Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-29729442-20161212012142/@comment-29729442-20161214010239

Party Vanderbilt wrote: Goredovah wrote:

Party Vanderbilt wrote:

Blademaster Jauffre wrote:

Party Vanderbilt wrote: Tactics change over time. Who'd have thunk?

More to the point, we don't know when the Manual of Armor was written, or for what army (if any specific army at all). Tactics don't just change over time, they change from one army to another. Armies do not all fight the same.

Lastly, at the end of the day it's Bethesda who determine what is and is not lore friendly. This manual is commissioned by General Warhaft to serve as a guide and manual to armor for all officers in the Imperial service.Manual of Armor was written for use by the Legion. I'd actually forgotten about that. Huh. Appreciate the reminder.

Anywho, with that being the case I'd say it's likely that it's an instance where, ultimately, gameplay is taking precedence over story. They're not going to force you to use one type of armor over another. I mean, hell, they don't even actually force you to wear ANY Imperial armor; similar to how we're never forced to wear Shrouded Armor, or Thieves' Armor, or Mage Robes. Ah and I forgot one thing: the book was written by a general that was alive when Uriel Septim was stuck in Oblivion. Then it also possibly goes back to the Empire's tactics having changed. I mean, at that point the book's nearly 300 years old. Though I'd really be inclined to say it's more that gameplay trumps story.

Really doubtful since:

1- this very same tactic is seen in the events of The Elder Scrolls Online.

2- as mentioned before, Beirand himself reveals that infantry should use heavy armor.

It is possible that the developers made vanilla imperial infantry with light armor to prevent imperial players from having an advantage in the gameplay.