Wolbryne

not really. the burst mode is used by smg's and some assault rifles. kinda standardized with the M16A4's during the vietnam war to counter bad performance of soldiers using full auto and because they empited their mags when panic struck. auto and burst on pistols is just s#*!, accuracy goes out the window. The glock 18 for example has full auto mode and while using it you're lucky if you hit the inside of a barn when you stand inside it.

It just hit me, I need this follower sooooo bad, but I lack the skills to make a mod like this. Imagine braving the harsh, cold and depressing commonwealth with this guy at your side. A jukebox/securitron hybrid with speaker hands, blasting metal on high volume. Pop some buffout, stab that psycho in to your leg and a hit of jet. explode those raider skulls into cascades of pink and red, watch the entrails spill out as you bask in the bloody gory mess all the while that metal is blasting and filling your heart with fire and your veins with diesel. I know I could live with that. Could you? 2 minute mspaint drawing for emphasis :smile:

@Ginny "Ever tried pulling an oar for several thousand metres? Don't tell me that doesn't take stamina because I know damned well from experience that it does. As does riding a horse for several hours a day (if you think that riding a horse is just sitting on your arse then that's obviously something else you've never done.)" I rowed roughly 500000 meters (500 kilometers) one summer on a river called "Dalaälven. Rowed from norway, across sweden all the way to the baltic sea. so yup, believe I have pulled an oar for several thousand meters... still the weight of my body didn't matter at all since I wasn't up running, walking, dodging my friends oars nor was I swinging my oar through the air trying to hit anyone with it over and over and over... "You have also evidently missed the bits in some of my other posts where I have mentioned taking part in historical re-enactments. Stamina has nothing to do with the size of your tits or lack thereof. And as for your assertion about archers, how do you explain archaeoligical findings that suggest medieval archers were of strong build? There is a difference between a modern bow and a medieval style longbow and I've drawn both. Your friend is not exactly a typical archer." re-enactments are NOT full un-scripted contact with real heavy, sharp, swords. And they are nowhere near as brutal in any aspects. Stamina has INDEED something to do with titsize. bigger boobs equals more body fat and more body fat equals more weight. And that matters. Or maybe all pro athletes should wear 15-30 lbs bags strapped to their chests since it don't matter? and besides the added weight to the chest would cause your lower back to tire more quickly. or are you gonna tell me that big-chested women aren't prone to back-ache? And yes the archers back then were much stronger than todays archers because their bows were heavier to draw then todays light weight bows. but being able to pull a medieval long bow once or twice is hardly the same as shooting it over and over during battle so your comment is really irrelevant. Actually your whole post was irrelevant. sry @Nekra "Is reading and comprehension so much down the toilet these days? " I, and I'm sure others too, am reading the thread fast and posting on what I think need replied to. I'm not sitting here proof reading everyone's posts. YOU should formulate your comment so that what you say won't be misconstrued. But yeah a bigger arc of the chest piece to accommodate bigger "assets" would work and still keep the breast plate functional. It's the breast cups that would render the plate worthless. But I think I said this somewhere before too. might have been in the comments for the "less sexual womens armor" -mod @Fatal "I've also know several female medieval combat reenactors who wore fitted breast cups becauses they WANTED to. It's acctually more confortable than wearing a flat cuirass. *eyeroll* " I think it's much more comfortable wearing a hello kitty jump suit than pads when playing hockey. I also think it's more comfortable wearing soft fleece gloves than the heavy flame retardant leather welding gloves in the shop... *trollroll* @wolf "If women were dominant in history then armour would be based around them and their figure." armor isn't figure based. it's human based. Male plate armor wasn't "male" shaped. It was simply shaped to cover a HUMAN body and prevent the human in it from dying. Plate armor actually looked kind of feminine imo what with the wide breast, narrow waist and wide hips. @Ginny "Incidentally on the subject of children and therefore physically smaller, what you might call weaker, people in battle, what we would call children, early teenagers, were frequently called into the service of their feudal lord, so if a weedy Kevin the teenager could fight in a battle, there was no reason a buxom wench couldn't EXCEPT that social convention prevented it in many circumstances. It wasn't the case that armies were solely made up of crack highly trained troops, a lot of them were whatever miserable wretches that could be forced into it. Although certainly in England archery practice was compulsory for a time. So most of the MEN in those armies were not exactly melee experts." a teenage boy age 15-18 is usually stronger than a grown woman. Hell our soccer team back when I was a kid beat the womens adult team 10-15 to 0 every time we met from when we were age 14 and up. We were stronger, faster, could dribble better, shoot harder, pass longer and more accurate etc. That's just an example. but still GENERALLY speaking, a 15yo boy is stronger than an adult woman. now don't hate me over that comment. hate genetics, dna and hormones in-staid. @Seviche "If we're using real-world to influence our decision making as to what the armor should look like, then it should stand to reason that women warriors in a fantasy world would wear boob-plate because women in our time do it as well. Why should we only use the past as an indicator of how armor would or should look? " we can't use todays women plate armor as any kind of reference since it isn't created to fight in. It's simply something to look stylish in adult play fighting. it's more a "fetish" than actual battle. What we CAN base it on is plate armor that was designed for actual battle (medieval armor). (I know you were just really talking about the "sexism debate, but I'm tired and can't tell things apart atm so you got copy-pasted in here too lol)

