226 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Qunari have adopted the superior female symbiosis with armour, in that the less you wear the better protected you are.

[KiwiQuiche]

For DA2, you have the 'ship wrecked' excuse, since even swimming with clothes on bogs you down something rectifier.

But yeah, kinda daft how they are a practical, war-monger race yet strut about half naked all the time. I'm not even going to mention that female qunari's outfit. It's even worse than Morrigan's.

[TEWR]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

For DA2, you have the 'ship wrecked' excuse, since even swimming with clothes on bogs you down something rectifier.

But yeah, kinda daft how they are a practical, war-monger race yet strut about half naked all the time. I'm not even going to mention that female qunari's outfit. It's even worse than Morrigan's.

I could get maybe going without armor sometimes in daily life, because Seheron's a jungle which is bound to make it uncomfortable heatwise, but to go into battle without armor on land....

[Nefla]

Well female gamers need eye candy too.

[JoltDealer]

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I may not know a ton about the Qunari, but some considered armor to be a crutch and even a hindrance. The Celtics used to fight naked because it allowed for better movement. A lot of the armor they do wear is on the legs, forearms, and shoulders. No chestplate or helmet. Armor in those locations would likely be meant to help block and deflect strikes. No helmet to restrict vision or chestplate to hinder dodging.

Maybe the logic is, if you need a lot of armor to fight, you're bad at life.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the Qunari, not to say ALL the QUnari, we have encountered so far, have been marines. So it stands to reason that the Qunari we have seen would fight lightly armored. Armor tends to sink.

That's why I said DAII didn't bother me, for that very reason. Armor sinks and they either abandoned it or didn't have much to begin with. It's the comics that bother me since, well, the Qunari were fighting on land. They even had an outpost there.

The outpost is obviously a naval outpost, considering that it is a naval base. It would be manned by marines. And when they assault the Tevinter fortress, they are attacking from the sea, which would mean the marines are the ones doing the attacking, which means lightly armoured troops.

[Peer of the Empire]

Crimson Sound wrote...

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I may not know a ton about the Qunari, but some considered armor to be a crutch and even a hindrance. The Celtics used to fight naked because it allowed for better movement. A lot of the armor they do wear is on the legs, forearms, and shoulders. No chestplate or helmet. Armor in those locations would likely be meant to help block and deflect strikes. No helmet to restrict vision or chestplate to hinder dodging.

Maybe the logic is, if you need a lot of armor to fight, you're bad at life.

Armor made the ancients immortal and seemed magical.  Celts invented chainmail.  Knights wear armor.

Mobile assault infantry did favor lighter gear.  These consist of the youngest, fittest, most ferocious.  The Germans did overcome the Celts and the Romans.  But without armor an army will be annihilated on the open field if the enemy has archers

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I may not know a ton about the Qunari, but some considered armor to be a crutch and even a hindrance. The Celtics used to fight naked because it allowed for better movement. A lot of the armor they do wear is on the legs, forearms, and shoulders. No chestplate or helmet. Armor in those locations would likely be meant to help block and deflect strikes. No helmet to restrict vision or chestplate to hinder dodging.

Maybe the logic is, if you need a lot of armor to fight, you're bad at life.

Armor made the ancients immortal and seemed magical.  Celts invented chainmail.

Mobile assault infantry did favor lighter gear.  The Germans did overcome the Celts and the Romans.  But without armor an army will be annihilated on the open field if the enemy has archers

The Persian "Immortals" used wicker shields and a leather cuirass, hardly "magical" armour, even comapred to their contemporaries. The reason they seemed "magical" or "immortal" was that no matter what there always seemed be 10.000 men in the unit. This of course just means that the Persian Empire was so huge, that they could easily repalce loses in the unit.

And shields would offer far better defense against arrows than armour. Though it should be noted that the Romans almost never used Archers regularly until the later periods of the Empire.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[Peer of the Empire]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I may not know a ton about the Qunari, but some considered armor to be a crutch and even a hindrance. The Celtics used to fight naked because it allowed for better movement. A lot of the armor they do wear is on the legs, forearms, and shoulders. No chestplate or helmet. Armor in those locations would likely be meant to help block and deflect strikes. No helmet to restrict vision or chestplate to hinder dodging.

