Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.

Women are incapable of fighting anyways so might as well make them look good

>>52391974
>Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.
How about this part:
>MOBILITY >>>> PROTECTION

>>52391978

But thats true.

>>52391974
It leaves unaddressed why one would desire the "armored" bit at all. That is a flaw. It also completely ignores the proliferation of firearms, which is the actual reason for the general move away from metallic armor.

>>52391974
The reason why people stopped wearing armor is because guns became a common use for soldiers.
Why waste metal on armor for one guy when you can just use the same metal to make guns on mass.

I'm fine with boobplate since metal armor basically cant be cut through. But bikini mail is just retarded overall.
Mail is very light and hinders your mobility only slightly.
Autism take me

File: 1424650059629.jpg (445KB, 850x1000px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 850x1000px

>>52391974
Poor justification for bikini armor and faulty.

This is how it should be done.

>>52391974
Because once plate was widely affordable, so were firearms.

Armor was only properly abandoned after the development and proliferation of firearms.

Even someone in full Gothic plate is far more mobile than the author seems to think.

>>52391974
So why wear metal? Just be naked instead. I bet that would be really popular because its light and aesthetically pleasing.

>>52391989
Berserkers often fought naked

>>52391974
>Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.

the entire concept is fundamentally flawed.

Development of more advanced metallurgy has nothing whatsoever to do with the abandoning of armour.

That is entirely down to the development of more efficient corned gunpowder that produced sufficient energy to punch through armour, irrespective of its thickness. late medieval armour was bullet-resistant - many harnesses have a dent mark showing they can stop a bullet - the "proof" mark that is the origin of the word "bulletproof".

17th century siege armour, used in the 30 years' war and English Civil war was, bulletproof. But to be so, it was also so thick that it made the wearer severely encumbered - 70+lbs of plate, compared to the 40lbs of a 15th century harness which was not restricting in mobility or agility. It reached the point where the human skeleton was unable to support the extra weight and still fight effectively.

As such, the harness was abandoned, not despite metallurgical advancement, but because metallurgical advancement was insufficient to allow effective protection against the weapons in common use - therefore meaning it was more effective to abandon it entirely, than be completely impaired by its use for no gain.

File: 1464883039780.jpg (336KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1920x1080px

>>52391974
>Why from 17 century blah blah warriors preferred to fight without armor at all?

I'm pretty sure that armor saw some use even into the early 1800s.

I'm also pretty sure that the reason armor meant to protect against blades fell into disuse is because guns became widespread and then you had lots of efforts to make armor that would protect against bullets.

I mean FFS if he wants to stare at tits in his game then that's fine but he shouldn't try to rationalize it like this. Nobody can tell you that you're wrong for liking something (most things) but as soon as you try to come up with reasons as to why your opinion is superior you open yourself up to being wrong and I'm pretty sure this guy is wrong.

By this logic you might as well run into battle naked. There comes a point where sacrificing protection for mobility becomes unviable.
The best thing to do, however is to offer protection, while mitigating mobility loss. This has been the philosophy for armour since the beginning, which peaked with plate armour.

Trying to justify chainmail bikinis and boobplate is always dumb.

If you're in a setting using them, the setting clearly places aesthetic over realism or authenticity, and that's fine. I love goofy settings like that which freely ignore common sense in favour of things being more fun.

Some people dislike that kind of thing, and that is also fine. Arguing that they are or are not somehow feasible as forms of actual armour is just a stupid diversion which distracts everyone involved from doing things they actually like- Or it would be, if /tg/ wasn't mostly populated by people who really, really enjoy arguing the minutiae of pointless opinions on the internet.

>>52392014
To be fair, this started as a /k/ thread. I think the only reason it got moved to /tg/ by the hotpocket overlords was because there was a fantasy girl and no actual sexual content posted.

>>52391990
Berserkers, atleast the viking ones, have never actually existed. Best you had were naked warriors, and they solely did it because armour was pretty much too expensive for them.

>>52391993
Armour never really went out of line, it just had a hard time to keep up with thwe weapons in the later 1800-1900 periods. Napoleontic cavalry still used plate armour, there were experiments with plate armour well into the first world war. And heck, if you see a tank as a very heavy plate armour the shit never went out of line.

And hey, ballistic vests are a thing too.

File: mh_interna_destaque_top10-filmes-para-duroes-300[1].jpg (72KB, 860x491px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 860x491px

>>52391974
Remember that one documentary where the Spartans blitzkrieg'd Persia?

>>52391974
Wearing no armor in favor of mobility =/= wearing skimpy armor that still weighs you down more than clothing but offers no significant protection

>>52392243
>Napoleontic cavalry still used plate armour
they used plate chests, and sometimes helms, but as you go along, oyu see a reduction from
>full plate
>half plate
>no plate
and eventually
>more moedrn armours

though as we all know, 'stralians will be 'straliens, and some guy in the 19th centry built himself a sute of getto plate to avoid the po po

>>52391981
This. OP's image tries to talk real fast to get you past this point, but it is the crux of the shift in armor preference.

File: 1489702729782.jpg (502KB, 1600x1162px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1600x1162px

>>52392294
>You will never be a grizzled, cynical veteran of the Napoleonic wars, roaming the countryside of Restoration France to bring down the hammer of justice on decadent nobles while living as an outlaw

>>52392355
You'll get down really fast though.

File: 1415986115243.jpg (23KB, 400x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x480px

I dunno if its too easy to keep your tits in check while moving a ton. But I've seen slow-mo say otherwise.

I've been saying this for years thank heavens someone made an info graphic.

>>52391985
Mail is actually heavy and restricting. Plate had to be tailored to the individual, so your joints have freedom to move. Thus why plate replaced mail in the 14th century

File: cuirassier-1881[1].jpg (160KB, 865x1086px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 865x1086px

>>52392434
>get down
Does this mean we're gonna party like it's 1799?

File: Profession (Cooking (Gooks)).png (269KB, 496x360px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 496x360px

>>52391974
> What is strategist's worst nightmare?
>Guerilla wars.
Hahahahaha!

>>52392596
your pic and the outcome don't match your reaction very well eh

>>52392569
if you survive untill 1848 while being chased maybe.

File: Mk1_Trench_Knife.jpg (29KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x426px

>>52392243
>there were experiments with plate armour well into the first world war
>ballistic vests

Both of which would fall under the bullet-related armor that I mentioned, yes?

I'm aware that trench warfare in WW1 often included hand-to-hand fighting and I'm aware that people often wore armor but it's my understanding that the armor was generally meant for some degree of protection from firearms.

>>52391974
>2017
>People still think armor hindered mobility

[Sighs externally]

>>52392596
So armour is pretty pointless against napalm.

>>52392698
Cartwheeling full plate knights sprinting 20k to the battle.

>>52392631
The problem with 'Nam was that Americans decided to get infantry involved when they could've just napalmed everything from the air.

>>52391979
Except for the bit where full armour doesn't actually compromise mobility much at all.

>>52391974
>Shits on jets
>While praising mobility and hit-and-run

Isn't that what jets do? Show up, fuck shit up, and fly off for rearm and refueling? All really fucking fast?

>>52392735
The problem with Vietnam is that american completely discarded the opinion of french who had to retreat because of political reason in France.
Then USA fucked.

>>52392759
We're talking tactics, not politics, though.

>>52392741
But thats wrong

>>52392631
>Being this dense
His point is that guerrilla warfare is shitty to deal with, but chemical warfare is far worse because it's so hard to defend against and instantly lethal. You have two battalions stationed at that base? No you don't, you have two hundred corpses and the shattered casing of a thermobaric fuel-air bomb that instantly made all the local oxygen part of a combustion reaction that made it impossible to escape the flames. Doesn't matter if you hide in the basement of the base, ALL OF THE AIR IS NOW LITERALLY FLAME, even down there.

>>52392751
jets aren't "gorilla warfare" and are therefore not something anyone should be afraid of

>>52392805
What the fuck did you just say, kiddo?

>>52391974
That's fine as long as you apply the same idea to men. Or just do whatever the fuck you want and stop trying to justify it

>>52391974
I used to loathe mail bikinis, all that cheesy shit but over the last few years, I've come to embrace it. It's silly and fun.

File: 1489650887195.jpg (40KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x512px

>>52392596
How are you, G.I. Joe?

