Where do you stand on the argument between generic one-size-fits-all armor and sex-specific armor...

There are examples of shit like full plate with errections built into them and full plate "dresses", you massively underestimate how stupid people can be

once it was invented, chain mail was pretty cheap to make, certain styles of mail didn't require skilled labor, and it was also easy to repair and the tools needed were very portable. Making a chain shirt took a long time and was very tedious, but it was something anyone with the tools could be easily taught to do.

>You go to war with the body armor you have, not the body armor you want.

Based Rumsfeld

>That's life.

Or very possibly death.

That was his argument for sending frontline troops without any body armor.

Most of that doesn't compromise your protection all that much, if at all.

Making the wire for mail was the tricky part.

>falling victim to one of the classic blunders
>not posting any pics after the first post
Shameful display, OP

>Most of that doesn't compromise your protection all that much, if at all.

What about the British aircrews who refused to wear parachutes when they were made available, because it was thought cowardly?

People make terribly non-optimal decisions in the name of social structures all the damn time. I fucking guarantee that if the Continental mens pant fashion in 1805 was assless chaps instead of trousers, French, Austrian, and Russian troops would have been marching to Austerlitz wearing fucking chaps.

They die so much they quickly switch out of doing those things.

>Making the wire for mail was the tricky part.
for sure, but it didn't take anywhere near as much metal as full plate either

My only gripe is with heels.
I mean they make your ass look great but at waht cost?

This, I mean, look at factory and construction workers and how often they tend to ignore protection gear because it mildly inconveniences them to put it on.

Most of the time it doesn't even hinder them in any way, they just choose to go without it just because.

You'd think so. And yet people marched around in tight-packed formations and stood in front of guns at point-blank range for what? 150 years? From the early 1700s through the end of the American civil war? They didn't learn at all. They just kept doing it and getting huge swathes of people killed.

People are stupid, and you can justify anything, completely reasonably, by simply saying stuff like "this society likes doing things X way." If the thing was that bad, the society wouldn't be there in the first place to do the thing, so by definition the thing in question cannot be all that bad or injurious to survival.

i'm with you on this
silly armour design is one thing, but actively making it harder to move around is something else

In ages past there was a massive god war that left many divine entities either dead or severely weakened. However, the one god that shown victorious turned out to be the Elven god of libido, a ruseman who schemed and fucked his way to victory; so naturally the first thing he did was feel himself by making concepts like armor contra praecepta, as a joke. Anyone caught using lots of protective practical armor instantly explodes into a shower of blood, bone and gore becoming terrible wraiths. Sheathed in pink electricity and bits of metal armor, armies of these wraiths, called Shivers, serve the libido god and his faithful as bloodthirsty enforcers of his ire.

Dare you enter my magical realm of skimpy armor, banana hammocks and Babylonian-style sacred prostitutes?

By erections, do you mean hilariously huge codpieces? Some even have faces on them.

>My only gripe is with heels.
>I mean they make your ass look great but at waht cost?

Staying in your stirrups?

>Stirrups
I mean...what about the times you can't ride a horse?
Ride naked into battle for all I care just choose sensible footwear.

>Nobody would go into battle where they could die knowing that there's better protection available to them but they just don't have it, or that they choose to compromise their own protection. People aren't that stupid.
Modern body armor in the Middle East is left behind by soldiers sometimes for being too hot. Soldiers weigh the risk/reward balance of carrying a hot, heavy plate in front of them all the time versus the low chance that they'll actually wind up needing it, and some of them do make the call to leave the armor at home. Some of them even wind up regretting it.

They did until they started taking more losses than they could bear in WW1.

True fact, I fucking hate wearing gloves in a factory despite spending a chunk of my day with a spot welder. I'll take the sparks and burns and flecks of slag burning into my skin or drips of boiling hot water from the water cooling system so long as my hands aren't covered in sticky sweat and clinging fabric.

>I mean...what about the times you can't ride a horse?

No idea. Ask the 200 years of IRL cavalrymen who wore 2"-3"heels to lock themselves better into the stirrups. Clearly they must have fought unmounted at some point in there, and clearly they didn't die automatically because they're in heels, so maybe...heels aren't THAT bad?

>stiletto stripper heels are different than chunk or wedge heels
>there's a HEMA guy I know who forces some new fighters to wear wedge heels if they refuse to shift their weight onto the balls of their feet; they fight in those and nobody gets hurt doing it.

