Do you subscribe to the pop-culture notion that female armor should be formed for their breasts, why/why not?

Do you subscribe to the pop-culture notion that female armor should be formed for their breasts, why/why not?

>Do you subscribe to the pop-culture notion that female armor should be formed for their breasts

If the armor is intended to be ceremonial yet still functional, then there's nothing wrong with it.

If the armor is intended to be 100% brute functional with no embellishments of any kind, then it's a little odd, but still not unreasonable.

Believe it or not, when your armor is made of extremely high-quality materials, having formed breasts on the plate doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the armor by much of a practical degree to matter, unless they're hyper-exaggerated.

Also, going by the enlarged cod pieces, armored ab muscles, and other embellishments men have added to armor over the years (on the more ceremonial pieces, albeit, but the fact remains) it's not unrealistic that a female warrior would glorify her own female form as men glorify the male form.

TL;DR It's really not that important unless your armor is shitty to begin with, and drawbacks only arise if the breasts are hyper-exaggerated to the point of ridiculouslness.

Depends. Directing blows to the sternum is stupid, but there's plenty of room for this in armor meant for ceremony or display. Say, for nobility, parade armor, or the surprising number of historical spells that used breast plates.

On the flip side, if being a warrior is abnormal or taboo for women, they'd likely prefer to look like a man. Consider exaggerated codpieces instead.

> female warriors in any setting
> complains about realism

>> female warriors in any setting

It's entirely possible the nation in question has such a low amount of manpower that they're forced to use pretty much anybody they can get ahold of to fight, and mercenaries may not be a viable option.

Female warriors aren't "ideal," but a woman hitting you in the face with an ax is still gonna kill you pretty dead if you don't have many alternatives available.

I'm fully aware of the fact that women weren't used in combat because of the value of the uterus, but that's not what we're arguing here

I subscribe to the notion that any armour worth wearing is too heavy for women to wear

having the bulge infront makes it super easy to cut your throat as you swing in, the armor guides to sword.
you don't know what you're talking about.

Any woman who chooses to be a warrior is probably mad and nasty enough to be able to wear whatever she damn pleases.

That aside, when I'm masturbating, I like boobplates. So when I hear people insisting on boobplates, I assume they are trying to masturbate.

At least at sea it was more common than you'd think. Both because men wanted contact with women and because women who snuck aboard were difficult to discharge. There are a few notable examples of women taking command of ships or navigating them when their captains/husbands died, and a few others who excelled in the menial labor and combat.

On land you're less likely to see women in professional service, but there were plenty of women who fought. You're especially likely to see this in groups that settle as they conquer. Nomads and swiddeners and such. They tend to take the whole damn family with them.

If society that doesn't have enough manpower would not be a bellicose one. No men, very likely no fighting.

>vikings never had female warriors
>germans never had female warriors
>the soviet union never had female warriors

?????

>Female warriors aren't "ideal,"
depends entirely on their training.

No, because flat is sexier.

First two accounts were such a tiny minority. The second is in a modern setting, OP is clearly describing a medieval or early modem one with armour. Obviously even a child can use a gun.

If it's too heavy for a woman to wear, it's too heavy for you too.

>no men, very likely no fighting
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....ha

It's not a matter of societies. Any front could be somebody's home front. If the enemy is at the gate you can't always wait for reinforcements. Especially if you sent your guys to engage elsewhere or had a plague or whatever. Women being the B-team hardly means they never fought.

...

doesn't matter, the point is, that if a people/nation wanted to incorporate females as warriors they could.
saying it's unrealistic just because they're females and that "minority" is any evidence that they couldn't be used for an armed for is ludicrous.

Yes.
Because it's hot.

And assuming we have commonplace female warriors in the first place, which puts autistic "muh realism" excuse for nerd rage into garbage, if male armor had exaggerated codpiece, there's no reason for female armor to not also have ornamental tits.

