Are not there A BIT (a lot) of women in the game? And they are playing a lot of "man" roles.

[five bucks]

@Apocal Not saying they shouldn't be included at all, what is being said here is that they're overrepresented.

If we were talking real-life ratios of female to male battlefield commanders it would be something like 100:1. Consider that in 100 years between 1000AD and 1100AD, there were only around 8 recorded female commanders in and around Europe during that whole time (some of whom, like Adela of Hamaland, were only active for two battles). You wouldn't be running into them in every country you went to.

 

[LordMe]

This is a fantasy world sexist.

 

[dannazgu]

It's incredible to see how even on facsmile world o the real one... Masculinity is fragile as well.

Make no mistake, i'm a man, too...I'm not bothered to see women leading parties, governing it, etc... I use my wife to govern my fiefs, because her skill suit my needs. But again, a fasimile game of the real world.

Many say, women don't play videogames.. well, mate.. You're wrong, and you're forgetting TW has female on it staff so many to them reading this must be a insult, that makes you an *******.

I know many gamers women, my gf is one of them, probably because of me. She stil make some critics about this, but fine.

There was women as commanders in real world, women warriors, women governs, Empress; Queens, fictional or not. Women who brough havoc to the world of men and led bettern than a human being with a cock. Even in modern days we see this happens.

So, I know this meieval world, patriachy and etc.. I understand, but Women in history real world or not they make part of it, a great part of it. WOmen were powerful allies to their husband in Ancient Rome; Celts; Arabs; Persians; Greeks; Slavs and scandinavias; turks; etc...

So, don't have your masculinity fragilized for that..Do you criticize Skyrim for having a hero Woman? Dragon age in medieval world for having Warrior Queens, Diplomats, heroes?

Take your hea dout your ass a bit, a see the world as its...

I bet in this forum you ppl have offended thousand of gamers, proabbly some WOmen who doesnt want take up a debate for that, because of misogynist

Be calm and remember,

It's just a game to make you feel the fun for it, not your livehood

 

[Apocal]

@Apocal Not saying they shouldn't be included at all, what is being said here is that they're overrepresented.

There are definitely people arguing that point, the thread is tagged "remove women from every corner" after all. Along with:

Women are never found in any army in Medieval societies in any context.

Obviously a bit of wild take, especially with "in any context" because armies habitually included camp followers in the medieval period. I mean, I hope most people playing this game aren't going to deny the historicity of Joan of Arc, lol.

 

[stevehoos]

There are definitely people arguing that point, the thread is tagged "remove women from every corner" after all. Along with:


Obviously a bit of wild take, especially with "in any context" because armies habitually included camp followers in the medieval period. I mean, I hope most people playing this game aren't going to deny the historicity of Joan of Arc, lol.

Joan of Arc never participated in combat, she was a rallying point, that is it. Secondly, a baggage train is not part of a military commanders order of battle, they are non combatants making them not part of the main army. Not sure where you get "wild take" from in the context of this conversation?

 

[Kut]

They quoting me i think for ratio estimation. Let me explain this:

1- Whole world, not just europe. At least to the Calradia's borders.

2- Ratios are close to the historic ratios; because my estimation takes female admin npcs too. If you consider this, it is a correct term. Because they are already not above than forty - fifty percent in the game.

3- Right now, as Duh said, generally there is a lack of commander npcs. That's why non-combat pro-admin npcs marching around. If commanding npcs increases in the future, those admin npcs, unless there is a crisis in their world, will not march with their armies in Calradia. When they not march, you will see only the warrior/commander female npcs generally. And they are less than the female admin npcs.

So it will be not bend the history, but this doesn't mean 1000:1 ratio is neither correct (history doesn't collect every lived human beings data, we still know too little -despite the millions of data, for almost every era) nor a preferable thing. This is a game. And games has limitations. You can tweak or multiplie things. So there is no over-presentation imo. But under-presentation ? That's no too, but it weights down there. More interactions preferably needed in "admin/ruler/warrior/commander/criminal/merchant/elder/spy/etc."

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Women are never found in any army in Medieval societies in any context. Nice try though.

Joan of Arc never participated in combat, she was a rallying point, that is it. Secondly, a baggage train is not part of a military commanders order of battle, they are non combatants making them not part of the main army.

隐藏

(not that it matters, you're wrong in both cases)

 

[Apocal]

Joan of Arc never participated in combat, she was a rallying point, that is it. Secondly, a baggage train is not part of a military commanders order of battle, they are non combatants making them not part of the main army. Not sure where you get "wild take" from in the context of this conversation?

