Gah, it's that attitude that led to me having to put up with female soldiers in M&B Napoleonic Wars... or female guards in Pirates of the Burning Sea... women of the line? Pah!
Oh and I predict much 'Lol Joan of Arc lol' before this point is done
Hmm, very Mount & Blade'ish indeed. Which is a good thing.
Apparently, one of the devs is from the M&B team, too, and Paradox is Taleworld's publisher, so perhaps they've received additional help for this.
Melissia wrote:Yes, I know that's not really historical. No, I don't give a gak.
They did exist, though they are rarely recognized due to having been exceptions - this led to school history books not mentioning them at all, which led to most people believing they did not exist.
Granted, I don't know of any cases of fighting female knights in England, but since this is a computer game where the player will change the course of history anyways, and likely create a character that did not exist in real life, this should not be an issue.
We'll see, I guess!
Henners91 wrote:Gah, it's that attitude that led to me having to put up with female soldiers in M&B Napoleonic Wars... or female guards in Pirates of the Burning Sea... women of the line? Pah!
Oh and I predict much 'Lol Joan of Arc lol' before this point is done
I don't like anachronism in such games either, but exceptional characters like noble knights or "Jeanne d'Arcs" should not really be compared to line infantry recruited from the common people. Did you have a problem with female pirates or freetraders, for example?
Lynata wrote:[...] but since this is a computer game where the player will change the course of history anyways, and likely create a character that did not exist in real life, this should not be an issue.
That's the argument I used on the With Fire and Sword forums against the WFaS forum admins when they were defending the decision to not have female player characters in it on release.
It seemed to work, that or it was simply the player demand that made it work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:Gah, it's that attitude that led to me having to put up with female soldiers in M&B Napoleonic Wars... or female guards in Pirates of the Burning Sea... women of the line? Pah!
Oh and I predict much 'Lol Joan of Arc lol' before this point is done
Don't care much for Jeanne d'Arc, but it's really just a needless restriction on a roleplaying game.
History sucks, we're not gonna be following it anyway.
Melissia wrote:Looks interesting, although I do hope they add in female knights later on (it is an alpha they said, so there's always hope).
War of the Roses: Knights of Needlepoint!
* ducks*
And they shall wear boob plates, and have their thighs and bellies exposed!
All mud will be replaced with jello and cream, and they will get splattered in it often.
Gotta love stereotypes of female characters in games...
I like this idea a lot. Cant rember if this true or not but they are supposed to have much bigger battles. (I think) That would be epic. Much better than mount and blade anyways...
Saw that video a while back, the game looks awesome. But I sadly will not be playing it until they add hermaphrodites.
"We already have giant silver ones."
I don't think swords are really phallic it's just a really effective tool for poking and cutting fools. Sometimes a claymore is just a claymore you know.
asimo77 wrote:Saw that video a while back, the game looks awesome. But I sadly will not be playing it until they add hermaphrodites.
"We already have giant silver ones."
I don't think swords are really phallic it's just a really effective tool for poking and cutting fools. Sometimes a claymore is just a claymore you know.
You can't claim something is phallic just because it's longer than it is wide. Otherwise anything vaguely rectangular (probably most things) would be considered phallic.
Things are usually described as phallic in terms of how they're treated by men, not how they look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:Women in the war of the roses would just be awesome.
Joey, can you try not to be a jerk? Women often like playing women in games. The enjoyment of the players takes greater precedence over recreating the un-fun parts of a historical setting.
asimo77 wrote:Saw that video a while back, the game looks awesome. But I sadly will not be playing it until they add hermaphrodites.
"We already have giant silver ones."
I don't think swords are really phallic it's just a really effective tool for poking and cutting fools. Sometimes a claymore is just a claymore you know.
You can't claim something is phallic just because it's longer than it is wide. Otherwise anything vaguely rectangular (probably most things) would be considered phallic.
Things are usually described as phallic in terms of how they're treated by men, not how they look.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but if we look at how it's used: poking and cutting, instead of its appearance I don't think my point changes much. Unless you just want to say all weapons are dicks to men. Which is rather silly.
Joey wrote:Women in the war of the roses would just be awesome.
Fixed that for you.
Do you hate women that much? Or just reality?
There were (some) female knights, fighters, mercenaries, and army commanders in medieval times. Deal with it.
Actually, the Bridport Muster Roll of 1457 has a list of people called to join the Lancastrian army:
These are the names of ordinary people who were called up to the army. 174 names on the list are legible, and 5 of these (2.9%) are women. Alis Hammel has her own jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows. Alis Gare has a bow and a coat of plates. "Condefer Wife" has bow, arrows, sword and buckler. Margaret Athyn and Sally Pens do not have any equipment listed, but overall 39% of the names on the list do not have any equipment listed. -- found on this forum
And then we have Margaret of Anjou personally having led her army in combat. Granted, I doubt that she has actually fought (few commanders did), but there you have it: female soldiers and army commanders in the War of Roses. The historical precedent is given.
Unless one would want to pretend that these minorities never existed at all because they'd apparently attack the idea of male supremacy or something silly like that. A lot of people and organizations still seem to be interested in doing so!
While Lynata's post is informative (and amusing, given the contents of Joey's post before he edited it), I don't honestly care much about the historical precedence... the game gives you a setting and lets you play around with it, changing history as you wish. You can change the outcome of battles, of entire wars... which means you can defy history and tell destiny to shove itself up its own arse.
Which is awesome. When you can tell history to go feth itself because you have a better idea, the game has transcended mere simulation and become some thing epic. That's what's important, and what's fun about it. If it was nothing more than a pure history sim it'd be an interactive documentary, not a game-- and yes, those do exist. I have one on CD here, in fact. It's rather dreadful, making everything pointless because sure you can participate, but your actions are meaningless even within the context of the game.
Meh. That's not the kind of game I'd want to play. It's not even heroic, it's more "why am I here again? the same outcome will be had if I stopped playing"
Melissa, you ever read *son of york* or those medieval books, even more look at stuff like LOTR and also the current GOT series. Men were expendable, replacable easily. There were historically few women who fought, and in fantasy it typically leans towards women less.
In modern shooters/rts I would actually say YES ladies should be in it. But there should be a point were you have to cross the line, especially in terms of medieval accuracy. Yes there were ladies in combat, but typically archers AND there were only a minority of them.
OT, I think its fantastic someone's coming up with a War of the Roses game, the War of the roses was largely ignored by most of history. Its seen as largely a myth, even in England.
Doctadeth wrote:Melissa, you ever read *son of york* or those medieval books, even more look at stuff like LOTR and also the current GOT series. Men were expendable, replacable easily. There were historically few women who fought, and in fantasy it typically leans towards women less. Also, Caesar 3, Zeus.
