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

[stevehoos]

yes


In the spirit of the above reply, I'll keep this quick. Firstly, the nebulous threat of pregnancy really doesn't mean it's inconceivable (haha, pun) that a woman would join a campaign. They still did. Secondly, yes I do think that Medieval society (and Roman, too) was sexist, and that this was a big reason why they didn't recruit women. Finally, I do think that modding women out of a fictional video game for "historical accuracy" hints at a sexist mindset. Would you write Brienne of Tarth out of GoT for "biological realism?" Your inability to suspend disbelief speaks volumes. That's all, goodbye.

Are you really using a fictional series to argue a point about Medieval history? I see this is the source of knowledge, HBO movies...Good day, Thank God, yes bye.

 

[method man]

But GoT is much higher fantasy than the M&B universe, which has no magical elements

Personally, I don't think Brienne of Tarth is the product of magic. I think that there are women built like her in the real world, too. There is no non-sexist reason why these women couldn't be good fighters. That's why it'd be weird to remove her from GoT and, by the same logic, the possibility of female warriors from BL.

On top of that, companions in game are always complaining about how sexist the Calradian culture is, yet having quite high female participation as leaders of crime rings, troop recruiters, and at least one female military commander in every single faction contradicts this. Is Calradia sexist, or not?

Honestly, this is a very good point. If Calradian women are complaining about being oppressed and excluded, then casting so many of them as influential is probably lazy, inconsistent worldbuilding on TW's part. That's something they need to fix. It could be that these women feel excluded in the more modern sense. That is, they can achieve positions of power but it's harder for them than for a man. For some reason, I think it's just TW being crap.

Given that, I think the devs should either change the dialogue (which I would prefer) or change the ratios. It's weird to have sexism for "realism." It isn't weird to make your game's world true to the way you envision it.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

The very idea of having women fighting with swords in equal capability with men is a sad joke.

I just gotta crap on this point because although it might be semi-true for peasant/low class women VRS men of same class, A Noble Woman who has all her free time to practice fighting and eat lots of calories (big and strong) would easily be much more powerful then the average male soldier.

 

[stevehoos]

I just gotta crap on this point because although it might be semi-true for peasant/low class women VRS men of same class, A Noble Woman who has all her free time to practice fighting and eat lots of calories (big and strong) would easily be much more powerful then the average male soldier.

A soldier is going to beat a woman in melee combat 90% of time no matter what training she has. It's a matter of muscle structure and brute force, this is not ninja movies where people fight nice and dance around. The average height of a woman in the modern U.S. in 2020 is 5'3" with gyms and better diets. Nothing is going to make you "big and strong" enough to beat even the below average male that also is a soldier.

 

[method man]

A Noble Woman who has all her free time to practice fighting and eat lots of calories (big and strong) would easily be much more powerful then the average male soldier.

read, @stevehoos

 

[Shadow Boss]

that there are biological differences regarding the peak athletic capabilities is honestly irrelevant, most soldiers in any case do not and did not achieve anything close to the peak.

Name me 1 reason why you don't mute a guy who all marked us with negative label " Misoginist living in fantasies"

And mute a man who points out biological difference?

Seems kinda prejudicates you allow people to say we (labeled misoginists) are trash and mute people who just say that women are weaker without any offense and negative.

Funny how femobase is literally privelleged by mods.

They can **** talk us - but we can't so same.

 

[stevehoos]

read, @stevehoos

You might want to sit down for this:

Men are stronger than women 90% of the time, there are rare exceptions. The sexes will never be equal in this way, women are much better at being women than men with things like emotional reasoning. Woman are smarter in many ways because of their ability to be agreeable. Men can be prone to violence, it's not smart.

 

[Shadow Boss]

@CANTON

Maybe this will cheer you up my dear femboy. The quote will be in the end.

I am a historian by my education I am norwegian and living in Russia about 1/3 of my life.

There are 1 woman monarch for 800 years in Norway.
There are 117 times fewer women monarchs in Finnish/Swedish/Dansk cotries together.

There are 879 times fewer female commanders known in history of Russia+Scandinavia.

There were some shieldmaidens primarly in Scandinavia. Russia? No. England? No. Italy? Give me a rest.

