And none of these are particularly intersting or stimulating... well Maply getting hellhounded is pretty nice cus that hellhound was getting blue balled by Sabia. Hope next update actually advances the plot.
- May 24, 2018
- 1,522
- 3,209
Personally I liked all of them. Well, I didn't particularly care about the Lutvrog titfuck. Sorry Luty, you're a nice guy but I just don't care about vanilla m/f content. That's fine to include in the game for people who want the sorta-romance arc they seem to be doing with him though.
- Jul 11, 2018
- 20
- 58
-I found the titfuck and I did the feast(I thought it was one of the best scenes)...
-Ylva and Kia fuck, I need to find this !
-I had the tentacle scene with 11 points with Neve, no idea if it's a lot or not...
-Not into bestiality, but Maply/Hellhound was really good.
I just have to hunt for those 19 scenes left, now that I finished the actual content...
I love those abs on every character, it's pretty rare.
- May 24, 2018
- 1,522
- 3,209
Oh that's interesting, I haven't actually done a sabia feast playthrough yet so I was just going by what the walkthrough said.
You can find the Ylva/Kia scene by doing the Lakelord sidequest.
And, yeah, Sabia and Neve are wonderful, if you like muscle girls.
(Psst I love muscle girls so much)
You can find the Ylva/Kia scene by doing the Lakelord sidequest.
And, yeah, Sabia and Neve are wonderful, if you like muscle girls.
(Psst I love muscle girls so much)
- Sep 20, 2018
- 169
- 40
they shuld hsv given choice weather to let sabia to HELP her trrops out or not and a jadk scene and leader scene shuld be done too
- Jul 11, 2018
- 20
- 58
Personally I just appreciate that they've been given physiques appropriate for professional warriors, which is a depressingly rare treat. o3ob
I definitely agree that it's nice. It's so common these days even in popular media that you have these so called 'strong female warriors' but when you look at them it's quite obvious they have no muscles at all. Not even being fit.
- May 24, 2018
- 1,522
- 3,209
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
- Jan 10, 2018
- 2,185
- 3,412
I just wish Sabia could walk naked around the camp tbh... 
ensive:
ensive:TBF Rokgrid is about the only Orc to wear armour that would actually do jackshit, and he probably does that more to advertise his policy vision than anything. Neve's gear is explicitly noted to be heavily enchanted as was Sabia's original kit in the intro; presumably they effectively project a sort of forcefield around the wearer so actual coverage is more or less irrelevant (except as backup secondary layer).
That kind of kit is probably something of a status symbol; an ostentatious display of your wealth and status by way of owning such equipement in the first place, and a boast of your confidence in your abilities by way of not needing to back it up by more mundane protections. (There's no shortage of historical parallels to this; people who certainly could afford to wear solid armour would decline parts - most often the helmet - or even all of it basically just to show off; and even humble warriors might fight outright naked as a statement of their fearlessness.)
...doesn't quite explain the design of the low-end stuff Sabia gets from the camp merchants mind you, 'less the Orcs are pretty much trolling her... :tf:
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
I have never heard nor seen evidence of this 'historical parallel' in which you are mentioning. If one could afford to wear proper armour, they would rarely ever willingly omit to wearing parts of their panoply, especially not something as vital as a helmet, especially not if it is expected that a battle/fight might soon occur.
Unless there was a situation where it was absolutely necessary to refuse the donning of parts of their armour, then they would likely have worn as much armour as is available to them, yet does not imped them from performing a certain role in combat, such as Archers who might wear a brigandine or plackart with jack-chains et cetera and helmets with a clear field of view but with no out-jutting brim (To allow movement of the arm to draw a bow), or where the terrain or location of a region affects the wearing of armour, such as in Ireland where the marshes and bogs often forced the Irish to fight in armour without leg defences (They also often neglected hose).