In modern shooters/rts I would actually say YES ladies should be in it. But there should be a point were you have to cross the line, especially in terms of medieval accuracy. Yes there were ladies in combat, but typically archers AND there were only a minority of them.
OT, I think its fantastic someone's coming up with a War of the Roses game, the War of the roses was largely ignored by most of history. Its seen as largely a myth, even in England.
Doctadeth wrote:But there should be a point were you have to cross the line, especially in terms of medieval accuracy.
Seeing as I don't care about medieval accuracy to begin with considering I fully plan on royally fething up history in any "historical" game I play... you might notice I don't care.
Actually I could just change that to "seeing as I don't care, you might notice I don't care", but eh.
Then you download a thing called a MOD. The majority of people prefer having at least some semblance of accuracy in a game.
I am not trying to search for trouble, But the thing is, plate armour for ladies? It DOESN'T WORK. Okay, if its archers and *mages* then I'd be okay with it. But going by general common sense, a guy can deliver more force to a weapon then a women if both had the same level of training.
Thats essentially what it rounds out to. Oh, and also. Plate armour, really really heavy. I know, I have worn a full set. I LARP, and use a full set of real platearmour.
Yes, maybe *accuracy can be gacked* but some people like it.
Doctadeth wrote:The majority of people prefer having at least some semblance of accuracy in a game.
"most people" meaning "I think most people agree with me therefor I want to try to speak with authority!" (even though I don't care).
Doctadeth wrote:I am not trying to search for trouble, But the thing is, plate armour for ladies? It DOESN'T WORK.
You've likely never even seen period armor made for women.
Doctadeth wrote:But going by general common sense, a guy can deliver more force to a weapon
According to this game, everyone hits with the same strength. If you want historical reality, some people (randomly selected) will have strength advantages and or disadvantages. What, don't you WANT historical reality?
Doctadeth wrote:Oh, and also. Plate armour, really really heavy.
Doctadeth wrote:Now you are just starting to troll. Reread my statements. I wear full platearmour. And yes, I know that nowdays *NOWDAYS* we can order something called laydee armour.
Simple lesson in anatomy. Ladies usually have lower upper body strength then men. Whats the result of that. I don't care about the ingame stats. Tell me what it does in real life.
Female armour also took a lot more time to make, because of the difference of fit and thus also took a bit more material.
Look at games like medieval total war, shogun, age of freaking empires.
There's no ladies. So gacking what? There are other games where men lack. Us Yer's don't complain about that.
Actually, in Shogun II there's a full female regiment of a halberdier type unit.
However, they do have a solely defensive role IIRC, and their armor isn't that great.
Its been a while since I last played it :/
Doctadeth, would you find the game more interesting and fun if more soldiers died from dysentery and septic wounds than on the battlefield? Would your experience be enhanced by your character having to stop at the beginning of the battle to deal with his watery bowels?
All games like this are inherently unhistorical, in the name of fun. It's a question of HOW unhistorical, and what you're sacrificing. You're asking female players to go without being able to play a female character in the name of your sense of historical accuracy. I don't think that's really reasonable. How about you get a MOD which shows all female characters in the game as being male instead?
As in, from the time period we're talking about. Not modern "lady plate mail".
(of course, seeing as there isn't much of a difference between platemail worn by women and platemail worn by men, it's an easy confusion to make, especially if you think a warrior women in medieval times would have huge breasts, a non-historical fantasy if I've ever heard one; the main difference will be in the shoulder width, not the chest)
Doctadeth wrote:In modern shooters/rts I would actually say YES ladies should be in it. But there should be a point were you have to cross the line, especially in terms of medieval accuracy. Yes there were ladies in combat, but typically archers AND there were only a minority of them.
You know, IF there was even a single woman fighting as an archer or a swordsman or an army commander, which we know has happened ... wouldn't it be historically inaccurate to have them 100% missing from the game?
Personally, I thought "Mount & Blade" had it perfect, by representing nearly all combatants as men, yet giving the player character the opportunity to be of either sex. Because you as the player are allowed to be that one exception from the rule.
Doctadeth wrote: Oh, and also. Plate armour, really really heavy. I know, I have worn a full set. I LARP, and use a full set of real platearmour.
Evidently, that didn't prevent some women from fighting in it.
(I was surprised how "light" a well-balanced suit of armour becomes when worn, by the way - once the weight is distributed over several points of the body)
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Actually, in Shogun II there's a full female regiment of a halberdier type unit.
Probably the onna bugeisha, basically female samurai. And depending on the era, they were also used in offensive capabilities.
It's like god said that one time - Let There Be Chicks. I think that happened. Or maybe I was drunk. But honestly, who cares? It's a damned video game.
Melissia wrote:Why do you want "only male x" in absolutely everything?
Thats the thing though, I don't care providing that the integrity of the setting is maintained. You seem to want women in every game irrespective of the setting or anything else.
Melissia wrote:Why do you want "only male x" in absolutely everything?
Thats the thing though, I don't care providing that the integrity of the setting is maintained. You seem to want women in every game irrespective of the setting or anything else.
In fairness it's not a lot to ask and it is often overlooked in many games...
purplefood wrote:[ In fairness it's not a lot to ask and it is often overlooked in many games...
Indeed, but it is often inappropriate, such as here, and to be honest the games industry has bigger problems.
Period femaile platemail didn't exist.
Well considering that females did fight during that period they probably wore armour. Mel also makes a good point with the whole 'It's a game things are going to be changed as you play' though due to a strong case of Melshock it isn't very effective...
Palindrome wrote:You seem to want women in every game irrespective of the setting or anything else.
And your point is?
purplefood wrote:In fairness it's not a lot to ask and it is often overlooked in many games...
Indeed.
Palindrome wrote:Indeed, but it is often inappropriate
It's never inappropriate. Games are about you playing the exceptional people.
Palindrome wrote:and to be honest the games industry has bigger problems.
A lack of representation of women is one of the biggest problems in the game industry, both lacking in employment representation and in-game representation.
purplefood wrote:
Well considering that females did fight during that period they probably wore armour.
If they did it would have been a tiny (tiny) minority. Perhaps there should be some black skinned models as well?
Simply because its a game then anything goes isn't a very good excuse.
Isn't that Joan of Arc? That is also' male' platemail.
I wouldn't be against black or middle eastern models...
Once you start changing who may or may not have won you can introduce the idea that maybe one side got very desperate and hired mercenaries then the other side reciprocated.
It's like the alternate history idea. Once you all agree on the premise that this happened instead of that it allows for a lot of different stuff to happen which may not have happened otherwise...
Henners91 wrote:Gah, it's that attitude that led to me having to put up with female soldiers in M&B Napoleonic Wars... or female guards in Pirates of the Burning Sea... women of the line? Pah!