Absolutely totally untrue. Stop making sweeping generalisations. I have natural E cups. In my younger days I had natural E cups too, which never disappeared when I was rowing and sprinting for my college. I was an accomplished archer too, and then and now ride a horse, I have competed in equestrian sports and today I would have been out on the hunting field had it not been for a cold. Let's put it this way, the sort of titless torso athletes that you see in televised competition at the top level have, shall we say, some interesting trainers and scientists on their team. Boobs do not equal unfit. They never stopped me being either a member of rescue organisations or pitching haybales. It's not untrue. not even close. With natural E-cups you would NEVER have the stamina to fight a battle wearing full plate armor and swing a sword. you'd be on your knees panting. To get the amount of muscle mass needed for a woman to do what men did on the battlefield they'd have to get so incredibly fit that tits would go out the window. A man might have gotten away with more fat because men are genetically physically stronger than women. You can say that you have huge knockers and do and did this and that sport but you will NEVER convince me that you had ripped abs, bulging biceps, triceps and underarms and still sport a DD-E cup. there just isn't a way to do that. And you keep bringing up what you've done in the past and what you do. but let me ask you this; how successful were you? were you a sprinter in the olympic team? because out of say 1 million men on the battlefield there was MAYBE one woman. So as a woman you'd really have to be the best of the best in every aspect or you simply wouldn't get to do any fighting. It's not like they said "oh a woman wants to fight we want a woman with us cause she's cute". it's more likely that you'd have to prove yourself over and over and over and then MAYBE you'd be allowed to tag along. And even so you'd still be made a mockery of. And as far as archery goes, you don't have to be fit to be good at archery. a buddy of mine was in the swedish junior olypic team. he was a really damn good archer and he was FAT and not very strong. And for your last comment. I never said boobs equals unfit. I said that big tits equal not FIT ENOUGH to do what's required of a warrior in full plate on a battlefield.

@Nekrafelia 1. Real breasts aren't perfectly shaped water melons. They are soft and can be tied down pretty much without much discomfort. 2. If a woman had natural DD's she wouldn't be fit enough swing a sword while wearing full armor on the battlefield anyways. She would need to work out a lot and that would lower her body fat index and thus making her tits smaller. 3. if a woman really needed it DESPITE point 1 and 2 then it would most likely be a bigger diameter curve of the breastplate. not breast cups since the latter would compromise the structural design of the armor and make it less impact resistant , plus she would be in danger of a cracked sternum from the wedge between the cups. Hell she'd break her sternum just from falling on to her chest. @Suyeta: It SHOULD be a topic since people can't keep this discussion out of the mod comments threads. So discuss it here > flooding the comments threads. plus it's not against nexus regulations to do it here.

