What's a good game where I can play a Knight with one of

>>384554739
That's a fifteenth century Armet helmet. Mount and Blade Warband and Chivalry are two games that come to mind that include the Armet in some capacity, though I may be mistaken about Chivalry.

>>384554739
Dark Souls series, Dragons Dogma, Mount and Blade series.... maybe?

>>384554739
Daruku Sarusu

Also these helmets are really cool

>>384554923
I was wrong about them being in Warband, though there are modules that add them. They're available in With Fire and Sword, however.

File: 1500289570819.jpg (37KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 250x300px

>>384554739
Does /v/ prefer historic or fantasy? I like fantasy so long as it's not edgy spiky shit or turbo autism like most FF garbage.

>>384554739
demon soul & dark soul 3

>>384554814
warband only has those bucket-like helmets

>>384555417
Historic with a bit of fantasy (like witcher 3 )> Historic > Fantasy
the only patrician taste

File: downloaden-demons-souls-pc[1].jpg (558KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 2560x1600px

>>384555417
Historic and/or low dark fantasy.

File: photo[1].jpg (83KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 900x900px

>>384554739
Soul Calibur

>>384555417
Same. I like having to fight non-humanoid beasties, but at the same time, real life armour is often far cooler than glowy spiky shit. Even a drab, lumpy mail coat looks great when you put a tabard over it. Especially if said tabard has a large sigil on the chest.

File: 1466661556578.jpg (163KB, 623x289px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 623x289px

>>384555417
>armour is fantasy-esque but still practical
the best

>>384554739
War of the Roses

File: 2971471825_f53ffcabb2_z.jpg (117KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 375x500px

What's a good game where I can play a Knight with a heavy scorpion-motif, or just scorpion claws and tail or some shit?

File: Malformed_Claws.png (14KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x165px

>>384560310
Dark Souls 2.

>>384557837
Came here to post this

SCII is best

>>384554739
Dark Souls if you go for the knight class.

>>384554862
Does Dragon's Dogma really have good armor?

I tried looking up screenshots and everything looked Skyrim-tier at best. Nowhere close to Souls games.

>>384560675
early game weapons and armor look fine but it gets worse

>>384557498
This

>>384555417
historic

>>384560745
Shame. You'd think an RPG that so prided itself on character customization would put more effort into making late-game armor look cool.

>>384554739
DeS - Fluted Armor

DaS1 - Knight/Elite Knight Armor

DaS2 - Previous DaS1 mentions + Alva's and Drake Blood Armor

DaS3 - Previous DaS1/DaS2 mentions + Firelink, Fallen Knight, new standard Knight Armor and another one I can't remember the name of from the first DLC

roleplaying a knight on a quest is the only good thing about Souls games btw

>>384561239
Equipment up to endgame still looks fantastic. It's the postgame DLC area equipment that goes down the bullshit fantasy armour route.

>>384561435
>and another one I can't remember the name of from the first DLC

Vilhelm's armor + Lothric knight armor

all in all I'd say a pretty decent selection

File: ff14-gladiator.jpg (73KB, 700x820px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x820px

>>384555417
I generally don't like fantasy but this here looks pretty nice to me

>>384561939
Damn that's pretty fly.

>>384554739
kingdom hearts

>>384555417

Fantasy, the le pratical armur is the gayest shit

>>384555417
This right here >>384558108

I don't know, but I heard that there is this one game, but you need to be 25 and play it and you also need a PC.

>>384562130
t. weeb

File: 1464950135684.jpg (432KB, 1143x1586px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1143x1586px

>>384555417
>implying fantasy shit can even compete

>>384563073

This looks ridiculous, thank god guns put an end to this cringefest

>>384560675
You can stick with early game or practical looking armor throughout, defense isn't a big deal and you can make everything have insane defense anyway with Dragonforging and rarefying.

>>384554739
Demon's Souls

>>384563073
boner'd

>>384561760
What are some of the best looking DD armor sets?

File: 1395069357-demon-s-soul.jpg (763KB, 800x921px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 800x921px

>>384563215
This

File: 367500_20170707055437_1.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>384563297
Theres only a few complete sets, the game encourages mix and matching.

File: Legends of Eisenwald.jpg (622KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1920x1080px

>>384554739

File: Gryphic.jpg (44KB, 451x601px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 451x601px

>>384563297
Gryphic is pretty good

>>384563163
which is more scary?
middle age knight or some nigger pretending to have gun in his hoodie?

