The Wedding Dance (Beta Download v.92)

[Night Ninja]

Thats because fencing swords weren't as strong as broad swords all this depends on the type of sword, era of time, and type of style in fighting. And Amour.

You got a good point there. I missed that keyword, fencing.
In dervish style combat, and many martial art style, you gain a lot of momentum from the movement, without the hugue disadvantage of a charge. Many fighting styles actually had "sword dances" litteraly (some of which are still danced today) because those  cute movements are not just for show. In the western world, the dervish were known to be verry deadly.

There is much more in combat than hiding behind layers of armors and using an expensive weapon.

But there is no doubt in my mind that the plate is great for specific usage (guard, bodyguard)
and very poor underwater 

Dervish-style combat? Momentum from movement? Huge disadvantage from charge?

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in the course of one sentence. Any momentum from spinning around like an asshat imitation of Drizzt Do'Urden is going to be far inferior to that gained from a charge. Even D&D acknowledges this, by the way, so pull your head out of that fantasy *******.

FYI, those 'cute movements' ARE for show. They look lots nicer to the untrained eye than the functional movements of a real martial art.

Armors is overrated. It only protect from unseen openents or stray arrow. It also have negative effects on manoeuvrability. Usually really heavy armors were meant for kings that never needed to fight. They were surrounded by elite bodyguards that did the real fighting. In medieval time the typical armor would be chainmail

What Beechy said.

I'm an engineer. You however don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

Look in a mirror. Also, please tell me where you went to university.

1. late medieval / early renaissance had light steel - a hugue advance in metalurgy
    this made plate practival for gurds and bodyguards.
    the plate had two advantage for thoses jobs
    the guards would survive long enought to raise the alarm (indeed you can't slash his throat)
    the guards could use themselves as body shields to protect their lieges (nothing better than a ring of plate guards)

Epic common sense fail, history fail, martial arts fail, and intelligence fail.

Plate armour was used because it did its job very well, and with minimal drawbacks. The weight was generally quite acceptable and very well distributed (compare to modern infantryman).

3. the best way to take down a plate wearer is a loaded gun or a loaded crossbow at point blank

Uh-uh. The Royal Armouries has a small article on bullet-proof plate, go read the damn thing. It doesn't help that you're suggesting that the theoretical engagement take place at POINT-BLANK range. That rarely happens, because nobody is going to be foolish enough to attempt to cock or reload either of those weapons in the midst of a melee unless there's some very special circumstances. Ranged weapons are there for a reason, they're there to fling pointy death at your enemies from RANGE.

Also, try holding your ground and aiming carefully when the ground is positively shaking and there's a full line of faceless, armoured men on warhorses thundering down on you. It'll change your perspective a bit.

4. you won't change histoy, plate was never widely used, always restricted to some positions
    don't get fooled by medieval games, they're not as reliable as archeology/history books

I believe that you are the one trying to 'change history' here. It was used by almost everybody who could afford it. Even common men-at-arms had bits and pieces of plate, usually helmets and the like.

5. the main purpose of armor is disusion, you know as peasants you would take heavy losses
    and prior to firearms, fighting required at least a decade of training
    peasants were no match - but bandits might

No...just no.

Fighting required at least a decade of training? This isn't some ****ed-up wuxia show where you have to spend a decade in quiet contemplation to learn the 'Immortal Thousand Palm Technique of Invulnerable Asspwnage'. It doesn't take long to pick up the basics, and you'll generally learn pretty quickly when your life is on the line. If you don't, you'll usually be too dead to care.

1. find two high end athlete of equal performance, buy a plate to one of them
2. organise olympics game (sprint, run, distance run, high jump, long jump) and see the results on various weather

*and keep in mid modern "medieval armors" are about 100x better than the real thing, being made today*
*they lighter, stronger, more flexible*

in the real world, a plate would have been a problem on most real world terrain
-swamps, muddy ground, high grass, forest, river bank, sand -
a plate is a big disadvantage in those environment

I call strawman. Sticking any amount of weight on an athlete will impair his/her performance, no matter what kind of weight it is. Give the average sprinter a pair of weighted shoes and look at his/her performance plummet like a stone.