Oh and I predict much 'Lol Joan of Arc lol' before this point is done
Don't care much for Jeanne d'Arc, but it's really just a needless restriction on a roleplaying game.
History sucks, we're not gonna be following it anyway.
More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.
That is not period female plate armour, that is a painting of a woman in armour. The whole female characters thing would be a slight annoyance for me; due to it's mis-representation of the period and inevitable abuse by douchey players, but if majority of the players want it, fine. Though judging from the sample demographic in this thread, dont expect them any time soon.....
I thought the game looked *OK*, the combat looks clumsy and floaty and as 'Total biscuit' pointed out, having the ability to walk backwards as fast as forwards hurts the game. I'll conced that The wooden animation may be explanined by its alpha status. The Lance however looks Sweeeeeet. It looked really deep and Obviously i cant speak for how satisfying the feedback is.
Palindrome wrote:Indeed, but it is often inappropriate, such as here [...]
Why? I'm seriously interested in the answer.
If you disallow having even just a single female fighter - such as the player character - in this game, then you are falsifying history. So regardless of whether you are argueing for historical realism or to disconnect a PC game whose main purpose is entertainment from it - I do not think that a good argument can be made for barring this option.
Orlanth wrote:More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.
Apparently, there is a huge need for games to educate people that there were some women fighting in that time.
Imho, there is no such thing as "too much customization", and the very basic option of playing a female character should be a given nearly everywhere.
Doctadeth wrote:In modern shooters/rts I would actually say YES ladies should be in it. But there should be a point were you have to cross the line, especially in terms of medieval accuracy. Yes there were ladies in combat, but typically archers AND there were only a minority of them.
You know, IF there was even a single woman fighting as an archer or a swordsman or an army commander, which we know has happened ... wouldn't it be historically inaccurate to have them 100% missing from the game?
There were also Moors and probably a few Africans around as well. They should definitely be in.
Seriously, no.
Men do the fighting, women stay at home. That's how it's always worked until industrialisation made it possible for people to live beyond 22 and knee-deep in gak.
Doctadeth wrote:Then why doesn't Games Workshop give you the *very basic* option of female imperial guard. Or why doesn't GTA let you be a very basic female.
Just because its something that people will want, doesn't mean that the publisher will do it. See EA for example.
Yep. Is such developer/publisher attitude considered good and something to be worth fighting/argueing for, though?
Joey wrote:There were also Moors and probably a few Africans around as well. They should definitely be in.
I wouldn't oppose an option to change the player character's skin colour. Mercenaries from faraway countries were indeed used on occasion back then, and I wouldn't regard it entirely impossible they'd be granted a fief in reward for their services.
A general "percentage modifier" for a chance to have them pop up as troops would be unnecessary, tho. After all, they didn't live with the common people as civilians in England, and thus could not be drafted into the army. Unlike women.
Joey wrote:Seriously, no.
Men do the fighting, women stay at home. That's how it's always worked until industrialisation made it possible for people to live beyond 22 and knee-deep in gak.
History says you and your biased opinion are wrong. Sorry.
Also, lol @ "always". There was a period of time before the medieval ages where the church and its then-quite-sexist religion had to pass bulls to ban women from fighting, you know.
Joey wrote:Seriously, no.
Men do the fighting, women stay at home. That's how it's always worked until industrialisation made it possible for people to live beyond 22 and knee-deep in gak.
History says you and your biased opinion are wrong. Sorry.
Also, lol @ "always". There was a period of time before the medieval ages where the church and its then-quite-sexist religion had to pass bulls to ban women from fighting, you know.
Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable. A single man can impregnate thousands of women (or give it a bloody good go anyway), whereas a woman has a 9 month turnaround time in terms of biological usefulness.
It's probably fair to say the very best thing that would happen to a woman on the battlefield during this period would be that she was gently but firmly told to go home.
Unless she was pretending to be a man (like Eowen in the Lord of the Rings) in which case she'd still look the same as everyone else, unless there was some fethed up disembowelment mini-game.
Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.
No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior.
If the church gave a rat's ass about protecting women, it wouldn't have condoned the witch hunts. I further suggest you look up the mass rape and massacre of Cesena in 1377, so ordered by Cardinal Robert and conducted by an army of the Papal States.
The cold hard truth is that these "guidelines" didn't serve to protect the women - just that instead of having a fighting chance on the battlefield, they were in the nearby villages and completely at the mercy of whoever won the battle. War was a very dirty business back then, but it should be well known that this extended beyond the actual fighting.
Joey wrote:It's probably fair to say the very best thing that would happen to a woman on the battlefield during this period would be that she was gently but firmly told to go home.
Evidently this did not happen in the cases discussed in this thread. Deal with it.
Perhaps it should be considered that in times of great need, even sexist societies have often overcome their bias and called at least some of their women to arms? As it happened in, for example, the Soviet Union during both world wars. Or England during the War of the Roses. There are more to be found throughout human history if you'd just bother to look them up.
Orlanth wrote:More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.
Oh please, as if this game is educating anyone about anything. That's nothing more than an excuse that doesn't stand up to any real logic.
Why not. You play Medieval Total War or Shogun Total War you can learn a lot because they did the research. Its still about 'I kills them with my knights/samurai'.
Why cannot a bash game set in the time of the Wars of Roses not have reasonably accurate costume or weapons form the time period, or history files attach that explain what was going on.
Orlanth wrote:More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.
Oh please, as if this game is educating anyone about anything. That's nothing more than an excuse that doesn't stand up to any real logic.
Why not. You play Medieval Total War or Shogun Total War you can learn a lot because they did the research. Its still about 'I kills them with my knights/samurai'.
Why cannot a bash game set in the time of the Wars of Roses not have reasonably accurate costume or weapons form the time period, or history files attach that explain what was going on.
If it is reasonably accurate wouldn't that mean that women should be allowed since we know they participated, albeit in very, very small numbers? You could have the developers put a lock on it so that only 1 out of every 2000 games sold can make a female character, or you could realize it is an untenable position to try and limit the number and just let people decide.
In fact, if they wanted to teach something when you select a female avatar it could have a blurb about the fact the some women were involved in the fighting and give an example or two. Maybe then people would stop thinking that women didn't take any part at all in the events. You don't promote learning by limiting the information.
Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.
No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior..
Which doesn't change that fact that female combatants were very rare in western society, they still are.
Ahtman wrote:In fact, if they wanted to teach something when you select a female avatar it could have a blurb about the fact the some women were involved in the fighting and give an example or two. Maybe then people would stop thinking that women didn't take any part at all in the events. You don't promote learning by limiting the information.
Well said.
