Veeky Forums I have a request. Is there such a thing as sexy "functional" fem armor...

...

If it goes with the rest of the form fitting armor yeah. Warframe comes to mind.

I think you can recognize it by their movement or walking.

Men go different than women. But i dont know if this is some social developement or because different hip bones.

But overall i agree with you. Armor is neutral.

Place your bets!

Smart money is always on "both die" when there's a dagger involved.

>Men go different than women.
not in armor. You lose most of your "grace".
That is if we talking about full armor.

Could be. I only know the studies were they concluded humans can state gender by movements.
But it was causal wear what they recorded. Dnt know if weight and smaller moveability negates it.
Good point user.

it's not ab out movement restriction, your usual movement isn't restricted in armour.
It's the weight, you start to move differnetly, you step differently if you get used to it so you won't get tired that fast.
Same when you heavy backpack, your movements will change. But with armour you wil get a big outer layer with padding and everything that will also distort your outline and becuase of the several layers and overlappings in the plate most of the "grace" of your movement will be lost.
But as I said that is if we talking about a full plate, and even than it depends on the specific kind. Munitions grade will always look more clunkier, while in a high end articulated one from a later period you can move way more gracefully

this is true.

this image is a good example of how armor can look "feminine" by being properly curvy and the girl wearing it striking a feminine pose. As far as realism goes, try holding your arm that far from your body for a good minute. Now add the weight of metal armor and gauntlet, not to mention a spear.
she's also holding the spear like it's a toothpick but I think that was just a mistake the artist was too lazy to fix

But humans dont look for outlines. They relate to joints or centered points.

>movement restrictions
As far as i heard, actors and armorwearers said, you cant move with armour as freely as without.
But its just hear saying.

What about a sexy paintjob on the armor?
or in fantasy some transparent material

Well designed and correctly fitted armour offers very little restriction to your range of movement.

Movie armour is generally neither of those things (see the multiple versions of the batman suit with zero neck movement for a good example of how retarded it can be)

In this case one woman is wearing only armored high heels, and the other is wearing functional fullplate and is surrounded by half naked dead enemies.

Smart money is on the armored lady, the naked chick doesn't even have the advantage of mobility due to her footwear.

Probably not, because feautes that can be considered sexy on women, like boobs, will probably make armour less deflective.

I want to see a full set of plate mail on its back with its legs akimbo and it's hands doing that peace sign shit for hentai.
And I want 'slut' and other demeaning things writen on the plate in sharpie.
Why is that too much to ask?

But this one has colorful hair!

Surely she's the hero unit to the dead grunts!

How about a bigger version?

>But humans dont look for outlines. They relate to joints or centered points.
if you have a big pauldron it disturbs your outline and because of the overlapping the joint movements looks different too. You will recognize that yeah that's a human, but the finer movements will be lost, harder to recognize if he is just standing not giving a fuck or actually ready to take action.

>As far as i heard, actors and armorwearers said, you cant move with armour as freely as without.
>But its just hear saying.
it's true, you can't move that freely but the movements that are restricted are usually aren't needed for fighting, bending your back could be impossible or very hard depending on armor types (I'm talking mostly about plate here, chainmail or leather is obviously different) Arm movement is more or less free in front of you but you raising your arm after a certain point might be restricted, same with sides and back.
And stuff like sitting isn't as comfortable either with leg armours. If you want to ride a horse you either need to remove parts or have an armor that was made for that kind of stuff (because of the different positions and what parts of oyu could be hit if you are on foot or horse the armors for this had differences)
Depending on the gauntlet you have you can't bend your wrist back for some one piece kastenburst type gauntlets or for later five fingered ones you might just loose the finer manipulation skills while it's on you.
The list goes on but as you can see a lot depends on the precise type of armour, but even in a half plate your movement and behavior will change

Hnnnngggg

>Guy holding the rings

That don't seem safe. Also hi larpfag, saw you in that larp cgl topic awhile ago when I checked it out.

well it's easier to catch me there as cgl is slow as fuck, but Veeky Forums is still my main board. Threads just die here faster

It really depends on the armor. Any sort of free floating armor will hide gender due to its rigidity. Scale or chain, if fitted and bound correctly (which is to say, tied or connected everywhere so it doesn't fly around), could more easily give a hint of gender, though sexy or not is more a matter of opinion.

