226 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Why should they "make sense"?

I think because: "Even fantasy should remain consistent to the rules it set for itself." Or something.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yes, but fiction decides for itself which rules those are. It could be a world where gravity is reversed and things fall up instead of down. That wouldn't make sense, but it is the rules that this particular piece of fiction follows.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 16 décembre 2013 - 08:14 .

[Fredward]

^ I know, I'm not even disagreeing. I was just thinking about what Sylvius would say. Personally I think the Qunari we saw were just their version of light infantry, no biggy.

Btw in a fictional setting with the proper framework where things fall up instead of down that would make sense. In that setting. If things started falling down instead of up with no explanation THAT wouldn't make sense. In that setting.

[Vulpe]

Maybe the Fex are the big guys in the qunari army...or maybe they are slick and sneaky foxmen 

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 16 décembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Bhaal]

Well i don't if it was said but DA2 codex on Qunari talks about their steel armored armies. Way it's said gives the sense that Qunari has better steel armors than other nations.

Arishok not wearing any armor silly anyway. Let's say what we saw in da2 was the shock troops of the qunari army then why even Stens not wearing any armor? In comics they go naked to siege a castle.

They turned Qunari race into Germen Berserkers due new "art" style. I don't think there is another explanation than this.

[Thetford]

Though I do recall watching a documentry about armour, and if I recall, one of the major downfalls near its end of use was that the armour became too strong and too rigid and the armour itself could help kill the wearer via internal haemorrhaging as anything that struck the armour (swords, arrows etc), while it stopped the penetration of the blade/arrowhead, the force from it caused the armour to strike against the wearer with blunt force trauma. Though this could be roughly about the time they started experimenting with Christmas tree bauble shaped breastplates.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

As armor evolved weapons evolved to penetrate it. that is why "Peasant " weapons became commonly used by Knights axes hammers ect. farming equipment were used to devestating effect agenst armored opponents on horse back. while some armor was light these are later versions useing better materials and forging techniques. there were armors made for children of royalty.
that being said i like my sticky nipple theory.

[Boycott Bioware]

If we look at aliens, who come visit us from billions of light years in a super technology ship, and can invade us by their superior technology..they are all naked

Similar here

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Hay if you were 10 foot tall and had pecks / mameries like those you would show them off.
Aliens we all know they come fron the sea 1 at a time from the same exact spot.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think of it as the amusing inversion of the typical fantasy armor scheme for females.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Same thing with furry underpants.

[Martyr1777]

nijnij wrote...

Yeah, it's like the randomly-barefoot Elves in DA2... i still don't get it. i'm all in favor of concept art being cool/edgy/whatever but to me this is just, well, random. i'd actually be less bothered by it if they wore zero armor, it's that selective just-one-shoulder/arm/whatever thing that breaks my suspension of disbelief by basically implying armor is purely cosmetic. It works for creating a "ragtag"  feel, which I guess is partly what they were trying to achieve with the Qunari and Darkspawn, but if every guy from a given faction has the exact same armor/model, then it looks like it's actually their uniform and that's kind of odd.

It's not ideal in its practical application but the one arm/shoulder covering armor is useful. Gladiators used armor like that to prevent the fights from being over too fast, if you can just block a slash with your arm and suffer nothing from it then why not. When your arms are as thick as trees then the slash is all you have to worry about from all but the biggest of warhammers.

Over all here is how I see it. It's a fictional game, I like it for those aspects themselves, but I also like some realism (why I don't like most asian developed games). Qunari armor or lack of it doesn't bother me, it's flavor which I like. The annoying part is the change from Sten to DA2 Qunari. Seriously, you can't have your plans fleshed out more then that in DAO?

But DA2 Qunari are cooler and in a fictional game then 'just to be cool' is a perfectly valid reason for armor to be one way or another. I just hated the heavy armor shoulders clipping in DAO.

[Vulpe]

Qistina wrote...

If we look at aliens, who come visit us from billions of light years in a super technology ship, and can invade us by their superior technology..they are all naked

Similar here

You should check the lore regarding the pyramids from Par Vollen. Prior to the qunari coming to Thedas, there was an ancient human culture that had something like a Sun cult religion.

When the qunari came they expected the inhabitants to fight back or at least to have an army. The inhabitants did not pose any resistance. They actually seemed to revere them. In the end they were quickly assimilated in the Qun. The qunari found some pictures or something similar that depicted large horned figures that were always in position of higher power and respect than the normal humans.

If you like it and want to, you can say that the qunari might be something like the remaining offsprings of the ancient grey giants that were a race of aliens 

Here's the link. 

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 16 décembre 2013 - 09:51 .