it don't add anything since that is the equivalent of a cup for a guy. it's simply a light weight plastic protection from getting a painful flick/poke in the junk. The epee, sabre and foil of today's competitive fencing are blunt and very flexible and even if the tip was sharp I think it would be kind of hard to inflict serious damage to anyone with it. sure it hurts when you slash your and with them, but as for penetrating body injuries go I think they'd bend before they actually penetrated you. so no, it's irrelevant.

didn't you read anything we've written in this thread? the roman breastplates with ripped abs and pecks were parade armor. it wasn't something they wore in battle. for battle they'd switch in to a breast plate that actually worked as intended and wasn't a health risk.

your logic is flawed... VERY flawed.

it was a joke based one a comment from the movie "the madness of king George". it's someting about him liking to say "for me and england" because he named his penis england. :)

didn't he name his penis "England"?

..sorry for that. Should have watched more carefully. I have to admit, i do like your conversation style and that you take your time to read and respond to so many posts. You certainly "leave no one behind". So kudos for that. I also find this very interesting and admit that I never looked at it that way. So actually you might have a point in here. Nonetheless, Body Armor (the ones before invention of Guns) evolved well over thousand years. Because, as I stated, most fighting human beings were actually men, "research" in Armor technology more or less only considered only men. Body Armor was therefore best designed and fitted for the anatomy of human males. Certainly, if we had at least the same amount of women fighting in direct battles (they did fight but mostly outside of battlefields especially when their men lost...which is kinda unfair by the way) or if we had as many female Knights as male than I am sure that we would have come with designs that well incorporate all the "comfort" and security a female Body would "demand". Of course, some mods out there with hugely overstated Breast Sizes are just ridiculous "Eyecandy". I would not discuss about that but I am very sure that fighting Women in medieval Ages would have had another Designs in their Armors. Better fitted for their anatomy. That is also true for men by the way. At least for those who have experienced real Combat. so you can see the point about the arcing over the torso. then you must also see what would happen if you compromize that arc. even the slightest cups would make it seize to be arced and when hit over the cups the kinetic energy of the blow would be distributed over the cup in-staid of the whole torso structure of the armor and be transferred directly from the edges of the cup in to the body in-staid of the rest of the armor and move towards the back of it. http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4514/kineticarmor.jpg the same of course applies the same when looking from the top and not just from the side :P about the wanting to go into combat. there are some who wants to, but they are not very many and you could argue their mental status/sanity

@ginnyfizz I did in no way intend to patronize you in my post and if that's how it came out, I apologize. I simply wanted to make sure everyone that saw that picture knew that it was a ceremonial armor. I also know that you've been arguing on our side of the argument and that's why I wasn't gonna comment on your post at all at first. but when I started commenting on that picture other stuff slipped in too. and I know what you've said about tits and armors before and I believe you. my comment about tits stands though. with all the training that it would involve, and even more so for a woman due to genetics, to fight in a suit of armor, use a shield and swing a pretty heavy sword , a woman would ave to look something in the lines of THIS. You can't really judge her cup size since it looks like she's got implants, but look at her body. maintaining a body like that would be pretty difficult if you at the same time should be able to maintain a big c+ cup. It would be like eating your cookie and still having it. I'm not saying that you're lying. I'm simply saying that at that level of fitness your body fat index would be so low that breasts would be something that would be on your list for santa to bring you ;) here's 4 examples of really good feemale 100meter sprinters: Ivet Gail Merlene Veronica it isn't a coincident that they are pretty much flat. But this is besides the point and don't really have anything to do with female armor since, as you say, tits of all sizes, makes and brands fit in to suits of armor. Ps. I was gonna say something like "pics or it didn't happen" about your comment on your own cup size, but I won't since that might be over the top, at least on the nexus lol :P