Also, using specific instances where encumbrance sucks isn't helping your case. Even in those cases, plate armour is far less encumbering than you'd think. I'd rather have a suit of plate armour on me that's of equal weight to modern infantry equipment than the infantry stuff itself.

to guard the entrance of a castle from behind wall on a stone floor, where all corridor are tight so you can't be flanked, the plate is the ultimate thing. this is what it was desined for in late medieval era, and it kept being used that way through the renaissance

Wow, really. They only ever had one-way corridors in castles, without ANY side passages?

but anywhere before the 13th century, you would see it on kings and queens (need I say either too old or too young to fight most of the time) well surrounded by eliite bodyguard.

****...plate armour was around before then? What, you channeling Dimos or something?

wearing a chainmail instead of a plate give you a tremendous advantage, you got to be verry unimaginative to think the plate wearer isn't going to loose his footing, even inside a castle, when faced by a highly mobile chain wearer

I call epic bull****. Mail is even more encumbering than plate. Given an equal weight of mail and plate, the guy who's wearing the plate is going to be far more mobile. Also, between equal weights of both, the plate is going to provide more protection than the mail.

actually do I need to say he'll be swarmed by chaimail wearer, simply because they move faster. Those thight medieval castles corridors were all built to prevent swarming.

Refer to above. They do not 'move faster' because mail is a ***** (comparatively) to move around in. It hangs and generally places weight in awkward places, as opposed to a suit of plate.

I can't recall anyone dancing in plate. You can definitively dance in chainmail. Do the maths. Dancing is a good measure of a unit manoeuvrability and ability to sychnronize with other inits or react to unexpected situation. It also determine who can catch who. who can escape who, and who's swarming who. Basically the ability of your soldier to dance in their armor is a good measure of their performance in the battle flow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

Also, this is the first time I've heard of dancing being a good measure of unit maneuverability and fluidity.

 

[Noobcake]

mod looks awsome, release it 

 

[Rosha]

polygamy? Nope.

Male nudity? Yes.  (when any character takes off their clothes they are nude).
Scantiy male armor? Yes. (see screenshots)

Silly? I should think so.  Just my version of the game, things I think are fun.  I've added a lot of things that are just for fun.  They don't serve much of a purpose game play wise.  I tried to do some things that haven't been done, implement features that I wished for etc.

I'm suprised no one liked my siege tower.  I have to say that making the troops use it was probably the most painful thing I've done so far. 

As far as realism goes, I really like realism mods (hundred years war!), this isn't one of those hehe.

I've not posted much of my female armor because I don't like seeing everything in a mod before I play it.  So the majority of my stuff will not be posted.

My work will be free for all use.  I love the mods and think that's what makes this game so lively and replayable.

The name of the mod is from the painting by Pieter Bruegel  (aka The Peasant Wedding 156.  He's one of my favorite artists.  He paints us I think as we often are, thoughtless and self absorbed (<----points to self).

so anyway...on to the screenshots.

Spoiler

 

Hey Jeremus, it hurts when I do this. 

Spoiler

Rosha

 

[G36E]

All insertions by the author (G36E) are written in blue.

Spoiler

I'm fine with the naked women and such, but one thing about this mod really irritates me.  It's not just this mod; rather, it's endemic to video games as a whole: the fact that women take to the field with their bellies, arms, upper chest, and thighs completely exposed.  For God's sakes, you could reverse the protected and unprotected bits on most of the Hot Chick Warriors and they would be safer, and this mod takes that to something of an extreme.

I don't care how many of your women are indecent, but I'm tired of Hot Chick Warriors wearing battle lingerie.  Armor is to protect the squishy bits from bleeding, not to serve as a striptease to excite the enemy.  If we'd all just stop with the warrior chicks wearing f*ck-me mail and instead just include a floating overlay window showing porn, it would be a lot more honest.

