Bretons may have more healers and magic users, this is true, but the rank and file soldier won't be much of a spell caster. He'll be one more so than the rank and file of the Nords but it won't be ranks of mages blowing each other up.




Actually the ingame sources don't specify aside from the Bosmeri lack of discipline which is noted in the lore by an Imperial referring to Bosmer archers in the Legion, and why they usually aren't used. The rest is logical conclusion. Think about it, they live in thick thick forests. You don't need to shoot some 160 pound bow 300 meters. You want to shoot much shorter distances and very accurately. Combined with their need to run and climb this suggests that their bows are probably smaller.




Well I don't care if it's "game lore" or not, the idea that chainmail is "light armor" is [censored]. As [censored] as it was when I played Oblivion and was wearing "light" mail armor and sneaking about. That would be noisy as hell. Now are you going to use really devoted fan logic here too? Come on.


The book notes differences in the armor but doesn't go against anything i've said. And it really depends what the weapon is rather than simply the quality.





The inconsistency is that they physically wouldn't be viable. I don't care if they are in every TES game. If you are going for a realistic TES RP you probably wouldn't have giant WoW sized axes. They wouldn't work. The game makers added them in because they look "fantasyish."

I'll give you another example. I remember watching Lord of the Rings a long time ago and when the orcs or whatever they were sieged the one place, they brought a bunch of pikes to the siege. Now that is stupid. Pikes wouldn't be used in a siege like that. How would you even use them? Now using your logic, you would say "well it's in the movie so it must work in their universe. Their physics must be different." No. The people who made the movies were clueless and just added that in because of that. Simple as that. Just accept it and move on. Don't really devoted fan reason it.




The inconsistency is as noted above. And it isn't about "material trumping style." The question isn't style, it's simple physical mechanics.

A pike only force makes no sense - bringing some pikes does : plant a pike block in front of the door and nobdoy can get out (espcially if you can keep the besieged from dropping unplesant things on them). They will also come handy if some ennemy cavalry tres to break the siege and you don't want (or have the time to) build some fieldworks to protect your sieging troops..

You wouldn't bring them to a siege because in a siege you wouldn't all be bunched up against the walls like that either. Makes you impossible to miss. Then you had that cavalry charge later on where the sword wielding cavalry (not lance) drove through ranks and ranks of orcs like they weren't even there. It's just non sense. Again using scow's logic, he would say "But it happened in the movie so it's lore. Their physics work different!"

On oversized hammers: TES has enchantments that can either make weapons light or the wielder quite strong. The games can be used to indicate what will be in the world but not the quantity otherwise two thirds of the people would be bandits.So the oversized weapons exist but probably aren't that common and are backed up by enchantments. Magic is what really makes the world of TES unique and diffrent so it's important to balance it properly. Magic is the reason the empire could have a space station and not have firearms. It is also the reason there isn't a lot of technological progress: magis is there and it's easy to use.

It's enough to make a MAJOR difference in a battle when a small-but-significant number of the Ordinary troops can use basic magic, and when the Specialized Mage detatchments are larger and more effective.

You mean, other than http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Bosmer#References saying they're the best archers in Tamriel?

Trying to give your opinion on how things should work in TES by blatantly ignoring and disregarding how things are notably reported and confirmed to work in TES is not helping your case.


It actually says otherwise - Dwarven Armor is straight-up superior to ANY Steel Armor (other than Steel Plate, but that's from the Corundum augmentation more than the original steel alloy), as are Orcish and Ebony.

You need to get your definition of "inconsistency" checked, because the weapon designs in TES ARE demonstrated to work, brutally so, in the relevant situations in Tamriel. The physical laws of Tamriel are superficially like ours, that in everyday occurance, it's indistinguishable. However, to assume that the underlying mechanics are as ours is a stretch, as the number of once-plausible explanations of our own world proved (Until we dug much deeper into the underlying mechanics) However, as TES seems to have developed some markedly different reactions to the physical laws, we cannot assume that all Physical laws are the same - Newton's third law, Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Theory of Relativity don't necessarily have to work within Tamriel.

Pikes are decent weapons, even when misused. Besides, they need the pikes to defend themselves in case a detachment of cavalry decide to come along and break the siege - Sure, they may prove useless against Horse-Riding Vikings or stupidly overpowered Wizards on horses, but you still have to give them props for trying.


Physical mechanics that you do not know, and are making flimsily-based assumptions on.