@Lachdonin "Funny though those pictures are, their terribly innacurate." no s*** sherlock lol "It's also not appropriate to ask a military historian about whats historically accurate for a game set in a different universe." I think it's very appropriate indeed since he would know what is feasible and if it would work against the designs of and thoughts behind real armor. and even in skyrim, a computer game as you so kindly point out, a blade thrust, axe blow, a fired arrow all penetrate and kill you. And angles will still deflect things to the sides. pick up an apple and throw it around in a room and you'll see. the apple don't stop and fall to the ground if it hits something at an angle, it bounces on in the direction given to it from the angled surface it hits with seemingly the same mathematical rules which applies to the same thing irl. "First, i have served. As such, i have worn body armour, and have had several female colleagues who have worn both the standard uni-sex as well as the specialised female armour. They have stated, without a doubt, that the properly fitted female armour is superior in every way. Yes, it is in context to the modern dynamic of warfare, but the same developmental paradigm exists." actually no it don't really. You see I have served too and I too have worn body armor. I have also tried on exact copies of the armor used in 1361 at the battle of Visby (google it), at the Visby museum. And I can tell you that there is NOTHING modern body armor has in common with medieval plate armor other than being "armor". The fits are different. modern armor is tight fitting, medieval was not. You had a clothes and padding and free space under the plate. So saying that 5 women, 10 women or even a billion women who have experience wearing modern body armor and what they feel is "comfortable" is completely irrelevant to the designs of medieval plate armor. "Second, my arguement is not in support of armour even approaching the crappy photo-shop we see above. I even said as much. Plate armour requies specialised fitting for an individual, and the best armours are in fact close, almost form fitting. We don't have to deal with this fact these days because when we wear plate armour we aren't expecting it to save out lives. As such, the fit isn't as important as it once was." OUCH man just OUCH. That really hurt. here I was thinking that my 3 click-30 second alteration of that pic was something extraordinary... /sarcasm. about the armor, how wrong you are. The plate armor was pretty much ALL personalized, made from measurements of the wearers body. But it was NOT close fitting. Let me explain this to you. 1. The armor had to, as I mentioned before, leave room for clothes, padding and free air. 2. The free air was there to be filled with dents and for the tips of crossbow bolts (which could often penetrate plate armor depending on distance and angle vs the plate) to poke through so the tip would be between the plate and the padding and not inside your body. Having tight fitted plate armor would mean that if you got hit and the plate got dented you would take trauma from the dent and possibly even die. The breast plate was ESPECIALLY made like this because of all the vital organs inside that general area. you can try this on yourself actually. take an arched piece of metal and place on the table over your fist so that it touches over your knuckles and then hit it hard with a hammer... hurt your knuckles didn't it? now have the metal there but place your hand flat on the table under it so that there's an inch or so of air in between. Hit it with a hammer again... didn't feel that did you? "Massive breast cups are, i agree, absurd, and i think that even from an asthetic perpsective they look like crap. Proper fitting and accomidation is an important component of armour design.The standard, bowed design of a breastplate may indeed be avle to accomidate breats of rather ample size, but it creates a pocket below which compromises the integrety of the armour its self. As such, a male breastplate, while functional, is not optimal. Considering in the TES universe women have been fighting for a long period of time, you would expect that this would be taken into consideration. " again. stop comparing medieval plate armor to modern body armor. there SHOULD be a pocket of air over the entire torso area. if not, you've done it wrong. it's the plate and the geometric design of the plate that absorbs the damage nothing else. Think of a roman design bridge. The bridge arc structure made the bridge hold itself up and actually got stronger with weight on top of it. "That's not part of the arguement however, as the question is the presence of what amounts to a bra cup. As i have already said, if the standard bowed style is use, it creates a pocket below the breats which diminishes the overal integrety of the armour due to a lack of support. This has two solutions. Additional padding to fill the void (As was done with Joan'de Arc's armour) or a flatter chest. The flattening of the chest then causes compression that even flat-chested women would find uncomfortable. The solution to this is a change in the upper curvature, and the creation of a cup." Wrong then wrong, then more wrong and then finally topped off with some... you guessed