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

Im going to fap to this later

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

Poor justification for bikini armor and faulty.

This is how it should be done.

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.

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

Berserkers often fought naked

>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.

>some woman is going to want your asshole in her face as you attempt this

Take a shower first mate, and give your cock forge a good scrub down

>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 Veeky Forums wasn't mostly populated by people who really, really enjoy arguing the minutiae of pointless opinions on the internet.

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

But if you want to be light, why armour the bikini at all? Why not just wear cloth?

The answer is that this image is bait and should be disregarded. Sage.

...

...

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.

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.

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

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

>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

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.

>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

You'll get down really fast though.

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.

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

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

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

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

if you survive untill 1848 while being chased maybe.

>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.

>2017
>People still think armor hindered mobility

[Sighs externally]

So armour is pretty pointless against napalm.

Cartwheeling full plate knights sprinting 20k to the battle.

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

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

>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?

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.

We're talking tactics, not politics, though.

But thats wrong

>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.

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

What the fuck did you just say, kiddo?

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

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.

How are you, G.I. Joe?

>implying

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

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

But thats wrong

>Sage.

go home grandpa

>announcing sage
reboarded :-D

thats fair

See

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.

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 , where you stop trying to explain it and just enjoy the ride

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

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.

Hannibal

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.

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

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

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

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

oh hey look

you can do all of that in a roleplaying game

very easily

well I'll be

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

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.

That's pretty dumb my dude

it 100% does

just use your fucking imagination

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?

Imagination, on MY Veeky Forums?

Roughly the same degree of stretch necessary for chainmail bikinis.

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

Women warriors are pointless, irrelevant shit, you moron.

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

>"clip"
That picture triggers me.

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.

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.

>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

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

Not very relevant.

An argument from authority fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

>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

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

>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.

this

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

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

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.