For example, if a soldier was expecting to perform in a skirmishing/raiding/ambushing role, they would have likely opted to only wear textile garments akin to an Aketon or Jupon as their primary defensive garment besides a helmet, even if they owned or could afford better armour. An aketon or jupon should be enough to protect against most indirect slashes from bladed weapons excepting polearms, whilst not being weighty enough to limit ones performance in mobility and speed. (Though if said Jupon was similar to 'Charles de blois' Jupon, it would probably offer protection against even a blow from a halberd, but definitely not from a thrust, as there is about 1 solid inch of padding throughout portions of his garment)
When people are expecting to fight in a battlefield, there is no excuse for not wearing a helmet, other than said helmet being knocked off in an engagement with the enemy.
The only point at which I know when people 'willingly' declined to wear parts of their armour (With the assumption that people could afford their armour in the first place) occured during the 1500's-1600's, and this is largely due to the widespread adaptation of matchlock arquebuses, calivers and muskets/demi-muskets into armies, and this was likely because 'proofing' the armour at the legs and arms would have been almost impossible (Up to that point, leg and arm armour might only be some ~0.7-1.2mm thick, more than enough to provide adequate protection to most melee weapons, making the armour double this thickness would have doubled the weight). Even during this period, where arm and leg defenses were going out of popularity, there was an increasing development of larger tassets in armour during this period. Armour itself was quickly becoming heavier and heavier, hence why you see mercenaries and soldiers slowly beginning to refuse to wear portions of their leg and arm defences which would not be able to protect them against arquebus fire, they were being too over-burdened. The final death-knell to armour likely arrived at two points, the wider usage of artillery in field-armies, which combined with the wide-spread usage of 'Spanish' muskets, made armour ineffective (These being large muskets that require a forked rest and are pretty-much portable 'wall-guns', firing shot of about 10 to the pound or larger in weight, to velocities of about 400-450 m/s).
Before the 1500-1600's, wherever one could afford to up-armour, they up-armoured, especially in regards to the legs and arms... If not, people would find that if they had to oppose opponents in a field of battle, especially plate-armoured opponents in a field of battle, they would have the tendency to get 'Wisby-ed', which is to say that people with polearms will be making mince-meal of their arms and legs or heads by people not too afraid to get within their range (Given that their armour allows them to take more risks) and absolutely wreck havok.
My point I feel, Is reflected in virtually all assizes relating to military service in the Medieval period. Freeman and burghers who did not own either padded textile defences, spears or helmets, could be exempted from service and fined... and if said Freemen did not own any weapon at all, they were often exempted from being 'Freemen'. If they did not have a helmet or armour, they were exempted from service, and fined. This I feel, is an important point.
The famous Gaesatae for example, perhaps one of the few examples of people fighting naked in history, likely wore helmets. In this case, they didn't really need to wear armour because the coverage of their shields would have been adequate in most situations (By which I mean that most Celtic shields of the period were much like the Italic scutum and could offer protection to much of the body). A helmet, however, is vital.
If you cannot dodge out of the way of an oncoming strike, are not afforded the protection of a shield and you do not have armour, what are you?
You are dead, or at the very least, injured.
If you were expecting to fight a battle and willingly decided to not wear your helmet, did not wear every part of your panoply and instead opted to fight naked without a shield, then you are almost certainly going to die. And if you die, you will have died Foolishly, its as simple as that.
Even if Sabia wanted to be ostentatious, there is pretty much no excuse for whatever Sabia is she wearing, except for 'This is a porn game... roll with it'.
When nobles want to be ostentatious, even if they are not really expecting to fight, the armour that they commissioned would generally be capable of offering protection and would most likely function as a defensive garment. From the bronze musculata worn by Imperial generals to the gilded and etched surfaces of Greenwich armour, there is no excuse for 'bikini' armour. There certainly isn't much excuse to omit from wearing arm, leg or head protection either, especially when one is able to afford such defensive protective garments.
****
Or TL : DR, I highly doubt that there is a historical parallel whereby anyone would willingly refrain from wearing a helmet or parts of their armour without any exceptional circumstance or context for doing so, even if said person could afford the best armour possible. In fact, it seems that Noble warriors seeking to be ostentatious, wear as much armour as is possible, though the armour that would have been worn would likely have been decorated, gilded, etched, blued et cetera. Hell, even if said noble wanted to show off without using armour, they would opt to wear as much clothing as is possible, because the more fabric that a garment uses in its construction means that the wearer has to pay more, and that is very show-offy.