Partial free floating armor can also help show gender, especially since it usually doesn't include a fully face covering helmet. Though that depends on how much is covered and where.

Personally, I think that the only way you can make armor sexy (for men or women) is to reduce its functionality, unless you're making it for an audience with a particular kink.

For instance, take image attached; its an attempt to make up how an amazon might have looked if they existed. She has what looks like lamellar chest armor, which combined with the helmet would make it very difficult to tell at any reasonable distance that you're fighting a woman and not a young man.

This one actually looks like she's just wearing cloth (which can be fairly useful, depending on type and thickness/layers), but the placement of her belt means she's relatively easy to identify as female. If she was wearing lamellar, that wouldn't be possible.

So, basically, just try for non rigid armor and work from there.

Is...is that a crap crack?

all armor is sexy

I'd say high Gothic armour can be relatively feminine in appearance by modern standards. Add a mail miniskirt or so to protect future generations, perhaps with something suitably close to shrink-wrap underneath if you need to turn up the sex appeal. Those bits will largely be protected by the saddle anyway. Or skip the mail on accuont of the saddle if you so prefer.

>
No, that's just where the ass protection starts running out of ass, and has to bifurcate in order to become leg protection instead.

scratch that KM, here is a genius idea: The skirt armours for cavalry use... ON FOOT

You can't get any more girly/slutty without sacrificing functionality

Plate armor of seduction. Rather than having revealing armor, why not have sexy images all over the armor to "distract" foes while functioning as plate armor or any other armor with the same properties. Could be magic or mundane.

I'm not sure simply leaving the whole where the saddle was intended to cover can really be seen as not sacrificing any functionality.

...

Any armor is hot when a woman wears it competently.
My fault for being into tomboys realy.

put some chain on it or the vagina equivalent of a codpiece and call it a day. But it's the least functionality sacrifice for the purpose

>functional armour for women

Oxymoron

I can't attest for the early Renaissance form-fitting advanced plate armour, which was the apex of pre-gun armouring technology, but I've worn a number of things (lorica, brigandine, llamelar, various plate pieces on legs, arms, hands) and this is what I'll say:

Armour on legs and armour restricts your movement far less than I thought it would. Unless you get a buckle wedged in a joint, it's not too much of an issue. The additional weight on your limbs noticeably lowers your endurance, however; this will begin to affect movement range over time. If you wear armour a while, though, you get used to it and it's barely an issue.

Various hand/gauntlet pieces definitely reduce hand dexterity in most manners that's not grip, but grip is pretty much the only thing you need in a melee fight.

Helmets will affect your head movement; if they're too heavy it'll make your head more likely to loll around after an impact until your neck starts to beef up. However, that's not noticeably compared to the impaired visibility. Gorget definitely effects your neck mobility.

Torso armour, without a doubt, limited my mobility. I was not able to twist around as much as I wanted to, and bending forward becomes arduous.

However, I will also say this: most of the mobility restrictions are easily adapted to, and experience in heavy armour makes a HUGE difference in how much you're able to move and how quickly you move. If you spend a bit of time in armour, you quickly learn to compensate for the gorget, move in manners that negate the negative torso effects, and how to use your limited vision most effectively. Muscles that you don't normally use will reinforce themselves, and your endurance will build.

Most people who wear armour do it a lot, so when they say it doesn't restrict your movement significantly, they're speaking from a position of trained experience.

It's such a tricky question, it depends entirely on what you consider sexy.

If you're wondering if armour can be revealing, then no, obviously that's not really going to happen since it's contrary to the purpose of armor.

But you can have armour that's decorated and relatively form fitting, if "woman encased in pretty steel" rocks your boat, then sure, why not.

>Implying that you can't tell gender by body structure and size

Sure, it's not easy, depending on the woman, but even some Brienne of Tarth looking shebeast will generally not have the same curvature of the spine as a man, and as long as the armour is tailor made, it's going to show.

As long as we're talking late medieval plate and stuff like that and not some dendra panoply or giant jousting skirt type armor that makes anyone regardless of gender look like a metal shuttlecock.

And I just remembered this thing.

While we may be fond of full body coverage, a lot of armour historically fell somewhat short of this, leaving more or less room for OP's desires, especially if the associated non-protective fashion plays along.

Whether or not this sacrifices any function obviously depends on where and when and so on.