And if you absolutely have to have some half-naked women in the battlefield, then stick a bunch of naked painted-up warriors there, Celtic style.  At least that's more justifiable than the idea that a female soldier would painstakingly cut out holes in her armor for her tits and belly.

actually Assassins dress like that so they could be Assassins instead of warriors XD

Fictional Assassin: http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/assassins-creed-20060921105332117.jpg
Real Assassin: http://www.themiddleages.net/images/peasant.jpg.

Note that the real assassin doesn't have an entire armoury's worth of steel and leather in full view of everyone. If you were like Altair from Assassin's Creed, your mark would be thinking "Gee, that guy has knives, swords, a crossbow and a quiver full of quarrels as well as looking like a shady assassin, perhaps I should get the guards to arrest him?"

As for nudity, Timeless Kingdom has topless babes (well, almost nude, wearing only a thong and some painting)
It was very popular 

Porn is pretty damn popular too, but you don't see lots of it at video game stores.

the fact that women take to the field with their bellies, arms, upper chest, and thighs completely exposed.

You are aware that roman soldiers dropped their armor to gain mobility ? And that some historian claimed that some greek soldiers went naked on the battlefield on purpose ...

I think I smell 300 spartans...

it's endemic to video games as a whole:

what about the nearly naked guys in most rpgs ? they don't even have a bra to cover their chest 
seriously, don't be one sided. I'm sure many girls watch the beastmaster serie, or the conan movies just to look at the nearly naked good looking actor 

That's because, due to the odd connotations afforded by the human sensibilities, female tits are considered more

Anyway, it's funny all you got to say is a bit tirade because of a single cheesy armor 
I mean I saw a lot of top notch stuff there. Why don't you propose more lady armor concepts instead of complaining, inspired from real historical references, not pseudo feminist anti-nudity league claiming women at war dressed like men.

, sorry, but in case you haven't realized, the author already has enough references for historical female armour, i.e. full plate and bog standard maille. Physics does not discriminate against gender.

A relevant image:

Irrelevant. She's a woman alright, but she's not even A cup. So pretty inacurate to illustrate the average woman.

If you've read George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire (specifically 1998's A Clash of Kings) , you'd realize that Asha Greyjoy is not exactly what you'd call poorly-endowed.

I'm always anoyed at peoples showing an A-cup lady wearing an heavy chainmail and shouting "I told you, she look like a man". Try that on a D-cup, either it won't work or she won't breath. It needs to accomodate her form, no choice there.
Anyway, look at museum piece and antique illustrations, it will enlighten you. You have to search for cultures that actually had fighting women, otherwise it will only show you a non-fighting woman wearing a man's armor for protection's sake. Hardly relevant. Mind you there is not a lot of good material on the net for that. I got some in my books, from samartian's tombs.

Sorry, but you should probably realize that body fat is a lot more malleable than iron or steel. That and the fact that things like sports bras already do similar things to female breasts.

I think the leather and plate armor he did are pretty accurate. The real thing (historicaly accurate) wounld just have some covering for the thight. There is actually a museum piece of a queen armor that do have sculpted boobs. I'm sure if greek had done lady armor the boobs and torso would be every bit as detailled as the man torso was on male breastplate. So it would be even more pornographic  Except greek women didn't fight, except the legendary amazons. And those were probably scythian, didn't wore much armor, a tunic instead. Only the high nobility would have scalemail.

Close but no cigar. There's actually a lot less maille in historical plate armour. After all, if you're going to trade a few extra kilos of weight for more protection, you might as well get a full suit of plate armour and end up with something like this*. As for Greeks making female armour as detailed as that of male armour of that era, perhaps I might interject with the fact that the Greeks used bronze and what we see is iron or steel?

