I want to be a woman.

[IA]

Ask and ye shall receive. Better use of time anyway.

 

[Crimson Champion]

Hardly anti-woman. I love women. I just know they enjoy winning over a man  Learn to take jokes.... Also I think god is neither and puts on the song " I can do anything you can do " every time he hears a he/she argument.

CUTE PUPPIES

 

[MrGrendel]

Using a rapier doesn't require a great deal of brute force.

No, waving a light piece of metal around doesn't require a lot of force.

Clicking a button to parry is real easy and all but do you think that, in reality, when your rapier touches another weapon, some sort of magical force is generated that makes them stop their attack at you? You do understand, in reality, you have to use your muscles to make these kind of things happen, and what's opposing them is the other person's muscles? Even a bit of strength can make a huge difference... sometimes it's simply a matter of "can you or can't you." A severe enough blow to a parrying weapon can even knock it out of your hand. It's going to happen sooner or later, the only question then being if you are strong enough to hold on to it. I've had it happen to me before, but mostly when I was sparring someone larger, or had been knocked off balance. (Usually by someone who was larger than me.)

Or using a gun.  The whole, "girls can't participate because of body mass" is just totally irrelevant by the 17th Century, because combat changed.

Noone said they can't participate or use a gun. There are really three conversations going on here.

1. "Women are just as good as men in melee combat, and this is justification that they rightly belong in a historically flavored game."

This one is ridiculous.

2. "Women sometimes took part in war in history, and female characters should be playable in With Fire and Sword."

I agree.

3. "Armor(???)"

No idea what this is doing here.

By limiting the combat form through rules to create a situation where strength has increased value is an excessively detached and artificial circumstance, and by you calling it 'fact' as if it applies to real combat elates directly to your inability to acknowledge the other influencing factors that I've all ready provided you.

Like I've all ready covered about amor deflection, weapon deflection, redirection as opposed to strike absorption, and the actual strikes themselves.

And like Xeno mentioned with the armors by in large not being as heavy in the 17th century, so 'strength to overcome' isn't even necessary, consequential, or resultantly valid.

Armor has no bearing at all on gender differences. You're not just overcoming armor with your strength, you're overcoming your opponent and their strength. Living creatures can be pretty tough, how much of them you can chop might make the difference between stopping them cold and wether they get in a last stab at you, too.

If you feel my analogy of a 120lb vs a 200lb fighter is lacking in "variables" then my challenge from earlier holds: name one single difference between men and women that swings the advantage back towards women, with some statistics to back it up, and we can throw it in the mix and consider it. Until then, it's pretty obvious that men have a huge edge in melee combat, and practically the entire history of humanity supports this.

 

[Darkcerb]

There might be some confusion here...we're talking about a game here right? not a documentary, and even if we were there have been women fighters at all points in history. The only reason they're not in fire and sword is laziness which seems to be the defining point of fire and sword.

 

[Dunedin]

No, waving a light piece of metal around doesn't require a lot of force.

Clicking a button to parry is real easy and all but do you think that, in reality, when your rapier touches another weapon, some sort of magical force is generated that makes them stop their attack at you? You do understand, in reality, you have to use your muscles to make these kind of things happen, and what's opposing them is the other person's muscles? Even a bit of strength can make a huge difference... sometimes it's simply a matter of "can you or can't you." A severe enough blow to a parrying weapon can even knock it out of your hand. It's going to happen sooner or later, the only question then being if you are strong enough to hold on to it. I've had it happen to me before, but mostly when I was sparring someone larger, or had been knocked off balance. (Usually by someone who was larger than me.)

Noone said they can't participate or use a gun. There are really three conversations going on here.

1. Women are just as good as men in melee combat, and this is justification that they rightly belong in a historically flavored game.

This one is ridiculous.

2. Women sometimes took part in war in history, and female characters should be playable in With Fire and Sword.

I agree.

3. Armor(???)

No idea what this is doing here.

Armor has no bearing at all on gender differences. You're not just overcoming armor with your strength, you're overcoming your opponent and their strength. Living creatures can be pretty tough, how much of them you can chop might make the difference between stopping them cold and wether they get in a last stab at you, too.

If you feel my analogy of a 120lb vs a 200lb fighter is lacking in "variables" then my challenge from earlier holds: name one single difference between men and women that swings the advantage back towards women, with some statistics to back it up, and we can throw it in the mix and consider it. Until then, it's pretty obvious that men have a huge edge in melee combat, and practically the entire history of humanity supports this.

I gave the reasons I thought the analogy was flawed in my comment. If you can't read then I'm sorry.

I also gave citation earlier that actually covers your assertion about parrying and how it's inaccurate to at least eastern and german fighting styles (not so sure about Russian, Polish, etc, but I assume it's a similar style when it comes to the saber and longsword.

The armor comment came rom your assertion about strength required to penetrate armor and my ensuing correction that people don't 'penetrate' but instead circumvent armor.

And I even addressed the problem with the argument you labeled as 1. earlier with a notation on a thought exercise.

It as I said multiple times and cited from multiple arts. Taking a direct strike with your strength and body is entirely wrong. For that matter even doing so in boxing is wrong.

By saying you're pitting your muscle against another's when you are sword fighting is very directly a wrong assertion. Fencing, epee, rapier, longsword, katana, even claymore all explicitly tell you to not try to block a blow directly. Likewise knocking a weapon out of one's hand or sending them off balance is again a case redirecting force.

My friend Daniel Geller is a pretty short guy compared to many National fencers, yet he's nationally ranked. He's perfectly capable of deflecting and even knocking the sword out of the opponent's hand, because he's flicking it out not trying to use his sword like a bat.