>If society that doesn't have enough manpower would not be a bellicose one

Not necessarily, especially if they're in a strategically important location that merits constant defense, and that's not including cultural reasons and sheer human stubbornness.

you're generally right, but it's entirely plausible that a low-manpower country would need to field troops for self-defense purposes

>what is a gorget, literally worn by any knight with any sense

>if male armor had exaggerated codpiece, there's no reason for female armor to not also have ornamental tits.
read the thread

Jesus Christ fine if you really want to pick the most obscure and unlikely scenario yes maybe the football is on and all the men are at the pub and the women have to kill the goblins at the gates but in most cases if you're talking about a professional army it would not have women in it. OP is talking about armour, the B-team would have whatever armour they got what it looked like would be irrelevant if they got any armour at all.

>le guides the blade meme
no thanks.

>It's entirely possible the nation in question has such a low amount of manpower

Such happened in history. These nations just rolled over and lost.

This applies to the about comments where apparently because a few women helped Viking raids they were this Amazonian force.

Exactly.

Jesus, just have a blade guard collar, dumbass.

>Battle of Helm's Deep shit is the most obscure scenario
>Raiders picked only the best defended cities to siege
>Your fantasy setting uses standing armies as its bread and butter
>The vast majority of armor isn't B-team armor, it's the show pieces that don't get melted down

>what is a gorget, literally worn by any knight with any sense
>instead of cutting your throat it will be totally crushed by the force of the impact

No.

Boobplate catch weapons and focus the energy to a single point.

>reasonable, rational argument
>LE MEME

Form fitting armor might be nice to look at, but from a realistic perspective, why.

Why.

Traditional breastplates have proven to fit both men and women throughout history just fine. The singular reason boob plate would be worn is purely for the visual appeal. Sure, it can look really cool or really silly, but it's purely a design choice. That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that boob plate would be a terrible design choice from a practical perspective. If a sword is redirected to your sternum, it's still hitting solid metal. It won't go through. Now, if were talking about "armor" that reveals plenty of skin, then you have other problems to worry about.

Pic related would be fine.

The Middle Ages were famous for battles between armed male soldiers versus female militias, levied after their men got killed in previous battles.

>actually they werent

>implying that isn't a problem faced by literally anybody getting hit in the chest with a fucking sword, especially since most male armor still had curved chest plates that deflected the blow away from the chest

that's rude.

There should be a bit of both, to be honest. Historically there was always a lot of impractical armor thrown in with the practical stuff.
Now, chain mail bikinis on the other hand are just retarded.

He's got a point though. If you're already shelling out for custom-fit armor, a blade guard is something absolutely sensible that pretty much any male knight would have anyway. Why would a female knight NOT have one, when most of her male peers would?

Actually yes Helms Deep is pretty obscure, not many societies have an enormous siege fortress down the road. Raiders did pick soft targets and guess what, they usually crumbled like a fucking damp biscuit, people would flee before they fought if there were no fighting age men.

Except it's not. Just because it's regurgitated in every single thread doesn't make your idea of a fight any closer to being true.

And even if boobplate was indeed a design flaw, that's not something that would stop an armorer from turning a job away.

More importantly: how many women would be comfortable with wearing polished metal boobs around? They would get mocked at every street corner.

no because it would still be pushed towards the throat as it slides up the metal and as pointed out before, even if it hit metal it would still damaged the throat and the throat is considerably less damage resistance than your torso, which also has a larger surface area to deal with the blow.
also capes are a bad idea.

That ultimately doesn't matter much unless your armor is already terrible quality. It's still going to stop the majority of hits, unless you're hit by a blunt-force weapon (like a maul or mace) at which point it doesn't matter anyway because those weapons are designed to ring your bell inside of your armor rather than reliably break your armor.

I think you grossly underestimate how strong plate armor actually is, especially in the later years when metallurgy techniques grew rapidly.

Men didn't seem to mind having a big metal dick bulge on their armor.