File: dark souls.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>52392726
>implying

>>52391974
You should go by this - "If you can tolerate women warrior, you can tolerate bikini armor, both have same degree of fantasy"

File: 1478948457669.jpg (1MB, 1482x1379px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1482x1379px

>>52392805
>jets aren't "gorilla warfare"
But what if the jets are cute girls?

>>52392788
But thats wrong

>>52392803
thats fair

>>52391974
Even assuming I accept that argument, why the fuck would you wear mail, a type of armor infamous for chafing, being noisy and uncomfortable as fuck, over your private parts when you could just wear a regular bikini?

Not to mention the issues with heat and the like. Also, pretty sure chainmail would not give much support when compared to binding, which is something female warriors actually did in real life.

File: 1450005254203.jpg (961KB, 1080x1527px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1080x1527px

All slut armor can be explained thusly

Social signalling. In a D&D-style world, the difference between low level and high level characters is enormous. A high level character can have the AC of a fully armored fighter while appearing virtually naked thanks to magic items and armor and shield spells. Ditto for environment protection.

So very high level characters can dress however they want based on their personal preference. They can dress based purely on the social effect and CHA bonuses a given costume provides.

In a way, being mostly undressed is a way of flaunting your place in the power hierarchy. Much like pale skin being a status symbol because it shows you don't have to do outdoor manual labor. Or like wearing restrictive clothing because it shows that you don't do manual labor, or expensive clothes because it proves that you can afford them. It says, "No, I don't wear armor. No need. Come at me, if you dare." Since armor is uncomfortable to wear in non-combat situations anyway, then that's a bonus, too.

OK so far?

Now, this is how the very top of the social hierarchy behaves. The trend-setters. Now imagine you're a courtier. High-status but middle of the road at best in terms of power level. You want to LOOK powerful. So you emulate the very powerful and what THEY do. You get nekkid to flaunt what power you have. And since usually combat doesn't break out, such dress style won't get you in trouble any more than carrying a dress sword for fashion was likely to get an aristocrat killed in a duel.

So it's defensible as social signaling and as a statement of affiliation with the ruling class.

Obviously, this only applies in D&D-ish settings but that covers quite a bit of fantasy ground.

The other option of course is >>52391986 , where you stop trying to explain it and just enjoy the ride

File: karla's_pointed_hat.png (22KB, 250x256px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x256px

>>52394513
>slut armor
>social signalling
>"No, I don't wear armor. No need. Come at me, if you dare."
Hahahahahaha!

>>52393296

Not so.

By adding warrior women, you simply change some societal norms.

By claiming that boob-plate armour is protective, you have to change the laws of physics.

>>52392596
Hannibal

>>52391974
I like sexy armor, but I hate it when people say shit like this. No, it does not make sense. If you wanted light armor you could just wear leather or whatever the fuck. The metal bikini is retarded from a realistic perspective, and no amount of faggy portraits or dead asians you throw at me will convince me otherwise.

This guy is just as smug as the people he's trying to shit on, and he misses the point just as hard. It's fucking fantasy, you don't need to try to spin things like sexy armor to make sense in the real world. All you need is for it to make sense in the setting. Female warrior in a sexy metal bikini? Turns out she worships some goddess of battle and wears minimal protection as an act of faith, knowing she'll be protected by her goddess' blessing. That's all it takes.

>>52394886

By adding women warriors you have to change the laws of physics, biology, and anatomy, on top of societal norms.

>>52394950

Not really. Women serve in the military even to this day. In some countries it's mandatory.

>>52392542
Mail is only heavy on the shoulders, it isn't restrictive at all.

>>52394962
>Modern warfare
>Akin to previous incarnations of warfare which are the topic of said thread
Autistic non-sequitur. Irrelevant.

>>52394950
oh hey look

you can do all of that in a roleplaying game

very easily

well I'll be

>>52394989
>The same doesn't apply to sexy armor
Well I'll be

>>52394950
That's why most settings that add women warriors but are worried people might look too deeply into it add "women" warriors who are exactly the same as men in every way.

>>52395010
That's pretty dumb my dude

>>52395003
it 100% does

just use your fucking imagination

>>52394988

Women are still less useful in modern warfare than men, but we don't care. Is it that much of a stretch to assume that some society would do the same?

File: 13151734_481598962034469_1307279099817621769_n.jpg (10KB, 323x480px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 323x480px

>>52395058
Imagination, on MY /tg/?

>>52395089
Roughly the same degree of stretch necessary for chainmail bikinis.

>>52395121

Not true. The other is implementing a different military system with advantages and disadvantages, while the other is just doing pointless, irrelevant shit.

>>52395142
Women warriors are pointless, irrelevant shit, you moron.

File: 1490259529969.jpg (42KB, 500x525px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x525px

>>52393296
never knew my comment will spawn such successful conversation, thanks anons

>>52391993
>"clip"
That picture triggers me.

>>52392788
https://youtu.be/qzTwBQniLSc

You cant move because the pikeman who knocked you off your horse was sitting on you stabbing stilettos into you section gaps, not because it was restrictive.

Remember that its 30ish pounds distributed all over your body. We have people with 200+ pounds of fat who still move around, just look for the motor scooters at walmart.

Getting knocked off a horse is pretty brutal, because its pretty close to a 10' fall for your noggin to reachh the ground. Then you have someone who immediatley tackles you, and starts stabbing. No wonder people thought armor made you slow as shit they only got to see people who had concussions wearing it after they knocked em off a horse.

>>52395154

They have an actual advantage - being able to field more troops. Sure, it's outweighed by all the cons, but it's still an advantage.

Sexy armour has no advantage at all. None.

>>52395089
>but we don't care
I'm not sure, but soldiers that serve in military Do care who they serve with and they don't like serving with women

>>52395217
But that's wrong you fucking retard.
"Numbers alone confer no advantage."
-Sun Tzu

>>52395225

Not very relevant.

>>52395239

An argument from authority fallacy.

>>52395270
Fallacy fallacy.

>>52395217
>being able to field more troops
If one army has 100 000 able bodied, combat ready men while second has 100 000 able bodied, less combat ready men and 100 000 less combat ready women because you need to provide twice arms, armor and provision first army will win, because their men are better prepared

>>52395239
"Quantity has a quality all its own."
-Descartes

>>52395285
>Military strategist who will always be remember that way
>Or a mathematician and scientist who is more readily remembered for giving women the dick.
I wonder who's more knowledgeable on the thread topic.

>>52394513
this

>>52395282

Not true. I disagreed long before you even used a single fallacy.

>>52395283

What if they've got extra resources or time to equip everyone?

>>52395306
Descartes didn't say that and was in the military though.

For fuck's sake, if you want fap material, just fucking own up to it. Bikini armor is fine but it doesn't belong everywhere. Trying to justify shoehorning pinup models into everything is the most autistic fucking shit I can think of.

This is the wrong discussion to be having.

When I see chainmail bikinis, or similar fetishwear , in games, it ruins a part of the experience for me. Not because "it's unrealistic", otherwise I wouldn't be playing fantasy. It's because it's a big glaring obvious reminder that a person created the world I'm experiencing. Chainmail bikinis really don't make much sense in most universes, and any justification that isn't strong enough just seems like half-hearted handwaving by the pervert who created the experience. I've yet to see a setting that can justify them in a way that doesn't remind me that some dude put a bunch of armored bimbos in his universe because he gets off to that sort of thing. Chainmail bikinis remind me that I'm playing something that was put together by someone, in the same way that any other obsession being forced into an experience in a way it doesn't belong is immersion-breaking. If I was playing a middle ages fantasy game and a talking blue hedgehog showed up, it would break my immersion if it was presented as anything more than a joke. Not because talking blue hedgehog is outside the bounds of your standard fantasy setting, but because it reminds me that my GM is a sonic nerd.

TL;DR chainmail bikinis have no place in fantasy because they take players out of the experience by reminding them that their GM is a self-serving horndog.

>>52395358
>What if they've got extra resources or time to equip everyone?
Why would second army have more resources than first one. I think the 100k women in this fight is 5th wheel and real crunch is what equipment 100k men on both sides get

>>52395358
Yes but you were wrong before you used the numbers example.

>>52395368
Yes and?

>>52395376
Bikini armor hasn't been 'everywhere' in decades. Hell it's pretty fucking niche nowadays since everyone caves to the retards who say it's everywhere.