Maybe the logic is, if you need a lot of armor to fight, you're bad at life.

Armor made the ancients immortal and seemed magical.  Celts invented chainmail.

Mobile assault infantry did favor lighter gear.  The Germans did overcome the Celts and the Romans.  But without armor an army will be annihilated on the open field if the enemy has archers

The Persian "Immortals" used wicker shields and a leather cuirass, hardly "magical" armour, even comapred to their contemporaries. The reason they seemed "magical" or "immortal" was that no matter what there always seemed be 10.000 men in the unit. This of course just means that the Persian Empire was so huge, that they could easily repalce loses in the unit.

And shields would offer far better defense against arrows than armour. Though it should be noted that the Romans almost never used Archers regularly until the later periods of the Empire.

Wrong.  Immortal = unkillable

Try to think twice before posting about things which you have only a cursory knowledge about.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:40 .

[Battlebloodmage]

Meh, if Japanese schoolgirls can save the world in bikini everyday then I don't why Qunari can't.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I may not know a ton about the Qunari, but some considered armor to be a crutch and even a hindrance. The Celtics used to fight naked because it allowed for better movement. A lot of the armor they do wear is on the legs, forearms, and shoulders. No chestplate or helmet. Armor in those locations would likely be meant to help block and deflect strikes. No helmet to restrict vision or chestplate to hinder dodging.

Maybe the logic is, if you need a lot of armor to fight, you're bad at life.

Armor made the ancients immortal and seemed magical.  Celts invented chainmail.

Mobile assault infantry did favor lighter gear.  The Germans did overcome the Celts and the Romans.  But without armor an army will be annihilated on the open field if the enemy has archers

The Persian "Immortals" used wicker shields and a leather cuirass, hardly "magical" armour, even comapred to their contemporaries. The reason they seemed "magical" or "immortal" was that no matter what there always seemed be 10.000 men in the unit. This of course just means that the Persian Empire was so huge, that they could easily repalce loses in the unit.

And shields would offer far better defense against arrows than armour. Though it should be noted that the Romans almost never used Archers regularly until the later periods of the Empire.

Wrong.  Immortal = unkillable

Try to think twice before posting about things which you have only a cursory knowledge about.

I know what Immortal means, and I know why hte Immortals were called the Immortals. And it was not because they seemed invincible on the battlefield. A Greek historian, whose name currently escapes me, is our ONLY source of the existance of a Persian Imperial Guard unit by the name of "The Immortals" and he straight up says that the reason for the name, is that any member of the guard who is killed, wounded beyond fighting capability or sick is immediately replaced, so as to maintain unit cohesion.

So yes, do please think and learn before you post bull****.

[Peer of the Empire]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...


Wrong.  Immortal = unkillable

Try to think twice before posting about things which you have only a cursory knowledge about.

I know what Immortal means, and I know why hte Immortals were called the Immortals. And it was not because they seemed invincible on the battlefield. A Greek historian, whose name currently escapes me, is our ONLY source of the existance of a Persian Imperial Guard unit by the name of "The Immortals" and he straight up says that the reason for the name, is that any member of the guard who is killed, wounded beyond fighting capability or sick is immediately replaced, so as to maintain unit cohesion.

So yes, do please think and learn before you post bull****.

Yes, please do.  You are wrong again.  It makes me smile.

Immortal means immortal.  Armor made the ancients seem immortal, and seemed magical. 

Consider what it must have been like at the dawn of the Bronze Age, an age of strife and death, to suddenly have on hand such a marvelous substance, proof against, club, axe, arrow, with death encountered easily, and a substance so luminous too.  And they acknowledge so in their ancient poems and odes

As for your confused thoughts on armor and archery, Rome didn't have archers because they didn't have worthwhile bows in the west.  In the Gothic campaign, the Goths were annihilated by Hunnic archers.  Carrhae army was transfixed by archers.  Cataphracts are an anti infantry innovation.  Whole body mail armored Crusader personnel were fairly proof against Mideast archers.  Whole body mail armored Tibetan infantry was fairly proof against eastern composite archery.