>>384563791
Depends on whether or not you have a gun, because the knight was trained in all forms of combat from a young age, including wrestling, so there would very little chance of a modern """male""" without any sort of full-contact martial arts training doing anything to him without a gun.

>>384563687
Is this game actually any good?

>>384563791

A nigger with a gun.

File: 1325683896643.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>384563852
>it hates fire
caught me off guard

>>384564565
I'm actually writing a Steam review for it right now. Here's what I've written so far:

>The gameplay itself consists of a healthy mix of elements taken from such games as Disciples and King's Bounty, which, in turn take a lot from the Heroes of Might&Magic games. From the first two Disciples games, Eisenwald borrows the concept of replacing the HoM&M unit stacks with individual units, that have their own customizable equipment, are capable of accumulating experience and are upgradeable (can be leveled up) multiple times along multiple alternative upgrade paths. From the King's Bounty games, Eisenwald borrows the concept of replacing turns on the overworld strategic map by simultaneous movement of all characters and armies, it also limits the number of your active armies to one, just like KB games do.

>The combat movement system is relatively simple, compared to many turn based tactics games out there and is a compromise between ease of use and tactical depth. While the overall movement space during combat is quite limited, this does not mean that the system is lacking in terms of tactical depth, as positioning your units properly during and especially before combat is extremely important.

>>384564792
>Compared to other TBT games, the most noticeable difference is the fact that movement in combat is possible only with a certain goal in mind, be it attacking an enemy or retreating from melee range to a safe hex. You cannot simply move from one hex to another in combat with the sole intent of repositioning your unit. At first, I thought that such a system limited the overal tactical depth of the game, since it makes flanking maneuvers quite hard to execute and "streamlines" most battles into head-on collisions of two infantry lines, but after playing for some time, I have concluded that this approach forces the player to make a MUCH bigger emphasis on pre-combat unit positioning, compared to most other TBT games out there, because flanking IS very important in this game and offers tremendous tactical advantages related to damage output and counter-attack capability of target units, when you actually manage to pull it off. In fact, many seemingly impossible battles can be won by a proper "reshuffling" of your unit positions before the combat actually starts, which is something that encourages the player to commit to pre-battle preparations by observing enemy unit formations and adjusting his own before the fight. All in all, I believe the huge focus on pre-battle positioning overshadows any loss of tactical depth the game has suffered from having such limited movement freedom during combat.

>When it comes to narrative elements, Legends of Eisenwald a well known truth that is as old as RPGs themselves: general choices&consequences always make a game better, regardless of genre or even the type of medium. Granted, the presence of C&C does not make Legends of Eisenwald an actual RPG, since the

>>384564565
no

File: c883dece72732a55b31291a1b3c11c38.jpg (46KB, 360x640px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 360x640px

>>384554814
>That's a fifteenth century Armet helmet.
no it isn't, that's a mid 16th century close helm

File: 1487399298694.jpg (236KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 768x1024px

>>384555417
Fantasy is fine if it doesn't go overboard.

>>384566701
No, its an Armet since it opens from the side.

>>384566505
It is, though. Surprisingly, both the story and the gameplay are great. The story is literally FFT, but actually good.

File: 1480337596591.jpg (200KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 550x550px

>>384566848
are you sure it opens from the side, because it looks to me like it opens from the front since it looks like the part that opens and closes shares a pivot with the visor

File: 29.158.51_007AA2015.jpg (3MB, 2857x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2857x4000px

>>384567072
Note the small handle.

>>384555417
fantasy with a veneer of historical

or historical with a veneer of fantasy

File: Close_Helmet_of_Claude_Gouffier.jpg (185KB, 851x1280px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 851x1280px

>>384567264
I'd like to point out that they're also present on some closed helms.

File: latest[2].jpg (206KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1280x720px

>>384560589
Soul Calibur in general has been pretty good about it's fantasy armor not being too over the top. Even Siegfried's worst set is pretty tame considering where they could have taken the concept of a knight corrupted by a crystal sword.

>>384567264
you mean the small handle that helps you lift up the visor? i dont see what that has to do with how the helmet opens from the front

>>384567072
Its impossible to definitively determine with just that photo, but I'm willing to bet that it is a closed helm.