it, more wrong. As I said before in this post, the plate armor was MEANT to have free air over pretty much the entire torso. The armor was made to support itself. That's why the armor wasn't flat but arced. Usually with a center edge to create angles for deflection. The arc made it support itself and absorb the kinetic energy into it's bigger self rather than into the body beneath it. As for the "as was done to joan..." that's just laughable. you just assumed that from your own personal beliefs and tried to pass it off as fact. THIS is the REAL historical facts about her armor. After the inquest at Poitiers, Charles VII commissioned a suit of armor for Jeanne at the samme time that he set up a military household for her. The registra of the city hall of Albi, who saw her, testified that “Jeanne went armed in white iron, entirely from head to foot.” Moreover, Guy and André de Laval saw her on horseback near Romorantin “armed entirely in white, exept, for the head, a little ax in her hand, seated on a great black courser.” The accounts of the treasurer Hémon Reguier refer to the purchase of that suit of armor in April 1429: “100 livres tournois were paid and delivered by the afforesaid treasure to the master armorer for a complete harness for the afforesaid Maid.” With this harness, Jeanne was equipped in the samme fashion as the men-of-arms of her era. Jean Chartier reported that she was “armed as quickly as possible with a comlete harness such as would have suited a knight who was part of the arma and born in the king’s court. “She was equipped, moreover, like knights of a certain rank: 100 livres tournois was a significant sum. The creation of cups would deflect arrows and blows in to the sternum in-staid of out and away from the armor and it would compromise the "arc" structure of the breast plate with a nice edge just above the sternum so that you would BREAK your sternum when hit hard right in the chest. "Finally, i have not gotten the historical accuracy wrong. Unless, of course, you have some insight that has been kept from the historical community, since i am in fact agreeing that the historical points raised in the first post. I am also not wrong in the contextual points, though without calling an armourer and an engineer in here i fail to see any other way of convincing you of the information. At best, we would see what aproximates a B cup, but it is a cup size none the less. And all of this is completely besides the asthetic varriable. " No you haven't gotten the historical accuracy wrong since what you write isn't based on history at all but make-belief and personal opinions presented as facts. In reality they didn't just slam a piece of metal to someones chest and hope it'd work. There are thoughts, calculations and tons of math and physics behind the shape and design of an armor. All of this have already been covered in this mammoth post by me. But you don't believe me? You want information? HERE! read it all. @Arcadiast "you Sir certainly have a degree in human psychology. You are using the same techniques, Diet products use with the "Before" and "After" Pictures only slightly different. You take a "Normal" Picture of a Woman in Armor (no "real" fighting woman from history though...just a Woman in Armor made for men) and change it to show ridiculous proportions to win over peoples minds to your side...brilliant." Seviche quoted me so I think you actually meant to direct your post at me. That post was not trying to win anyone over. It wasn't trying to use any psychology of any kind. And I wasn't trying to pass anything off as being REAL in any way. I simply did a quick google to get a picture of a woman in armor and then mushroom stamp her twice in the back to make the breast cups. I exaggerated the cups so that nobody could miss them. And then I used my humorous creation to make a fun post about not derailing my thread. Nothing more. Well maybe there was some psychology in the post since I tried to make a humorous post so that the people who were derailing the thread wouldn't get their panties in a pinch over me pointing my finger at them. And it seems like my post worked, either because of the humor part or because the people addressed were more mature than I had counted on, because the derailing stopped and there was not flame war as a response to my post. "Did it ever occur to you that if Woman had the same fighting History men have that Armor would have been more fitted to their proportions? You try to say that Armor with spare place for woman breasts is ridiculous but I ask you sir considering History, are women who fight not "ridiculous" in first place? this is historically correct not politically by the way. We are talking about a fantasy game here not an actual recreation of Human history. Woman can and have fought but to 95% it was men and so Armor was designed for men if more Women had fought we would have quickly realized that they have a different anatomy for which we have to create fitting Armor and had done so." Compromising the arced structure of a breast plate would render the breast plate worthless. It isn't the plate itself that is the main factor in terms of protection, it's the design. Yes steel helped a lot, but the arc of the breast plate and the hollow between the chest and