|
| Thread: Amours are not alwaays necessary | |
|
hammerhand
Hired Hero
|
posted September 18, 2014 02:18 AM |
|
|
Amours are not always necessary
let's see some units in history.
Hypaspist of ancient macedonian
they are "dual-use infantries "£¬they can form phalanx because of their spear-shield training or chase skermishers because they wear no armour.
arabian knights have heavy armours. but sometimes they chose not to wear them ,so they could strike faster from flank.
hussars and dragoons of 18th century didn't have armors too,only cuirassiers had armors at that time.
British Royal Scots Greys dragoons defeated French cuirassier in waterloo
so emerald knight also can be knight without armours when their tactic is guerrilla.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2014 02:36 AM |
|
|
|
However, only one of those could be termed a 'knight'.
|
|
hammerhand
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2014 02:44 AM |
|
|
MattII said:
However, only one of those could be termed a 'knight'.
names are easy to change
____________
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted September 18, 2014 03:07 AM |
|
|
MattII said:
However, only one of those could be termed a 'knight'.
The term knight is explained to be of haven origin. The elves do not consider them to be knights
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 18, 2014 08:39 AM |
|
Edited by Avirosb at 08:40, 18 Sep 2014.
|
'Too much armor' and 'too much skin' are extreme opposites,
both of which are sort of ridiculous if you think about it for too long.
Although in some instances it does make sense.
|
|
Doomhammer
Known Hero
Smasher of pasties
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 09:03 AM |
|
|
|
I agree sometimes armour is not necessary, alas i have tried to make this point in other threads but to no avail. It seems most people here think armour looks cool and is therefore necessary.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 02:41 PM |
|
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 03:24 PM |
|
|
What I feel like is that the Emerald Warrior (and I suppose also the Blade dancer to a point) should be wearing clothes. There is no point in having armor cover your legs and arms and parts of your upper bodies, yet leaving your midriff bare, showing lots of thigh skin, and anything above your breasts is preposterous. The Blade dancer supposedly has "Magical tattoos" or some such, but no word of it was for the Warrior. Either way, even the Dancer had pants underneath its shin guards and thigh armor, where the Warrior did not (how ever, the male warrior seemed fully suited up.)
Clothing is fine, armor is nice. Armor with *ahem* glaring holes, but no clothing, is not quite ready for battle.
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 03:25 PM |
|
|
|
Gah, I hit quote instead of edit...
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 03:26 PM |
|
|
First of all, I read it as "Loves are not always necessary"  .
Anyway, I agree that Emerald knights should be lightly armored (And by that I mean leather and hides), as I see Sylvan as ambushers, so a light cavalry unit would fit this idea.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 04:39 PM |
|
|
hammerhand said:
let's see some units in history.
Hypaspist of ancient macedonian
they are "dual-use infantries "£¬they can form phalanx because of their spear-shield training or chase skermishers because they wear no armour.
These units had to be mobile. Armor usually comes at the cost of mobility, so they preferred to use little armor at all.
Quote:
arabian knights have heavy armours. but sometimes they chose not to wear them ,so they could strike faster from flank.
Same thing here.
Quote:
hussars and dragoons of 18th century didn't have armors too,only cuirassiers had armors at that time.
One reason for this was the advance in fire arms. Most medieval armors were bad at stopping weapons fire, especially when fired at close range. With reduced effective protection, you're better off not using it at all, to gain higher mobility. Don't forget that everything you wear as a Dragoon or Hussar is also extra weight for the horse to carry around. This impacts a horses' endurance as well as maximum speed.
Quote:
so emerald knight also can be knight without armours when their tactic is guerrilla.
If used as a skirmish unit, absolutely. If they have to be shock troops, they should have armor. But I suspect Treants and Green Dragons will take up that role.
|
|
hammerhand
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2014 10:35 AM |
|
|
Maurice said:
If used as a skirmish unit, absolutely. If they have to be shock troops, they should have armor. But I suspect Treants and Green Dragons will take up that role.
British Royal Scots Greys dragoons defeated French cuirassiers in waterloo£¬no armor doesn't mean they can not shock
edit£ºand gallic warrior even wear no pants£¬but they still defeated Roman several times.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 27, 2014 10:50 AM |
|
|
hammerhand said:
and gallic warrior even wear no pants£¬but they still defeated Roman several times.
I guess the Romans struggled with maintaining order and discipline after catching a glimpse of their helmets.
|
|
|
|
