Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

You get used to it.

.

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?

Doctadeth, I said PERIOD platemail for women.

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)

Melissia wrote:"lady plate mail".

Seems both practical and lightweight while freeing up resources to make more weapons as the amount of metal involved is minimal.

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.

I find it both amusing and worrying how some people are so adamant at dismissing the existence of female warriors in these periods of time, though apparently much of this opinion is based on a lack of knowledge and contemporary society propagating a cliché. No wonder how even today many humans grow up believing the bias if even their school books say that all knights were male or how contemporary media continue to press women into a sexualized role.

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.

Lynata wrote:

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.

Yep, that looks about right.

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.

Palindrome wrote:

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.

Palindrome wrote:

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.

Palindrome wrote:Period femaile platemail didn't exist.

Yes it did. It looked something like this.

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.

It's platemail refitted for a woman's physique.

There's a very good reason why "boob cup armor" exists mostly in fantasy. BECAUSE IT SUCKS.

Palindrome wrote:

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...

Melissia wrote:


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.

More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.

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.

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.

Perkustin wrote:That is not period female plate armour, that is a painting of a woman in armour.

... a painting originating from the time period.

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.

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.

Dude, lets settle this argument. If I am coming down on the side of tolerance and acceptance, you know it is over. Period fething Dot.

Lynata wrote:

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.

Lynata wrote:

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.

I see no issue with allowing female characters.

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.