As to people fighting naked, that was very rare. Even in the occasions in which it did occur, Shields were likely used and helmets were probably worn.
Whenever and wherever it is possible, people will willingly wear as much armour as they can afford, so long as they can still function in their given role. They would not shirk off parts their armour for any sake of pretentiousness. If they did, they were being idiots.
Armour is important, especially when one does not have a shield. The helmet might just be the most important armour of all.
Armour was important enough that it's lack thereof could see a freeman fined.
Sabia has no excuses, in my opinion, except for that of 'It's a porn game, roll with it'.
- Jan 10, 2018
- 2,185
- 3,412
It's all lies dammit! We all know full rounded breasts offer the best kind of protection.
- Aug 11, 2017
- 802
- 1,292
Unfortunately, dear Sir, you are misinformed, for the true and only rational explanation to such kind of armour style is the following:
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
Of course well-rounded breasts are the best kind of protection!
As we all know, breasts contain a layer of sub-plotanium fatty tissue. These fatty tissues are capable of withstanding repeated hits from a 40mm cannon at 400m distance. Thanks to the elastic properties of female breasts, said 40mm rounds will then be bounced back the same distance and destroy the weapon which fired said projectile.
I've seen this comic before! :biggrin:Unfortunately, dear Sir, you are misinformed, for the true and only rational explanation to such kind of armour style is the following:
View attachment 177050 View attachment 177051
It is good to know that you are a man of culture.
Period pictorial sources commonly show Achaemenid Persian troops with no head protection other than the ubiquitous tiara hat of the Iranic peoples, even ones wearing solid body armour - and this was certainly not for want of good helmets in the region as for example the old Assyrian conical type was still in widespread use. (They might certainly have worn close-fitting skullcaps under those hats ofc but that's conjecture.) The Dacian Getae apparently went even further, with even the otherwise armoured elite often eschewing helmets for religious reasons - they believed in transmigration of the soul, in a sense considering themselves immortal; baring your head to the heavens, much like baring your body to the enemy, was a declaration of indifference to death and mortal danger and a willingness to trust in fate and the gods.
And for much of the Roman Republican period the equites - the aristocratic cavalry who certainly weren't short on money for war gear - fought more or less unarmoured partly out of sheer machismo; for that social class battle scars were considered a mark of distinction that gave you a certain amount of added "street cred" in politics later in life. Greek horsemen, equally mostly wealthy aristocrats (as usual for cavalry in settled cultures), similarly mostly went with minimal to no armour and during some periods (the Peloponnesian Wars most notably) it was standard for hoplites to go quite unarmoured too in the interests of mobility (and ability to raise more of them). Period battle accounts suggest it wasn't unusual for the helmet to be left off too with only the accompanying padded cap being worn for a bare minimum degree of protection - which could quite come back to bite you in the ass if the phalanx had to endure extensive missile fire due to circumstances...
There's incidentally suggestions that the Thebans, who had something of a near-literal cult of physique going, may sometimes have gone into battle outright naked which was rather unusual in Classical Greek warfare even during the no-armour periods.
Actual nudity also served an offensive psychological function as a kind of unmissable proof of a certain sort of death-defying mindset a lot of warriors really rather would not have to deal with in an enemy; certainly both Greek and Roman accounts suggest the troops of both found the Gaesatae very unnerving.
Anyways, the point is that in the setting there exist means other than covering yourself in protective material to shield yourself from enemy weapons; no doubt quite expensive and hence not terribly common (eg. most human troops we see just go with good old plate), but conversely that much more statements of wealth and status and certainly rather lighter and more comfortable to go around in than layers of metal and padding. Put this way - if you can afford to get a magical garment that offers protection equivalent to, say, a full mail hauberk with a fraction of the weight and none of the heat, discomfort and inconvenience... why wouldn't you get it? (Also easier to wear in everyday life which may be highly desirable if, say, assasinations by rivals are a concern - and the politics of the Empire sure sound ruthlessly cutthroat enough for that...) Can presumably still throw regular armour on top of it too if circumstances warrant and/or apply the same enhancements to serious protective gear if such "turbocharged" protection is desired, but that isn't necessary for going into battle usefully protected. And tromping around the battlefield in such kit by itself advertises your means and importance (ergo marking you as someone important and worth capturing instead of summarily killing if it comes to that).