Palindrome wrote:Which doesn't change that fact that female combatants were very rare in western society, they still are.
Absolutely, which is why I was mildly put-off by the large number of female infantry in Pirates of the Burning Sea. Here I would've preferred a more realistic approach. I would have been put off just as much if it would have been impossible to create a female pirate, though, as it's the same thing only in reverse.
Anyways, I'm just saying that I don't see the point in argueing against any inclusion of women in these games at all, just for the sake of preserving an obviously fake male ego. Regardless of whether one is a fan of realism or of greater customization - neither of the two positions warrants a 100% ban on females. It's not something that I would go protest for, or that would keep me from buying the game - but I find it irritating to see a number of posters harboring a rather biased opinion here even after being presented with historical evidence.
As to the rarity of female combatants in the modern western society, I suppose I wouldn't say "rare" anymore but rather "uncommon". I can only speak for the German military, but my own squad was 50% female and all in all the current quota is somewhere around 9% of all soldiers, at least according to this article: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,5106211,00.html (though it's dated 2010, so it could even be 10% by now?)
Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.
No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior.
No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children. They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men. So a society that mobilised women to fight would a)cause a huge demographic hole in the local area, probably irrepairable and b)be far weaker than a male force, even of fewer numbers. Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.
Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.
Lynata wrote:
Perhaps it should be considered that in times of great need, even sexist societies have often overcome their bias and called at least some of their women to arms? As it happened in, for example, the Soviet Union during both world wars. Or England during the War of the Roses. There are more to be found throughout human history if you'd just bother to look them up.
In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?
Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.
Joey wrote:No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children.
"Rearing children"? You sound as if they did nothing else ... like helping in the household, working on the farm, or, y'know, going to war and managing a fief.
Joey wrote:They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men.
An average or a genetic predisposition are not of any concern to this debate. I assure you that there actually are a number of women who are more physically adept than a number of men.
Joey wrote:Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.
This is wrong, too. As I said, there was a time before the church felt a need to ban females from bearing arms.
Joey wrote:Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.
Demoralising when the men were beaten by the women, I suppose. Concidering the list of atrocities we know were committed, I would be surprised if German soldiers during WW2 had more problems shooting female soldiers than they had shooting female civilians.
Joey wrote:In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?
I guess that depends what would happen to the children if "their side" lost. And where you draw the line between "child" and "adult".
Also, since when is war about being right or natural? In an ideal world, the battlefield would be a place for neither woman nor man. The notion that the right to fight for one's beliefs is something that should be reserved for men is ridiculously sexist.
Orlanth wrote:Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.
This is not how it worked in history.
Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?
Lynata wrote:"Rearing children"? You sound as if they did nothing else ... like helping in the household, working on the farm, or, y'know, going to war and managing a fief.
Making new humans is pretty damn important, especially with a life expectancy in the low 20s.
Lynata wrote:An average or a genetic predisposition are not of any concern to this debate. I assure you that there actually are a number of women who are more physically adept than a number of men.
So? There are 10 year olds who're brighter than 30 year olds, should we then proclaim that children are as able as adults? Men are inherantly far stronger than woman, because of the aforementioned need to specialise the sexes - women for childbaring, men for hunting/fighting.
Lynata wrote:
This is wrong, too. As I said, there was a time before the church felt a need to ban females from bearing arms.
The church banned lots of things.
Lynata wrote:
Also, since when is war about being right or natural? In an ideal world, the battlefield would be a place for neither woman nor man. The notion that the right to fight for one's beliefs is something that should be reserved for men is ridiculously sexist.
No it's not. Men are physically stronger than women, so should be given the more physically demanding task. How is that difficult, or discriminatory? Different groups will always fight each other for land or resources, it's a part of our nature.
Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?
The fact that you regard what you've described as "male supremacy" says everything about your view of the world. Beleive it or not, men and women are different, and the world is a much better place for it.
Joey wrote:Making new humans is pretty damn important, especially with a life expectancy in the low 20s.
This opinion doesn't change reality tho.
Joey wrote:So? There are 10 year olds who're brighter than 30 year olds, should we then proclaim that children are as able as adults? Men are inherantly far stronger than woman, because of the aforementioned need to specialise the sexes - women for childbaring, men for hunting/fighting.
And here's the big flaw in your logic. Men are not "inherently far stronger than women", men merely have a predisposition to develop this way. This is not the same as saying that 100% of men are stronger than 100% of women.
Joey wrote:No it's not. Men are physically stronger than women, so should be given the more physically demanding task. How is that difficult, or discriminatory?
It becomes difficult and/or discriminatory once you start argueing that stronger women should not be allowed to fight because it's supposedly the job of weaker men. Which you did. Let's be honest here - this isn't a question of physical aptitude, else it would be decided on a case-by-case evaluation of an individual's body. And not based solely on the matter of whether said person has or does not have a dick.
Anyways, an exchange of general sentiments about gender roles would seem to be better suited for a different thread. This one is about the War of the Roses, after all.
Joey wrote:Beleive it or not, men and women are different, and the world is a much better place for it.
I've never objected to the first part, and I don't think it is worth our time to argue the second as it is a matter of opinion. The question still stands, though: Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?
Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?
He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.
I have to say that constantly arguing for the inclusion of female models in games, irrespective of setting, actually undermines the cause of feminism as it suggest that it is simply dogmatic.
Lynata wrote:And here's the big flaw in your logic. Men are not "inherently far stronger than women", men merely have a predisposition to develop this way. This is not the same as saying that 100% of men are stronger than 100% of women.
Men are inherantly stronger than women, you're just deliberately inferring something in order to disprove it. I never said "100% of men are stronger than 100% of women".
I could say "Americans are wealthier than Nigerians" legitimately, even though some Nigerians are wealthier than some Americans. Doesn't disprove the general statement.
The disparity in strength between sexes is pretty big actually. Wikipedia says men are 50% stronger in the upper body than women. Which do you think will make the better fighter?
Lynata wrote:It becomes difficult and/or discriminatory once you start argueing that stronger women should not be allowed to fight because it's supposedly the job of weaker men. Which you did. Let's be honest here - this isn't a question of physical aptitude, else it would be decided on a case-by-case evaluation of an individual's body. And not based solely on the matter of whether said person has or does not have a dick.
How much stronger do you think women would be in a world where anyone but the very wealthy is lacking in protein?
Also fails to take into account men's predisposition to violence, which women by and large lack. And yes, this is caused by having testicles. Violent people make better soldiers than compassionate people.
Lynata wrote:
Anyways, an exchange of general sentiments about gender roles would seem to be better suited for a different thread. This one is about the War of the Roses, after all.
If you're willing to cut out the revisionist clap-trap then sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?
He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.