>>52395399
You have no place in fantasy for reminding us that you're a self-serving autist.

>>52395409

Any number of possibilities - maybe they live in a place with more resources. Maybe they've got more money. Maybe they've accurately predicted what they opponent is gonna do.

>>52395423

I know you think I'm wrong. Just argue why I'm wrong, without using fallacies.

File: DEPLOYED.jpg (46KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x800px

>>52395423
>You have no place in fantasy for reminding us that you're a self-serving autist

I'll just cut right to the chase and end this non-argument before it begins

>>52395217
>being able to field more troops
Not even a great advantage, considering the huge draw it would be on resources to train them up and equip them, as well as maintain a larger army. Also consider that scores of them could be wiped out by war machines and superior tactics and better trained units from any sufficiently advanced era.

Women do serve in the military, but how many of them are actually infantry?

>>52395462
Your example was wrong and has countless proofs of it being wrong, historically. The quote was merely shorthand for that. But naturally, you haven't done your research, so everything's a fucking fallacy to you.

>>52395488
Nice dubs, Stefan

>>52395358
>What if they've got extra resources or time to equip everyone?
Then a general or adviser or whoever the fuck would point out all the reasons why women should not be trained to serve as infantry alongside men, and then suggest any number of other places to funnel all that time and resources where they would be put to better use.

>>52395489

Still an advantage that may prove useful under certain circumstances. Unlike bikini armour.

>>52395492

I'm having a conversation with you, not somebody else. If you have proof, you just need to present it to me.

File: 032aee89-38bd-43b0-8d93-b0bfb6935d25.jpg (275KB, 575x751px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 575x751px

>>52393296

2/10

>>52395399
>I've yet to see a setting that can justify them in a way that doesn't remind me that some dude put a bunch of armored bimbos in his universe because he gets off to that sort of thing.

>tfw everyone ignores your battle goddess blessing suggestion

>>52395542
You stupid fucking uneducated feminist Nigger
>Marathon
>Cannae
>Muye
>Gaugamela
>Iceni Rebellion
>Edessa
>Acheloos
>Hastings
>Bannockburn
>Tumu Fortress
>Agincourt
>Tours

>>52395558
>any justification that isn't strong enough just seems like half-hearted handwaving by the pervert who created the experience.

N-no guys, it's not me being gross, i-it's a religious thing for her. Let's all take this game seriously now.

>>52395542
>Still an advantage that may prove useful under certain circumstances
Like what? What unique advantage does it offer?

File: 11221351_131119170561364_8962445653106794850_n.jpg (8KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 249x249px

>>52395690
>Game with women warriors
>Anyone who revels in the absurdity isn't being serious

>>52395706
Starving earlier

>>52395542
It's not even useful as meatshields, why would you have huge chunk of an army that will desert at any moment?

>>52394513
This really if you're dealing with a high fantasy world.

>>52395640

You're just listing a bunch of names of famous battles. This is not proof.

Do note that I'm not trying to argue that it's a good idea to send women to fight. I'm just saying that it would have certain advantages. Bikini armour is not comparable because it has no advantages to speak of.

>>52395690
Pls no bully. Execution is key here. I wouldn't be obnoxious about it. I wouldn't give overly long descriptions about how she sweats and jiggles and all that. It would literally just be warrior women going with minimal protection as an act of faith, not sex bait. It's not even an outlandish concept.

You just sound biased against the idea of it.

>>52391974
this """""artstyle"""""" makes me angry

>>52395773
The only advantage you said is numbers, you tard.

All those battles, which mean nothing to you because history is clearly above your comprehension, are examples of numbers failing and failing very, very hard.

But you're about as good at keeping up with a conversation as you are with learning history, which is why you'll revert to the same statement over and over despite all evidence that you're wrong.

>>52395706

More manpower.

Okay, just to clear this up.

Female warriors did exist. You could argue back and forth about how effective they were, but they did exist even back during pointy stabby things in your gut ages of warfare.

Chainmail bikinis were never used by any warriors ever. Comparing the two is silly, because one is real and the other is imaginary.

>>52395748
His (maybe even her) argument is that you should just ignore all the bad shit about female infantry and just focus on the possibility of there being one thing they would be good for.

>>52395818
>More manpower.
But you don't get more manpower

>>52395813

Sure, tactics can triumph over numbers. But do you really think they had the numbers disadvantage on purpose? Of course not. Outnumbering the opposition is an advantage.

>>52395855
No, it isn't.

Numbers alone confer no advantage.

File: markydaysaid-493705-Scotias_Armor.jpg (527KB, 938x1500px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 938x1500px

Barbarians > Knights

>>52395831

Nah. Don't fight with women, it's a bad idea.

Just saying that under certain extremely contrived conditions it may prove useful, unlike, say, sexy armour.

>>52395869
Say that when your ten guys take on 2000.

>>52395818
>hey you think maybe we should conscript a bunch of physically weak citizens for the army who would be prone to bunches of health problems and be bad for morale, and who would invite assaults from the other soldiers?
>you want to conscript beggars and peasants, my lord?
>shit that's way better than my idea

>>52395869

Of course they do. Imagine two armies charging each other head-on. The other one has twice the number of soldiers than the other. Which one is gonna win?

>>52395920
If it's 2000 of anything like you it won't be hard.

>>52395936
The better equipped and more highly trained one.

>>52395825
they """"existed"""" most of the time as last line of defense when you had no men left, bikini armor never existed because it would be waste of iron.

>>52395926

How many times do I have to say this? I still don't think conscripting women is a good idea.

>>52391979
>Battlecruiser concept was destroyed in the battle of Jutland
>Lighter German tanks were literally incapable of defeating infantry tanks in early WW2
>Cavalry still wore breastplates up to WW1
>Body armour was still developed and used in WW1
There is a reason modern soldiers have 15 lbs of body armour plus a helmet. There is a reason most western tanks weigh almost 70 tons.

>>52391975
This. Even a skinny nerd can beat up like 4-5 women without much trouble, Woman are so weak and uncoordinated it isn't even funny.

>>52395725
Women warriors don't take me out of an experience because they're a reasonable idea. If the GM went on and on about how equal and just his imagined society was though, that would certainly throw me off.

>>52395783
If a GM starts off saying "there's this group of female religious warriors who wear as little protection as possible to show faith in their god", I'm going to brace myself for a bunch of shitty fetishy garbage. So yeah, I guess you could say bad experiences have biased me against it. If said concept ends up not being used for any weird sexual bullshit, it'll probably fade from my mind, and it won't bother me. It could certainly be played well, or interestingly. Though I'd have to wonder what other reason there'd be to put something like that in a game unless it were for sexual reasons, or as a sort of parody.

>>52395887
le epic strawman comic
>>>/reddit/

>>52395970
>Women warriors don't take me out of an experience because they're a reasonable idea.
Congratulations on your schizophrenia

>>52391974
Greeks, and sometimes other ancient armies would fight in little to know clothes.

That might have been more about preventing infection, from clothing getting in wounds. Than "mobility".

>>52395887
source?

>>52395890
If you want to get extremely contrived then you could say that sexy armor has a couple of advantages, if ignore all the bad shit like you are with female infantry.

Sexy armor is good for distracting your opponent, as well as giving the impression of weakness, allowing you to be underestimated.

>>52395943

> If it's 2000 of anything like you it won't be hard.

You ignore his argument.

> The better equipped and more highly trained one.

Suppose there are a thousand well-equipped, hardened soldiers on both sides, but the other also has a thousand green weaklings.

>>52395936
>Which one is gonna win?
The one with better training, better cohesion, better equipment, better war machines, and superior tacticians and strategists.

An army dumb enough to waste all their resources training up tons of women aren't very likely to have any of those.

>>52395992
markydaysaid

>>52396006
Then definitely the smaller force on strength of valor. Needing a thousand green weaklings is the mark of cowards.

>>52395948
Doesn't change the fact that one thing existed and the other didn't. That's the point. Anyone equating the two are comparing something inexistent to something we have historical evidence existed.

>>52395989
Reasonable as in not immediately suspicious to be in a FANTASY setting. Even if there weren't countless historical accounts of actual female combatants, women being capable of fighting in a fantasy setting doesn't make me question my GM's motives right away. Only if it gets to the point of "look how feminist I am guys", as I mentioned prior.