the armor distributed the impacts over a much wider area of the armor so that the kinetic energy isn't absorbed by the fragile human inside the armor and also to prevent dents and penetrations from hurting said fragile human. ...god damn it I wanna play now, this is taking too long... @masseffectman1 I'm just gonna dissect your post since I'm getting tired now... "I brought this topic up with my wife and four of her female friends. They all came to an agreement that if a woman had relatively large sized breasts (C cup onwards) A woman with breasts like that would not be fighting in armor in the first place since you would have to exercise to gain muscle and lose body fat. And by doing so your big breasts, lovely as they might be, would disappear. I'm not saying this because I wanna be mean or sexist or anything. I'm saying this because the breasts are really nothing but big soft lumps of fat. And burning off body fat would not skip the chest area just because you like breasts. Not burning off the body fat would give you back pain, lower your stamina and when you were on your hands and knees on the battlefield, not able to lift your sword and shield because you ran out of energy because you're packing that extra weight in fat, give you death , then armour with indentations would certainly be more comfortable against a flat chest piece which would flatten and constrict. This is the opinion of five actual females. now ask them how they stand on the issue of arrows and blows directed towards the heart and not away from the chest. What their take is on breast plate structural design and blows being taken up by their flesh and sternum in-staid of distributed around the breast plate itself as it would have been had the armor been allowed to maintain it's arced design. Ask them if they think they could fight with a busted sternum. We know what history provided the few women in battle with, but let's not forget that ALL armour at that time was designed by men for men, of course there was no space for breasts. Joan of Arc's armor was designed for her and paid in full by Charles VII and STILL didn't have breast cups... Fact is, i don't care what a male professor with vast knowledge and tons of facts backing what he says concerning this says, from a females perspective who has no experience or knowledge about this at all, concerning comfortability and looks which is completely and totally irrelevant when talking protection on the battlefield. I'd rather be in a real suit of armor that looked like s*** and was dunked in cow dung than look like a king and die when someone sneezed too hard , they would choose armour with a slight breast shape if they were a larger cup size and receive a cracked sternum or worse as thanks. Anyone saying it isn't realistic should really think hard about that comment, considering that they're talking about a game where dragons exist and anyone can shoot fireballs and sparks from their hands. so because there's dragons and magic armor should be designed based on xena/red sona? or, if you DO think hard on it, is it really kidn of nice with some logic and realism behind the armor? " @ginnyfizz that armor in that picture would most likely never have seen battle. important people wore that to look important for parades, meetings, public functions etc. When in battle they wore something else. http://www.livrustkammaren.se/livrustkammaren/Redaktionellt/Global/Bilder/Basbilder/Torneringar/Burgundiska_22402.jpg These are two REAL sets of armor from somewhere after 1610. They were made for the king Gustav II Adolf (right) and queen Maria Eleonora (left) of sweden to be used in the foot-tournament following their wedding. Notice how neither have breast cups nor abs/man-tits. and these are actual ROYAL suits of armor from a rich sweden at the beginning of the swedish empire (which came to contain a large chunk of europe). the reason is simple... they didn't want to get hurt and possibly die when taking part in the melee. @elleonblanco there actually WAS armor made of wood used at different times through out history. even against firearms. besides ebony in TES has nothing to do with ebony the wood. it shares name because of the fictional metal in TES being black just like the wood. and for your rant part. we DID get over it. A mod was created HERE but people decided to start a s*** storm over it because we wanted realistic armor and not boobified fantasy xena armor and THEY are the reason for this whole thread. So direct your rant at the correct target because right now you're trying to tackle the old lady that just got her purse stolen in-staid of trying to catch the thief. I'm sure I missed someone or something in this post but quite frankly it's too long and it's midnight and I have to get up for work in the morning so screw proof-reading. TL;DR: I'm right, you're wrong. I'm going to bed.

thanks man, appreciated :) btw, love your avatar. I miss babylon 5 :'(

This thread is about http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5609/img2253sv.jpg VS http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3476/img22534.jpg the thread is NOT about http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israel_women_rights.jpg now please take the rights debate somewhere else and don't derail this topic.