*I am working under the assumption that time lines are not an issue. The example given is Gothic Plate Armour.

but I'm tired of Hot Chick Warriors wearing battle lingerie

Ok, I can see you stopped dead at the first armor, the greco-roman fantasy-ish coin armor,
The other two are not extravagant.

Pardon, but I believe you wished to declare this and this "not extravagant"? The only difference between the three female armours listed are the materials used, there is just about no difference in areas of coverage.

Anyway, seems absurd to me that you complain about sexy armors for a mod obviously intended to be sexy. It's obviously a "fantasy" mod in the "sexy fantasy sense" as opposed to LOTR sense.

Really? I didn't see "detailed in-battle pornography" listed as part of the features.

Personaly I think that mod draw the line at the right point. It's sexy and funny and don't take itself too seriously.

I suppose I'm just irritated that it's a style that is A) absolutely everywhere and B) never even remotely justified in-world, leading one to assume that 99% of blows landed on females must be aimed directly at the nipples or the crotch, since these are the only parts that are armored with any degree of consistency.

Armors is overrated. It only protect from unseen openents or stray arrow. It also have negative effects on manoeuvrability. Usually really heavy armors were meant for kings that never needed to fight. They were surrounded by elite bodyguards that did the real fighting. In medieval time the typical armor would be chainmail

"Really heavy armours" were ceremonial ones at best, the normal plate armour used in the medieaval era actually weighed about 30 KGs at most. And the "elite bodyguards" would be wearing those...

The one thing that matter a lot with armor is bracers/pauldrons/tiight/calf armors pieces because those can be used actively to block blows, much like a buckler.

You contradict yourself here. "Armors is overrated. It only protect from unseen openents or stray arrow." implies that plate armour might as well be Swiss cheese for all the protection it offers, but you also state that armour can be used to parry blows, following that line of logic, one would be better off fighting with melted Swiss cheese on their arms.

the defense of an armor represent the chance of passing through those defenses, not  the chance to pierce the metal. you're not going to pierce anything unless you charge and then you're wide open. not a good cal. It was more common to break knees, dammage the arms, exhaust the enemy.

Do you play DnD? 'Cause I play DnD and I don't have that view of armour. The "defense" of an armour is not "the chance of passing through those defenses", but rather how much force you can apply which actually gets through the armour. Given that steel has relatively high tensile strength, a few millimetres of armour would suffice as protection against a sword blow or point-blank arrow shot from a Welsh longbow.

current hollywood movies with lots of blood, plenty of impalement and decapitation are extremely unrealistic. in a real fight, you don't waste time stopping to finish of an already injured enemy when you're surrounded by 10 healthy ones. especially if you broke his knee

Actually, you do stop to finish off an injured enemy. I mean, who wants to get stabbed in the knee or groin? The Witch King of Angmar died because Pippin (or was that Merry?) stabbed him in the knee.

but again, this mod obviously doesn't aim for realism. I think some peoples forgot to take their sanity pills this morning. I mean you look at the pictures and it's obvious it's a "sexy comedy" mod. Nothing wrong with that.

Did you notice that the poll has a 96:11 Yes to No ratio? We're complaining about the armour, not the mod.

If you want a "serious" female armor, there is an excelent barbarian style armor in the female armor thread. It cover everything, don't worry. your only complain might be lack of chainmail arround the neck, but a helm with  dangling chainmail would solve that.

I hope my mod answers the purpose.

Description: This mod adds a female armor to Mount&Blade. The armour inspired by Lady Aribeth de Tylmarande from Neverwinter Nights.

The leather is pretty decent actually.
If you want the valkyrie one (which really look roman) to look more realistic, it could have that leather-strap skirt the roman legionary had. but I noticed the armor had metal plates on the tight which can be used to parry
(same as the metal plates on that odd coin armor)

Lets be honest the coin armor is intended for sexyness and it's not that outrageous. except the groin part.
I don't think any claim was made on authenticity 

If you're talking about the female leather armour, please note that your sexy women torturers are supposed to stay in the castle.