File: 1498484395557.jpg (132KB, 729x800px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 729x800px

Well, since /his/ didn't adressed some of my questions, do you armorfans mind asnwering then?
>about gorgets and bervors, why were they so close to the neck? why not something similar to a swordbreaker in pic related?
>was armor for the back thighs not a thing?
>why was most early armor grey or black? even most reinassance armor rely on cloths to give a bit of color, I've seen some exceptions, but I wanna know why it wasn't more widely spread.
>why didn't knights became horse archers/crossbowman? Seem like a nice addition, if it was done, why it wasn't more popular then?
>what happened to most armor? I know armor can look a bit similar but everyone picked what it worked, but sure there could be more variety right?
>I've heard the Italian style is assimetrical due to left side being you line of defence, but is the weight difference really that significant? and if so, why didn't the gothic was assimetrical as well?
>Just Italian/gothic/english plate? I may be a bit ignorant, but I've haven't seen Nordic,Arab or Russian plate armor, did they just not made it at all?
>what caused the decline of tabards to just the naked plate? also, why did the surcoat go away or changed into tabards?

Not about knights, but about buildings.
>While I know a bit about jettying being done for structural reasons and increasing floor space, why they didn't made taller houses/building? Was medieval architecture limited because wood and stone can only go so far or there are some other reasons?

Hope I am not bothering you folks, I just like armor, but my conditions fuck me over, I don't wanna go in details because blogpost.

>>384567853
They're positioned lower on armets.

>>384568021
What? No they're not.

File: Gothic_armour_01.jpg (163KB, 600x1524px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x1524px

>>384555417
I prefer historical armour for the very reason that the intricacies that come with armour that actually functions give it a certain look that most fantasy armour can't match. Historical armour simply looks much more elegant and agile. Fantasy armour most of the time looks either like it doesn't even provide protection or like it's clumsy and immobile.

I am by no means opposed to designs that didn't exist in history, e.g. people have experimented throughout history and fashion often dictated design, e.g. the solleret type of sabatons in Gothic armour mimicked the fashion of the day, so one could easily imagine armour with different types of looks. However, the practicality of the armour in terms of biomechanics needs to be considered. Armour can look whatever it wants to as long as it provides protection and as long as people can do what they need to do while wearing it.

>>384555417
A mix of both can be pretty gud

File: 67cb9764658ecd634a2c79efadf912f2--metropolitan-museum-york.jpg (135KB, 736x1108px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 736x1108px

>>384554814
>>384566848
it's a close helm
it opens from the front

File: 1469411763922.jpg (85KB, 498x700px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 498x700px

>>384567961
Most kinds of armor that you see displayed in museums were often recovered in the 1800s and polished to be shiny, depending on the quality of armor and who it was for the armor it self could be painted if the person who commissioned it couldn't afford to pay the armor smith to waste time polishing it to a nice finish.

>>384555417
fantasy made by people who appreciate history and not Blizzard pauldrons

>>384567961
'Nordic' plate armor wasn't much different than the rest of Europe - as for Russia, they never had proper plate armor except the krug/zertsalo cuirass until Peter the Great, and even the krug was just a ripoff of Persian/Turkish mirror plate designs.

The east never had plate as articulate and all-encompassing as the West - instead of making plate joints, often they just went for chainmail to cover the gaps, plate was more than often just a supplement.

>>384567961
>haven't seen Nordic,Arab or Russian plate armor, did they just not made it at all?
Yes. All of the plate that they did have was made by Milanese and German armorers. I'm not sure if Greenwich armor was ever popular abroad.

>>384567961
>why didn't knights became horse archers/crossbowman? Seem like a nice addition, if it was done, why it wasn't more popular then?
Chivalry.

>>384563073
Would this have been worn in to battle or is it just show armour?

>>384568689
Interesting, but paint was mostly decoration or it did they use it for identifying one another? I can't help but think people would mistake each other.
>>384569252
Damn, its a real shame they hogged all the attention, but they made some fancy armor tho.
>>384568859
I would expect that with a higher population, China or India would make something an equivalent, I find strange how it was only europeans who did it. Now I can see why people say Russia was always backwards.
>>384569375
My apologies but what is the point you're to make? I am not trying to shoehorn that view that all knights were assholes, there good knights and bad knights, but I don't see how it would affect warfare. I've once read the church tried to ban the crossbow but it was failure. Besides, some parts of Europe was besieged by the mongols, who were horse archers, did they tried to emulate it but it failed or something?