You have an issue with Cavalry that favor swords over lances? Can you then please explain why the Sabre, not the Lance, remained the dominant weapon-of-choice for Cavalry charges? What do you do with a lance once you stab someone? It takes much longer to dislodge a corpse from a Lance than to dislodge a Sword from a corpse. The primary weapon in that Horse Charge was the horses themselves - they trampled and scattered the infantry they charged through. A lance wouldn't have done anything that the Horse Hooves wouldn't do already. So they favor the Sword, which is capable of defending the horse's flanks from Orcish counterattacks. The orcs hugged the walls because they are explicity unique in defying The Golden Rule, and dying horribly to archer fire was worth the chance to exploit an opening in the defense as soon as it opened up.

If that were true, then the Steel and Iron weapons would still have "Practical" designs because they're rarely enchanted, as noted in Warhaft's books - Whether that's because of Morrowind-style "Material Enchantment" rating, or simply because it's not a good idea to put a multi-thousand drake enchantment on a cheap iron sword that can get broken by a solid stroke from a Dwarven or Elven blade is still ambiguous.

Lances have an immense quality for cavalry : reach. A lot of cavalry unit, if not most, carried lances even if they were used about once per battle - to break the ennemy ranks while reducing the odds for the horse to be disabled, especially when said ennemy was equiped with the sort of pointy implements than can turn a charge into a pile of dead horses. If the ennemy has only short spears or bayonets the need is diminished, since even if the horse gets skewered, the spear isn't long enough to keep the wielder from ending under the horse.

Of course once the ennemy ranks are broken and you're either in thick of things or chasing those who run, a blade is a better weapon than a spear. Which by that time is likely to be either broken or stuck into someone and left behind in either case.

That was really interseting. I learned a bunch! Thanks!

Scow the idea is, you are too far into game mechanics. FAR too far. They obviously couldn't make everything perfect in the game. The battle RP universe is not the same. Have you ever taken time to think about why 95% of the people on the forum (in the last 2 years) have disagreed with you and put away your petty arguments about "my guy can carry a spear, a sword, two crossbows, knows awesome magic, and has an axe". Seriously man. Make a valid point that's outside of "in the games".

I'm into the world presented by the games. The character that carries a spear, sword, two crossbows, an axe, and knows magic is an anomaly within Tamriel, not a "normal" character.

While I agree with your point, I think you are getting too caught up in ad hominem arguments, Wooly, and as a result haven't really addressed anything Scow2 has said. I completely agree with you that the "spear, sword, two crossbows, etc" conceit is ridiculous, but you are the first to bring it up here. While Scow is definitely taking the lore too far if he tries to get that past a GM, all his arguments in this thread have been solid imo. I'm probably someone who would argue with Scow on just as often as you, btw.

That said, "In the games" is a pretty strong point to make. They are the major source for everything lore related. The carry weight system is one of the rare examples, along with the overall scale of the gameworlds and things like voice-actors, where "in the game" fails us. Everyone would agree there is a line to be drawn somewhere, we just all disagree where or what the line is. Scow seems to think we should try and draw everything from the text (the game), and use it as symbolism to abstract a fantasy world to RP in. Don't forget that the sun isn't a glowing ball of fire, its a hole in the sky, and that the moons are quite possibly the corpse of a Missing God. What I think Scow has been saying (though I may be wrong), is that we shouldn't automatically look to real world examples and see how TES fits in with those. We should build everything up from the lore, and use the real world to fill in the gaps, if they help. The difference is subtle, but important.

Again I stress there is no right or wrong way to do this. It's up to whoever happens to be GMing. This is just a friendly discussion of how we'd prefer to organise things, right?

He thinks every man should be equal to the heroes you are in the games.

I'll let the IB handle all the stuff I didn't quote, since he's better at that sort of thing than I am. However, I do take umbrage at this point you make. You insist on sticking to the games as the most definitive source of information on the Elder Scrolls lore, but most Thalmor soldiers encountered in Skyrim aren't wearing full elven armor at all. They wear http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Elven_Light_Armor#Elven_Light_Armor, which looks identical to standard elven armor (likely do to restrictions on how many meshes Bethesda wanted to make) but is really only about the http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Armor and only marginally better than http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Imperial_Armor#Imperial_Armor. Actually, now that I think about it, it's exceedingly stupid that the legions seem to have worse equipment than standard leather in Skyrim, but that's another discussion. There's no reason to suspect that legion elites don't have similar quality equipment to Thalmor elites if we're basing all of our lore off the games, since we (oddly enough) don't see any of them in Skyrim. In fact, if http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:General_Tullius%27_Armor#General_Tullius.27_Armor is any indicator of what the Legion's elites wear, the Empire's equipment isn't significantly worse than that of the Dominion.