File: 1490458515400.png (842KB, 795x785px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 795x785px

>>52395970
>If a GM starts off saying "there's this group of female religious warriors who wear as little protection as possible to show faith in their god",
> I'm going to brace myself for a bunch of shitty fetishy garbage

Remainder that Ancient Crete (or somewhere there) women of status would have bare breasts with "push-up" style clothes, if DM would introduce this part of old world to your game you'd also call it fetish garbage because you're stupid faggot

>>52395970
>Women warriors don't take me out of an experience because they're a reasonable idea
In fantasy? Sure?

Reality? Not so much.

>Though I'd have to wonder what other reason there'd be to put something like that in a game unless it were for sexual reasons, or as a sort of parody.
Maybe because it's an idea I had and I liked it, as well as to add flavor to the settings and the culture?

>>52391974
It is true that for most of history, armor was either very light or nonexistent. The shield was more important defensively for much longer, but the 'speed' canard is just plain wrong.

It all comes down to weight, heat, and most importantly, cost efficiency.

>>52395943
Yes, because levies never existed and were an incredibly poor idea. I mean, training peasants to use bows really fucked the English, and the Romans and Greeks really got fucked by conscripting pretty much everyone.

>>52392243
>Berserkers, atleast the viking ones, have never actually existed.

There is no historical consensus as to whether or not this is true, actually. Hell, there's no consensus on what exactly berserkers even WERE if they did exist.

But insofar as I know, they didn't fight naked. Not that other cultures didn't.

File: FORMATION.webm (2MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x405px

>>52395936
>Which one is gonna win?

The one with the best training, discipline, morale, drill and equipment.

Reminder that an army of 10,000 legionaries crushed an army of a couple of hundred thousand celts because they thought numerical advantage was an automatic win and just bum-rushed one of the most disciplined and professional fighting forces in human history.

Turned into a literal meatgrinding as the front ranks were pushed onto Roman swords by the rear ranks who, due to the size of the army, were too far back to realise they weren't winning and just kept pushing until it was them in the front being shoved onto a blade.

Likewise, the Romans suffered a similar disaster at Cannae, largely because one of their Consuls decided his army's numerical superiority was enough to overcome a general that they were well aware they had no match for tactically.

>>52396065
>Countless
>Majority have to be made up, extrapolated from legends which feature fucking minotaur and dragons, or have to pervert historical digs and misconstrue them to say something else in order to count.

Yeah ok.
>>52396068
>Reasonable as in not immediately suspicious to be in a FANTASY setting.
Funny, earlier fantasy of this variety featured sexy armor pretty regularly and wasn't met with this kind of autism.

>>52396120
>Cites bowmen at agincourt
>Not knowing that they were numerically disadvantaged
Open a history book you fucking retard.

File: thinking.gif (490KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 256x256px

>movie 300
>Spartans wear only leather boxers and helmets
>none bitches about not being realistic

>/tg/
>women wear more armor than those Spartans
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, IT'S STUPID FETISH, NOT REALISTIC ARMOR, YOU BIGGOT

>>52396153
There are a lot of battles like this in history, too. The only reason the Normans won at Hastings was a lucky arrow and the exhaustion of the Angles leading to a breakdown in discipline. Up until that point the well-rested, numerically-superior, cavalry-equipped Normans were losing, and humiliatingly.

>>52395399
Yeah really. I hate how in fictional settings, some people don't dress for maximum combat readiness, unlike IRL, where people always dress in heavy armor, and never for comfort or fashion.

>>52396180
>movie 300
>Spartans wear only leather boxers and helmets
>none bitches about not being realistic

Were you actually an adult when that movie came out? Because I was, and it got mocked roundly for the unrealism of heavy infantry wearing no armor, with a fuckton of gay jokes made in the doing.

>>52396120
>I mean, training peasants to use bows really fucked the English,

English longbowmen were trained professionals and paid by the crown in respect to their skill.

>>52396081
Yes, because my GM is specifically going out of their way to inject fetishy bullshit into our game where it's not wanted. You're familiar with the concept of magical realm, yeah? If I want to go explore caves and find treasure and the GM keeps talking about titty goblins or "no guys it makes perfect sense that the women are all bare-chested there's historical precedent now let me wax poetic about these nipples for a bit", there's a pretty big disconnect.

>>52396213
Not him, but I was 16 when that movie came out and went to a mini-boot camp run by marines, one of whom made a really mouth-foamingly crazy speech about how 300 was real. It's like a fucking holy book for them.

>>52396153
Generally speaking, battles are won by the side with immense numerical superiority, at least until the invention of weapons that made numbers pointless. Sure, there are exceptions, but those are just that.

In the end, Hannibal lost due to attrition since his forces were too small to take Rome directly. Had he had more men, he might've won in the end.

Discipline, training and equipment can let smaller forces win against larger numbers, but in the end they can't entirely replace good old numerical superiority.

>>52391974
Even if you don't want heavy protection against weapons, you still need light protection against the elements.

>>52396180
Your right the Spartans would have been naked except for boots and helmets, both of which were optional.

>>52396100
>Reality? Not so much.
I mean, if you want to keep being willfully ignorant about actual history, go right ahead.

>Maybe because it's an idea I had and I liked it, as well as to add flavor to the settings and the culture?
Sure, but I reserve that right to be suspicious that your first idea for interesting flavor was slut-paladins. Just like I'd be concerned if my GM had an empire that paired young princes aged 10 to 12 off with much older wives. Sure, it's technically adding to the setting, but doesn't it concern you, at least a little, that it's being brought up explicitly?

>>52396213
It's still 7,7 on imbd, 60% from critics and 89% from users on rotten tomatoes. The film depicted soldiers in armor that here on /tg/ is hailed as awful, unrealistic and should not be in your game, but only for women, I wonder why that........

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (129KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1280x720px

>plate armour means reduced mobility

This meme needs to stop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc&ab_channel=conncork

>>52396209
Most games have penalties for walking around in armor all the time, though. The issue isn't with slutty outfits, it's with impractical armor.

>>52396275
>I mean, if you want to keep being willfully ignorant about actual history, go right ahead.
Dunning-Kruger Effect

>>52396244
>marines
>liking naked oiled-up Greeks killing Persians that look literally subhuman

Pottery

>>52396251
>Discipline, training and equipment can let smaller forces win against larger numbers, but in the end they can't entirely replace good old numerical superiority.

But 'good old numerical superiority' can't replace discipline, training and equipment either.

File: rf jack 2.png (385KB, 604x741px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 604x741px

>>52396281
You can like something without thinking it's realistic, dude, that has nothing to do with the discussion.

>>52396293
>Most games have penalties for walking around in armor all the time, though.

Not really.

>The issue isn't with slutty outfits, it's with impractical armor.

Chainmail bikinis are definitely slutty outfits, not impractical armor.

Though exercise for those of you who are pro-chainmail bikini, how would you feel if your GM kept going on and on about how every male warrior you met was wearing assless chaps. Maybe there's even a handwavey in-world justification for it. Would your impression of that be totally innocent? Or would it remind you that your GM has something else going on. Would you be able to partake in that experience as easily as a setting without it?

>>52391993
>clip

>>52396239
If Dm mentions that there are order of women lightly armored you jump to "fetishizing" because you're an American who are forbidden from seeing breasts. Because all women, of all cultures, in all climates will cover their skin because showing it to men is haram

>>52396350
See, this is the part where, backed in a corner, they'll say they'd have zero problem with it.

>>52396350
I play fucking Conan games and have never once bitched about the oily men.

Even in your scenario, no, I'm not a petty little bitch who won't let people have fun.

>>52396282
You're confusing flexibility with mobility.

Plate armor definately does reduce mobility, it's heavy and a lot of the weight is on the limbs, which is exhausting.

It doesn't drastically reduce flexibility or range of motion, so knights can still do backflips.

>>52396332
discussion lies in fact that /tg/ is okay with naked men running on battlefield in nothing but thongs, but all women should wear nothing less than full plate armor. I think /tg/ is full of homos

>>52396315
Of course. You would probably want the best of both worlds, but there are things one can do that the other can't. Sieges are largely about numbers, for example.

File: 1487273833128.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>Implying covering yourself in metal will actually protect you

Aggression > Armor.