You've been watching too much 300.  Spartans wore armor - the magic armor.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

I take it you weren't talking about the Persian Immortals, but some sort of fictional idea of how people interpreted armour in ancient times. Okay then, lets tear your asine and historically incorrect post apart shall we?

Peer of the Empire wrote...
Immortal means immortal.  Armor made the ancients seem immortal, and seemed magical. 

Hurr durr immortal means immortal....... Have a cookie. Now lets get this out of the way first, immortal is the ability to live forever and not die of old age. MOST interpretations of the word remains true to that diffinition. Some other interpretations include immunity to disease and waste too. A very small amount of interpretations include INVINCIBILITY to the interpretation aswell. Now invincibility is the ability to never be overcome in battle, which is PROBABLY the word you are looking for.

Moving on...

Peer of the Empire wrote...
Consider what it must have been like at the dawn of the Bronze Age, an age of strife and death, to suddenly have on hand such a marvelous substance, proof against, club, axe, arrow, with death encountered easily, and a substance so luminous too.  And they acknowledge so in their ancient poems and odes

The earliest armor found is from around 1500BC in Mycenae (modern Greece). Several finds of bronze scales indicate that armour was WIDELY used by the Myceneans and the rest of what would become Greece. So obviosuly they did not think their "ancients" were immortal, since even their enemies had come up with armour. Also there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that armour was the invention of a single man, or a small group, or taht it was even such a drastic development that they would suddenly apepar "immortal" as you say, to their enemies. Basically what you are saying is compelte and utter bull**** and yet can't be used even for manure on the fields.

Moving on....

Peer of the Empire wrote...
As for your confused thoughts on armor and archery, Rome didn't have archers because they didn't have worthwhile bows in the west.  In the Gothic campaign, the Goths were annihilated by Hunnic archers.  Carrhae army was transfixed by archers.  Cataphracts are an anti infantry innovation.  Whole body mail armored Crusader personnel were fairly proof against Mideast archers.  Whole body mail armored Tibetan infantry was fairly proof against eastern composite archery.

And yet again you are completely wrong. The Western World at that time actually had some of the most coveted archers known to antiquity. The Cretan Archers (from Crete if you are in doubt) were the result of a long unbroken traddition of archery on the island of Crete, and the Romans did eventually make use of Cretan mercenary archers, nce they had expanded through greece. There is even evidence of Cretan archers having been present during Caesar's campaign in Gaul.
The rest of Europe also made wide use of the bow, so again you are so very wrong. The reason the Romans didn't make use of archers was mostly because the Roman Legions already had a formidable ranged weapon in the form of their javelins, which they had used with great effect throughout their city's history. It was only during their mid expansion period when the auxiliaries was introduced to the legion that the Romans began to make good use of archers, and that was mostly because that was the only troops the conquered civilisations and tribes could supply. Also the Romans had probably never really seen the real effectiveness of bows since their large shields had been an almost perfect defense so far against enemy archers.
The reason the Romans lost at Carrhae was not because the enemy had composite bows. The Romans lost because the enemy simply had better and more experienced cavalry and beause the Parthian general had done a much better job at preparing for the battle.. What little cavalry the Romans had was scattered by the enemy Cataphracts, which allowed the horse archers to pepper the Roman legionaries uncontested. Normally weathering arrow volleys would have been no problem for the Roman legionaries, and they would just wait for the enemy to run out of arrows, but the Parthian general had brought in a lot of extra ammunition (and I mean A LOT, something like 1000 camels carrying only extra ammunition), this ment that the Romans' shields were in the end so riddled with arrows that they had become useless, and then they were slim pickings for the cavalry of the Parthians.
And yes, Plate Mail was (usually) arrow proof, chainmail also. Leather armour and scale, not quite as often. But guess what the average medieval soldier had in terms of armour? Barely anything. They usually had a shield of some kind, and a helmet. If they were lucky they might have been able to afford a brigandine (leather armour reinforced with small steel plates). Once the european infrastructure reached the status of the Roman Empire's crafting armour became a lot easier, and the brigandine became far more common amongst the soldiers though. However it was hardly arrow proof, and the shield remained the single best defense against arrows. The shield was the best defense because by blocking with the shield you avoided having to take the impact of the arrow to your body, whcih could potentially wound you, even if it didn't penetrate your armour.
Plate armour was however mostly arrow proof, which is also what lead to the heavy cavalry domination of medieval battlefields. Though as soon as crossbow designs had caught up and the introduction of hand cannons, and the plate armour saw a quick decline in usefulness again.
And the reason the Goths lost to the Huns (which is what I am assuming you are refering to with your "Gothic Campaigns") was not so much because of the type of bow the Huns used, as much as it was the type of warfare the Huns led. The Huns were a nomadic people, so their warfare focused mainly on the use of small fast horses, from which their archers could easily shoot their bows at the enemy. Now granted, the use of the composite bow, greatly increased the effectiveness of the Hunnic horse archers, however, the fact that the Goths barely had any cavalry of their own, and was more reliant on the shield wall (which weren't the best anti-cavalry formation). Not to mention the fact that the Goth's barring the huscarls, thanes and their retainers barely wore any armour themsevles aside from their shields. Once the shields had been made useless by enough arrows, or the shield wall had crumbled under the constant casualties from the Hunnic bombardment, the Huns would move in in a mass cavalry charge and mop up what was left.