File: 1402880116564.jpg (2MB, 1704x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1704x2560px

>>384567961
Huge post incoming, I'm going to split it up into multiple parts to add images to back my points.

>about gorgets and bervors, why were they so close to the neck? why not something similar to a swordbreaker in pic related?
I assume it would affect mobility or vision. It's not like people haven't experimented with something like this, but I'd assume that it would be mostly limited to modular components that could be added for the joust for example.

>>384569889
>My apologies but what is the point you're to make?
Knights were trained from childhood to be the best possible warrior. To kill another knight, or be killed, from a distance and completely negate 20+ years of hard grueling training and skill, wasn't something knights liked very much. Also ransoms were a huge thing and knights rarely ever killed other knights.

File: this female knight was drawn by a horny jap.png (497KB, 1050x1400px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1050x1400px

>>384555417
90% historic, 10% fantasy

I also like my women armoured and mysterious

File: B 33 Picture-7.jpg (91KB, 489x1024px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 489x1024px

>>384567961
>>384569892
>was armor for the back thighs not a thing?
It depends; armour on foot in particular for the tournament occasionally enclosed the whole leg. For field armour the English tended to have fairly elaborate leg protection during the hundred years war as they preferred to fight on foot, but no suit remains from that period, they are only depicted in effigies and other types of art.

File: 1477139232100.jpg (308KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 750x1000px

>>384567961
>>384570125
>why was most early armor grey or black? even most reinassance armor rely on cloths to give a bit of color, I've seen some exceptions, but I wanna know why it wasn't more widely spread.
It's the other way around: early plate armour was fairly colourful, since people were yet unable to make armour from single pieces of metal. Armour was put together from multiple smaller plates and held together by fabric which was often fairly colourful. Painting armour was also not unheard of. In the 15th century, when it became possible to make armour from single pieces of high quality steel, people wanted their armour to shine and show people its apparent quality, polishing it to shine white was the fashion of the day. Approaching the 16th century it became common to colour armour again through blackening, etching, gilding, and of course otherwise alter the shape through fluting, cording, etc.

File: large_TR_747.jpg (130KB, 1144x1920px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1144x1920px

>>384567961
>about gorgets and bervors, why were they so close to the neck? why not something similar to a swordbreaker in pic related?
they were close to the neck so it could fit the body better and be less unwieldy, so it feels more like a natural extension of the body
and by swordbreaker i assume you mean the gardbrace on the pauldrons
>was armor for the back thighs not a thing?
no, that's because it made riding a horse more comfortable
there is one example of armor for the back thighs, which is henry viii's foot combat tournament armor
>I've heard the Italian style is assimetrical due to left side being you line of defence, but is the weight difference really that significant? and if so, why didn't the gothic was assimetrical as well?
the weight difference was hardly noticeable, just a few pounds
the gothic didn't use it because it wasn't their style; assymetrical pauldrons and couters were just the italian's style of making armor since they valued defense
>what caused the decline of tabards to just the naked plate? also, why did the surcoat go away or changed into tabards?
it was a fashion thing

File: 1382731731172.jpg (178KB, 400x944px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 400x944px

>>384567961
>>384570207
>why didn't knights became horse archers/crossbowman? Seem like a nice addition, if it was done, why it wasn't more popular then?
That's a huge topic. It's probably because within the European context it didn't work as well. It's not like horse archers or crossbowmen were unheard of. During the 16th century, knights almost completely transitioned to becoming pistol cavalry. It is said that it took Gustav Adolph, the Swedish King during the 30 years war to bring back traditional heavy cavalry.

>what happened to most armor? I know armor can look a bit similar but everyone picked what it worked, but sure there could be more variety right?
Iron does not survive well. Most armour we have is from the late 15th century and onwards. Earlier armour is mostly lost.

>I've heard the Italian style is assimetrical due to left side being you line of defence, but is the weight difference really that significant? and if so, why didn't the gothic was assimetrical as well?
It is sometimes said that it has something to do with the wearers preferences for combat. Asymmetrical armour protects most of all against the couched lance, it is optimised for fighting on horseback. Symmetrical armour is optimised for fighting on foot with two-handed weapons. To which extent this is true is questionable - I've never seen historical sources on the subject but it seems somewhat plausible. There definitely was symmetrical Italian armour and there also was asymmetrical German armour, albeit there was possibly a bit of a tendency for Italian armour to be asymmetrical and German armour to be symmetrical. During the 16th century we see both styles meet somewhere in the middle though. Both Italian and German suits from that period tend to be a bit asymmetrical but not quite as much as 15th century suits we have.