>>52392243
The Gauls and maybe Germanic tribespeople fought naked, and if you believe Roman accounts it was to show bravery in battle, because armor was seen as cowardly

>>52396350
> how would you feel if your GM added barbarian class to the game
UMMM, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO THEN

>>52394962
And in the USA, our training and recruitment standards for women are below that of the men. Same even for firemen and police.

If you want your gender equality, don't be surprised if the girls don't live up to your dreams.

>>52396429
>If you want your gender equality, don't be surprised if the girls don't live up to your dreams.

>expecting anything out of 3DPD

All the qt3.14s in my setting are actually 2D and not God's greatest mistake.

>>52396345
>chainmail bikinis aren't impractical armor
???????

>>52396360
lightly armored =/= chainmail bikinis. We're talking about cases where characters are making otherwise unreasonable decisions. If it's a level of dress that's reasonable for the situation or climate, there's no problem.

>>52396382
>>52396428
That's not the same though. Those are scenarios where the style of dress is empowering and weather appropriate. The comparison only works if it's a random fetishistic feature that is otherwise out of place.

>>52396458
>empowering
ALERT, ALERT
FEMINIST BUZZWORD IN THREAD

>>52396458
>I have no idea what empowering means, the post. I also have no knowledge of the setting Conan takes place in. I'm also fat.

I'm glad you're too autistic to play with others.

>>52396458

>empowering

Sure you wouldn't rather have this conversation on Tumblr?

>>52395959
Some nations used body armor in WW2 too (Soviet assault troops), but it wasn't economic on a large scale and boolets penetrated them anyways. The reason plate armor disappeared was massed pike formations and muskets that punched through them easily. In the Napoleonic period the most armoured units were the heaviest cavaly, the cuirassiers who wore back and breast plate (a cuirass) and a helmet.

>>52396478
>>52396500
>>52396504
Please tell me you're all false flaggers, pro-bikinis can't be this brain dead, can they?

>>52396529
Clearly not as brain-dead as someone who splits hairs like you do.

>>52396552
What I'm trying to say you're only in favor of horndog GMs putting chainmail bikinis in games because you're also horndogs. It's explicitly fetishistic, and any argument that tries to treat chainmail bikinis are realistic or reasonable is blind defense of a stupid fetish.

>>52396599
You're the worst kind of puritan, first of all. Second of all, you inability to acknowledge that your example doesn't phase people who want to play games with their friends just highlights what a whiny little cunt you are.

And your language indicates that you are clearly fat.

>>52396350
>but what if men were wearing what you want women to
>>52396458
>it's not the same, it's EMPOWERING
>>52396599
> It's explicitly fetishistic

Are you a woman? You really sound like one of them

File: 1358561071516.png (224KB, 349x354px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 349x354px

>>52396213
>with a fuckton of gay jokes made in the doing
>calling spartans gay
That's like throwing rocks at a quarry. What's the fucking point?

>>52391974
Wrong.

/his/ here. SOME people stopped wearing AS heavy armour in the 17th century mostly because of advancements in weaponry which made armour a less effective defense as it was in centuries prior.

You know what weapons were also prominent in the 17th century? Estoc, Rapier, Small Sword...

Swords with long, thin blades, designed especially for thrusting into the gaps in Plate armour, while being able to pierce the mail and padded gambeson beneath. On top of this, a WIDE variety of effective martial techniques had been developed that made trained soldiers significantly more effective at combatting plated knights.

People stopped wearing plate simply because it wasn't actually providing them sufficient defense any more.

>>52396599

Practically speaking, chainmail bikinis are pretty stupid, but no stupider than leather diaper barbarians or something. If you're going to do something as stupid as have a woman fight a man in hand to hand combat without a explanation for how the two are equally strong, I'm not sure it matters what she's wearing.

>>52396705
Most people don't actually know about Sparta's sexual practices, anon, just nerds and history fans.

>>52396458
>???????

explain how you consider chainmail bikinis as armor

File: whytho.jpg (25KB, 323x454px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 323x454px

>>52396120
>I mean, training peasants to use bows really fucked the English
You literally wat. Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, most of the battles in the Scottish War of Independence, and the theory that the US wouldn't be an independent nation if the British still used longbows.

>>52391974
Even if that were true (it's not), why make it chainmail? Why not choose something that isn't heavy metal if you don't care about protection at all? Why not have something like cloth? And why don't all men dress the same?

I don't mind chainmail bikinis since it's campy and silly and I like those things, but don't try and justify it as being based on any kind of practicality.

>>52396725
>You know what weapons were also prominent in the 17th century? Estoc, Rapier, Small Sword...
>Swords with long, thin blades, designed especially for thrusting into the gaps in Plate armour, while being able to pierce the mail and padded gambeson beneath. On top of this, a WIDE variety of effective martial techniques had been developed that made trained soldiers significantly more effective at combatting plated knights.

Rapiers and especially smallswords were not for combating armor, though we do know rapiers were worn on the battlefield. Yes, an estoc was used exactly how you say.

Poleaxes were a way bigger ding in heavy armor useage than fuckin' rapiers, though, and it was later arbalests and guns proliferating which saw armor decline.

>>52396644
I'm not arguing that people elsewhere shouldn't enjoy chainmail bikinis, I'm arguing that it's not weird for me to be bothered by it. If you want to go off with your other pervert friends and play that kind of game, by all means, go right ahead.

My whole point has been: I can't feel invested in a world that has such clear markings of a modern creator. If I'm not playing to get invested in the world, if it's just some one-shot parody or a mindless murderhobo adventure, who fucking cares, all bets are off, let's watch the goddess of fertility titfuck sonichu, I couldn't care less.

>>52396729
The reason leather diapers wouldn't bother me as much is that there's no obvious ulterior motive there, just a fairly serious lapse of logic on the GM's part.

>>52396775
I don't consider it armor, but people are arguing it's reasonable for it to be worn as armor, in lieu of actual protection.

>>52396806
strong agree

>>52396819
Yes, you're right.

>>52396831
At least you're not denying that you're fat.

>>52396806
>And why don't all men dress the same?
>implying the archetypal male barbarian isn't a Mr. Universe winner in furry y-fronts with random bits of armour like bracers or a single pauldron strapped to him

>>52396275
>I mean, if you want to keep being willfully ignorant about actual history, go right ahead.
Please point me to all the historically successful armies with female infantry. Sources required.

>Sure, but I reserve that right to be suspicious that your first idea for interesting flavor was slut-paladins
Who said it was my first idea? Who said they were sluts? I already told you they wouldn't be sex objects.

You come off as not only biased, but outright condescending. Do you automatically assume that every thing that can be construed as fetishistic in nature is just that? If your GM described to you that some woman or child was barefoot with dirty feet, do you automatically jump to the conclusion that he is a footfag? When in reality he could just be trying to paint a better picture of their impoverished conditions?

As for things being brought up "explicitly", I wouldn't. Not to avoid being seen as pervy but because I hate hamfisted exposition. I wouldn't have a problem with an empire that paired off young princes with older wives, unless the GM was being really weird about it. Execution matters more than anything in nearly every regard.


No shit, you honestly sound like you're just projecting your negative connotations with sexuality onto anything that can be construed as perverted.

>>52396955
>Please point me to all the historically successful armies with female infantry. Sources required.
WW2 Soviet Red Army

>>52396965
Definitely sounds like a time period where women would wear heavy armor, excellent point.

>>52396965
Tiny minority. The few success stories were massively oversold for propaganda reasons, similar to the massive media coverage on the YPJ.

Recruiting females was an act of desperation too, it had no real effect on the capabilities of the Red Army beyond a statistically neglible increase in manpower.

>>52396350
>>52396378
I would actually say that I have a problem with the execution of it, if he's going on and on about it. I would actually think it's pretty funny otherwise.

>>52396955
>Please point me to all the historically successful armies with female infantry. Sources required.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_of_Flanders
>Known for her fiery personality, Joanna led the Montfortist cause after her husband had been captured, and began the fight-back, showing considerable skill as a military leader.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet
>Muslims besieged Tortosa after a withdrawal of Berenguer. In the absence of men to defend the city, women joined the fight, dressing as men[1] and attacking with hatchets and anything else they could lay their hands on. They successfully repelled the attackers.

inb4 hurr wikipedia

I'm not doing college-tier research for your lazy, willfully ignorant ass.

