Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 7 - Falcon's Last Flight > Thread: Amours are not alwaays necessary
Thread: Amours are not alwaays necessary
hammerhand
hammerhand


Hired Hero
posted September 18, 2014 02:18 AM
Edited by hammerhand at 02:19, 18 Sep 2014.

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.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
MattII
MattII


Legendary Hero
posted September 18, 2014 02:36 AM

However, only one of those could be termed a 'knight'.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hammerhand
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
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
NACHOOOO
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

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Avirosb
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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomhammer
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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
yogi
yogi


Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
posted September 26, 2014 02:41 PM

i support this message
____________
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Protolisk
Protolisk


Promising
Famous Hero
posted September 26, 2014 03:24 PM
Edited by Protolisk at 15:26, 26 Sep 2014.

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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Protolisk
Protolisk


Promising
Famous Hero
posted September 26, 2014 03:25 PM
Edited by Protolisk at 15:26, 26 Sep 2014.

Gah, I hit quote instead of edit...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Neraus
Neraus


Promising
Legendary Hero
Pizza Nazi
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

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Maurice
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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hammerhand
hammerhand


Hired Hero
posted September 27, 2014 10:35 AM
Edited by hammerhand at 10:39, 27 Sep 2014.

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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Avirosb
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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread »
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0216 seconds