Thats because fencing swords weren't as strong as broad swords all this depends on the type of sword, era of time, and type of style in fighting. And Amour.

You got a good point there. I missed that keyword, fencing.
In dervish style combat, and many martial art style, you gain a lot of momentum from the movement, without the hugue disadvantage of a charge. Many fighting styles actually had "sword dances" litteraly (some of which are still danced today) because those  cute movements are not just for show. In the western world, the dervish were known to be verry deadly.

Do a Ek=0.5 * m * v2 comparison of a charging knight weighing about 100 KG in total moving at running speed (5 m/s, give or take 1~2 m/s) vs a 2 KG sword swung at roughly 10 m/s

There is much more in combat than hiding behind layers of armors and using an expensive weapon.

There is also hiding behind layers of pikes, hiding behind a shield and firing a crossbow, sitting on a horse and charging with a long stick. Face it, there is only so much ways you can kill someone.

But there is no doubt in my mind that the plate is great for specific usage (guard, bodyguard)
and very poor underwater 

Humans need air to breathe. There is no air underwater unless you are in an air pocket. Therefore both the leather armoured sexy chick and the plate armoured not-so-sexy chick will die.

Armors is overrated. It only protect from unseen openents or stray arrow. It also have negative effects on manoeuvrability. Usually really heavy armors were meant for kings that never needed to fight. They were surrounded by elite bodyguards that did the real fighting. In medieval time the typical armor would be chainmail

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Plate armor didn't restrict movement that much, the only major problem was heat buildup. And plates very much served a protective purpose. Typical slashing strokes did very little against plate. Instead you'd have to rely on finding unprotected areas or powerful stabs. At least according to late medieval fencing instructions.

I'm an engineer. You however don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

1. late medieval / early renaissance had light steel - a hugue advance in metalurgy
    this made plate practival for gurds and bodyguards.
    the plate had two advantage for thoses jobs
    the guards would survive long enought to raise the alarm (indeed you can't slash his throat)
    the guards could use themselves as body shields to protect their lieges (nothing better than a ring of plate guards)
2. if this is a printed book, gunpowder is already availlable, so this book is irrelevant to M&B
3. the best way to take down a plate wearer is a loaded gun or a loaded crossbow at point blank
4. you won't change histoy, plate was never widely used, always restricted to some positions
    don't get fooled by medieval games, they're not as reliable as archeology/history books
5. the main purpose of armor is disusion, you know as peasants you would take heavy losses
    and prior to firearms, fighting required at least a decade of training
    peasants were no match - but bandits might

All hail the Royal Zimbabwean Financial Engineer: SantasHelper!
1. Steel does not change in weight depending on era.
    Plate is also practical for anyone wishing to fight mediaeval battles.
    The job of a bodyguard, unlike fictional depictions, is not that of raising alarms and being a human shield, their job is to neutralize the threats against their ward/principal.
2. Your book is irrelevant as there is no mention of books.
3. Hence why Renaissance era pikemen wore breastplates without maille.
4. Plate armour was not widely used because of cost, and was extremely widely used in the Renaissance era when said cost went plummeting. Think Tercios, pikemen and such.
5. Sorry, but "disusion" is not a word you can find in the dictionary. And if you mean discussion, armour is not usable in debates, except for when you wish to brain the other guy.


Now on your specific comments

1. find two high end athlete of equal performance, buy a plate to one of them
2. organise olympics game (sprint, run, distance run, high jump, long jump) and see the results on various weather

*and keep in mid modern "medieval armors" are about 100x better than the real thing, being made today*
*they lighter, stronger, more flexible*

This directly contradicts your listing of engineer's points where you said that steel was lighter in the renaissance era. Also, I recommend a second test. Buy the second athlete the stripperific armour worn by the women in the screenshots and see if they would dare to run in the presence of more than 50 people.

in the real world, a plate would have been a problem on most real world terrain
-swamps, muddy ground, high grass, forest, river bank, sand -
a plate is a big disadvantage in those environment