[Peer of the Empire]

 [quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 

[quote]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
[/quote]
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....
[/quote]
Wrong.  Bronze armor and other things are invented somewhere, and they did seem immortal and magical, in their own words.  Apply some thinking instead of just regurgitating platitudes



[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Wrong.  They had no good bows in the west, neither English nor steppe.  You previously said the Romans don't use archery, and now they do.  I already know about the Cretans, who use composite bows btw.  I left them out of my previous posts, among many other things, because they are not pertinent.  I have better things to do than to recite the whole of history.  I only assume my opponents are morons, not ignorant; if they are, it is not my job to teach them




[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 
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.

[/quote]
Edited your wall into brief headings.

As you've just described, without archery the Roman army could do nothing against the Parthians in the open field.



[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 

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.
[/quote]
Crusader knights and infantry wore mail armor, which is what I described.  As for other soldiers, knights wearing mail rule the battlefield; if there were elite infantry in this cavalry dominated era, they also wore mail.  An "average" peasant in a medieval army is a contradiction




[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 

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. [/quote]
The Goths took massive casualties because they wore little armor.  They were hard pressed to reply in kind.  All this, because of their "type" of warfare i.e. no armor and no bows



[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 

... 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)...
[/quote]
Actually they had quite a lot of cavalry.  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out what happened to it.




[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 
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.

[/quote]
You recite rote facts like an autist. 



[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote... 
[quote]Peer of the Empire wrote...
You've been watching too much 300.  Spartans wore armor - the magic armor.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Yes, everything that I already know about and better than you, and have obviously thought more about.  No, you merely regurgitate volumes into walls of text which any serious historian already knows, without any thought whatsoever.  The only person who brought the Persian Immortals into this thread is you

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:41 .

[Peer of the Empire]

JulianWellpit wrote...

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.

Wrong.  Immortal is an English word, originally derived from another language, that essentially means unkillable. 

The Persian Immortals are not relevant to this thread except by accident of name and perhaps the implications of them not wearing much armor, and in Sahlertz's own fevered mind.  Nobody is talking about the Persian Immortals except himself talking to himself.  Fixated on it like a drunk or someone with Asperger's.  I think English is not his first language

You should think twice before you post, if you are serious about your own advice

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:59 .

[Vulpe]

Yes I know what immortal means and I know it comes from latin, from the word imortallis. My own language descends from latin so I learded some latin and I can spot most words with latin origin.

The Persian Immortals were heavy infantery.Also, he understood what you meant by immortal. You were the one that negated the existance of the persian Immortals.

And leave all that arrogance behind. Even if english is not his first language, he already speaks 2 languages and he might know even more.

I'll leave you alone so that you might talk to yourself and be always right. Oh, and an expresion from my own language. You might like it : " Prostul nu e prost destul dacă nu e și fudul."

Have a nice day.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Yes! Wasn't there a codex that talked about how the Qunari wore silver armor?

[Secretlyapotato]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Yes! Wasn't there a codex that talked about how the Qunari wore silver armor?

Well, the little armor strap thing they have is silver. ^.^

[The 13th Dark Sheep]

Secretlyapotato wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Yes! Wasn't there a codex that talked about how the Qunari wore silver armor?

Well, the little armor strap thing they have is silver. ^.^

No no.. You're jumbling up the letters. They wear but a sliver of armour! 

[DarthSliver]

The 13th Dark Sheep wrote...

Secretlyapotato wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Yes! Wasn't there a codex that talked about how the Qunari wore silver armor?

Well, the little armor strap thing they have is silver. ^.^

No no.. You're jumbling up the letters. They wear but a sliver of armour! 

well I might be stretching it here but they are an advance society supposely, maybe they invented invisible armor/ see through steel plated armor?

[The 13th Dark Sheep]

DarthSliver wrote...

The 13th Dark Sheep wrote...

Secretlyapotato wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Yes! Wasn't there a codex that talked about how the Qunari wore silver armor?

Well, the little armor strap thing they have is silver. ^.^

No no.. You're jumbling up the letters. They wear but a sliver of armour! 

well I might be stretching it here but they are an advance society supposely, maybe they invented invisible armor/ see through steel plated armor?

Forcefields.. Biotic barriers.. wait, is this the new Mass Effect? 

[The_11thDoctor]

Vit246 wrote...

Secretlyapotato wrote...
*snip*

Outfits like these make little sense to me and make me question how they wear it on and off in the first place.
Why couldn't it be just a simple bra-like strap around the chest?