Maybe a dose of REAL LIFE MEDIEVAL will calm you. And therefor I present you the DEVELOPERS QUOTE

"Remember that in TRADITIONAL MEDIEVAL SOCIETY !!! DEPICTED IN GAME !!! War and politics are usually DOMINATED BY MEN"

This is what developers wrote when game world was not pressed by femobase.

 

[Shadow Boss]

Plus (mod dont ban me for double post because it is another thought and thesis)

I NEVER said women should be removed for all and depict a real life.

I just said their quantity SHOULD NOT BE 1/1 to men. Maybe 1 female for 6-7 men will fit the game. And I am talking about following roles.

Gang leaders.
Traders.
Artisans.
Warlords.
Warrior swordsMAN companions.

And it should be depent on culture. Aserai should not have women gang leaders at all. Imagine arab man is ruled by a woman.

It is funny how yall try to say it's ok but it is not.

If you don't care at all why are you so eager to protect 1/1 ratio?) Lol.

 

[LEM()N]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a game, that is inspired by history, to be more historical. Even fixing the historically inaccurate ratio of women to men in male dominated rolls. The problem is that some of these people here are putting blinders on and ignoring every other major inaccuracy. When I hear " I will mod them out of the game when it is completed. I happen to like something resembling history" and with tags like this "#remove #women #from #every #corner" it is pretty clear some people here have a big personal issues with women and they're just hiding behind the "it's more historical" argument. I never got a response when asked about other historical inaccuracies. At this point this is sexism with a hint of being a dumb **** for not realizing all the other inaccuracies.


Who the **** comes up with these tags?? lol. This is such a bait thread, not even sure why I feed these trolls
This post already sums up my argument clearly

You're completely wrong in about 5 different ways, but here are some things in the game that aren't found in any medieval context, which have a far greater impact on the game than a few too many vaginas:

1. Recruiting soldiers from bakers
2. Levelling up soldiers by getting them to kill looters
3. Killing "looters" (i.e. completely naked )
4. All the armour and weapons. All of them.
5. The entire economic system.
6. The entire combat system.
7. The entire clan system.
8. The entire campaigning system.
9. The way siege assaults are conducted.
10. The way battles begin, are won, and how they look.

I could go on but you get the idea.

Whenever this same discussion happens I really get the impression that you either don't care or know much about history, you just have a very specific pop culture idea of the middle ages in your head and you get uncomfortable when that is broken. I don't blame you for this, most people are the same, but using history to back up your argument when the entire game is far more inaccurate is very weird, like mowing your lawn while your house burns down. If I wanted bannerlord to be a facsimile of medieval europe I would actually agree with you here, but it clearly isn't, and never will be at this rate.

 

[method man]

Firstly, there is no such thing as a "femobase." What is wrong with you? Secondly, I already said that, if TW is explicitly trying to mirror real society, then their decision to put a lot of women in positions of power is lazy, inconsistent worldbuilding. Your anger is quite uncalled for. Especially when you consider that I agree with you. I think that TW should change the ratio of women since they're just trying to emulate history with no creative license. That's not an argument for realism, that's an argument for staying true to your vision.

My argument is that a medieval-type world doesn't have to be sexist. Yes, women are biologically weaker than men on aggregate. However, there are women who could fight just as well as an average man. Regardless, sexism wasn't an inevitable feature of society. If TW wanted to make Calradia less sexist, then having women in power/fighting isn't farfetched. I thought that TW's intent was to create that sort of world in game. If it was, that would've been a perfectly legitimate decision.

 

[Shadow Boss]

@LEM()N

Dude I wrote remove woman from every corner not literally to remove all of them.

You never read my posts or try to understand me right?

I said i have EIGHT of TEN 8/10 battles with fem commanders and most gang leaders are females too also I have medic engineer men but all my sworsMEN are women.

I just say they ARE EVERYWHERE (in every corner)

It's not a negative connotation but a phrasal sentense in russian. Meant theycare everywhere.

Also read my post above. About history. I am an educated man. And also developers never did this kind of ratios in games before.

 

[Shadow Boss]

@CANTON

Exuse me dear friend but medieval society HAS to stay "sexist" In terms of. Most stuff is still resolving with force means men should be ready to protect their trade. Women gang leaders especially on aserai is a joke.