>Ask the 200 years of IRL cavalrymen who wore 2"-3"heels to lock themselves better into the stirrups.

I can't, because they're all DEAD

Checkmate, motherfucker.

user, for the sake of the argument we're talking sexy heels not actual heels used by cavalry.

Ha.

What if everyone in the setting is a descendant of living bimbo fucktoys genetically engineered by some ancient civilization, and as such their achilles tendons are naturally shortened, making high heels the most comfortable footwear?

youtu.be/KBjhAqXg8MY?t=16s

>What if everyone in the setting is a descendant of living bimbo fucktoys

[furious fapping intensifies]

So for the record, the celestial law only covers protective practical armor, and not body-covering garb in general?

So then one might expect a nation who has not been to full-scale war in some time to be more OK with fashion-driven uniform or armour, such as speculated on in , right?

Historically, that seems to be somewhat accurate - as peace gets longer, the military tends to become more of a social club and less a warfighting body. Look at our British Navy between the end of the Napoleonic era and the start of Jackie Fischer's reforms. Even their uniforms got increasingly impractical and became more of fashion statements. Since women tend (when left allowed to do what they want) toward skimpier clothing as fashion statements, it makes sense that a nation with females in the ranks would move toward skimpier female armor as the nation remained at peace for longer and longer periods.

...

Sure, as long as they suffered from it appropriately.

>Nation has grown prosperous enough in peace time that their reaction to suffering loses from their now impractical but fashionable armor isn't to replace it, but to start mass producing protective enchantments

Do I care? - Chart

Fixed your chart.

>this is no less plausible than a half-hundred "fashion/courage before common sense" examples we can pull from real history.
Show me examples from history of soldiers purposely wearing armour that doesn't protect their midsection.

I thought of the "Conan is a power fantasy" bullshit immediately as well.

Yes, you can wear cloths, just not armor that's worth a damn. But just in case, to be on his good side, most people choose to wear skimpy things.

Remember, the libido god divinely outlawed armor only to amuse himself. Legends say that he forbid armor specifically to prank the God of Complaints, a pudgy, pale, sullen deity of rationality that lost the God War but survived by becoming the libido god's powerless man-servant.

The libido god also cucked him, for the record.

As long as you also include the impacts that having such high magic availability entails.

Celts who fought in nothing but blue paint

Meanwhile, in reality...

Is this the final boss of Kingdom Death: Monster?

Blue woad has protective properties, infidel!

Which one works for mass production of 30000 soldiers?

Cause they were poorfags and also probably had African-tier beliefs about the protection of magical charms

There are two types of armor. There's regular armor, and there's armor bestow by the god Frah'Zeeta, who protects his followers so long as they are sufficiently METAL.

The scribes of Frah'Zeeta hold the records of ancient times and not only know all of Molly Hatchet's greatest hits, but are also frequently commissioned by the Merchant Lords for their artworks.

What is "The Entire Military History of Sub-Saharan Africa", Alex?

Also this

> Denying her feminine expression

Yes, I'm sure the woman would choose to NOT wear armor a bunch of enemies want to stick her with swords.

The prompt was
>Show me examples from history of soldiers purposely wearing armour that doesn't protect their midsection.
he didn't say RATIONAL examples
so Celts, Zulus, and Dakotas who believed magic would protect them is a correct response. Especially on Veeky Forums, where the protective magic might actually work.

That's the worst example you could pick, considering sub-saharan african cultures are literally mud-slinging primitives.

You...

I like you.

If you haven't been in the actual military, this "denying her expression" thing is actually a giant fucking problem, and it's hugely prevalent. You get women wearing non-reg earrings and shit all the damn time (which can turn into shrapnel), or making alterations to their fatigues to make them more flattering to their figure.

Basically, women don't WANT to look like men. So if it's hard to tell the difference (which it is in the the picture), then yeah, some women are going to get upset about it. They want to look like women, be clearly identifiable as women, be protected, and still maintain their status as an object of desire - which involved flaunting ass and tits. Yes, those things are mutually exclusive. They don't give a shit. They want all that anyway.

>Where do you stand on the argument between generic one-size-fits-all armor and sex-specific armor?