Hence why the knights of old tended to fight on horseback. And also the simple matter of how infantrymen of today's armies carry as much or more weight as said knights at higher degrees of encumbrance due to a lack of proper weight distribution while still fighting effectively in the listed terrains also kind of negates your point. Completely.

to guard the entrance of a castle from behind wall on a stone floor, where all corridor are tight so you can't be flanked, the plate is the ultimate thing. this is what it was desined for in late medieval era, and it kept being used that way through the renaissance

Ever heard of a knight's charge? Or heavy cavalry? Or heavy infantry?

but anywhere before the 13th century, you would see it on kings and queens (need I say either too old or too young to fight most of the time) well surrounded by eliite bodyguard.

Before the 13th century, I doubt there was plate armour.

we're far away from charles martel era where the leader is expected to fight

King Richard, Boudica, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden etc. would beg to disagree with you.

wearing a chainmail instead of a plate give you a tremendous advantage, you got to be verry unimaginative to think the plate wearer isn't going to loose his footing, even inside a castle, when faced by a highly mobile chain wearer

Which is not much of a problem since plate armour in itself is a pretty damned good weapon against maille.

actually do I need to say he'll be swarmed by chaimail wearer, simply because they move faster. Those thight medieval castles corridors were all built to prevent swarming.

If there was more than three men fighting a single plate armour knight, I think the answer is obvious as to who would win. Quantity is, after all, a quality of it's own.

I can't recall anyone dancing in plate. You can definitively dance in chainmail. Do the maths. Dancing is a good measure of a unit manoeuvrability and ability to sychnronize with other inits or react to unexpected situation. It also determine who can catch who. who can escape who, and who's swarming who. Basically the ability of your soldier to dance in their armor is a good measure of their performance in the battle flow.

Stop it with the DnD references. And dancing is useless on a horse.

Apologies asked in advance for factual and grammatical errors. Notification also requested.

 

[Leggeron]

All debating in this thread is ridiculous.  The Author already stated that the mod is NOT one of "REALISM", so it would be good to drop the conversation.  I dont see anyone argueing over the realism of dog mounts in TLD, for example.
As far as nudity goes, well, some like it, some dont.  If the Author did it for his own fun, then chances are it will be fun for a number of other people as well, dont forget that YOU as a consumer of mods (in this instance) are "unique, just like everybody else".  No one should chastise the Author for making this mod.  There are particular mods I would not like to see come to fruition but I do not ruin it for other people who think otherwise.  If you dont like - dont play it.  Again on nudity, I think the Author should have been more descreet as some content is not suitable for many of the players herein browsing (its debatable how suitable wacking people with swords and axes is, but then, its somewhat accepted by industry standard).
I think the Author SHOULD release his mod with accompanying warnings and whatnot, even better, with optional textures.

 

[janlulhannes]

the "hey Jeremus" had me laughing

 

[Night Ninja]

Leggeron, you missed the point, the main arguments were with SantasHelper on his ridiculous perceptions of plate armour and not the sword & sorcery female armour.

I dislike the aforementioned style of armour, but I've given up arguing about it because it tends to provoke unfriendly namecalling from raging feminazis. Some of them seem to think that the carving of cleavage windows in breastplates promotes mobility, and thus makes them superior to male fighters who wear conventional plate armour.

 

[Leggeron]

Leggeron, you missed the point, the main arguments were with SantasHelper on his ridiculous perceptions of plate armour and not the sword & sorcery female armour.

I dislike the aforementioned style of armour, but I've given up arguing about it because it tends to provoke unfriendly namecalling from raging feminazis. Some of them seem to think that the carving of cleavage windows in breastplates promotes mobility, and thus makes them superior to male fighters who wear conventional plate armour.

I absolutely agree with your view on this.  But as you said, better give up arguing, its usually futile.

 

[Bloid]

I'm suprised no one liked my siege tower.

More like overlooked, due to the mature content. Nice, along with the new interiors.