Conspicuous consumption in its own way, just like decorated armour.
And for much of the Roman Republican period the equites - the aristocratic cavalry who certainly weren't short on money for war gear - fought more or less unarmoured partly out of sheer machismo; for that social class battle scars were considered a mark of distinction that gave you a certain amount of added "street cred" in politics later in life. Greek horsemen, equally mostly wealthy aristocrats (as usual for cavalry in settled cultures), similarly mostly went with minimal to no armour and during some periods (the Peloponnesian Wars most notably) it was standard for hoplites to go quite unarmoured too in the interests of mobility (and ability to raise more of them). Period battle accounts suggest it wasn't unusual for the helmet to be left off too with only the accompanying padded cap being worn for a bare minimum degree of protection - which could quite come back to bite you in the ass if the phalanx had to endure extensive missile fire due to circumstances...
There's incidentally suggestions that the Thebans, who had something of a near-literal cult of physique going, may sometimes have gone into battle outright naked which was rather unusual in Classical Greek warfare even during the no-armour periods.
Actual nudity also served an offensive psychological function as a kind of unmissable proof of a certain sort of death-defying mindset a lot of warriors really rather would not have to deal with in an enemy; certainly both Greek and Roman accounts suggest the troops of both found the Gaesatae very unnerving.
Anyways, the point is that in the setting there exist means other than covering yourself in protective material to shield yourself from enemy weapons; no doubt quite expensive and hence not terribly common (eg. most human troops we see just go with good old plate), but conversely that much more statements of wealth and status and certainly rather lighter and more comfortable to go around in than layers of metal and padding. Put this way - if you can afford to get a magical garment that offers protection equivalent to, say, a full mail hauberk with a fraction of the weight and none of the heat, discomfort and inconvenience... why wouldn't you get it? (Also easier to wear in everyday life which may be highly desirable if, say, assasinations by rivals are a concern - and the politics of the Empire sure sound ruthlessly cutthroat enough for that...) Can presumably still throw regular armour on top of it too if circumstances warrant and/or apply the same enhancements to serious protective gear if such "turbocharged" protection is desired, but that isn't necessary for going into battle usefully protected. And tromping around the battlefield in such kit by itself advertises your means and importance (ergo marking you as someone important and worth capturing instead of summarily killing if it comes to that).
Conspicuous consumption in its own way, just like decorated armour.
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
I have no knowledge regarding Achaemenid Persian troops, and so I will not comment on them.
Regarding Equites, you would be correct regarding the Mid-Republican era (There is a scarcity of knowledge regarding the Early era). I believe that the lack of sufficient armour in the period is likely due to several factors, firstly being that armour was not exactly necessary given that Equites were not commonly used for charges and thus were not likely to be exposed to extensive hand-to-hand combat, and given that armour can impede or otherwise be a source of annoyance for a rider, it is likely that they did not wear much armour (This was probably a similar case with other Italic/Socii cavalry, with little armour worn excepting perhaps cardiophylaxes). The Equites had shields for their defense which when paired with a Hasta or Xyston held from an over-arm position with the shaft pointing downwards at an angle covering the front, allows for a horseman to effectively resist most hand-held weapons from reaching him. In this case, given that extensive engagements were not likely, the Equites likely dispensed with their armour, or indeed, went bare-chested as several depictions show, they were protected enough by their shields and via efficient usage of their spears.
Additionally, I do not think that the majority of Equites would have money to spare. Considering that Equites were liable to owning horses in order to stay 'Equites', they also had to be able to afford all the amenties and costs that goes alongside the maintenance of such horses, which likely left them with little money to hand. At best, Equites could theoretically afford Cardiophylaxes, or possibly Spolas or similar Tube-Yoke cuirasses.
Following the First Punic War, however, the Equites quickly adapted to wearing Lorica Hamata, Squamata or possibly musculata. This is also likely the case with the Socii. I'd imagine that the booty gained from latent successive military victories ultimately funded the relative up-armament that is seen in the Late-Republican 'Polybian' era, which is reflected in the up-armament of the Equites also.
