Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[General Charles Xander]

I also just simply hate the "skirts" argument. It's pointless and irrelevant. Seriously, Ulfric and Galmar wore dem and still wear dem "skirts"!

 

[DrunkenMage]

And grasping for straws...

No, it's the point where the straws don't want anything to do with him either.

 

[General Charles Xander]

And grasping for straws...

No, it's the point where the straws don't want anything to do with him either.

The point of "No Return"

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

Stop arguing over Imperial "armor". Imperial armor is not exactly armor, but a uniform that is in the form of armor.

The most efficient armor is actually leather/hide/fur. These armor have no metal and there are plenty of wolves meaning you can make the armor much more quickly than metal ones.

 

[General Charles Xander]

Stop arguing over Imperial "armor". Imperial armor is not exactly armor, but a uniform that is in the form of armor.

We're not arguing Jeremius, we are clearly clarifying that the Imperial armor is efficient enough to withstand combat environments.

Your accusation of the armor being only a uniform is flawed. If this was the case, why do you see bandits and scavengers wearing them? Why is the EEC equipped in it? Why do random NPC's wear them?

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

Stop arguing over Imperial "armor". Imperial armor is not exactly armor, but a uniform that is in the form of armor.

We're not arguing Jeremius, we are clearly clarifying that the Imperial armor is efficient enough to withstand combat environments.

Your accusation of the armor being only a uniform is flawed. If this was the case, why do you see bandits and scavengers wearing them? Why is the EEC equipped in it? Why do random NPC's wear them?

In my opinion, armors relating to specific factions are uniforms, not armors. And if you are using a shield, and the shield is blocking the attack, is the armor protecting you or only a waste of material?


So, imperial armor is only protective if you are getting hit in it. Armor is used to protect you from getting killed by a single blow. It's efficiency is down to it being cheap to make, which fur and other armors that use no metal do much better.

 

[Jeremius]

What I meant by what I said is that the Empire's armor looks girly by it's look. The leg armor looks like it was basically one piece, when roman armor has more or less strips with gaps in it. When compared to other heavy armors, it is not as efficient at what it should be doing, which is protect you from a blow. The heavier the armor/the more metal that covers the body, the more protective that armor is, meaning less need for a shield.

In terms of mobility, lighter armors do much better at that, because they do not weigh as much, meaning less compensation is needed to move around efficiently in it, nor is imperial heavy armor easy to deal with as realistically, that much metal on the chest would make it hard to breathe in. Makes sense that 99% of the legion uses the studded armor over the plated one.

 

[General Charles Xander]

In my opinion. In my opinion. That is all I keep reading whenever you post. Opinions don't make facts Jeremius.

Shields are essentially an extra piece of armor that protects against possible fatal attacks. Shields are not invincible, we have seen that time and time again throughout history. If your shield breaks, what is protecting you from a slash to the chest? Or a thrust through the upper torso? Why do people wear bullet proof vests? To protect themselves.

Have you ever picked up a sword and stabbed through Roman armor to test that theory? I can assure you that many civilizations went up against the Romans and have failed due to it's efficient armor and defensive tactics. Sounds like the Imperials huh? You cannot base armor and weapons off of stats in the game. What makes a soldier? The person? Or the weapons?

 

[Jeremius]

In my opinion. In my opinion. That is all I keep reading whenever you post. Opinions don't make facts Jeremius.

Shields are essentially an extra piece of armor that protects against possible fatal attacks. Shields are not invincible, we have seen that time and time again throughout history. If your shield breaks, what is protecting you from a slash to the chest? Or a thrust through the upper torso? Why do people wear bullet proof vests? To protect themselves.

Have you ever picked up a sword and stabbed through Roman armor to test that theory? I can assure you that many civilizations went up against the Romans and have failed due to it's efficient armor and defensive tactics. Sounds like the Imperials huh? You cannot base armor and weapons off of stats in the game. What makes a soldier? The person? Or the weapons?

Roman armor was not bulky, Imperial armor is. I think the amount of material would also factor into the effectiveness of the armor.

If Imperial armor looked more like the actual roman armor, it would be better to use.