 

[Sophist]

Thats because fencing swords weren't as strong as broad swords all this depends on the type of sword, era of time, and type of style in fighting. And Amour.

You got a good point there. I missed that keyword, fencing.
In dervish style combat, and many martial art style, you gain a lot of momentum from the movement, without the hugue disadvantage of a charge. Many fighting styles actually had "sword dances" litteraly (some of which are still danced today) because those  cute movements are not just for show. In the western world, the dervish were known to be verry deadly.

What the...

Firstly, the "fencing" manuals spoken of by Beechy aren't referring to modern foil fencing. "Fencing" has been used to describe the art of weapons combat for a very long time. We're talking about manuals which comfortably predate the rapier and smallsword by centuries.

And no to your premise. Late medieval armour was pretty much impervious to swords, so swords fell out of favour on the battlefield in favour of axes, maces, and polearms. Such swords as remained, and I'm thinking here of the estoc, had changed significantly in design and fighting style. The estoc was pretty much a big spike with a cross-guard made for ramming into the gaps in armour. You see, cutting through armour had pretty much vanished by the era of full plate; it was all about blunt trauma or attacking the gaps.

There's an excellent post over here testing swords against good maille: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=83020&highlight=windlass+poleaxe - and you can pretty safely assume that plate is even harder to breach.

And no, dervishes were never a major force on the ancient battlefield, and their whirling dances have no martial connection.

Were you serious, or were you being deliberately stupid to troll us?

 

[Radalan]

Those armours are ridicilous.

 

[Morrowind Mod Man]

Those armours are ridicilous.

Aren't they?



Release this mod ASAP!!!!!!!

 

[Sophist]

I actually followed your link ! This is utterly irrelevant. First, where did I contested the stopping power of the plate ? I contested it's usefullness. In plain english, an armor won't help you if I can defeat you without "hurting you". Use your imagination. Without weapons and bound you're not much of a threat. Worst if you're under 10 feet of water.

In plain English, plate armour was a huge deal on the medieval battlefield. It was light enough for men to move nimbly in and yet offered serious protection from weapons and projectiles. I don't see why you're bringing swimming into this. In the typical battlefield situation, armour was more benefit than hindrance.

Those tests made by amateur using modern material. It's utterly pointless. Neither ther armors nor the weapons are anything like the real medieval gear. Furthermore it doesn't take in account all the restrictions of the era (they didn't had modern tools to maintain the equipment sharp and rust free). In fact medieval steel was pretty crappy. Even 19th century steel is total crap compared to today. Add to it that those guys are not in any way representative of medieval warriors in term of height, weight, training or even fighting styles and techniques.

Your knowledge of medieval metallurgy is breathtakingly lacking. Medieval smiths made some pretty good laminated steel, even if we're not considering wootz and Damascene steel. Their alloys were simple low-carbon steel. It was great for its purpose. You're talking about it as if it were cardboard.

In any case, the weapons that other soldiers would be taking against that armour would be made of steels no more advanced than that of the armour. You can hardly use that as a rationale for denying the protective effects of armour.

Anyway why do you continue trying to start an argument after Leggeron mentioned twice we should get back on topic. I was simply pointing facts from books (and some personal opinions on lightweight highly manoeuvrable warriors versus heavilly armored ones). If you are not interested in reading those books, I'm not forcing you.

You didn't cite your sources, and they're in opposition to every serious medieval scholar I've ever come across. Heck, these days they're in opposition to most modern encyclopedias. I did have an old encyclopedia kicking round the house as a kid which peddled the old myths about knights being too unwieldy to climb into the saddle, but these myths have been debunked for many years. The total weight being carried by these plate-armoured knights was no more than many modern soldiers, and better distributed.

Trolling is usually related to flaming, baiting or atttacking. I can't recall doing this. And on top of that most of the information I mentioned is not my opinion but information from the books I mentioned. Those informations without references are my opinions, and you can trash them all you want, they are just opinions based on what I know and can be wrong. Furthermore some examples I used (dervish) were rather poor. I tried to avoid using "martial arts" as an example because most peoples jump to the conclusion that martial art only means unarmed/unarmored fighting.