Sure. While the heaviest and most protective forms of full-plate are going to be pretty androgynous, most armor wasn't like that. Most armored soldiers would have worn half-plate or even just a brigandine or cuirass with an open-faced helmet like a kettle helm. That gives you a lot more freedom to make her visibly feminine without having to resort to boobplate or otherwise skimpy armor.

Like, take pic related for example: Jointed tassets naturally emphasize hip shape, and if the cuirass had been tailored for a more slim feminine waist, it would look pretty damned sexy on a female warrior while still being just as protective as the historical male version.

Just find a sexy enough girl and put her in normal armor. any clothing will look good with a good looking person inside it.

...

>The guy is wearing a shorter skirt than the women
Excuse me commander, but this is a little gay and not because Gaius keeps staring at my ass.

The Halstatt celts appear to have been a peculiar kind.

Sexy is a matter of taste. Functional is not. So the question depends on whether you find functionality sexy.

Heat.

A lot of classical era warriors wore no cloth outside of a skirt if that, simply because it could get hot as hell in the middle of a summer day when you're in formation combat. Those without a breastplate would often wear something on the chest, true, but it was reasonably common for hoplites to have a breastplate, a shield, greaves (hoplite greaves not covering above the knee), a helmet, sandals, and nothing else because they didn't want to overheat.

Egyptian and Assyrian levies usually wore a skirt or a long tunic with sandals, a helmet if they could afford it (and given the protection it afforded, they tried to when at all possible), and nothing else for much the same reason.

And of course, some of the celts wore bodypaint, jewelry, and a shield to battle. And nothing else. Because celts are fucking insane.

Keep in mind that the spear in the picture is possibly touching the ground behind her which makes more sense.

5 gold on the blond spellcaster!

You know, I haven't seen very many suits of armor from behind. Was it fairly common to leave the ass un-armored like that?

Because if it was, you could probably pair that style of armor with a long open-fronted bustle skirt. It would look pretty sexy, and a few layers of ruffled fabric over a semi flexible framework might provide some added protection from getting slashed in the butt.

Literally just google "metroid medieval". Samus's power-armor is literally the standard of a good fem armor.

If you give them a shield, they could be fully naked for all you care, it would be functional, and bonus point it would more realistic than wearing both armor AND shield.

is more realistic and functional than my pic related.

>Was it fairly common to leave the ass un-armored like that?
yes.
Most of the time the back of the legs were unarmoured too. Completely closed arms weren't common either

>As far as i heard, actors and armorwearers said, you cant move with armour as freely as without.

Would be rescued by/10

...

>Also helmets by nature aren't sexy
They can be.

This is correct.

The shape of the female pelvis makes their default fighting stance different. Ironically if they learn to fight correctly this stance is actually advantagious over the default comfortable stance for males. Only slightly though but you can tell.

Source :HEMA fag.

Only if both have daggers.

>the vagina equivalent of a codpiece
what would this be, a ridge? an inverted dildo?

You left out the parts where he does rolls.

Well fitted armour is spectacularly flexable.

I don't know. Veeky Forums has to invent it

>sexy functional fem armor
Regular armor with subtly suggested breasts and as massive codpiece as one can have without actually hindering movement.

Just paint tits and a pussy on a normal suit of armour. A metal version of pic related

More like this.

Imagine camel toe made of steel.
The vulgar version also has a slight bump suggesting clit poking out.
Extra vulgar version has jeweled "piercing" through it.

>if there is a helmet on, how will you know there is a women underneath the armor?
Go with a helmet that has a molded face mask like pic related, but obviously with a female face.

>>trick question: if there is a helmet on, how will you know there is a women underneath the armor?
Their small and weak looking build

Your warrior-women characters aren't muscular and statuesque? Somehow that strikes me as strange.

I'm remarking on how things actually are right now.

If you watch Battle of the Nations, you'll observe that the female competitors are for the most part physically unimpressive. The guys matches feature loads of bulky men who are double bulky in all their padding and armor. The women alternate between short, scrawny and awkward looking or obese. Except the Spanish girls who are heavenly but not necessarily tough.
Obviously, with training some of these things would change, but even roid abusing female power lifters maintain a certain physical shape. That's how their bones form (even though they're hopped up on testosterone and all sorts of other shit).

If women warriors were a thing, they'd have a more impressive build (like the power lifters) but it's disingenuous to suggest that humans aren't sexually dimorphic.