People would flee before they fought, period.
It requires discipline and a leader to fight, that can be achieved regardless of the demographics of a society.

>Why.

Because a woman wearing a traditional set of armour is actually crossdressing?

ITT A bloo bloo bloo muh perfect adherence to historical realism how dare people try to have female adventurers or soldiers

If my fantasy world doesn't exactly mirror medieval Europe how am I supposed to be immersed a bloo bloo bloo bloo

look it up if you don't believe the thread

Even sharp weapons would ring your bell. If you take a hard enough hit to the chest you're going to have trouble breathing for a while. Which is basically a death sentence on the battlefield.

Energy still transfers, even if the armor doesn't break.

For a fantasy RPG? I probably wouldn't put it in, myself, but I wouldn't take issue if one of the players specified it. It'd depend on the mood, I guess, if we were being more silly or something.

>reasonable, rational argument

That ignores the fact that this very problem can be very, very easily averted by something as simple as a cheap blade guard and gorget, which male knights wore anyway.

Wasn't that because people have syphilis or something? Their cocks were painful to touch.

It's usually just a hatch so you can have a slash without taking the armour off.

>casual misogyny

I subscribe to the notion that the entire argument is idiotic.
If it offends you, don't support products that feature or use it.
Bam, problem solved.
Arguing that everyone should conform to your agenda is patently selfish and douchbaggery to the highest order.

IDK, armor is pretty gender neutral, since it is occupational dressing. It's like saying a woman wearing a hard hat and an orange reflective vest is cross dressing.

Bro don't even bother, the William sisters got shreket by a rank 200+ male players. Women just can't build muscle like a man.

>If you take a hard enough hit to the chest you're going to have trouble breathing for a while. Which is basically a death sentence on the battlefield.

A hit with a weapon strong enough to do that while getting through all that armor isn't going to be diverted much by "standard" plate as opposed to "Boob plate," unless it's a dead-on hit in the dead center of the sternum, and a hit like that is going to ring ANYBODIES bell in even the best armor.

This is all assuming we're talking about hyper-exaggerated boob plate, too, instead of something closer to pic related.

except that doesn't redirect the blow to a vital part, if anything that directs it away from a vital part

Is your pic related even boobplate?

I wouldn't count it as such. It's more of a stylized chest piece, in my opinion.

>That ultimately doesn't matter much unless your armor is already terrible quality
that's not the point, the point is its a design flaw that doesn't need to be there, regardless of armor quality

I would consider it to be "boobplate," as it is plate armor that is stylized to resemble female breasts on a female warrior.

I also have no problem with boobplate as long as it's within reason (Sisters of Battle are a little too much for me, but then again they're basically wearing walking tank armor in-fluff, so it's a bit of a moot point for them).

What part of that makes you stronger than they are? I bet you have high dreams and fancy yourself quite a warrior, and likely can't even lift your own weight above your head.

Females never really fight anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

But it's basically flat. There's no distinct "boob" part of that armor.

Right you ruined it with the obvious troll overtone, kindly fuck off back to /pol/.

>as it is plate armor that is stylized to resemble female breasts
Not him and not really seeing it...

>that's not the point, the point is its a design flaw that doesn't need to be there

Ignoring the fact that most male armor also contained what we would consider major design flaws, the fact remains that a simple gorget/blade guard will mitigate any redirections from the chest (which is a very rare occurrence to begin with, given how you'd have to uppercut a person at just the right angle to hit the plate in such a way as to deflect upwards) and the design flaw is minimal enough to not ultimately matter at the practical level.

Point is, it's not an unreasonable or unrealistic request for a female warrior to have armor that accents the female form while retaining a large degree of protection in the process.

I'm curious, what point do you think you're actually making?

>gets told
>falsefalgs

...

read the thread

Wow, going for the pre-emptive "you're a troll, not me" tactic.