I generally DM the following:
-Wearing a Strangers Armor of the same species you've just salvaged, stolen, or whatever will require some letting out or fixing up so it can be worn properly.
-Wearing the Armor of a different gender requires some small amount of fixing/letting out, also maybe some light customization in the even it has boob armor or a big ol' fucking cod piece.

-With a few exceptions*, you cannot comfortably wear armor made for a different species than yourself and to try and change it to fit you would basically destroy it in the process or change it entirely.
*A Centaur and a Human can wear the same breastplate/chest armor or helmet for example.

-Certain enchanted equipment can be specifically enchanted to fit ANY species and ANY gender/body type.

>that pic
They'd have a hard time catching the barbarian girl even in heels...

Ducking Spartans would have members fight in only a cloak and helmet. Not all of them of course, but it was a psychological effect.

Not that we're seeing any anytime soon, but you're not going to see female 311/11b's requesting tit shaped plate carriers.

You're an ignorant idiot if you think that. Go look up the Mali, Benin, and Songhai Empires, or the Kingdom of Ghana, or Abyssinia from about 1300-1800.

All fully-realized civilizations, with well-developed militaries and certainly more than a bunch of "mud-slinging primitives". And they generally didn't do shit for personal armor, save for the upper chest (pecs and higher) and the head.

Standing in tight-packed formations was done because it was necessary given the technology they had. Guns were horribly inaccurate, so doing anything other than standing in tight-packed formations and shooting at each other lead to no one ever getting anywhere, and in order to win wars you needed your big battles to be decisive. It was also done for command and control purposes, as it was difficult to control looser formations.

People throughout history have generally abandoned things that were outright stupid. WW1 is an example of this, as the old mindset of having huge formations which worked up until then fell apart in the face of advancing technology.

The reality is that a lot of reasonable minds put a lot of thought into how best to wage war in their respective eras, and huge formations of well-disciplined and drilled infantry armed with primitive rifles, putting out as much firepower as possible, remained an effective way to wage war throughout most of that period, because I t allowed for large armies of troops who were still reasonably effective. An amateur studies tactics, a professional studies logistics, and the structure of the armies throughout those periods reflect that.

I'm not saying people don't do stupid shit, but it tends not to be chronic.

>mfw the male equivalent of this was basically getting low reg haircuts and getting haircuts as infrequently as possible
>still end up with shorter hair than 99% of civilians

WRONG.

army.mil/article/146686/3_D_shape_database_improves_fit_of_clothing__equipment

They're making SAPI plates with concave tit recesses in them now. Basically, literal boob cups.

It's fine, the glow belt will keep her safe. Never got why we couldn't use our slings during training humps.

>Go look up the Mali, Benin, and Songhai Empires, or the Kingdom of Ghana, or Abyssinia from about 1300-1800.
>architecture is literally mud huts

wwwww

If you really wanted cold hard realism you'd accept that female soldiers would make up such a tiny insignificant fraction of soldiers that it wouldn't really be an issue to begin with.

honestly I am really tired of how women are depicted in fantasy media a lot.

>villainous women are always conventionally attractive and conniving even when they have no reason to be, for example shelob in that new lotr video game

>protagonist women are always weak willed and submissive

it is such a narrow range and very hard to see these characters as believable. Male characters often have these problems too, but usually not to the same extent.

Where are the female protagonists who sometimes get angry? Or the mostly good women who do something pointlessly cruel and then feel guilty about it? Or the women who obsess over things that aren't men (or explosions)?

Some weeks ago I was on public transit and some weeaboo woman pulled out her phone and started watching anime OPs while singing along to them - in public! Where are the cringeworthy women in media?

>architecture is literally mud huts

>he doesn't know the difference between adobe and wood buildings that last for 400+ years, and primitive mud huts

>also, pic related
>a "mud hut" of the Ethiopean Empire

>Where are the female protagonists who sometimes get angry?

Shepard.

>Or the mostly good women who do something pointlessly cruel and then feel guilty about it?

Every chick flick ever.

>Or the women who obsess over things that aren't men (or explosions)?

Any non-romance thing with a female protag.

That's neat, but it sounds like a comp-sci major is conducting a study that will never get used because tax payers won't foot the bill. I'm also not seeing any mention of altering the ceramic plate's shape in that article.