>>52396965
They had substantial amounts of female infantry did they?

Sweet source by the way.

>>52397009
It's a historically succesful army, you didn't say anything about armor :I

I'm not the anon you were arguing tho, just a random guy from /hwg/. Ancient Indian armies had their Maiden Guard, some myths are going around about amazons in Scythia I think (who slashed half their breasts to have an easier time fightan'), and the Onna-Bushi in Japan, who wasn't a really numerous force to begin with. Other than that, can't really recall more, especially not from medieval Europe.

>>52397100
Oh come on, you write in "female WW2 soviet" to Google and get shittons of period photographs. Why do you need source for something so bloody obvious. But because I'm a really lovely human being, I did the work for you:

https://www.google.hu/search?q=female+ww2+soviet&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwnN-8q_fSAhXKFJoKHW21Cg4Q_AUIBigB&biw=1332&bih=637

>>52397091
>one woman and a small group stated explicitly to not be a military order
>and also yes, wikipedia

Way to get off your lazy, willfully ignorant ass and prove me wrong anon.

File: 1465656856949.jpg (126KB, 552x800px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 552x800px

>>52396350
Yeah, because fantasy has never included scantily clad men with vaguely homoerotic overtones.

How would those misogynistic chainmail-bikini loving neckbeards ever cope if their GM introduced something like pic related to the game to highlight their sexist, hypocritical double standards!
Think before you speak you fucking spastic.

>>52396649
>no answer
But of course, go back to where you can from , reddit or tumblr I don't care

>>52397130
>posed pictures of dolled up woman
Looks like propaganda to me. And it's not any kind of proof at all. Burden of proof falls on you to provide solid evidence for your claims. Otherwise you can just stop arguing.

File: 1476464144325.jpg (1MB, 1560x2099px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1560x2099px

Nothing wrong with skimpy armor if it fits the setting or if you just feel like including it

The only ones who try to explain it are the same who rant and rave against it, the hyper autistic who want everyone to only like the things they like

File: 751.jpg (69KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 598x792px

>>52396863

>>52391990
>Name literally means "bear skin"
>Naked

>>52397141
>I don't like those examples, give me different ones!

I'm not spoon feeding you, you lazy faggot, I don't give a shit if you continue to talk out of your ass about things you've got no idea about because you'll only accept an entire Roman legion of women as suitable proof.

>>52397183
>being this dense

https://ospreypublishing.com/heroines-of-the-soviet-union-1941-45

>>52397185
This.

>>52397205
Mistranslation, it's actually 'bare skin'.

Common misconception.

>>52397183
>Burden of proof falls on you to provide solid evidence for your claims.

But you're both making claims, he's provided proof, it's now upon you to disprove it with something other than 'Looks like propaganda to me'.

Debating 101 anon. You don't just sit there wiggling your pudgy little arms demanding MOAR PROOFS.

File: arrrooo.jpg (65KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 411x412px

>>52391974
>mobility > armour
Cool story sis.

>>52391974
But that's wrong, you fucking heathen. Mobility only became more important when the armor STOPPED FUCKING WORKING AGAINST GUNFIRE.
>>52391981
>>52391985
This.

Also ITT:
>"Female warriors are unrealistic", said the wizard throwing fire from his hands and summoning demons before teleporting to another plane.

>>52391974
...and the bunny ears?

>>52397206
Then I guess we're done here, if you don't have anything better than wikipedia articles on tangential stuff that doesn't prove your argument at all. I mean really, I ask for successful armies with female infantry and you link me to one noble and a small guerrilla group.

At least >>52397208 is staying on subject, if not providing any actual sources. It's close though, because a book like that would need sources to be written.

>>52396831
Please do not agree with me, I don't want to be associated with a feminist.

>>52397313
>if not providing any actual sources.
If an Osprey is not an actual source either with a list of sources at the end, then what can be considered as a source for you, friendo?

>>52397247
How are photographs of dolled up women in soldier outfits proof that the soviet army had substantial amounts of female infantry and were successful? I also don't have to disprove anything, because nothing has been proven.

>>52397336
What list of sources? All it is is a publishing page with books on them. Books aren't sources in and of themselves. They're written with sources.

Show me the list and I'll fucking quit just so we can be done.

>>52391975
whatever a girl with a sword or other weapon can easily kill you

>>52391979
In modern times,
Medieval knights were fucking tanks, good luck defeating him without ganging up with 9 other guys or something.

>>52397407
Not really. If they don't know who to use it then they're going on physical prowess.

And guess what girls don't have a lot of?

>>52395163
>>52396354
not from /k/, why?

>>52397409
>Medieval knights were fucking tanks, good luck defeating him without ganging up with 9 other guys or something.
Wasn't the best tactic against knights the same best tactic against tanks- ie get him stuck in the terrain and/or wait for him to wear out?

File: 1477120194852.jpg (213KB, 862x605px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 862x605px

>>52397264
Are female wizards realistic?

>>52397449
It's a magazine.

A clip is a different thing entirely. Not actually /k/, but I think it's those little strips with rounds on them that you shove into rifles.

>>52397395
http://www.mediafire.com/file/wr55zn689ph9heq/Osprey+-+ELI+090+-+Heroines+Of+The+Soviet+Union+1941-45.pdf

To be quite honest I think now I'll consider arguing done - if the pics are just propaganda, then I suppose you consider every written reports from Soviet sources propaganda too, so why should I bother. Historians find the proof enough, but a random Anon on a Japanese image board does not.

>>52397449
A clip is something you load your rifles with and then throw away. A magazine holds boolets that stays in the peestol.

>>52397501
Well, they do have an on-person Charm Person (immunities may apply) with them on all times.

>>52395887
>she wore no helmet
>everybody wonder why she lost

>>52394950
most systems already does by removing the limits of humans.

of course, then you have the fact that women tend to be weaker than men, but this can be waved by the fact that any women warrior is likely to be in the top 5% of athletic women and with the upper limits removed anyways, there's no real difference between men and women.

>>52397495
I believe common tactics vs knights were using weapons like maces and war hammers or grappling with them and thrusting a dagger into the gaps of armor.

>>52397516
Okay, I'm not actually going to download and read that so whatever, you win. Savor the internet victory.

File: akarinwell.jpg (12KB, 354x280px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 354x280px

>>52397501
As "realistic" as any kind of magic user, anon

>>52397548
I meant as in your best case scenario was that the dude fell into mud and tired himself out trying to get out of it, but your point still applies
>Anti-armor measures

>>52396081
>implying reality isnt the ultimate fetish garbage

>>52397548
I believe a common tactic for killing an armored opponent was shooting them with a crossbow.

Okay, so just to clarify, there are anons in this thread who thinks that having your army contain a large group of women is a viable and successful move.

There are anons who want all their games to be PG with no suggestive themes at all.

There are anons who want to justify sexy armor somehow, like it matters.

Then there are the reasonable ones.

>>52391974
Man that artist used to draw some pretty nice stuff. To bad they've stopped so far as I can tell.

>>52397636
>Okay so just to clarify, there are three strawmen in this thread, and me?

>>52396239
Your problem is with the execution, not the idea. Either that or you have a really low bar for what qualifies as "fetishy".

>medieval times
>you can defeat a knight with enough blunt force and few other guys
>modern times
>even grenade launchers do jack shit against tanks
>good luck having armor that will stop anything above pistol bullets

Fuck.

>>52397448
what a shit retort

>>52397666
Nice strawman, Satan.

>>52397516
>Historians find the proof enough

wow, leftist historians unquestioningly swallowing literal commie propaganda

what a fucking surprise

>>52397503
>>52397516
thanks anons

>>52397691
what a shit retort

File: 188fda59-ade0-423a-93b6-260c60234be3_thumb.png.jpg (56KB, 610x622px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 610x622px

>>52397264
>"Female warriors are unrealistic", said the wizard throwing fire from his hands and summoning demons before teleporting to another plane.

Not to mention that even if you're only talking about martials, D&D is still basically a superhero setting in everything but name. A high-level Fighter can survive a fall from low orbit, swim through lava while wearing full plate, cleave through a dozen fully armored men in a single swing, go toe-to-toe with monsters the size of aircraft carriers, cut slabs of solid steel with a katana, and out-wrestle giants.