File: Agricola_Schmiede.jpg (514KB, 782x1368px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 782x1368px

>>384567961
>>384570320
>Just Italian/gothic/english plate? I may be a bit ignorant, but I've haven't seen Nordic,Arab or Russian plate armor, did they just not made it at all?
Making plate armour requires technology, it is not a straightforward thing. There's a reason why plate armour only came up during the late middle ages. There's quite a lot of early industry that was involved with making plate armour, which is why plate armour was mostly made in Northern Italy and South Germany/Austria because the economic conditions in the Alpine region were given there. You needed a source of ore, a source of fuel in the form of forests, rivers with reasonable current to power the hammers/bellows, city states with skilled and educated craftsmen, etc.; English armour really took off with Henry VIII who modelled his own workshops after those of Emperor Maximilian and hired German armourers for planning and education. Also it should be considered that Europe traded armour. Armour was not a "state secret" or something but it was a commodity that was traded by individual entrepreneurs. Naturally a Swedish Knight could simply buy German armour. There was no requirement to produce armour locally, which often wouldn't have made economic sense. Although it must be said: we don't actually know why armour was mostly limited to these centres of production, I however find the economic explanation most plausible.

>>384569889
It was to prevent rust and corrosion, as well as identifying who was who though if you're going to be painting the whole piece you might as well get decorative in between the seels, emblems and coat of arms. And with regards to identifying markers and why full plate lacked back protection, fighting in europe was heavily based upon disciplined formations so at any given point in time during the battle you could be relatively sure of who was who and need not worry about your back unless you were routing/running or suspecting treachery. I almost forgot to mention that brigandines, coats of plates, and jacks of plates had back armor and chain mail would have been used to protect the back of anyone wearing a breastplate that didn't have a backplate.

File: Farinata.jpg (274KB, 779x1200px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 779x1200px

>>384567961
>>384570489
>what caused the decline of tabards to just the naked plate? also, why did the surcoat go away or changed into tabards?
Fashion most likely. See what I said about armour not being pieced together any more and people showing off their polished steel (>>384570207). When armour became complete suits with unique designs being hammered into the metal itself made it unnecessary. That being said, combining other types of fabric with armour was still common, often interweaving flowing cloth with metal that mimicked its shape, providing an interesting contrast between the shining steel and the fabric.

>>384569892
Nice, take your time anon. On the neck parts, I look to most neck protection of the time and think "A blow to the neck would still fuck me over.", perhaps they were better than I give credit and I am just a pansy.
>>384570101
Oh, so the statement that most casualties was peasantry and auxiliaries wasn't bullshit? Thanks m8.
>>384570125
>>384570309
>>384570320
>>384570489
That some groundbreaking stuff for me, do you anons have some sort of updated book about the middle ages? because the one I have still spread the lie of armor being too heavy.

File: GrapplingFederschwert.webm (906KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1920x1080px

>>384567961
>I've heard the Italian style is assimetrical due to left side being you line of defence, but is the weight difference really that significant? and if so, why didn't the gothic was assimetrical as well?

Different martial styles.

>>384570562
Refer to the works of Adam Williams or Toby Capwell.

File: NerfTheMontante.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>384570563

>>384570672
By "Adam Williams" I actually meant "Alan Williams".

File: HJRK_A_79_-_Armour_of_Maximilian_I,_c._1485.jpg (2MB, 3840x5748px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x5748px

>>384570562
>On the neck parts, I look to most neck protection of the time and think "A blow to the neck would still fuck me over."
Bevors were actually quite sturdy and usually connected to the breastplate. The energy of a blow to your neck would be distributed to your chest.

File: exemple.jpg (3MB, 3840x5748px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x5748px

>>384570742
>greatswords were useful
My history teacher can go fuck himself. its impressive how wrong I was about history, thanks anon(s?) for the clarifications in general.
>>384571417
I didn't know that, my original line of thought was that the "curve" which accompanies the sillouhete of the body was a bit of a disadvantage. I thought armor design could be improved if they didn't have that shape and were kinda like pic related. A frog mouth-esque were the breastplate extend to protect the neck.