Regarding Greek horsemen, I would refute you with Xenophons writings, some of which regard how Cavalry should be armed and armoured. In one of these writings, he heavily advises that proper armour should be worn and that it should be well fitted, and advises that helmets similar to the boetian helmet should be used by pretty much all cavalry. The Spolas was also likely used amongst Greek cavalry, and it's usage was likely very wide-spread.
Does this mean that cavalry existed that did not have armour? Yes. But, they were likely performing only with a skirmishing role and possibly with helping to capture/kill routing troops from a battlefield. They thus did not require much in the way of protection.
Regarding Citizen hoplites, you would have a point. Circa 500-300 B.C.E, there was a decline in armour usage, though the reason for such an occurrence is wide-open for debate. However, most hoplites who could afford to, wore 'Spolas' in this era, likely constructed from rawhide panels with multiple layers in each, which should offer substantial protection. This form of armour likely imposed little impediment to mobility in the way that the previous 'Bell' shaped Cuirass could, which was probably why the Spolas and similar forms became widespread in this period.
However, the poorest hoplites likely did not have armour at all. But, this is not necessarily a problem, given that most combat within Hellenic Greece was centered around Hoplite-centric warfare, with very brief exchanges of missile fire from Archers or slingers to be expected. Given this, poorer hoplites were likely not exposed to too-much danger, given that the aspis shield that was used was both highly durable and offered a good deal of coverage... is further protected by a tight formation... which would render most opposing attacks to be ineffective. At best, he might receive glancing spear injuries either from a mis-directed thrust, or a draw-cut from the edge of a pulled-back spear. It would be quite hard to kill an opponent, even one who is unarmoured, within a formation that is backed up by extremely durable and solid shields.
As you note, missile fire can be very effective against hoplites, especially unarmoured ones. Sphacteria comes to mind, as does Xenophons anabasis, whereby he recruits a number of Rhodians from amongst his hoplite forces to act as slingers, who through the usage of lead glandes manage to outrange the Persian slingers by roughly two times. This should be roughly 400 metres distance, assuming that Xenophon is an accurate source. I believe that Xenophon is an accurate source, given that there are World-record holders who have exceeded that distance with an ovoid stone of 52 grams.
With fist-sized stones (~100-200 grams) hurled to about ~50 m/s, it is very likely that the Persian Slingers were able to throw to 200 metres and possibly further. Slingers such as Luis Pons Livermore are able to regularly throw stones of this weight to a similar velocity. For reference I have slung a limestone rock about 180 metres, So I can personally say that such a distance is possible.
I am personally very careful regarding the Thebans. I certainly don't think that there is any basis of fact regarding there being 'Naked' Theban warriors. They certainly had a band of efficient Homosexual hoplites though.
Regarding the Gaesatae, their nakedness and 'battle-willingness' did unnerve the Romans, but I would argue that, arguably, the Carnyx likely had a bigger impact on the Romans, for which we have multiple statements referring to their usage in battles.
Whilst I am not really debating that certain troops did not always necessarily wear armour, due to varying circumstances, there is a much greater number of accounts where, when it is available, people will up-armour as much as they can get away with... and thus rests my point, which is that there is a relative shortage of historical parallels wherein people will willingly refuse to wear portions of their armour or otherwise refuse to wear a helmet, unless there is a certain context to do so. From my point of view, anyone who decides to toss their helmet away willy-nilly whilst in the middle of a battle is an idiot who is putting not only himself, but potentially his comrades and also the formation at risk, and that man would probably receive the ass-beating of his life by his commander after said battle. Of course, an Orcish commander might not view it in such a way, but I'd imagine that a Roman Centurion would have given the soldier a 'Castigatio' on the spot.
For a militarily important person like Sabia to not wear a helmet or proper armour... is pretty stupid in my opinion. Though, as you have stated, she could have enchanted armour.
Of course, given that this is essentially an interactive Porno game, I probably shouldn't invest so much time regarding the comparison to RL armour/armour usage when magical-esque enchantments et cetera exist, which is pretty much an Out-of-context (OOC) problem regarding Real-life history.
****
Edit:
From Xenophon's 'On the Art of Horsemanship': Chapter 12
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.