I have to say that constantly arguing for the inclusion of female models in games, irrespective of setting, actually undermines the cause of feminism as it suggest that it is simply dogmatic.
Yup.
I would make a list of female video game charectors I like/enjoy playing as, but I don't see much point here.
Reality as in = women fighting in the War of the Roses. Or elsewhere.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, women - even back then - were not "baby machines" whose entire day was occupied by getting humped and churning out one baby after another. Believe it or not, some women did not have a single child, and some were biologically unable to become pregnant! Would removal from the procreation process qualify women to be "allowed to pick up arms" to you? And would you grant this removal even on a voluntary basis, or would you rather force every single woman to become pregnant, regardless of her own wishes?
Joey wrote:Men are inherantly stronger than women, you're just deliberately inferring something in order to disprove it. I never said "100% of men are stronger than 100% of women".
I could say "Americans are wealthier than Nigerians" legitimately, even though some Nigerians are wealthier than some Americans. Doesn't disprove the general statement.
Well, in that case we will have to agree to disagree on your choice of words in this context.
Joey wrote:The disparity in strength between sexes is pretty big actually. Wikipedia says men are 50% stronger in the upper body than women. Which do you think will make the better fighter?
The one with the better training.
Also, on a battlefield you do not have "average man" vs "average man", regardless of how much you cling to statistics about said averages.
Joey wrote:Also fails to take into account men's predisposition to violence, which women by and large lack. And yes, this is caused by having testicles. Violent people make better soldiers than compassionate people.
You will find that testosterone is present in both sexes. Not in equal amounts, of course - then again there is no such thing as a specific "male level" for it either. Studies have shown that testosterone levels raise and drop depending on one's lifestyle, and just like with physical strength, you will have some women who are more aggressive than some men. Which actually explains certain historical accounts, if you'd be interested in reading up on this topic. The Dahomey's Mino battalion is probably one of the more recent examples, but I am sure you have at least heard of the Shieldmaidens.
Joey wrote:If you're willing to cut out the revisionist clap-trap then sure.
Correcting flawed perceptions or even lies whose only purpose is to write female fighters out of history counts as revisionism now? Shouldn't we call it re-revisionism instead?
Palindrome wrote:He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.
It's not clear to me. If he is argueing for realism, why is he argueing against an option for creating female player characters? Seeing that we have proof they were conscripted into the army. As women.
Seriously Joey, stop fething obsessing over rape. It's creepy.
I thought this thread was about a game that allowed you to live the fantasy of fighting in the War of the Roses, myself. No matter what you do, it's still a fantasy. It's certainly not historical reenactment, lol, and even historical reenactment isn't going to be accurate anyway. Not enough people dying outside of combat.
In the end, you're just hiding behind a guise of historical accuracy when the more accurate argument is that you simply prefer men, and only men, to be in your action games. Hot, sweaty, grunting men, a lot of them, and only them. Me, I'd like a few hot , sweaty, grunting women to be added in to the mix, myself.
Lynata wrote:Reality as in = women fighting in the War of the Roses. Or elsewhere.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, women - even back then - were not "baby machines" whose entire day was occupied by getting humped and churning out one baby after another. Believe it or not, some women did not have a single child, and some were biologically unable to become pregnant! Would removal from the procreation process qualify women to be "allowed to pick up arms" to you? And would you grant this removal even on a voluntary basis, or would you rather force every single woman to become pregnant, regardless of her own wishes?
What evidence do you have for women's participation in the war of the roses in any significant numbers?
I'm pretty fuzzy about the Middle Ages to be honest. I know Greek and Roman armies were exclusively male, but they were also aristocratic (pre-Marian Roman, anyway. After that it was male-only legislatively) - the only way you could get the equipment and training to be a soldier was by being male.
Lynata wrote:The one with the better training.
Also, on a battlefield you do not have "average man" vs "average man", regardless of how much you cling to statistics about said averages.
Peasants had no training whatsoever. They were farmers with pitch forks, and were expected to do nothing more than hold the line while the cavalry did all the work. The knights were modelled on the Greek hoplites and also trained by birth, in strict sex separation. Even if a woman were to pretend to be a man, she wouldn't have the horseriding skills, the body strength to hold a weapon, the ability to fight on horseback, swordplay etc.
Lynata wrote:You will find that testosterone is present in both sexes. Not in equal amounts, of course - then again there is no such thing as a specific "male level" for it either. Studies have shown that testosterone levels raise and drop depending on one's lifestyle, and just like with physical strength, you will have some women who are more aggressive than some men. Which actually explains certain historical accounts, if you'd be interested in reading up on this topic. The Dahomey's Mino battalion is probably one of the more recent examples, but I am sure you have at least heard of the Shieldmaidens.
Relative testosterone changes. Absolute testosterone is far higher in men than in women, and capable of greater extremes. Testosterone is lowered by domestic things, child-rearing, stability etc. It is raised by warfare, so it is usless to say that it deviates when it does not do so arbitrarily.
Lynata wrote:Correcting flawed perceptions or even lies whose only purpose is to write female fighters out of history counts as revisionism now? Shouldn't we call it re-revisionism instead?
I'm not writing them out of history, but as far as I can tell, they played very little part. Yes there are examples of them, but given that conflict has been pretty much constant in humanity's history, with so many samples there are bound to be a lot of exceptions.
Lynata wrote:He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.
It's not clear to me. If he is argueing for realism, why is he argueing against an option for creating female player characters? Seeing that we have proof they were conscripted into the army. As women.
You can play as an elf for I care. It'd make as much sense.
Melissia wrote:
In the end, you're just hiding behind a guise of historical accuracy when the more accurate argument is that you simply prefer men, and only men, to be in your action games. Hot, sweaty, grunting men, a lot of them, and only them. Me, I'd like a few hot , sweaty, grunting women to be added in to the mix, myself.
You can play as whoever the hell you want. Plenty of games' premises make no fething sense at all, women running around 12th century (or whenever the war was) England and bashing peoples heads is just pretty absurd historically speaking.
There's no reason you couldn't have plenty of female player charectors in situations where it was feasable. You could be a SWAT officer going around shooting terrorists, or a scientist battling the undead.
Coolyo294 wrote:Can we stop arguing over women's roles in medieval combat and actually discuss the game?
I personally think it looks really cool.
I agree, it does. It's not my fault that my passing statement of "I think it'd be better if you could play a woman" caused nerdrage (because apparently, the attitude of "where should women be? wherever the hell we want to be!" is a feminazi sentiment).
Joey wrote:There's no reason you couldn't have plenty of female player charectors in situations where it was feasable.
Like in this game! It's very much feasible, and awesome, and also fun!
Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.
Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
No, I want augmented reality. If I wanted to walk around aimlessly trying to see people I didn't care about I'd move to the country.