Yeah.

The problem is that most medieval portrayals of power armor are either steampunk, or too focused on the armor aspect.

A simple sallet with the bevor styled as a molded lower-face decorated like a Venetian mask might be more practical and period-appropriate for a typical fantasy setting.

I do like the vintage retrofuturistic Samus, though.

>functional
>in fantasy
the vast, vast majority of armours in fantasy, including those who look functional, aren't all that optimised for combat, basically it's a waste of time to care about this sort of thing

The Battle of the Nations guys are artificially bulked up by their padding, which makes them appear much larger than they really are. Actual armor had much, much thinner padding, which would even things out a bit. This guy, wearing an extremely accurately tailored suit of mail, is actually really form fitting.

This has very little to do with what you're saying about sexual dimorphism because the women are also artificially enlarged by the padding and so it evens out. I'm just saying, fuckbois in armor are a possibility.

>because the women are also artificially enlarged by the padding and so it evens out
Except they're not. You can tell the difference at a glance from their proportions. The women are shorter, slimmer even with the padding, have bigger heads and smaller hands. Their weapons look out of scale and for the most part they move like toddlers because they're not training enough.

I have hope the womens rounds will improve but at the moment it's really cringeworthy to watch.

You're right that fuccbois look similar, but at that style of event you don't get many because most who are there are motivated to train and bulk up.
The Japanese team has one guy who isn't an American marine, and you can pick him out at a glance because he's half the size of everyone else. I think the Brits have a midget too on their B team (he was on a documentary I saw about it on the BBC) but everyone else in the competition is either big already or planning to bulk, because they don't stand a chance otherwise.

That's a great idea. Also makes a lot of sense that lady warriors would be cavalry since how its common for women to experience gentle climaxes while riding horseback.

>bulge out the chestpiece around where the breasts are (keep it a single unified chest bulge until it resembles the profile of like a tight sweater with boobs under it)
>accentuate the hips with some wider hip plating
>add a amazon-like skirt or long crusader shirt with open sides on the skirt
>helmet with colibri-beak type of front shape or otherwise aerodynamic

add a bit of the typical fabulous plumes crests and shit.
voilla , armor that will be slightly less optimized, but you look pretty sexy in it. darker armor with a bright shirt that is worn over it in the fashion of a china dress will make it look slimmer.

thats how i would stylise, any more suggestions?

Yeah, you can tell the difference, and they're also wearing the same overpadding in proportion.

If you can tell the difference when both teams are wrapped in comforters like BotN does for safety, you would be able to tell the difference if they were both wearing historical armor.

>Was it fairly common to leave the ass un-armored like that?

Depends a bit on the time period.

For transitional armour your mail hauberk will hang down there. Later on that can turn into just a mail skirt. Some armour may have sufficiently extensive faulds to give your ass some cover at least.

In general though, full armour and cavalry go hand in hand (especially in Italy, probably also so in France, largely in Germany, less so in England), so your harness must allow you to sit down in a hard, high combat saddle without issue. Meanwhile that saddle, and to some degree the horse as well, means that your ass is already well protected.

The rear and inside of your thighs may likewise be left unarmoured, not just for comfort in the saddle, but also to facilitate horse-rider communication.

Also, articulating the crotch is probably one of the harder things an armourer can do, while your enemy will probably have considerable issues hitting you ass.

As far as protectors go, a female groin protector is much like a male cup, just decidedly flatter. I guess much like the inverse of how chest protectors go.

acemartialartssupply.com/adidas-foam-dipped-groin-guard-female/

That's beautiful, do you have more?

Sorry, what I'm trying to say is that you're right, you could probably tell the difference in actual armor, but that BotN armor has exaggerated bulk because of safety concerns, and most people would look much smaller on the whole in historical padding. Not enough that people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the men and women, and in fact it would likely be easier to tell because the armor on the woman would be much more form fitting.

Yep. The shoulder to hip ratio should be enough in most cases.

Real men show their manly legs, just look at the Scots and the Romans. That guy is a twig.

He's got shitty thighs and calves.

Greek heroes always have amazing legs, so these barbarians should emulate them.

wut?

I think you're bullshitting

Freaking celts am i right?

I dunno about the beaky helmets, user

...

>open helm
She catches that dagger in the face and dies.

it offers protection and looks aerodynamic.
i guess it is about taste in this matter

...