You're stating things which are wrong, and, in a forum full of people who have an interest in this topic and can be expected to have done some background reading, obviously and inflammatorily wrong. This is classic trolling: someone who makes a post full of obvious mistakes to get people riled up. It's especially bad etiquette to do this in someone else's topic, though; you might at least have started a new thread.

You didn't read the part about steel, did you ? What's in that video is 21st cenury modern steel armor. Even 16th century plate
pale in comparison. Even today steel keep evolving. And a lot. In term of weight and resistance. You do know about material engineering, yes ? at least in name ?

We have existing medieval armour. We know what it weighs. Go look at one of the catalogues. We also know that a common test for plate armour in the very early days of firearms was to shoot a ball at it. It was expected to do no more than dent.

And yes, this discussion should probably be considered in a different thread. Nonetheless, I'm not entirely happy with you spewing your ill-informed opinion and running off telling people not to make an answer to it.

 

[bravesirknight]

Please, show some respect for how a forum works and don't hijack someone else's topic with your debate. If you guys want to talk about metal and armor types and history that's great, there's a whole sub-forum for it:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/board,43.0.html

 

[Night Ninja]

If plate armour didn't provide a worthwhile tradeoff between protection and mobility, why did so many people wear it?
If plate armour was easily breached by existing weapons, why do so many fight manuals depict ways to attack unarmoured joints?
If a dervish's spinning and twirling was good at generating momentum and force, why doesn't it show up in any surviving fight manuals?
If the medieval steel used for full plate armour was obviously inferior, why has metallurgical analysis shown that they are pretty damn similar to modern spring steel?
If modern techniques for creating plate armour are far superior to medieval techniques, why do modern armourers still have difficulty with articulation, fitting, and many finer details?

I think I speak for everybody arguing against SantasHelper with the following statement: RTDB or GTFO. All the myths that you are repeating here have been conclusively debunked by far more knowledgeable and dedicated people. You can continue to shoot your mouth off if you want, but if you expect people to believe you, I'm not sure what to say. All I ask is that you educate yourself a little more on the subject before continuing to post. There're many internet forums around where people will give you a far more comprehensive education that we've managed to try to impart.

 

[bgfan]

Apparantly none of you argiuers understand the concept of not being ignorant to the poster of this thread who is trying to inform us about his mod. But I do know something you will understand "stop arguinf with each other; Shut the (i'm not going to finish this sentence, you can use your imagination if you so wish) and go take this argument to another thread so that all of us players interested in this mod can discuss it you ignorant pieces of (once again use your imaginations)!!!!
Honestly I don't care about the realism aspect this is not meant to be a realistic mod; It looks great I bet it is great just ignore these (Imagination!!!) and keep doing what your doing because your doing it great!!!

 

[Wu-long]

Apparantly none of you argiuers understand the concept of not being ignorant to the poster of this thread who is trying to inform us about his mod. But I do know something you will understand "stop arguinf with each other; Shut the (i'm not going to finish this sentence, you can use your imagination if you so wish) and go take this argument to another thread so that all of us players interested in this mod can discuss it you ignorant pieces of (once again use your imaginations)!!!!
Honestly I don't care about the realism aspect this is not meant to be a realistic mod; It looks great I bet it is great just ignore these (Imagination!!!) and keep doing what your doing because your doing it great!!!

thanks

 

[Shik]

Models are fantastic! I've always found the pre-existing unarmored native models to be very unattractive. 'Course you should release it.

 

[Janus]

The armor debate stops now, as it is derailing the thread.
It appears to have already stopped, but this post is here to make sure.

 

[Wu-long]

The armor debate stops now, as it is derailing the thread.
It appears to have already stopped, but this post is here to make sure.

it has thanked god now when is this comin out?