Joan of Arc certainly participated in combat: she was wounded twice, once by arrow, the other time by a bolt. As to the other thing, armies include a lot when you throw the term "in any context" in there, certainly the camp and the baggage train.

 

[stevehoos]

Joan of Arc certainly participated in combat: she was wounded twice, once by arrow, the other time by a bolt. As to the other thing, armies include a lot when you throw the term "in any context" in there, certainly the camp and the baggage train.

Joan never actually fought in battle or killed an opponent, this is well known historically.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Joan never actually fought in battle or killed an opponent, this is well known historically.

Neither did 99% of soldiers throughout history.

 

[Apocal]

Joan never actually fought in battle or killed an opponent, this is well known historically.

No one said she killed anyone, only that she participated in battle.

 

[redmark]

Eowyn ruined LoTR for me.

 

[stevehoos]

Neither did 99% of soldiers throughout history.

That's a complete non sequitur.

No one said she killed anyone, only that she participated in battle.

She never engaged another fighter in any battle. This is redundant. She was a non combatant.

 

[Timmortal]

Eowyn ruined LoTR for me.

Yep completely no Nazgul were ever killed by a woman in real history. Completely immersion breaking.

 

[Ling*]

I play as a female in most of my playthroughs, my MP character is also female. I still personally don't like the ratio of male/female leaders however this doesn't bother me nearly as much as locking specific skillsets behind genders. There is no male Spice-Vendor equivalent, and they have some of the best stats for what I need. I personally would like to see these options presented to all genders so that players from both sides of the argument can be happy by being able to choose what gender of wanderers make a good fit in their team, instead of being forced to pick a gender they don't necessarily think fits with their particular Roleplay.

 

[Bigamo]

I married Silvind, she was a great fighter, she had 3 children with character and then died in a siege battle (need to be toned down, right now it's better just autoresolve sieges as the chance of losing companions and lords is insane). Then I married Assela, not a super fighter per se. But good at tactics and stuff. We had a son together and she was pregnant of our second soon, but she was a strong, independent female and wanted to take part in a huge battle with me. She was murdered, her and our little baby inside her belly. ?

Then after such great tragedies I remembered what women are made for. Married again. This time she is a great governor, take good care of the kids (already have 2 with her, and 4 with my dead wives. ?) She is in town, safe and being protected by her overprotective husband that moves armies and kill thousands to ensure that she is keep safe. Now she will not die and my kids are well educated with her. Oh, and the dishes are properly clean now also.

 

[stevehoos]

I play as a female in most of my playthroughs, my MP character is also female. I still personally don't like the ratio of male/female leaders however this doesn't bother me nearly as much as locking specific skillsets behind genders. There is no male Spice-Vendor equivalent, and they have some of the best stats for what I need. I personally would like to see these options presented to all genders so that players from both sides of the argument can be happy by being able to choose what gender of wanderers make a good fit in their team, instead of being forced to pick a gender they don't necessarily think fits with their particular Roleplay.

I agree with you, people should be able to play how they want, it's a video game.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

That's a complete non sequitur.


She never engaged another fighter in any battle. This is redundant. She was a non combatant.

If your (conveniently specific) criteria for a combatant is whether they actually face off against an enemy or even kill them, then the majority of soldiers in any army are noncombatants, especially in the middle ages where casualties were so low, and actual decisive field battles between entire armies were very rare.

 

[stevehoos]

If your (conveniently specific) criteria for a combatant is whether they actually face off against an enemy or even kill them, then the majority of soldiers in any army are noncombatants, especially in the middle ages where casualties were so low, and actual decisive field battles between entire armies were very rare.

Joan of Arc did not participate in melee combat because she would have been at an extreme disadvantage against men. She never fought in combat in battle in her entire life. It has nothing to do with casualty totals, decisive field battles, or whether the entire armies engaged. The definition of a non combatant is someone who does not fight period, it has nothing to do with non engagement in a battle. This is not even an argument, you need to go back to the drawing board and present something else.

Here I looked the definition up for you: Noncombatant: A person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner. That does not include soldiers who happen to not be engaged in a particular battle.

 

[Timmortal]

Joan of Arc did not participate in melee combat because she would have been at an extreme disadvantage against men. She never fought in combat in battle in her entire life. It has nothing to do with casualty totals, decisive field battles, or whether the entire armies engaged. The definition of a non combatant is someone who does not fight period, it has nothing to do with non engagement in a battle. This is not even an argument, you need to go back to the drawing board and present something else.

Here I looked the definition up for you: Noncombatant: A person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner. That does not include soldiers who happen to not be engaged in a particular battle.

So you would call a general a non-combatant?