Alright, if someone is over-confident, you would be too overconfident that you can move without armour, and you would lose.
Puck UdrocAlright, if someone is over-confident, you would be too overconfident that you can move without armour, and you would lose.
Over confidence in an unarmoured individual is less likely, because they have to remember that their opponent won't be taking as much damage, but are more likely to tire quicker.
The key is to be better at defending, than your opponent is at attacking because they will be that bit more encumbered, so they tire more quickly by having to compensate for their lack of mobility.
I am not being big headed when I say that I know more about body armour than you, and its trade offs.
What say we just stop this now, and simply agree to disagree? You have your opinion, I have mine. Clearly on this, they will not agree.
This thread was afterall, about the Restrictions to armour in the KOTOR games.
Oh...mister maturity? I'm afraid now.
sweet motheer of pearl! Look at all the Flaming and arguing. This is a mute point guys, give it up.
Lets keep this civil guys; We can do without the flamebaiting, theres quite a discussion going on here, it would be a shame to have to lock this thread...
Why, this thread is done.
FyuriiAnd they would then become shit at their defensive and offensive capabilities. 2 Force sensitives, 1 in armour, 1 not. Battle commences, the one in armour is over confident and loses. The Force might allow Jedi/Sith to enhance their physical abilities, but wearing armour would just make that a compensation for the armour, whilst Jedi/Sith without armour get the full benefit of the physical enhancement. This would be especially true against multiple opponents A man wearing a suit of armour loses to a man whom does not wear armour.[/quote] Don't think so...maybe in a jedi duel, but in a fight with blasters, who would win? The guy wearing his usual clothes, or the guy who's wearing Mandalorian Battle Armor? Had the Mandalorians not worn their battle armor, would they have managed to get as far as they did in their plight to conquer the galaxy? No, I highly doubt that. While Battle Armor does decrease your mobility, it does give you more of a chance to make it through the battle. It could save your life easily from a blaster wound. It would first have to penetrate the armor, most likely losing much of it's power, and therefore have less lethality when it hit you in whatever body part. [quote=Fyuri]No I wouldn't. Don't you start an argument because I am pointing out the flaws to your posts. Have you ever fought wearing any form of body armour? I have, and I found it to be too restrictive, so I simply honed my defensive abilities. It also has a far greater psychological effect on your opponent to not wear armour. They will be over confident that they are better protected, and therefore think they have the upper hand. When you defeat someone who wears body armour, they are forced to both think twice about their armour, and about how they underestimated you. I am using proven fact for my point of view. Why do you think that in the real world, Soldiers wear limited body armour? Not just because of economic constraints, but also freedom of movement.
you say that as if you're speaking from real experience...:rolleyes: Your second statement that I bolded basically goes against your post, you're saying earlier that you are against Battle Armor because you think that they are too restrictive. They wear Limited Body Armor, probaly not because they choose to, but because that is what their country/military supplied them with. Hell, I don't doubt that they wouldn't trade their armor for 300 Pounds of heavy-ass armor if it protected them from everything. i'm not trying to butt into this excellent discussion, but that's just my opinion. And please, as Hfx_Rebel stated, keep the Flaming to a bare minimum, this is an excellent discussion as it is, flamebaiting would only make it worse
Thank You. And actually, that is why the armed Forces wear limited armour, because that is what they have, not because of their choices. Would you rather be safe from bullet wounds, or be able to attempt to dodge them? I'd rather be safe, and then kill the dude.
Inner Demon, I do speak from experience.
Infantry using limited forms of body armour is not their choice. That decision is taken by those higher up the chain of command. Way way up the chain of command, based around practicality of its use.
Yes, if given the choice a soldier would most likely prefer a suit of (modern) full body armour. They'd be almost useless on the battlefield, but they may still wish to have all that protection.
In the sense of SW though, Jedi and Sith don't use body armour because it would restrict and encumber them, a trade off none of them have been willing to make except for Darth Krayt.
His Yuuzhan Vong armour has a psychological as well as defensive effect.
For the purpose of the KOTOR games, it is, as has been said, a balance issue for gameplay.
My posts regarding armoured Vs unarmoured opponents have been in reference to CQC, not ranged combat - which I failed to distinguish.
Well, some armour with also help with protection Against Force. Lightning won't work for lightning-resistant Armour. It might have help against Force Push, Pull and movement. While, without armour, the only thing protecting you is your own movement. After a w hile, you will get tired, your enemy will still be protected, and can step on your sorry, over-confident face.