There's a difference between a willing suspension of disbelief and interface design and you know it.
Then quit whining about realism, because you just admitted you don't care about it any more than I do.
As for believability, it is perfectly believable that female soldiers in that era exist (because they did) and can participate in combat (because they did). Just because of your own lack of ability to believe it doesn't mean that it's not believable, it just means that you have a warped and skewed view of the world and of history.
Pardon me for breaking Godwin's Law, but I'm fairly certain a nazi wouldn't find most WWII documentaries believable, either.
Orlanth wrote:Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.
This is not how it worked in history.
Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?
You kidding right? Where were all these female medieval warriors, got any references. The middle ages were more gender equal than later periods, but it didnt extend to the battlefield to any degree.
There was a reason that Jeanne D'Arc was highly unusual, people who claimed visions from God were common enough, but women bearing arms was not the norm.
Howz about you guys make your own thread about women in vidya games instead of bogging down this one? At the end of the day, no matter how much arguing and complaining you do here, nothing is going to change. If you feel so strongly about the matter, email the devs, or code your own game filled to the brim with female representation. Dragging down this thread is accomplishing a big fat wad of nothing.
Orlanth wrote:You kidding right? Where were all these female medieval warriors, got any references.
As I said earlier in this thread, the eligible 174 names of the Bridport Muster Roll - a levy by the Lancastrians - include the names of 5 women:
Alis Hammel: jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows
Alis Gare: bow, coat of plates
"Condefer Wife": sword, buckler, bow and arrows
(Margaret Athyn and Sally Pens do not have any equipment listed, but this goes for a full 39% of the names on that list; either their gear simply wasn't noted down or they did not have any but were prepared to be levied either way.)
Source for this is the The Royal Armouries Yearbook of 1997. The Royal Armouries is the UK's National Museum of Arms and Armour.
As Necroshea said, however, this back-and-forth discussion won't lead to anything, especially when previous posts listing arguments and sources aren't read. As such, I won't discuss it here any longer. In case anyone wants to pursue the subject further, I'd be willing to join in again on a separate thread or via private message.
Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.
No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior.
No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children. They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men. So a society that mobilised women to fight would a)cause a huge demographic hole in the local area, probably irrepairable and b)be far weaker than a male force, even of fewer numbers. Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.
Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.
Lynata wrote:
Perhaps it should be considered that in times of great need, even sexist societies have often overcome their bias and called at least some of their women to arms? As it happened in, for example, the Soviet Union during both world wars. Or England during the War of the Roses. There are more to be found throughout human history if you'd just bother to look them up.
In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?
You really cant think of women in the same light as modern women, you have to realize that women of ancient times worked VERY hard, they did not sit around and try to look pretty. They were out working farms, fixing equipment, cooking, slaughtering animals etc etc, I imagine they were significantly stronger back in the day than they are now. Ironically enough, men and women basically did all the same tasks every day, which would most likely close the strength gap in most cases. Common facts show us that modern men have (on average) greater muscle mass than your average women, as well as (again on average) greater lung capacity amongst other physical traits. However, these facts are gathered based on modern society, and likely does not fit society of hundreds of years ago.
Obviously none of us really have any idea how physically stronger men were many hundreds or thousands of years ago, but, it seems to make sense to me that if two people do the same work every day, eat the same food every day, for years, their strength would be pretty similar as well.
KingKodo wrote:[
Obviously none of us really have any idea how physically stronger men were many hundreds or thousands of years ago, but, it seems to make sense to me that if two people do the same work every day, eat the same food every day, for years, their strength would be pretty similar as well.
On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.
Palindrome wrote:On average men are 30-40% stronger than women.
In modern times, because women are expected to be rather lazy compared to men these days. A woman who has worked hard days on the farm all her life, like a drafted soldier in medieval times, is going to have far less of a difference, if any difference at all.
Palindrome wrote:The average woman is significantly weaker than the average man even if both have the same diet and do the same activitiies.
That is not a fact.
It is actually
As found out by Israeli research, with proper military training, the physical differences between men and women is drastically reduced, to something around five to ten percent difference at most.
Palindrome wrote:It seems to be Mount and Blade with unlockable weaponry. To be honest it could go either way.
Indeed. And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.
I think the game's concepts are pretty neat, myself.
Trondheim wrote:Those ten to five procents would mather quite alot in an event of war/hostilites.
Not enough for me to give a gak. This is a game, where you play out a fantasy. If it was a sim, most players would never make it in to combat in the first place, instead dying from disease or malnutrition. And you'd go days if not months between battles, and you'd only have one life ,then your account would close.
Your fantasy might include only sweating grunty men swinging vaguely phallic objects around at eachother, but mine also includes some sweaty grunting women swinging vaguely phallic objects around at eachother as well.
What, because I'm American that means that I care more whether the game is fun for me than than whether or not the game is historically accurate according to your masculine delusions?
I thought that just meant I'm a gamer. It's a game, fun is more important. Speaking of which, does anyone have videos of archers/crossbowmen in this game?
Trondheim wrote:Yes and my delusions don't have the backing of history.
Fixed that for you.
Women were drafted for these battles. It's well recorded, and many of them brought their own weapons and and several of them even brought their own armor.
Trondheim wrote:Oh ya? My history books seems to disagree with you yank
Lynata provided a source which proves taht your statement is historically inaccurate.
Lynata wrote:Actually, the Bridport Muster Roll of 1457 has a list of people called to join the Lancastrian army:
These are the names of ordinary people who were called up to the army. 174 names on the list are legible, and 5 of these (2.9%) are women. Alis Hammel has her own jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows. Alis Gare has a bow and a coat of plates. "Condefer Wife" has bow, arrows, sword and buckler. Margaret Athyn and Sally Pens do not have any equipment listed, but overall 39% of the names on the list do not have any equipment listed. -- found on this forum
And then we have Margaret of Anjou personally having led her army in combat. Granted, I doubt that she has actually fought (few commanders did), but there you have it: female soldiers and army commanders in the War of Roses. The historical precedent is given.
Unless one would want to pretend that these minorities never existed at all because they'd apparently attack the idea of male supremacy or something silly like that. A lot of people and organizations still seem to be interested in doing so!
I don't honestly care about historical accuracy, myself. I just want the game to be fun. But if you want to argue for historical accuracy, you'd be arguing TO include women. You, of course, aren't arguing for historical accuracy.
Trondheim wrote:I dont recall ever reading that in any book thou for all I know that can be pulled out of the ass of someone like you
Try looking for the "Bridport Muster Roll of 1457", then.
Most history books don't state the gender, either way, of soldiers in the War of the Roses. To be fair, most history books don't spend much time on the war to begin with.
I think the grittiness could get upped a bit more, not make everything brown but lets get a bit gorey.