That's not true. In fact, I'm saying the hero is the worst place to look for ability - However, we can anolyze Bandits, Guards, Townspeople, and other NPCs to get an accurate depiction of what Tamriel's like. (Skyrim and Morrowind are more reliable sources than Oblivion, because Cyrodiil does NOT have an issue of being infested with Glass-armored bandits and Daedric Mauraders)


Elven Light Armor is still made of Moonstone, and while it's had some protection-reducing cost-saving measures, it's still a (slight) cut above their counterpart's gear in the Legion. And while the Imperial Legion's gear is generally of the same protective quality (if not slightly stronger), it more than pays for that in Weight - The Dominion uses Light armor exclusively, yet the quality of said armor offers protection comparable or even surpassing most standard-issue Heavy Armors. The reason Light Elven armor lacks in protection is because it's missing several plates that full Elven doesn't (Most notably, the Pauldrons and rest of the shoulder-protection system) - And in a nod to IB's love of realism, that does significantly "weaken" the armor by giving an easy-penetration point in a critical location.

The entire set of light Legion gear is 11 pounds, while the set of light Elven armor is 7 pounds according to Skyrim. I really don't think that's a significant difference, especially considering that the Imperials and Nords who wear it are physically stronger than the Altmer. The difference in protective quality is marginal at best, if you go by the games.

So, you don't consider the fact that Imperial Light Armor weighs half again as much and still doesn't offer the same protection to be a significant difference? Yes, the protective difference is marginal, but it's still there - That it's both, more protective (Even if only slightly) AND lighter than the corresponding set of Light armor, is a significant strategic advantage. It's like equipping an army completely with perfectly-fitted Full Plate armor and sending them against an army equipped in roughly-fitting "Half-plate and mail"

The only Imperial Armors that match Elven armors in terms of quality are all Heavy, while Elven armor retains its lightness and mobility without sacrificing protection.

In Skyrim, "Leather" armor that offers comparable protection to Elven Light Armor is a very high quality light armor, and not something that would be "Standard Issue" in terms of quality.

The legion armor weighs half again as much as Elven Light, yes, but considering the advantage in physical strength its wearers have over the Altmer, it probably balances out to encumber them less than Elven Light does to Thalmor troops if we work by the game's rules. According to the http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Armor formula, the difference in protection afforded by Elven Light Armor is only 0.84% more (assuming wearers of equal skill). If you insist on sticking close to the games to determine the effectiveness of equipment, your argument that Elven Light armor is significantly better than Imperial Light armor doesn't really work very well mathematically? Is Elven Light armor better according to the Skyrim? Yes, but not anywhere near significantly better, and the weight factor is cancelled out by the physical weakness of the Altmer.

Once one factors in the Imperial and Nord natural talents in heavy armour, the mean protection of elven armours decreases even more. To claim that elven warriors are equivalent to space marines is laughable.

If the average imperial or Nord can be outfitted cheaply and quickly with chain mail and an oversized axe (which in real life would be an immense investment in money and man-hours to create) and be more comfortable and skilled wearing it than the "98-pound" Altmer elite in his fancy, expensive designer armour, the utility of elven armours is doubtful

Pssh, chainmail! A legionnaire only needs sub-standard leather to match a standard Thalmor troop's protection within 1% according to Skyrim!

Elves really are wimps.

I'm following this discussion with avid interest.

There's nothing "Sub-standard" about Leather Armor in Skyrim - That stuff's awesome.

Imperials are only a third again stronger than Elves, yet their armor weighs half again as much. Bretons are the same, except their females are just as weak as Elven females. Nords are the only ones notably stronger than Elves, being two-thirds again stronger.

Also, keep in mind that the Thalmor forces in Skyrim are more along the lines of Police than Marines.

Indeed, there is nothing substandard about Skyrim's leather armor. But the light legion armor is apparently pretty substandard, since it can't match up to that leather. Doesn't matter, though, since the differences lie within 1%.

Ah, but if we calculate encumbrance according to Oblivion's rules (since we're using its strength figures), an Imperial can carry 50 more pounds of stuff than an Altmer. Proportionally speaking, the eleven pounds of armor they wear is only 0.055% of how much they can carry, while the seven pounds of armor the Thalmor are wearing makes up .0467% of their carrying capacity. Yet again, we've run into a case of insignificant differences. Also, if we stick to the games for our interpretation, there are no female Breton legionnaires, so the question of their strength is a moot point.

Are you seeing the problem with strictly interpreting the games to determine the effectiveness of various soldiers and equipment yet?

I've never said the games have to be "Strictly" interpreted (Otherwise, we end up with Davian Hawkstar). I'm saying that we cannot disregard the game's information and come up with absurdities such as "My Iron Armor is better than Dwarven Armor", or "As a general rule, Elven Armor is inferior to Imperial Armors" when the numbers in-game firmly indicate otherwise.