That is my opinion, armor looks bulky, meaning that it should perform better, but it gets an F in that category. It is good, I will admit, but the problem is that its design is misleading.

 

[General Charles Xander]

What I meant by what I said is that the Empire's armor looks girly by it's look. The leg armor looks like it was basically one piece, when roman armor has more or less strips with gaps in it. When compared to other heavy armors, it is not as efficient at what it should be doing, which is protect you from a blow. The heavier the armor/the more metal that covers the body, the more protective that armor is, meaning less need for a shield.

In terms of mobility, lighter armors do much better at that, because they do not weigh as much, meaning less compensation is needed to move around efficiently in it, nor is imperial heavy armor easy to deal with as realistically, that much metal on the chest would make it hard to breathe in. Makes sense that 99% of the legion uses the studded armor over the plated one.

You're saying that Roman armor doesn't look girly because it isn't one piece? Have you seen actual photos or been to a museum depicting Roman Armor? Auxiliary's and Generals alike wore kilts made up of cloth that was (surprise!) one piece. Why would you ditch a shield? Isn't the point of a battle to survive and win? Why would you toss away extra protection?

You fail to understand that the Empire cannot afford to put soldiers in Ebony or Steel plate. You think Imperial heavy armor is hard to breath in? Yet you're saying that they should wear full Plate metal? Are you listening to yourself?

 

[LegateFasendil]

Alright, alright.

Time for some 'comic relief' w/ everybodies favorite ESO Emperor, Izkimar 3:10 is my fav part.

"You can't do nothing but respec that!!!"​

 

[General Charles Xander]

In my opinion. In my opinion. That is all I keep reading whenever you post. Opinions don't make facts Jeremius.

Shields are essentially an extra piece of armor that protects against possible fatal attacks. Shields are not invincible, we have seen that time and time again throughout history. If your shield breaks, what is protecting you from a slash to the chest? Or a thrust through the upper torso? Why do people wear bullet proof vests? To protect themselves.

Have you ever picked up a sword and stabbed through Roman armor to test that theory? I can assure you that many civilizations went up against the Romans and have failed due to it's efficient armor and defensive tactics. Sounds like the Imperials huh? You cannot base armor and weapons off of stats in the game. What makes a soldier? The person? Or the weapons?

Roman armor was not bulky, Imperial armor is. I think the amount of material would also factor into the effectiveness of the armor.

If Imperial armor looked more like the actual roman armor, it would be better to use.

That is my opinion, armor looks bulky, meaning that it should perform better, but it gets an F in that category. It is good, I will admit, but the problem is that its design is misleading.

Now you are saying that Imperial armor is to bulky? Yet you want them equipped in full Plate? Make up your mind.

You say it gets an F in the performance category, but then right after you say that it is good? What?

This is a pointless argument if you can't even make up your mind about what you want to argue about....

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

What I meant by what I said is that the Empire's armor looks girly by it's look. The leg armor looks like it was basically one piece, when roman armor has more or less strips with gaps in it. When compared to other heavy armors, it is not as efficient at what it should be doing, which is protect you from a blow. The heavier the armor/the more metal that covers the body, the more protective that armor is, meaning less need for a shield.

In terms of mobility, lighter armors do much better at that, because they do not weigh as much, meaning less compensation is needed to move around efficiently in it, nor is imperial heavy armor easy to deal with as realistically, that much metal on the chest would make it hard to breathe in. Makes sense that 99% of the legion uses the studded armor over the plated one.

You're saying that Roman armor doesn't look girly because it isn't one piece? Have you seen actual photos or been to a museum depicting Roman Armor? Auxiliary's and Generals alike wore kilts made up of cloth that was (surprise!) one piece. Why would you ditch a shield? Isn't the point of a battle to survive and win? Why would you toss away extra protection?

You fail to understand that the Empire cannot afford to put soldiers in Ebony or Steel plate. You think Imperial heavy armor is hard to breath in? Yet you're saying that they should wear full Plate metal? Are you listening to yourself?