Peer of the Empire wrote...
You've been watching too much 300.  Spartans wore armor - the magic armor.

Contrary to you, I actually base my statements on historical sources, isntead of creating some fictional terms such as "ancient immortals", which quite frankly has no historical accuracy.

[Vulpe]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...


Wrong.  Immortal = unkillable

Try to think twice before posting about things which you have only a cursory knowledge about.

I know what Immortal means, and I know why hte Immortals were called the Immortals. And it was not because they seemed invincible on the battlefield. A Greek historian, whose name currently escapes me, is our ONLY source of the existance of a Persian Imperial Guard unit by the name of "The Immortals" and he straight up says that the reason for the name, is that any member of the guard who is killed, wounded beyond fighting capability or sick is immediately replaced, so as to maintain unit cohesion.

So yes, do please think and learn before you post bull****.

Yes, please do.  You are wrong again.  It makes me smile.

Immortal means immortal.  Armor made the ancients seem immortal, and seemed magical. 

Consider what it must have been like at the dawn of the Bronze Age, an age of strife and death, to suddenly have on hand such a marvelous substance, proof against, club, axe, arrow, with death encountered easily, and a substance so luminous too.  And they acknowledge so in their ancient poems and odes

As for your confused thoughts on armor and archery, Rome didn't have archers because they didn't have worthwhile bows in the west.  In the Gothic campaign, the Goths were annihilated by Hunnic archers.  Carrhae army was transfixed by archers.  Cataphracts are an anti infantry innovation.  Whole body mail armored Crusader personnel were fairly proof against Mideast archers.  Whole body mail armored Tibetan infantry was fairly proof against eastern composite archery.

You've been watching too much 300.  Spartans wore armor - the magic armor.

Actually, he's right. There was a special unit in the persian army called the Immortals. As he said, the reason why they got that nickname was because when a member got old, severly injured or killed, he would have been replaced by another soldier. And yes, they were always mentained at the number of 10 000.

They used the type of shields Sahlertz described and they looked like this. The ones you see in the 300 movie are poetic liberties. The real Immortals weren't like that. If you would have taken 3 minutes of your time to google them you would have seen he is right.

So I advise you to document yourself before directly accusing people that they are wrong and don't know what they're talking about while you pose yourself as the only one that knows the truth.

You are advertising yourself in a really bad way and you are sending the wrong impression and message to the ones that read your comments.

Have a nice day.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 13 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Actually Julian, I think that he was talking about some fiction "Ancient Immortals" of his own creation, which holds absolutely no historical accuracy or relevance... And yet he insists on perpetuating his own fiction as fact..
I don't think there is much that can be done about this one.

