looking out.

From the outside, it presents a frightening visage to the opponent, since the face is covered and made anonymous. But it's even more scary from the inside, since the spectacles catch incoming spear tips and sword points and guide them right into the wearer's eyes. They're very dangerous in simulated combat, and in real combat, too, I imagine.

However, the original helmet has what appears to be battle damage (a sword blow and an arrow puncture) to one of the plates, so perhaps my modern preconceptions about the danger are in error.

I do wish the brigandine wasn't pink.

I do too, I also wish it didn't come with mail sleeves and no legs.

 

[Bismarkpwns]

Its about roleplaying

Which is why I for some reason am stuborn enough to play Rhodok, and I have never touched a 2H axe, or any sword at all except when forced to, it is all underappreciated weapons for me.

 

[Ludial]

well... roleplay or not, I had to buy myself a reinforced bascinet recently. Normally I give ones only to the ladies in my company, but I got tired of horsemen knocking me out with a hit to the head. So now I look weird - nomad armor, bascinet and bare feet

 

[Sibilance]

Fashion over function forever. I am heartened by the results of the poll. GJ, my fellow fashionistas!

 

[Gabeed]

Its about roleplaying

Which is why I for some reason am stuborn enough to play Rhodok, and I have never touched a 2H axe, or any sword at all except when forced to, it is all underappreciated weapons for me.

I'm starting to think that all Rhodoks are roleplayers--which is fantastic.  People that are all about wearing the best armor and being the most effective killing machine ever, on the other hand, can only be more suited to a different faction.

 

[MelkorB]

How come the vikings actually used helmets like that? There's some things I could about the helm but I don't want to argue with you. 

I wouldn't see it as argument if you know the advantages of them - I always welcome the chance to learn more.

Thinking about it, I imagine they would be excellent against cutting blows to the face from weapons such as seax and axe, and edged sword blows, but I still think very risky against sword thrusts or spears.

The part about them guiding weapons towards the eyes is actually recounting the experience of reenactment groups such as hurstwic - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_helmets.htm

Anyway, here is the relevant portion.

Other styles of helmets have been found. The well known helmet (left) found at Gjermundbu in Norway has a spectacle-like covering for the face. A modern reproduction with a similar style is shown to the right. The spectacle style is somewhat frightening both for someone on the outside looking in, and for someone on the inside looking out.

From the outside, it presents a frightening visage to the opponent, since the face is covered and made anonymous. But it's even more scary from the inside, since the spectacles catch incoming spear tips and sword points and guide them right into the wearer's eyes. They're very dangerous in simulated combat, and in real combat, too, I imagine.

However, the original helmet has what appears to be battle damage (a sword blow and an arrow puncture) to one of the plates, so perhaps my modern preconceptions about the danger are in error.

They probably tried it first without the holes to see through, which was even more dangerous. 

 

[AlienKnight]

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?
...
I would like to hear what your opinion is about people who prefer looking good over protecting themselves?
...

Yes, killer-blead, you have the point and a good thread you started.
The thread became much "I wear this or that", though I believe the idea was actually is it reasonable to decide about your armour or weapons on the basis or how it looks instead of what is does?

Well, I find the essential difference is what the player expects from the gameplay. If what you want is a high level of realism or the sense of achievement you probably do not care very much about how your armour or weapons look like, only for if you stay alive or go down. If you take it in the it-is-just-a-game manner and expect some fun and to spend some time nicely (like you could get from any other game), then you take into consideration such things as do I look handsome in my armour?

Another attitude exists as well, for those who stress the roleplaying (as some of you mentioned in your posts). Then you take into consideration how you look like and what you are equipped with but not because you want to "look cool" but since you want it to be as real as you can get it (so for instance, you get a light armour because you want to be an archer character, though you do not do it to look nice and you also realize it might be easier to play while wearing plate armour).

 

[Calathar]

it's all about the looks ;] so for me it's a cuir-bouli (typo prolly) and no helmet at all (wind in your hair and so on ) and always on hunter (i switched textures of saddle horse with hunter and voila-i have black horse )

 

[killer-blead]

luckly i find plate and other good protective armour "the coolest" so i actually got best of both. 

why do you like cuir-bouli? it doesn't look very pretty..

 

[Ludial]

luckly i find plate and other good protective armour "the coolest" so i actually got best of both. 

why do you like cuir-bouli? it doesn't look very pretty..

actually, along with banded armor it looks better than plate.

and it`s functionality again - light=mobility=getting hit less; heavy=more protection+less mobility=getting hit more, but shrugging weaker hits off; I personally went for the light armor after I saw that even plate doesn`t help against well placed and powerful hits, and because I like fur and leather. The only heavy thing I put on is head-wear - keeping the melon in one piece is important