Because thats boring and lacks any fashion sense. You may not care about fashion, but the rest of the world might. I am in favor of this outfit and wont waste time explaining its elegance. Just think of the real world. Some people dress like slobs and care nothing of fashion, and then some people dress like they can be invited to a party at a moments notice and fit in anywhere or be the center of attention.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Wrong.  Bronze armor and other things are invented somewhere, and they did seem immortal and magical, in their own words.  Apply some thinking instead of just regurgitating platitudes

Oh really? Bronze armour was invented somewhere?? What an astude observation you've just made!!!

And dare I ask what you think preceeded bronze armour? Do you think that armour was unheard of before that? That humans were completely naked? Are you actually such an ignorant, yet arrogant, **** that you think something as asinine as your own words?
Armour far predates bronze armour most likely, and most certainly weren't a sudden development that made the wearers seem "immortal", as you claim.

And dare I ask that you provide a source for "their own words", instead of pulling so-called "facts" out your ass?

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Wrong.  They had no good bows in the west, neither English nor steppe.  You previously said the Romans don't use archery, and now they do.  I already know about the Cretans, who use composite bows btw.  I left them out of my previous posts, among many other things, because they are not pertinent.  I have better things to do than to recite the whole of history.  I only assume my opponents are morons, not ignorant; if they are, it is not my job to teach them

They had perfectly good bows in the west. However the ROMAN didn't use them in warfare, since they found them ineffective in their form of warfare. And you merely show yourself as the ignorant moron here, based on what you just said.

Peer of the Empire wrote...

As you've just described, without archery the Roman army could do nothing against the Parthians in the open field.

The same could be said about the lack of cavalry. And the Roman armies later that same century obliterated the Parthian armies, so obviously the Roman army could fight the Parthians, but it was the battlefield conditions in particualr for this battle which proved their undoing. But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Peer of the Empire wrote...
Crusader knights and infantry wore mail armor, which is what I described.  As for other soldiers, knights wearing mail rule the battlefield; if there were elite infantry in this cavalry dominated era, they also wore mail.  An "average" peasant in a medieval army is a contradiction

... KNIGHTS wore armour.. The average solider in the medieval armies could not afford proper armour. Men-At-Arms for the Knightly Orders ere the only supplied armies that I can recall off the top of my head, that actually got supplied proper armour. But the rest of the armies consisted of a mismatch of soldiers without proper equipment.

Peer of the Empire wrote...
The Goths took massive casualties because they wore little armor.  They were hard pressed to reply in kind.  All this, because of their "type" of warfare i.e. no armor and no bows

Goths indeed didn't wear much METAL armour in particular, but they certainly used bows. Actually there are lots of evidence of a widespread use of bows in the Gothic lands, so once again you prove yourself ignorant of history.

Peer of the Empire wrote...
Actually they had quite a lot of cavalry.  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out what happened to it.

And yet again. Hoenstly are you trying to be wrong? The Goths were NOT a horsepeople. They did not have a huge amount of cavalry in their armies, particularly because their armies consisted of levies and volunteers. They would bring their OWN equipment to a battle, and they most people could not afford having a horse. This is also the reason for why the Goths didn't have much METAL armour, since it was expensive to manufacture and maintain.

Bottom line in resposne to your wrong statement: No, the Goths did NOT have "quite a lot" of cavalry, and certainly not a lot compared to the Huns.

Peer of the Empire wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote... 
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.

You recite rote facts like an autist.  

No matter how facts are recited, they are still facts. Compared to you, at least I am saying things that are supported by history.

Peer of the Empire wrote...
Yes, everything that I already know about and better than you, and have obviously thought more about.  No, you merely regurgitate volumes into walls of text which any serious historian already knows, without any thought whatsoever.  The only person who brought the Persian Immortals into this thread is you

If you have actually offered what you say any thought, then you shouldn't even try at all, since all that you say is wrong... You are directly contradicting all historical records that we know of, and claim that you know the right answers. I am sorry but such arrogance does not fly around here. Now shut up, sit down, and read a goddamn history book and actually try to comprehend the words within. You are wasting everybody's time here, and I am done with you.

[Master Shiori]

You people realize that they live on, what is essentially, a tropical island? Living in Thedas is basically like living south of the equator: the further north you go, the hotter it gets. Therefore, it makes sense for them to be lighter armored than the warriors in Andrastian nations.

Also, some of the most fearsome warriors in history, ex: the Celts, went into battle wearing little to no armor. Often they were completely naked. So having limited armor is hardly unrealistic.

[Plaintiff]

I can think of a few reasons.

1) The Qunari live in a tropical climate.

2) The Qunari in Kirkwall were not an invasion force.They were there to retrieve stolen property, not engage in armed conflict.

3) Their ship sank, and likely most of whatever armour they had went along with it. It would be incredibly stupid to wear heavy armour constantly while sailing a ship, and when they began to sink, they would've had to remove their armour or drown.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 17 décembre 2013 - 03:09 .