The encumbrance cap is a game mechanic - Gerard Duval's guide on what can realistically be expected to be carried is more "accurate", where he makes it clear that a difference of even a few pounds can be significant to a rank-and-file soldier.

And I'm not disregarding the game's information to reach the conclusions you mentioned. I never said Iron was better than Dwarven, and I never said Elven armor was inferior to Imperial; I said there was no significant difference according to Skyrim, assuming the Elven Light were worn by an Altmer and the Imperial Light were worn by an Imperial. In fact, my opinion on the difference in material quality between Elven/Dwarven/Ebony and Steel is closer to yours than IB's. I'm just trying to point out that you have to take some liberties from the games and depart from them occasionally to get something that makes sense. For what it's worth, I do agree that the average Thalmor soldier is better equipped and more capable than the average legionnaire, but Skyrim doesn't really reflect that once you crunch the numbers. Thus, you have to depart from it. You can't treat the games themselves as the ultimate source of information on equipment and soldier effectiveness. It's extremely difficult to reach your conclusion on the effectiveness of Thalmor soldiers using your premises. In fact, even the quality difference between materials starts to break down if we use the games as our primary source of information on weapon effectiveness, considering that the steel http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Scimitar#Scimitar Alik'r warriors use in Skyrim are as good as http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Weapons#Swords.

A few pounds do indeed make a significant difference to a rank and file soldier, but proportionally speaking, 11 pounds is only slightly more for an Imperial than 7 is for an Altmer, and 11 pounds is slightly less for a Nord than 7 is for an Altmer.

All of this is quite necessary indeed.

It doesn't mean that they would automatically use spells, simply they are more apt at it.




Nobody is challenging that fact. But "For a brief time the Colovian armies used Wood Elf archers, as in the War of Rihad two years past. The Bosmer proved to be too undisciplined and prone to desertion for furthur use. They would sometimes walk into the shade of a single tree and vanish. Their forest-coupling skills are remarkable. The title of their most famous poem, the 'Meh Ayleidion', means, 'The One Thousand Benefits of Hiding'."s


Again listen to what I am saying, not what you want to hear. Bosmer are great archers. But they most likely use smaller bows for the reason stated above and they are ill disciplined. If you took Bosmer, made them disciplined and trained up their frames to use larger bows, that would be one thing.




Chainmail is not light armor. Chain mail makes noise you can't sneak around in it. The game makers were clueless about what mail armor actually is coupled with the game mechanics. Again really devoted fan logic doesn't trump actual logic.




Yes of course. That doesn't mean however that an orcish sword will slash through steel plate.




Oh my God I can not discuss logic with a really devoted fan. You are monkey truthing your way to uphold an obsession you have over a fantasy game instead of just admiting that it was a style choice by the makers and that it probably wouldn't actually be viable.




No, it's dumb. A cavalry detachment in a narrow corridor charging head on into a rank several thousand men deep wouldn't work. No offense but you've clearly never actually studied many of the things used in this fantasy setting.




Do you have a source stating that their physical laws are actually different? No? Tough.




No offense but you know NOTHING concerning the topic.

The sabre remained a dominant weapon in the during the era of gunpowder when it was phased out. This was because lance charges were no longer common because of the training requirement. If you look at actual troop numbers from the 1400s to that of the Napoleonic era you suddenly see that armies are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. This was due to the social and technological changes. The average troop was a joe nobody that was give a musket and drilled. The same sort of thing happened to cavalry. Horse breeding while still important, could not provide the few hundred or so super elite horses. Instead you just have "general horses." Training with a lance is also much more difficult and costly. Coupled with how the mechanics of the battle changed, all of these contributed to why the lance stopped being used in favor of the sabre. The heavy cavalry was no longer plausible. Instead you needed light cavalry that could follow a rout.

Next, if you read the guide, you'd actually have learned that horses don't actually trample people when they charge. Horses don't like to run into people. The lance gave reach and focused impact into the enemy. You wouldn't stab with the lance, poke it back out and go again. Very often the lance would shatter into the body of the one struck and sent him flying into the ranks behind him. If you have two cavalry squadrons, one with a lance, the other not, charging at each other, guess which one is winning? So it would help if you did some actual study on the subject rather than tell us what you learned from Lord of the Rings. Because the way this is going we're speaking from two very different levels of understanding of how these things work.

You can hide "But it's that way in the game" when it makes your point, and then say "Well we can't always take the game as a source" when it doesn't. I already gave you several examples.