Somehow I don't find a female who knows how to use a sword competently to be particularly immersion-breaking in this setting.

>>52397636
If you change the assumptions of the argument, you can 'prove' anything.
>Okay, so just to clarify, there are anons in this thread who thinks that having any female warriors at all in a fantasy setting where people can toss boulders and cause earthquakes with a spell is unrealistic.
>There are anons who want all their games to be all-the-time magical realm.
>There are anons who REEE at the sight of any armor that wasn't approved by a medieval historian.
>Then there are the reasonable ones.
It doesn't stop being a strawman when I use it, or when you use it.

>>52397660
I'm having trouble with the name. Wasn't it D darkside or something? I remember a dark souls gwyneveer pic and also something with a mimic.

>>52397501
As "realistic" as any educated woman

>>52397675
Modern tanks still have weakspots, you could conceivably put one out of action with a manpad. You'll never comprise their hull, but just getting to powder storage and igniting the interior will knock it out.

>>52395818
More manpower for what?

>>52397720
>Somehow I don't find a female who knows how to use a sword competently to be particularly immersion-breaking in this setting.
Well, it wouldn't be. Those actually exist.

But having female soldiers be commonplace, especially in a medieval setting, would strike me as weird. Even more so if the GM went out of his way to show that hey, women can be soldiers too you guys.

>>52397743
Educated doesn't always mean competent though.

File: tumblr_ndjqyzMqCN1rqat58o1_1280.jpg (325KB, 647x1200px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 647x1200px

>>52397718
what do you want from me senpai
either a) the girl has sword training because we're in hypothetical fantasy land and shes wearing a chainmail bikini because shes a barbarian, so she can def kill you. not to mention in fantasy land as a PC she can have any number of unlikely advantages and who gives a shit. mutant super strength, genius born once every thousand years with a sword, blessing of a goddess, race of women warriors from a magic island, whatever.
or b) we're in reality and any number of things could also be true, such as she is trained or she isnt with a sword.
so instead of responding to my argument you just nit pick because i didnt fondle your balls while stroking your shaft and feeding you arguments your little pea brain can understand. its not like either of us are going to learn from this situation anyway. but even an untrained girl can kill you with a weapon, it happens in real life, and to suggest otherwise is just stupid.

>>52397617
I know that it is hardly a reliable source, but I've just watched some test videos on youtube and in all of them plate armor worked well against crossbows.

File: stefan.png (613KB, 406x587px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 406x587px

>>52397705

>>52396519
But you don't even see the greatest examples of full-plate till after the rise of Pie and Shot, the death of plate is mostly economical.

File: savage-red-sonja-frank-cho.jpg (480KB, 1400x2188px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1400x2188px

Quick poll, is this fetishy to you?

Yes or no? Just based on what you see.

>>52397930
Just one look at her dolled up face is enough to scream fetishy.

>>52397930
Amazons/musclegirls are my fetish so yes.

>>52397720
Isn't the point that because all of that bikini armor is okay, that you can't go "women warriors are okay fantasy, bikini-armor is unrealistic"

>>52397952
>pretty faces are fetishy
Man are you for real?

>>52397930
of course its fetishy, but everything is fetishy

>>52397969
Dolled up =/= pretty

>>52397994
So wearing lipstick and blush is a fetish?

>>52397961
If I had to be perfectly honest, I think 90% of the conflict in this thread comes from, surprise surprise, different tastes in fantasy aesthetic.
Personally, I like flowing, long-sleeve robes on wizards and head-to-toe armor on warriors regardless of sex. It just looks better to me.

>>52398004
In battle and wilderness survival it seems far-fetched enough to be considered fetishy.

>>52396831
>The reason leather diapers wouldn't bother me as much
I like how much mental gymnastic you had to apply so that men being portrayed as scancity clad sex objects for women gaze is okay, but women in CHAIN-mail(so even more protection than male leather pants) is ulterior motive to objectify poor womenz also they are horndogs!

>>52397769
Ok, but good luck getting a manpad or other RPG.

In medieval times you could make a club and just bash a knight. Today you need expensive and rare weaponry to do anything against military.
And no, guns made in garage are too inaccurate(no rifling, unless you got machinery for it) to do any fighting at decent range.

>>52394950
>4chan still believes you need to be s00per trong to be good at swordfighting

Swords weigh 3.5 pounds and plate armor sits at your hips, where women are strongest. It's not a real problem. I give endurance to guys, but women tend to have better fine motor control anyway so it most likely would be a substantially smaller gap than most never-held-a-real-sword neckbeards would imagine.

Idk if /tg/ gives a shit about anecdotes but I've done German longsword for years now and haven't found a reason to see women opponents as any less dangerous than men

(of course they've never had to split mail with an estoc but wgas)

>>52397930
>Red haired muscular woman wearing a skimpy outfit in a pose that makes it clear that she's wearing nothing under armor so impractical that it barely functions as clothes

Yeah, that's pretty fetishy. Literally the only reason people make stuff like that is to get off to it.

>>52398096
>I've done German longsword for years now and haven't found a reason to see women opponents as any less dangerous than men
The scariest thing in swordfighting in armor is not sword, it's your opponent tackling you down

>>52397930
No
But it is drawn by Frank Cho so also yes

>>52392490
isn't that image bannable?

>>52395959
>Battlecruiser concept was destroyed in the battle of Jutland
Not true. The German Battlecruisers were just better designed. Britbongs lacked armour where it was needed and their magazines detonated really easy.
>Lighter German tanks were literally incapable of defeating infantry tanks in early WW2
And they still won the Battle of France in little more than a month, due to the mobile tactics employed.
>Cavalry still wore breastplates up to WW1
French Cuirassiers wore it during the First World War, and it did not help much.
>Body armour was still developed and used in WW1
And it was mostly for sentry duties, soldiers fucking hated that shit because it was heavy as fuck, impeded your movement in the mud and did fuck all against anything more than melee weapons.
>There is a reason modern soldiers have 15 lbs of body armour plus a helmet. There is a reason most western tanks weigh almost 70 tons.
Yeah, it's because we found a way to combine speed and protection.

Don't get me wrong, saying speed always trumps protection is retarded, but generally, that aphorism "Getting there firstest with the mostest" holds true.

>>52398096
>Swords weigh 3.5 pounds and plate armor sits at your hips, where women are strongest. It's not a real problem. I give endurance to guys, but women tend to have better fine motor control anyway so it most likely would be a substantially smaller gap than most never-held-a-real-sword neckbeards would imagine.
I understand when people say that women can be warrior, but in such thread it polarized to the point when some people claim that women are useless and on other hand people that claim that women are not worse warriors than men, both are stupid

>>52391974
T H I C C
H
I
C
C

>>52398220
>Britbongs lacked armour where it was needed and their magazines detonated really easy.

Part of the issue was their unsafe ammunition storage. If they hadn't had cordite charges lying around outside of the flashtight hatches, they wouldn't have blown up spectacularly. Instead, the turret might have burned out, but the ship would have been safe.

Bong BCs also had a higher top speed than Krauts, which let them dictate the tactical initiative.

>>52396171
>citing Agincourt as a triumph of anything other than blatant idiocy

The French lost Agincourt far more than the English won it

>>52391974
>guerilla war's are a strategist's nightmare
No, they're PR's nightmare. Just take the Americans in the Philippines approach and shove all the civvies in concentration camps and kill everyone outside the camps. The strategist's nightmare is an enemy with information superiority and a faster OODA loop.

>>52397660
>>52397741
Anyone mind helping me out? Know where I can find his old stuff?

>>52397786
having people who shoot laserbeams out their hands and make piles of clay into robots is weird to me. I ask my DM's to remove magic from fantasy altogether.

>>52391974
Natives in South and Central America used the equivalent of "armored bikinis" most of the time.
Ask them how it worked out for them against the armored Spaniards or even the Incans.

>>52398220
German BCs lacked the speed to properly run down the enemy cruiser screen. And the explosions issue was because the Brits had the brilliant idea of jamming the anti-blast doors open to load faster, which allowed any turret explosion to easily reach the magazine. Add in the excessive stowage of powder charges in the turret (again flr more ROF) and it's a recipe for disaster.

It's literally the same reason they had issues with their Shermans blowing up in WW2 (while US Shermans had one of the lowest crew loss per tank loss rates in the war), because they fucking stuffed ammo everywhere inside the turret.