File: 1469164583763.jpg (19KB, 311x291px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 311x291px

>>384569892
>>384570125
>>384570207
>>384570309
>>384570320
>>384570489
>>384570553
This was an interesting read, thanks anon.

File: SuperGnG.jpg (196KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x800px

>>384554739

File: Giantdaddy.jpg (224KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 750x1000px

>>384570742
>using a zweihander
>that gesture he does after he wins

>>384572968

Was there ever been a more misleading cover?

File: avenging spirit.png (561KB, 762x399px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 762x399px

>>384573528
There's probably plenty.

File: darkest_dungeon_crusader.jpg (335KB, 1500x999px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1500x999px

>>384554739
Maybe the point isnt large enough for you, but its still from GOTY 2016.

>>384574139

Jesus christ

>>384574267

He looks disapointed for some reason

>>384572068
Amourers knew what they were doing, in general your 15th and 16th century fullplates were basically impenetrable unless you hit them with something extreme, like a lance from a horseback charge.

A good example is agincourt, the English didn't kill french knights with longbow arrows, they killed their horses, and then a bunch of cheeky fuckers with daggers jumped them in the mud, wrestled them to the ground (if they weren't already on their asses) and jammed it through their visors.

>>384555417
Historic or fantasy styled take on historic armor but only if the person making it has a decent understanding of armor. A person who has only used google image search does not typically qualify since you just end up with the worst shit.

>>384574787

>knife in the eye

I wouldn't be surprised if the cyanite pill was made in the middle ages to avoid such fate, the idea of someone desperately trying to shove things in my eye is so fucking creepy.

>>384574513
It's because There can be no hope in this hell. No hope at all

>>384569731
it's parade armour

>>384574972
It also didn't help that the french knights of the time were trained only as heavy cavalry, english knights by comparison were expected to be able to fight well dismounted too.

As for the knife to the eye thing... well the french actually got really upset about this, at the time it was custom to take helpless noblemen hostage for ransom, not execute them on the spot.

That the king felt a bit nervous with the sheer amount of prisoners he had taken (he had an army of frenchmen who actually outnumbered his forces as his prisoners) so he had most of them executed.

>>384575152

>more prisoners than troops

If thatshit happened today, it would be solved by russian rollete, god the medieval times sure had their nope moments. I guess horse armor wasn't really as fancy

>>384575152
To be fair, Henry V was a real piece of shit and had just finished butchering an entire city.

>>384574513
It's because he's in a game where building characters through their experiences in the dungeon and interactions with their party was replaced with RNG quirks and he's just another faceless Crusader that isn't Reynauld.

>>384575470
well plate style armour needs to be fitted to an individual and horses are super replaceable, so it's a hell of an expense especially if you want to outfit a whole army., the artwork from the time doesn't show horses with any, the kings horse might have been armoured though.

>>384575865

Replaceble yes, but a horse takedown means you're eating shit and losing one hell of a an advantage

>>384566930
nah

>>384576319
Well the art and accounts say that the only armour horses had at agincourt was helmets, and they apparently paid for this because it's what fucked all the french knights, their horses got longbow'd out from under them and down into the muddy bog they go.

They probably shouldn't have charged through muddy ground either

>>384576838
>What goes around, comes around.

I hope something like that never happens to me, medieval history can be creepy sometimes.

>>384562078
for a white guy

>>384578040
>Implying knights were white
Come on now, we all know that white "men" can't fight. Knights are just a classic example of whitey enslaving the black man to fight his wars.

>>384566846
I hope that's not an example of not going overboard?

File: 1500123432183.png (13KB, 166x166px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 166x166px

>>384563852
>it hates fire

File: file.png (260KB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 480x272px

>>384578818
The armor and weapon are made out of Rathalos parts, a red flying wyvern. The former actually looks like it uses monster parts to reinforce and decorate plate armor. In later games, armor designs tend to look more like monster cosplay.

As for the latter? Well, the setting isn't overly grounded, people use big weapons to kill big things and use their parts to kill over big things. Then again it didn't go too over the top until later.

>>384579428
man, I love MHFU to hell, but those guys couldn't even walk in those armors. And I'm not even thinking about the weapons

>>384570742
>Zweihander
>That fucking pose after victory
THE LEGEND NEVER DIES

>>384570742
>Str vs Dex