Seriously though. If you're going to argue that women warriors are not realistic, you're going to have to eradicate all male soldiers who don't reach the level of physical fitness that women can achieve, and that's a lot of male soldiers.

Women may not be able to get as strong as men can get, and on average they might be weaker, but the outlying women easily exceed the fitness of an average warrior.

>prejudice: the post

That being a pencil-armed armchair-warrior doesn't really qualify you as the final word on strength and fitness.

When you have to rely on personal insults in a debate you've already lost.

no, because if that girl would be wearing flat armor, she would be wearing regular armor and not have armor shaped to her breasts

Someone please post the picture of a Roman soldier with ab armour and skirt being called unrealistic.

Having re-read the thread, what point are you trying to make, exactly? Just saying "read the thread" isn't an argument.

You've earned the insults. They're just extra spice to the arguments as to why you're an idiot.

But her chest piece is flat.

Or at least not anymore bulged out than a dude's chest piece. It looks more like pec muscles to me frankly.

>sjw: the post
Greentexting is fun!
But please, educate us on how that poster is wrong.

Yesssss Yessss let the butt hurt flow through you...

Ah, you're an idiot. Gotcha.

Well, realistic armor is already formed by women's breasts. The frontal bulge plate cuirasses have would accommodate 99% of all women. The empty space, as for men, would be padded.

I think armor can be womanly without boobplate.

>Ignoring the fact that most male armor also contained what we would consider major design flaws
which was?

>the fact remains that a simple gorget/blade guard will mitigate any redirections from the chest
this has been addressed in an earlier post

>unrealistic request
it is, because no armor is like that, there isn't any male of female armor in real life, there's just armor. even modern military uniforms don't have breast sticking out, not because there's a danger for swords coming their way but because the breasts simply are in the way.

Oh, I lucked out. I was wondering when you were going to reveal you're just a sixteen-year old troll.

Thank god you did it so early so that everyone can just dismiss you and we can carry on with our day.

Anybody that has ever used nailpaint knows how easy it comes off as soon as you get your hands into ANYTHING
And the hair is just a bullseye for snipers

*for* women's breasts

OMG, that armor directs all the force of incoming weapons directly into the midsection what a terrible and impractical design.

not an argument, don't feel like repeating what's already there.

And you missed the part about a blade guard, which is a common part of gorgets that, again, the majority of knights wore anyway.

Alright, once last bite.

Let me know how you plan to argue around-

>Women may not be able to get as strong as men can get, and on average they might be weaker, but the outlying women easily exceed the fitness of an average warrior.

fair enough 333

As said by others before me: If it's ceremonial / dress armor I'm fine with it, but if it's combat dress on someone we're meant to take seriously their addition makes little sense in the best of circumstances and may very well be detrimental in the worst (sacrificing armor quality, or requiring additional skills / material / time to be smithed, or so-on).

And this matters, why? The point being contested was "Durrhurr wimminz? Fighting at all? Lol nevah".

Historically women have been involved in warfare - as combatants - since ancient times. They rarely made up either the majority or a 50:50 split, but going as far back as the 15th Century BC (possibly earlier, depending on where you swing in the Ahhotep I and II debates) there's records of established and successful female soldiers who fought alongside troops (specific example being Hatshepsut, Fifth Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty).

Come 13th Century BC we hit Lady Fu Hao, as well as the first mostly-confirmed instances of women cross-dressing in Western (well, European) armies to participate in war. And the number of named, clearly non-mythical female warriors / generals only grows as you move out of the Ancient World and move into the post-Classical era.

Look friend you're either

a) trying to call us misogynists on the internet, this is like swimming against the tide and is a huge waste of time
b) you're just a troll
either way you're wasting your life. Go outside, I'm here to talk about tg.

is your dick on your knees too?

They're much weaker though, seriously she might look impressive deadlifting weights but I'm not kidding when the average guy could beat her in an arm wrestling competition.

just kiss already

>instead of cutting your throat it will be totally crushed by the force of the impact