Women are ought to do house work, they are literally keepers of fire, raising cgildren while men are sent to war.

Sending women to war means death of nation becuase they will lose ability to reproduce. And also who will raise children?

You have 0 arguments in this conversation and you make me sad as a historian with international diploma.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

This pointless thread still going on?

 

[Shadow Boss]

This pointless thread still going on?

Then don't check it, for all sakes.

This is forum. People are exchanging opinions, yes, some are more harsh some are less.

But if people are speaking - this IS a problem, and they HAVE A RIGHT to speak. Please don't try to censor or say it's pointless. Maybe devs will eventually check it.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Men are stronger than women 90% of the time, there are rare exceptions

But there's NO STREAGHNTH STAT IN BANNERLORD!
If she can put on armor and get on a horse and kinda aim a bow she's the same as any other lord in the game!

 

[KSHMR]

The role of the male and the female are becoming increasingly unbalanced in the 21st century. Femininity should be destroyed and we must let the natural balance of roles return for the sake of everyone.

People want men and women to be equal, we can be equal in some regards but we are far from the same..

 

[stevehoos]

But there's NO STREAGHNTH STAT IN BANNERLORD!
If she can put on armor and get on a horse and kinda aim a bow she's the same as any other lord in the game!

I am not sure why they got rid of that stat, makes it hard to tell the difference between high tier troops and low tier troops.

 

[five bucks]

Personally, I don't think Brienne of Tarth is the product of magic. I think that there are women built like her in the real world, too.

Honestly, this is a very good point. If Calradian women are complaining about being oppressed and excluded, then casting so many of them as influential is probably lazy, inconsistent worldbuilding on TW's part. That's something they need to fix. It could be that these women feel excluded in the more modern sense. That is, they can achieve positions of power but it's harder for them than for a man. For some reason, I think it's just TW being crap.

Given that, I think the devs should either change the dialogue (which I would prefer) or change the ratios. It's weird to have sexism for "realism." It isn't weird to make your game's world true to the way you envision it.

Oh, for sure physically strong women like Brienne of Tarth would have existed in real life in the 11th century (which is also why I support the option of the player being able to train up warrior women). But the main point I want to make about single examples is how very rare they were. Let's say you have 500 noble military commanders in/around Europe in the year 1080. In that year, there was only 1 female military commander on record: Sikelgaita (who only commanded for two battles). So that's a male-female ratio of 500:1; in other words, running into a female military commander would be very rare. But in Bannerlord, the ratio is about 10:1, depending on the faction. This is the issue, rarity. I don't want to go the other way and have 0 female military commanders because that would be unrealistic too.

You say it's weird to have sexism for realism. I think it's important to note the game is already sexist. People aren't even asking for sexism to be implemented-- they're asking for the existing sexism to be tweaked to be more realistic. Since we're already there, why not finish the job instead of half-assing it? A partially sexist game pleases neither the gender equality crowd nor the medieval immersion crowd, at the end of the day.

At any rate, I'm glad we agree generally.

 

[stevehoos]

Oh, for sure physically strong women like Brienne of Tarth would have existed in real life in the 11th century (which is also why I support the option of the player being able to train up warrior women). But the main point I want to make about single examples is how very rare they were. Let's say you have 500 noble military commanders in/around Europe in the year 1080. In that year, there was only 1 female military commander on record: Sikelgaita (who only commanded for two battles). So that's a male-female ratio of 500:1; in other words, running into a female military commander would be very rare. But in Bannerlord, the ratio is about 10:1, depending on the faction. This is the issue, rarity. I don't want to go the other way and have 0 female military commanders because that would be unrealistic too.

You say it's weird to have sexism for realism. I think it's important to note the game is already sexist. People aren't even asking for sexism to be implemented-- they're asking for the existing sexism to be tweaked to be more realistic. Since we're already there, why not finish the job instead of half-assing it? A partially sexist game pleases neither the gender equality crowd nor the medieval immersion crowd, at the end of the day.

At any rate, I'm glad we agree generally.

Sikelgaita was middle aged at this time and was never involved in combat in those battles, she was a non combatant. I will take Joan of Arc 2.0 for 1,000. Did she command troops yes, did she fight, no. Again distinctions are important.