If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.
It's kinda gross but I think that squick factor could make the game real "medieval" when you literally blow a hole through a guy's face with your lance. It'd also just make your blows all the more impactful and visceral. There already seems to be good weight to your attacks and good feedback but some good ole fashioned violence would make it feel like you're really fighting.
Also despite my obsession with blood gore and the fact that I play Slaanesh CSM and Dark Eldar, I'm not a weirdo...no really I mean it...
asimo77 wrote:If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.
Man, Max Payne got hard core.
That could work for this game, but for some reason it reminds me of F.A.T.A.L. and so you worry me...
It's almost funny what some defenders of historical realism actually know about history...
Can we please let this rest now?
Melissia wrote:And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.
To be fair, I thought "perks" reminds me of FallOut.
It's almost funny what some defenders of historical realism actually know about history...
That's because most of what they know about history comes from Hollywood, which is ironic cause Hollywood usually throws in a chick in armor for the hell of it.
EDIT: Though as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily trust everything on eNotes.
The next person who talks about this crap that has spanned 2 1/2, that no one other than themselves really care about, shall be executed by the Inquisition.
It's a bit pathetic that some posters here can't disagree without descending into personal attacks and generalised slurs.
War of the Roses is a cool time period to set a game in. Is "mount and blade" worth picking up then?
Also, let the player decide their gender. What's the harm. Even if everyone else is a bloke, how does it effect your gameplay to give someone else the option you disagree with?
Jeez.
asimo77 wrote:If you've seen the way damage is done in Max Payne 3 you know can really mess up dudes in that. I'm talking blowing out a dudes face leaving ragged strips of flesh and a pool of blood around the body.
Man, Max Payne got hard core.
That could work for this game, but for some reason it reminds me of F.A.T.A.L. and so you worry me...
Fine I'll enjoy these anal circumfrence tables all by myself!
<Simmer down; it's getting awfully heated in here, when we're discussing the historical accuracy of a video game. Enhance your calm, or lose your ability to post.>
Melissia wrote:And with perks, too, although again I wish they'd choose a different word, but because the average player is stupid and requires a call of duty reference, I guess they had to go with "perks" instead of some more applicable and intelligently picked term.
Also instead of perks we could have traits, dispositions, idiosyncrasies, quirks, advantages, talents, abilities, skills, and the list goes on.
"Hold on guys I need to spec my idiosyncrasies for DPS"
Da Boss wrote:Is "mount and blade" worth picking up then?
Mount & Blade is awesome. I can wholeheartedly recommend it - "Warband", anyways. I suppose the more recent "With Fire and Sword" is cool, too, if you like firearms thrown into the mix.
Back when I played M&B the first time it was still completely independent and not yet published by Paradox. You actually had to earn your first sword and started out with little more than a bunch of rags and a club. There actually was a "nun" background that had you begin the game just with a black robe and a staff, but you also had cool healing and inspiration talents. These days, you have a trusty steed and a good weapon right away, which fits to the title and the image propagated by the game's PR, but I thought that taking away this kind of progression somehow had you miss out on an important stage of this cool "come from nowhere, rise to power" theme the entire game is built upon. Matter of personal preferences tho.
Anyways, it's a very open world kind of game, where you have a lot of influence over your chosen progression. There are a few story missions, but generally, what you do with your character's life is entirely up to you. You can become a bandit king, a rich merchant, a sovereign's trusted general, a land-owning noble, or maybe even try reaching for the crown yourself? Naturally, the more you try to achieve, the more time it takes. In one of my "coziest" games my character ended up being some sort of Nord (pseudo-vikings, basically) tribal chief, with a wooden fort as a stronghold and about three villages paying tributes. Most money came from raiding nearby Swadian towns. My army wasn't large and was sorely missing in cavalry, but it had some very powerful troops that were hard to take down by the enemy, and had a great synergy with my own fighting style.
This "shield maiden" type of character is the one I've played in multiplayer as well, but instead of the two-handed sword I've led my Nords with I've opted for a more balanced setup in gear consisting of a round shield, a short nordic broadsword, and a few throwing axes. The latter were especially good against charging knights, as I used to throw them right into their horses' heads, causing the mount to topple and the rider to dismount - whereupon I'd get close and finish them off! Quite the risky maneuvre (as everything hinged upon whether or not my axe would hit), but it was quite epic if everything went well. Occasionally I also managed to hit the knight himself, causing him to fall down and allowing me to steal his mount.
It should be noted here that the game has a very good physics engine that calculates the effects of movement speed on damage, meaning that a lance will hurt more when you ride faster. Conversely, however, a throwing axe hurled at you will also hurt more since you're charging right into it!
The game is rather realistic in its damage model, meaning that you can easily die from one or two hits in the right places, at least until you are donning heavy platemail. Of course, this realistic damage only adds to the enjoyment, because you can literally mow down scores of AI opponents or other players - provided you don't go into rage mode just because you are one-shot by a stray high-arc arrow to the head.
In general, you will encounter a lot of amazing scenes where - either due to skill or sheer dumb luck, or any combination thereof - you'll end up doing some insane kills. The game's ragdoll physics mean that dead bodies will accurately tumble down from their horses or roll down castle stairs.
The best thing about "Warband" in comparison to its predecessor (the original M&B) is its multiplayer (up to 200 players on a map!), especially castle sieges. Huge fights where one side is trying to erect ladders or move towers close to the walls, whereas the defenders are shooting arrow after arrow and try to pick off enough of the attackers to stand a chance once the enemy starts breaking through. The castles and towns you're attacking or defending are well-designed, making for some diversified battles all requiring teamplay and, preferrably, a unique tactic to win.
I've got fond memories of one particular multiplayer battle where we had several scores of Khergites attempt to surrender our Rhodok infantry lines. Now, Khergites are basically M&B's version of Mongols, and they were all mounted archers. Our Rhodoks, however, had a vast number of spears and crossbows. The map had the ruins of an old village in the midst, so the game started with our side rushing for cover and shoving each other into those tiny houses. The Khergites quickly began to circle our position, constantly shooting their bows at us, whereas our crossbowmen peeked out of their cover and tried hitting the riders. Within the first five minutes, the entire map was littered with arrows and crossbow bolts sticking out of the ground or in the walls.
Oh yeah, did I mention that ammunition such as arrows and crossbow bolts (or any weapon, as well as shields) remain on the map to be picked up by whoever needs them?
Lastly, there's also an extremely vivid modding community for Mount & Blade. I've even played a Star Wars mod once, which changed the strategic map into space, towns into planets, and your horse into a star cruiser. On the battle maps, people were stormtroopers and rebels with speeder bikes for horses, blasters for crossbows, and lightsabers for swords.