Best I can find googling 'sapi plates women' is multi curve plates, which they even recommend for dudes for improved shouldering.

>he has to pull examples from less than 1000 years ago of shit other civilizations have been doing BETTER 5000 years ago

>Some weeks ago I was on public transit and some weeaboo woman pulled out her phone and started watching anime OPs while singing along to them - in public!
She was fully aware that men would find this adorable, not cringeworthy

Could you post another example? I'm pretty sure this exact image is auto-posted as soon as the words "mud hut" are posted.

...

>Shepard.
wasn't shepard just a blank canvas that the player puts whatever they want onto? I know people had big issues with pic related from the later game

the boss from saints row was another blank canvas. While they made a pretty cool female protagonist, they were also a cool male protagonist; their sex wasn't actually part of their character

do men actually find weebs singing in public, disturbing everyone else on the train, in broken japanese no less, to be cute?

That was immaterial to his point, user. You said that african empires were nothing more than mud huts. It doesn't matter that the africans got a late start, they still had trade contact with other places and armor would have been available to them had they wanted to use it. They chose not to, which fulfils the original issue back in where an user who is utterly ignorant of history (who I presume must be you) thought that soldiers wouldn't protect their midsection if given the opportunity.

As another example, Napoleonic Cuirassiers were a thing. They were armor (breast & backplates) regularly, to protect against lance and sabre blows, since they were shock cavalry. Nobody else wore armor, though it was available. Not even the other cavalry, who could have let the horse bear the extra weight (so arguing that it was a weight-saving measure doesn't fly). That's yet another example of people choosing not to wear protection that, given the prevalence of hand to hand combat even then, would have been a clear improvement in battlefield survivability.

Never underestimate the power of the thirst. Women are allowed extra cringe factor directly proportional to their physical beauty and multiplied by the number of desperate losers nearby.

Brah that is a long word salad way of saying "Because fuck you that's why"

If an attractive person does something stupid, it's "cute" or "quirky". They get away with all kinds of shit.

There's pic related here.

You could also look up the ruins of Kumbi Saleh, which was the capital of the Ghana Empire (9th-14th century).

There's also the town of Gedi in Kenya, which had an aquaduct and sewage system in the 1200s. The ruins are fairly well-photographed, so it shouldn't be too hard to look up.

Or you could just go down this list:
www.contramare.net/site/en/100-african-cities-destroyed-by-europeans-part-i/
www.contramare.net/site/en/100-african-cities-destroyed-by-europeans-part-ii/

Most of Africa is shit-tier now, because their civilizations got BTFO'd by Europeans. I don't blame the Euros for that - that's what more advanced civs DO to less-advanced civs. But to imply the Africans have *never* amounted to anything more than just some huts and mud-slinging savages shows an appalling level of ignorance, even for Veeky Forums.

For one thing, technically, the Egyptians are an African civilization. So they'd qualify under user's poorly-thought-out post about Africans being all mud slingers as well.

One-size fits all is cheaper, sex-specific armor is more expensive. Personalized armors is more expensive still. Though its questionable how much more expensive personalized armor is when your local armor shop makes every piece personalized anyways.

That's because Napoleon was short and had to compensate with flair.

It's pretty startling how you can take identical mannerisms and acts and apply them to an attractive person and an ugly person and see the huge difference and how much more disgusting it is when the uggo does it.

Like that typical annoying so kawaii peace sign wink heart shape with fingers bullshit that anime garbage is filled with? Imagine some ugly fat chick doing it.

Just a friendly reminder that Celtic and Scottish men and women used to go into full combat either nude or covered in woad (body paint)...

>Like that typical annoying so kawaii peace sign wink heart shape with fingers bullshit that anime garbage is filled with? Imagine some ugly fat chick doing it.

Dunno, I always find it cringeworthy, even when attractive girls do it.

Napoleon was above the average for French at the time at 5'7" so get your fucking facts straight, dumbass.

Reminds me of that one webcomic about the female Cobra uniforms. Wish I could find it.

That's not word salad dipshit

>If you go further up north and add these people here because technically then I'm right.

There aren't even straws here.
We all know you're full of shit user.

If you're disappointed you can eat my ass instead you pedantic fag.

>getting this mad at an obvious joke post
>the term "Napoleon complex" is literally a thing

Seek help.

That's a photograph of Karnak in Egypt my dude.