[grumpymooselion]

Oddly enough, cultures started to shed armor more and more as guns, and the like, became more advanced. The body armors we're familiar with now, such as bullet proof vests, weren't always around even. Not even getting into that many cultures had many types of armor, and others none, for various periods of time. You still today have tribal societies what hunt, fight amongst themselves, and more . . . but don't use anything we'd consider armor.

The reality is that cultures created many types of armor, some more or less effective. It's not always about what's practical or makes sense, from our perspective, we have to remember that a fantasy culture shouldn't necessarily know what we know of armor, and weaponry, for that matter. Even if they do have armor, it shouldn't necessarily be the most practical, simply because cultures make mistakes. They miscalculate. And sometimes they just put form over function. All of this has happened at one time, or another, in actual history, right along with cultures that didn't develop armor, or just developed very poor armor - all along with the ones that developed some of the best armor, and weaponry, of their age.

Variety.

Also the shipwreck. Though I question that all of it would have been lost. It doesn't really matter though. We'll likely get to see some this time around. I'd like to think so anyways.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 13 décembre 2013 - 11:40 .

[Neria Rose]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Replaying the second game, I have found it quite strange that the Qunari wear little armor. It seems strange that they'd use little and cover themselves in war paint and yet are the same race/culture to (presumably) invent cannons and gunpowder.

What are your thoughts?

If female characters are expected to prance around wearing practically nothing, then can't see why the same can't be expected of males. Especially tall and exceptionally well-built males.

[Trolldrool]

They used to wear armour until they heard that women in Ferelden want to be men and pick up weapons to fight with. So they decided to strip down their handsomest warriors to distract the Fereldan women from the sloppy pearshaped beanbags they called men. It's the bikini chainmail principle.

[Abraham_uk]

Removed.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:03 .

[Asdrubael Vect]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Replaying the second game, I have found it quite strange that the Qunari wear little armor. It seems strange that they'd use little and cover themselves in war paint and yet are the same race/culture to (presumably) invent cannons and gunpowder.

What are your thoughts?

they spend most of their rare metals(steel is rare for Qunari, they mostly have only iron) for cannons and dreadnauts

[The Baconer]

Abraham_uk wrote...
Besides even light armor is really, really heavy.
Also doesn't heavy armor provides one, maybe two additional hit points and then it breaks?I'm asking you guys. Isn't armor over rated in terms of how much protection it provides?

What? No. Hell no. Absolutely not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Abraham_uk wrote...

In real life weren't there plenty of examples of warriors who didn't wear armor?
Weren't there entire armies who didn't wear any armor?


Besides even light armor is really, really heavy.
Also doesn't heavy armor provides one, maybe two additional hit points and then it breaks?I'm asking you guys. Isn't armor over rated in terms of how much protection it provides?

So really there is no real advantage in wearing armor. It slows you down and doesn't provide much protection anyway. That's what I was told.

Here is an article about how heavy armor slows you down.

That armour slowed you down severely or somehow critically impeded your mobility is a myth.

Dark Korsar wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

Replaying the second game, I have found it quite strange that the Qunari wear little armor. It seems strange that they'd use little and cover themselves in war paint and yet are the same race/culture to (presumably) invent cannons and gunpowder.

What are your thoughts?

they spend most of their rare metals(steel is rare for Qunari, they mostly have only iron) for cannons and dreadnauts

I'm sorry what now? What are you basing this off of? Especially considering we have lore statements that the Qunari was clad in glittering STEEL armour when they first invaded Thedas.

[Shark17676]

Secretlyapotato wrote...

Did anyone else notice how in DAO, Sten criticized Morrigan for her outfit, but then:



o.O

Yes, you would think that the traditional Qunari women would dress more conservatively with the way Sten had talked about them.  But at the end of the day, plot holes happen and the target demographic wants their cheesecake.

[Volus Warlord]

Qunari use Celtic Armor.

[Fast Jimmy]

Shark17676 wrote...

Secretlyapotato wrote...

Did anyone else notice how in DAO, Sten criticized Morrigan for her outfit, but then:



o.O

Yes, you would think that the traditional Qunari women would dress more conservatively with the way Sten had talked about them.  But at the end of the day, plot holes happen and the target demographic wants their cheesecake.

I believe the correct food vernacular may be "popcorn" in this case.