I think that meant that it looks better and more efficient because it is not bulky-looking. Heavier armors are more protective, meaning that attacks are less likely to get through unless they attack the joints (which people in-game are not designed to do). I also think that the hard to breathe in is more or less about metal armor in general. lighter armors require less materials so they are protective in different ways. Plus, I think the "kilts" were actually tunics. the "Kilt" that was made of leather was actually a belt and did not look like a skirt.

Plus, making Imperial armor out of Steel is unlike the actual armor, which was made of mostly iron.

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

In my opinion. In my opinion. That is all I keep reading whenever you post. Opinions don't make facts Jeremius.

Shields are essentially an extra piece of armor that protects against possible fatal attacks. Shields are not invincible, we have seen that time and time again throughout history. If your shield breaks, what is protecting you from a slash to the chest? Or a thrust through the upper torso? Why do people wear bullet proof vests? To protect themselves.

Have you ever picked up a sword and stabbed through Roman armor to test that theory? I can assure you that many civilizations went up against the Romans and have failed due to it's efficient armor and defensive tactics. Sounds like the Imperials huh? You cannot base armor and weapons off of stats in the game. What makes a soldier? The person? Or the weapons?

Roman armor was not bulky, Imperial armor is. I think the amount of material would also factor into the effectiveness of the armor.

If Imperial armor looked more like the actual roman armor, it would be better to use.

That is my opinion, armor looks bulky, meaning that it should perform better, but it gets an F in that category. It is good, I will admit, but the problem is that its design is misleading.

Now you are saying that Imperial armor is to bulky? Yet you want them equipped in full Plate? Make up your mind.

You say it gets an F in the performance category, but then right after you say that it is good? What?

This is a pointless argument if you can't even make up your mind about what you want to argue about....

Imperial armor looks bulky because all the metal is basically on the chest. Plate armor usually has the metal spread all over the body.

 

[General Charles Xander]

What I meant by what I said is that the Empire's armor looks girly by it's look. The leg armor looks like it was basically one piece, when roman armor has more or less strips with gaps in it. When compared to other heavy armors, it is not as efficient at what it should be doing, which is protect you from a blow. The heavier the armor/the more metal that covers the body, the more protective that armor is, meaning less need for a shield.

In terms of mobility, lighter armors do much better at that, because they do not weigh as much, meaning less compensation is needed to move around efficiently in it, nor is imperial heavy armor easy to deal with as realistically, that much metal on the chest would make it hard to breathe in. Makes sense that 99% of the legion uses the studded armor over the plated one.

You're saying that Roman armor doesn't look girly because it isn't one piece? Have you seen actual photos or been to a museum depicting Roman Armor? Auxiliary's and Generals alike wore kilts made up of cloth that was (surprise!) one piece. Why would you ditch a shield? Isn't the point of a battle to survive and win? Why would you toss away extra protection?

You fail to understand that the Empire cannot afford to put soldiers in Ebony or Steel plate. You think Imperial heavy armor is hard to breath in? Yet you're saying that they should wear full Plate metal? Are you listening to yourself?

I think that meant that it looks better and more efficient because it is not bulky-looking. Heavier armors are more protective, meaning that attacks are less likely to get through unless they attack the joints (which people in-game are not designed to do). I also think that the hard to breathe in is more or less about metal armor in general. lighter armors require less materials so they are protective in different ways. Plus, I think the "kilts" were actually tunics. the "Kilt" that was made of leather was actually a belt and did not look like a skirt.

Plus, making Imperial armor out of Steel is unlike the actual armor, which was made of mostly iron.

Roman armor was not bulky, Imperial armor is. I think the amount of material would also factor into the effectiveness of the armor.

If Imperial armor looked more like the actual roman armor, it would be better to use.

That is my opinion, armor looks bulky, meaning that it should perform better, but it gets an F in that category. It is good, I will admit, but the problem is that its design is misleading.

Now you are saying that Imperial armor is to bulky? Yet you want them equipped in full Plate? Make up your mind.

You say it gets an F in the performance category, but then right after you say that it is good? What?

This is a pointless argument if you can't even make up your mind about what you want to argue about....

Imperial armor looks bulky because all the metal is basically on the chest. Plate armor usually has the metal spread all over the body.