So, give it a try. It costs... what, $20, $30 these days? Granted, it's a little more than back then (when M&B was still in alpha/beta, registration keys were really cheap - with the price gradually going up the closer the game got to full release), but for this much fun I'd say it's worth it.
asimo77 wrote:"Hold on guys I need to spec my idiosyncrasies for DPS"
Agreed with this guy, I have over 500 hours of gameplay in my Mount and Blade, it is the most original game I have played in a while, and there isn't really a huge amount in game terms that would actually match it.
The Napoleonic mod for it is also fantastically awesome!
Also, gameplay > graphics, though this too is a matter of personal preferences, judging by public reception (or ignorance) of some games these days. Or movies.
Colour me crazy, I for one still like to play some MoO2 every now and then simply because no other game got close to it yet.
Palindrome wrote: On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.
Like I said in my previous post, that fact is based on modern research, it really does not apply to society over 500 years ago where we all know that people worked MUCH harder than we do now, and ALL people (even women) were required to be much tougher and stronger than they are now.
I dont see how anyone can really argue that women shouldnt be in the game. The game is not going to be historically accurate anyways, it is not a simulator that is built on historical accuracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:Worth noting M&B is ugly as feth and has a terrible interface, bordering on the insulting. Rome Total war had better graphics.
You should note that your post is entirely your opinion, many people enjoy how the game looks and the interface. In fact, I think the game interface is fantastic, it operates very smoothly and is easy to navigate. You can also look up many different types of information (your standing with other lords and other factions. Party morale. Income and expenses, kill counts, your character's renown). The original mount and blade had mediocre graphics, but it also came out several years ago. The warband expansion came with a massive graphics upgrade that makes the game look very good, especially for such a large scale RTS. I think the world map view turns people off to the game, as they did not include much detail.
King Kodo, you were warned, so now you shall be executed by the Inquisition. Please remain where you are, and keep your hands behind your head.
I will say the combat in this games looks way, way, way too Mount and Blade, and M&B, despite graphics, does still look better, especially with the campaign aspect.
I think I shall just wait for M&B 2 rather than picking this up!
Palindrome wrote: On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.
Like I said in my previous post, that fact is based on modern research, it really does not apply to society over 500 years ago where we all know that people worked MUCH harder than we do now, and ALL people (even women) were required to be much tougher and stronger than they are now.
I dont see how anyone can really argue that women shouldnt be in the game. The game is not going to be historically accurate anyways, it is not a simulator that is built on historical accuracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:Worth noting M&B is ugly as feth and has a terrible interface, bordering on the insulting. Rome Total war had better graphics.
You should note that your post is entirely your opinion, many people enjoy how the game looks and the interface. In fact, I think the game interface is fantastic, it operates very smoothly and is easy to navigate. You can also look up many different types of information (your standing with other lords and other factions. Party morale. Income and expenses, kill counts, your character's renown). The original mount and blade had mediocre graphics, but it also came out several years ago. The warband expansion came with a massive graphics upgrade that makes the game look very good, especially for such a large scale RTS. I think the world map view turns people off to the game, as they did not include much detail.
I agree with women in game. Many silly arguments were posted here to speak up against women in the game.
However people were not stronger or thougher in these days. Although they had more and harder work to do, their food was bad, their health often spend before reaching the mid 20s.
Palindrome wrote:On average men are 30-40% stronger than women.
In modern times, because women are expected to be rather lazy compared to men these days. A woman who has worked hard days on the farm all her life, like a drafted soldier in medieval times, is going to have far less of a difference, if any difference at all.
No.
Take a man and a woman of the same age who have never worked out.
Give them a weight training regime. The man will be immediately able to lift more than the woman, he will improve weights quicker, increase muscle mass quicker, and have a higher ceiling. To suggest otherwise is a gross mis-representation of the human condition, to the extent that I have to wonder if you've actually seen what people are like.
Go into any street and you'll see plenty of well-built guys. You will not see many, if any, well-built girls.
Funnily enough I got into a play argument with a woman rugby player a few years ago who got insulted when I said I could out-wrestle her with one arm behind my back. Obviously I could, but that's besides the point. Men are about 50% stronger than women, and that difference is even greater with excersise.
This thing still going on? I thought we had established by now that a proper debate is impossible due to bias.
Also lol @ that 50% argument - have you even read the original document?
And the idea that the difference grows greater with exercise is extra BS, and I'm assuming the NSCA has to know.
I suggest we open another thread for this debate, maybe then this one can finally get back on its tracks.
Lynata wrote:This thing still going on? I thought we had established by now that a proper debate is impossible due to bias.
Also lol @ that 50% argument - have you even read the original document?
And the idea that the difference grows greater with exercise is extra BS, and I'm assuming the NSCA has to know.
I suggest we open another thread for this debate, maybe then this one can finally get back on its tracks.
Did you even read that?
50-60 per cent as strong in the arms.
muscle pound to muscle pound women are similar in strength to men.
Guess who weighs more?
This is a no-brainer. Anyone who's ever worked out knows full well the difference in strength between men and women.
Yup. Unlike you, I didn't take "52% in the upper body" meaning every single muscle, though.
I thought it was pretty interesting that women can supposedly train their muscle groups faster, though this is probably due to the greater gap between untrained individuals. Either way, you come off as if every single woman out there was a scrawny beanpole who hasn't got a chance against any man, which is just wrong on so many levels. Or, to bring this back to medieval times, I would think that some village's female blacksmith would be much stronger than a male tailor. And both could be drafted for a levy. As I said, on the battlefield there is no such thing as the "average men" - that kind of stuff looks neat on paper but falls apart in practice.
Physical differences are a fact, but you probably wouldn't want to bar men from becoming fighter pilots just because the female gender has some innate advantages there, or do you?
The only fair treatment would be a case-by-case examination, as people are unique and often do not conform to averages.
IMO, Mount and blade warband looks to have better graphics than this game. We havent seen much besides the combat, so, it is difficult to say which game is more immersive, but I doubt it will be more so than mount and blade warband.
It sort of looks like you just select equipment for your character and then jump into games and fight other people, which would be neat for a while, but that kind of gameplay can get boring after a while.
Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.
Oddly enough, that's what I think I enjoyed most about Morrowind. As soon as they put in the option to just follow a Quest Marker, the game stopped really being the same series to me. Especially with the sudden switch to Generic Midieval Fantasy #3.
Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.
Oddly enough, that's what I think I enjoyed most about Morrowind. As soon as they put in the option to just follow a Quest Marker, the game stopped really being the same series to me. Especially with the sudden switch to Generic Midieval Fantasy #3.
Really? 3 hours walking around the countryside looking for a flower, at the end of which you get no gold or XP whatsoever? Meh, each to their own.
