Why so concerned about this being a historical game?
Most of the posts one reads around here always have a "this is not historically correct" or "this is a historical game" mention. I think the source of a lot of frustration is a misguided view of the game, and of the past. There is a very big difference in "historical game" and "historically inspired". The first one would be Kingdom Come Deliverance which does have that claim, the second one could be a novel like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
And in this topic , which retrieved it from a post posted by someone, most of the "this was different in the past" arguments is more of a bias or argument to justify what one wants for the game and not necessarily what it was. I'm not going to get into a debate about epistemology of history and theory of history, but it would be nice if we were aware that this is not a historical game, the developers and moderators themselves have said so several times. So they can do what they like with gender roles, armor functioning, etc....
The problem in these things could be that it has no congruence with the narrative of some characters or the overall construction of the world itself. For example gender roles, where most of the female companions complain about their role in society but in practice it is not different. But other than that it's not a problem that you find many women leading an army if that's how the world the creators built works. Because it's a game... we shouldn't be bothered by that and integration is not a problem either.
What I do want to repeat, the game is inspired by history, but it is not historical. They can take from it what they like and what they don't like from it; values in armor, army formations, etc... they are not limited by accuracy and veracity. Because if it were like that, let me tell you, it would be a super boring game where battles would be 2 min. So I recommend that we focus our energies on other things and not just "I want the game to be like this because I like this o its not historycally" By that, I mean it's fine for us to discuss armor values. But with an internal idea of the world they made, with the balance in progression, costs, investment, etc... Point out the flaws that for example is investing in caravans and hardly getting the investment back, the balance of wars, etc....
It would help us if we are less passionate to us to avoid frustration and developers or moderators would find it more pleasant to read our requests.
Last thing my original language is not English so excuse spelling or writing mistakes.
Most of the posts one reads around here always have a "this is not historically correct" or "this is a historical game" mention. I think the source of a lot of frustration is a misguided view of the game, and of the past. There is a very big difference in "historical game" and "historically inspired". The first one would be Kingdom Come Deliverance which does have that claim, the second one could be a novel like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
And in this topic , which retrieved it from a post posted by someone, most of the "this was different in the past" arguments is more of a bias or argument to justify what one wants for the game and not necessarily what it was. I'm not going to get into a debate about epistemology of history and theory of history, but it would be nice if we were aware that this is not a historical game, the developers and moderators themselves have said so several times. So they can do what they like with gender roles, armor functioning, etc....
The problem in these things could be that it has no congruence with the narrative of some characters or the overall construction of the world itself. For example gender roles, where most of the female companions complain about their role in society but in practice it is not different. But other than that it's not a problem that you find many women leading an army if that's how the world the creators built works. Because it's a game... we shouldn't be bothered by that and integration is not a problem either.
What I do want to repeat, the game is inspired by history, but it is not historical. They can take from it what they like and what they don't like from it; values in armor, army formations, etc... they are not limited by accuracy and veracity. Because if it were like that, let me tell you, it would be a super boring game where battles would be 2 min. So I recommend that we focus our energies on other things and not just "I want the game to be like this because I like this o its not historycally" By that, I mean it's fine for us to discuss armor values. But with an internal idea of the world they made, with the balance in progression, costs, investment, etc... Point out the flaws that for example is investing in caravans and hardly getting the investment back, the balance of wars, etc....
It would help us if we are less passionate to us to avoid frustration and developers or moderators would find it more pleasant to read our requests.
Last thing my original language is not English so excuse spelling or writing mistakes.