File: 1280549246682.png (224KB, 375x445px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 375x445px

>>52391974
"Why from the 17 Century, [...], [did] warriors prefer* to fight without armor at all?"

...because guns had reached a point where they could be mass produced, rapidly taught, and easily maintained; punching through all but high-quality plate armor, which made armoring the masses no longer cost-effective. I know OP is' just fucking with us, but wtf's that artist on about? That's like basic-boo-boo, entry level knowledge.

>>52398114
Nice assumption, anon.

>>52398145
That's true. Well, sometimes. The prevalance of groundfighting is mostly a function of how well-protected the combatants are.

(but it happens all the time to some extent regardless)

>>52398060
A RPG-7 isn't that rare if you live in the middle east, central Europe, etc. You're not likely to do any appreciable damage to armor, or the user with just any wooden cudgel you find. There's a reason why most cudgels intended for combat are metal.

>>52398040
That sounds stupid as fuck, but if that's what you think.

>>52398458
>Nice fact, anon.
ftfy

>>52398096
>I've done German longsword for years now and haven't found a reason to see women opponents as any less dangerous than men
Probably because sparring matches aren't the same as full on wartime combat.

>>52398004

There's no good reason for her to even wear makeup like that beyond masking her appear more sexually appealing. That's the ulterior motive, and probably the story would function exactly the same without it.

Same for the dumb bikini outfit. It's a design choice that's purely motivated by motives to make her look more overtly sexually appealing. It's a design choice that's meant to appeal solely to my more base instincts, and it's disrespectful to do that in a work/genre where it's not the focus.

"My story is only so-so, but I'll make up for it with tits and ass! Get distracted, chump!"

>>52398186
Literally how?

>>52398560
But it's not though.

>>52398567
Going by this logic then there shouldn't be attractive people in fiction at all unless it serves the story somehow.

It's not even very good logic. The new Red Sonja comic has her in the chainmail bikini and straight up nude at times and the story is fine. Having sexy designs and attractive features in your stories doesn't always mean that they're a distraction tactic.

>>52391986
>>52391974
Honestly, pro-slutty armor people, look at the sort of content and argument your side produces.

Sure, anti-slutty armor people can be autistic. But between someone knowledgeable of how armor works, and autistic about it, and a honest-to-god retard with a perma boner...I know I'd rather associate with the former rather than the latter.

>>52398599
>It is indeed a fact
ftfy

>>52398493
It was way easier to get metal cudge thenl than to get RPG now.
Medieval times had no gun control.
And seriously, what are chances you know the right guy to buy outdated RPG-7?

>>52398692
>Sure, anti-slutty armor people can be autistic. But between someone knowledgeable of how armor works, and autistic about it, and a honest-to-god retard with a perma boner...I know I'd rather associate with the former rather than the latter.

>he'd rather hang around boring faggots than decent, hardworking men that just want some tiddy

Queers pls leave

>>52398692
They're both the same kind of person, so have fun with that.

>>52398720
but
it isn't

>>52398769
>Yes, it is
ftfy

Wtf is with all these dumb niggers?

File: 1487734044899.png (454KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 900x1200px

One problem I have with chainmail bikinis is just the psychology of it. Even if you were handed a magical leotard and told it would protect you from any attack, would you really want to go into battle with it? Over plate armour or chainmail, or more modern armour like kevlar? Even if your protection from level or stats will stop swords, what can you do against fire? Acid? Frostbite? Rain? What if you go into the sewers and get covered in shit, or bitten by rats? It is beyond protection vs agility, because even just some normal peasant clothes will, in non combat situations, be far better. The argument of guerilla warfare still works against slut armour, because since when do most natural skin tones act as decent camouflage?
I mean I can stand it, but don't expect me to not question it. And when i can avoid it in games I do, because I prefer even the most ornate, impractical armour as long as it actually covers.
Then again this is a trope created by people who don't care about the logistics and realism of a setting in character design, so what does it matter?

>>52398728
>Says 'tiddy'

Go thicc post in ebonics somewhere else, nigger

>>52398799
HOW are you doing that?

>>52398903
It matter if people gonna shitpost about it.

>>52398567
>they sexualized her to sell more, everything should be Chekhov gun!
You're saying she shouldn't wear chainmail bikini? What then, be naked?

>>52398903
My "slut-paladins" don't have this problem, because of their faith. So they feel fine going without protection and they actually get protected.

>>52398923
Magical meme arrows.

>>52399009
I could begrudgingly accept that, though it seems like it would be very dependant on the deity in question.
I say begrudingly because of my preference for armoured paladins and dark fantasy where that wouldn't really fit, but meh.

>>52391974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

>>52398422
> ...because guns had reached a point where they could be mass produced, rapidly taught, and easily maintained; punching through all but high-quality plate armor, which made armoring the masses no longer cost-effective. I know OP is' just fucking with us, but wtf's that artist on about? That's like basic-boo-boo, entry level knowledge.

So. Like Scorching Rays, Fireballs, and Lightning Bolts?

>>52399143
I just made them up to show that you can have scantily-clad female warriors in your setting without it being automatically stupid fetishy hamfisted garbage.

They worship a goddess of battle and rely upon their faith to protect them in combat, which it does, because blessings. If they need protection from the elements they can use magic or cloaks.

>>52399290
No, nothing like any of those. At all. In any relevant aspect. Like, it's easier to say the things they are like each other, than to list all the ways they are not. And here it is:

They do damage.

Aside from that particular concept, rather broad, they are absolutely nothing alike. Not in function, distribution, narrative usage. Anything. At all. Nothing at all.

Nadda.

Zero.

You made me mad. here's your (YOU).

Since this seems to go all over the place..

1) "boobplate" and chainmail bikninis are two different things. Yes there is old armor even -men- worethat was molded to give muscular imagery, though there is more practical armor. Focusing on the defensive properties of armor rather than advertising you have a pair of tits is better, but in fantasy you can go either way. Remember, someone complained a female stormtrooper not having boobplate was "sexist".

2) Women can learn to fight and do it well. The reason they aren't historically used in invading armies is because you can lose most of your men and population still can bounce back, but you lose most of your women and your numbers will decline. This is why you're more likely to find records of women directly in combat in defensive situations. If not for just adding to defensive numbers it could be that their main forces of men are currently elsewhere. Women commanders don't count on that as it doesn't compare to sizable female troops on a field.

3) Tactics can win over gear and numbers. Just because a woman isn't wearing full plate doesn't mean she can't win against a man. Just because you don't have heavy cavalry and your opponent does doesn't mean you won't just prep hidden trenches or long spears and decimate what he considers the shining part of his army.

4) Between Conan and other depictions of bare chested warriors along side things like "free the nipple" it's surprising things like bikini-armor and "slut armor" are still complained about. Surprising there isn't just a petition to have characters like Red Sonja go topless. Guess we'll chalk that up to conservative sex-negative white girls dictating what feminism is about.

File: 1489706134417.jpg (133KB, 600x1029px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 600x1029px

>they don't know the power of the uterus

>>52399143
> though it seems like it would be very dependant on the deity in question.
Celts had a tradition of magic bodypainting to protect themselves in battle. So did Indians.

And don't get me started on modern cults. Just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked


>>52399357
> They do damage.
Enough damage to make touch AC or Reflex saving throw more important then regular AC. Stop trying to weasel out.

>>52398903
A magical leotard of protection can also be worn under normal clothing, adding the element of surprise to it.

File: 1382834253451.jpg (76KB, 500x469px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x469px

>>52391975
If by women you mean yourself then yes.
>>52395969
Said the retard that lose a fight with a two year old girl with no arms or legs.
>>52393296
Women warriors existed but bikini armor did not.
>>52394950
So those things change some time in the past?Because women warriors existed.
>>52395154
You are pointless.
>>52395989
Congratulations on your stupid.
>>52396306
Can you prove that women warriors never existed? Well, already know you can't but I will ask anyway.
>>52396955
He did not say they were common just that they existed. Anyway here is some links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare http://www.lothene.org/others/women.html
>>52397743
So you think there are female wizards?
>>52397797
Not that you know anything about being either.


I think this pic sums up this thread.

>>52399560
So, what is your point exactly?

>>52398318
Desperation bump as we fall off the board