Then what is your point? Because I see this is going nowhere. First it looks girly, then too inefficient, next was that it's too heavy, now it's to bulky? My interest in this debate is fading.

 

[General Charles Xander]

Alright, alright.

Time for some 'comic relief' w/ everybodies favorite ESO Emperor, Izkimar

"You can't do nothing but respec that!!!"​

Iv'e never played TESO. :/

 

[LegateFasendil]

Alright, alright.

Time for some 'comic relief' w/ everybodies favorite ESO Emperor, Izkimar

"You can't do nothing but respec that!!!"​

Iv'e never played TESO. :/

You should start ESO is awesome.

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

You're saying that Roman armor doesn't look girly because it isn't one piece? Have you seen actual photos or been to a museum depicting Roman Armor? Auxiliary's and Generals alike wore kilts made up of cloth that was (surprise!) one piece. Why would you ditch a shield? Isn't the point of a battle to survive and win? Why would you toss away extra protection?

You fail to understand that the Empire cannot afford to put soldiers in Ebony or Steel plate. You think Imperial heavy armor is hard to breath in? Yet you're saying that they should wear full Plate metal? Are you listening to yourself?

I think that meant that it looks better and more efficient because it is not bulky-looking. Heavier armors are more protective, meaning that attacks are less likely to get through unless they attack the joints (which people in-game are not designed to do). I also think that the hard to breathe in is more or less about metal armor in general. lighter armors require less materials so they are protective in different ways. Plus, I think the "kilts" were actually tunics. the "Kilt" that was made of leather was actually a belt and did not look like a skirt.

Plus, making Imperial armor out of Steel is unlike the actual armor, which was made of mostly iron.

Now you are saying that Imperial armor is to bulky? Yet you want them equipped in full Plate? Make up your mind.

You say it gets an F in the performance category, but then right after you say that it is good? What?

This is a pointless argument if you can't even make up your mind about what you want to argue about....

Imperial armor looks bulky because all the metal is basically on the chest. Plate armor usually has the metal spread all over the body.

Then what is your point? Because I see this is going nowhere. First it looks girly, then too inefficient, next was that it's too heavy, now it's to bulky? My interest in this debate is fading.

It looks girly because the "kilt" is likely actually a belt, and the leather parts were a lot smaller. It is inefficient when compared to other armors of the same category, there are much better choices out there overall. It is bulky when compared to actual roman heavy armor (the lorica Segementata I believe was the inspiration for Imperial heavy armor).

• Imperial armor
• Roman armor

The Imperial armor does look bulky, as the Lorica Segmentata does not have a whole lot of "ridges" and it looks more evenly distributed.

 

[General Charles Xander]

I think that meant that it looks better and more efficient because it is not bulky-looking. Heavier armors are more protective, meaning that attacks are less likely to get through unless they attack the joints (which people in-game are not designed to do). I also think that the hard to breathe in is more or less about metal armor in general. lighter armors require less materials so they are protective in different ways. Plus, I think the "kilts" were actually tunics. the "Kilt" that was made of leather was actually a belt and did not look like a skirt.

Plus, making Imperial armor out of Steel is unlike the actual armor, which was made of mostly iron.

Imperial armor looks bulky because all the metal is basically on the chest. Plate armor usually has the metal spread all over the body.

Then what is your point? Because I see this is going nowhere. First it looks girly, then too inefficient, next was that it's too heavy, now it's to bulky? My interest in this debate is fading.

It looks girly because the "kilt" is likely actually a belt, and the leather parts were a lot smaller. It is inefficient when compared to other armors of the same category, there are much better choices out there overall. It is bulky when compared to actual roman heavy armor (the lorica Segementata I believe was the inspiration for Imperial heavy armor).

• Imperial armor
• Roman armor

The Imperial armor does look bulky, as the Lorica Segmentata does not have a whole lot of "ridges" and it looks more evenly distributed.

When it all comes down to it. I'm sure everyone is asking "Why does it matter?"

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

Do not get me wrong, Imperial Armor is good. It is just that there are much better armors out there except as an imperial soldier.