I'd have to know more about how you failed in order to understand what you mean by being overpowered in whichever sword style you're referring to.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Strength is still an advantage.

 

[Dunedin]

Strength is still an advantage.

...

Oh ye gods. If you can't get what I've been arguing about then I give up.

It's like people have a mental inability to understand the curve of importance of skill versus strength.

Like I said, I acknowledge it. But I also acknowledge it's a single factor and that there's much more to it that matters much more in the long run.

Bleh. Nap time. :p

 

[seaknight]

Well, this tread is keeping up with the entertainment value of the game lol

 

[angrytigerp]

Strength is still an advantage.

Yeah, those muskets had a really hard trigger pull.

 

[dk3dknight]

Using a rapier doesn't require a great deal of brute force.

No, waving a light piece of metal around doesn't require a lot of force.

Clicking a button to parry is real easy and all but do you think that, in reality, when your rapier touches another weapon, some sort of magical force is generated that makes them stop their attack at you? You do understand, in reality, you have to use your muscles to make these kind of things happen, and what's opposing them is the other person's muscles? Even a bit of strength can make a huge difference... sometimes it's simply a matter of "can you or can't you." A severe enough blow to a parrying weapon can even knock it out of your hand. It's going to happen sooner or later, the only question then being if you are strong enough to hold on to it. I've had it happen to me before, but mostly when I was sparring someone larger, or had been knocked off balance. (Usually by someone who was larger than me.)

That has absolutely nothing to do with gender at all..

For example im about a few cm shot of 6 feet, I went to walmart, the clerk was of the female gender.
She towered over me she had to been 8 foot or 9 foot, regardless of my gender or hers she was taller,
and in pure strength, I knew I would lose, in pure leverage alone.

By golly this is sounding like a episode of an anime show where they talked about Hikaru's weak spot
was she was small vs a stronger taller female opponent..

God rolls us with our initial stats but by golly its are own choices to improve on those stats, and if we
play it right we counter any objective.  Tallness, reach are all things that can be countered, and
your right a human being is not one too fall easily.. and why the bloody hell is my cat bringing toy mouses
to my doorstep... oh wait what were we talking about..

Something about anime and peeing on tents I believe... don't remember. 

 

[MrGrendel]

For example im about a few cm shot of 6 feet, I went to walmart, the clerk was of the female gender.
She towered over me she had to been 8 foot or 9 foot, regardless of my gender or hers she was taller,
and in pure strength, I knew I would lose, in pure leverage alone.

LOL OH OK

Next time I wonder about gender differences I'll just go to Wal Mart! Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Edit: 9 FOOT ROFL

Spoiler

WAS IT THIS PERSON???

Strength is still an advantage.

...

Oh ye gods. If you can't get what I've been arguing about then I give up.

It's like people have a mental inability to understand the curve of importance of skill versus strength.

Like I said, I acknowledge it. But I also acknowledge it's a single factor and that there's much more to it that matters much more in the long run.

Bleh. Nap time. :p

You're the one who doesn't get this is about gender. Check the topic much? Skill does not vary by gender. Strength does, as do a number of other relevant factors such as size, reach, etc.

 

[angrytigerp]

For example im about a few cm shot of 6 feet, I went to walmart, the clerk was of the female gender.
She towered over me she had to been 8 foot or 9 foot, regardless of my gender or hers she was taller,
and in pure strength, I knew I would lose, in pure leverage alone.

LOL OH OK

Next time I wonder about gender differences I'll just go to Wal Mart! Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Edit: 9 FOOT ROFL

Spoiler

WAS IT THIS PERSON???

Strength is still an advantage.

...

Oh ye gods. If you can't get what I've been arguing about then I give up.

It's like people have a mental inability to understand the curve of importance of skill versus strength.

Like I said, I acknowledge it. But I also acknowledge it's a single factor and that there's much more to it that matters much more in the long run.

Bleh. Nap time. :p

You're the one who doesn't get this is about gender. Check the topic much? Skill does not vary by gender. Strength does, as do a number of other relevant factors such as size, reach, etc.

Reach, you say?

What about... flexibility?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Strength is still an advantage.

Like I said, I acknowledge it. But I also acknowledge it's a single factor and that there's much more to it that matters much more in the long run.

I was just trying to clarify what you were saying. If you acknowledge it then I don't know why there's a debate here. Men, on average, are stronger than women. Therefore, all else equal, the average man will usually defeat the average woman. Where's the argument?

 

[Perkūnas]

Lol such extreme height is big disadvantage and overall extreme size is disadvantage to.Shorter opponent has better ROM , taller one reach.
Super heavyweight division in MMA for example is just a freak show , they loose to standard heavyweights.

I suggested to close this thread long ago , so maybe now would be the time ? 

 

[MrGrendel]

Reach, you say?

What about... flexibility?

+1 internets to you.

Super heavyweight division in MMA for example is just a freak show , they loose to standard heavyweights.

If the super heavyweights "loose" to standard heavyweights, think of how badly they must "loose" to the lightweights! What about super skinny people, those guys must really beat the hell out of the super heavyweights! Anorexia Fu!!

 

[yigg23]

Strength is still an advantage.

Yeah, those muskets had a really hard trigger pull.

You got any idea the kinda recoil muskets of that time exuded?  You couldn't be a weakling and use one efficiently.

 

[tashim72]

The topic name is totally crazy.

 

[Wulfgar der Nord]

Maby you should think about that the  men in this time wasnt ast tall like in the early middle age ore in our time.

fore example :

According to Steckel's analysis, heights decreased from an average of 68.27 inches (173.4 centimeters) in the early Middle Ages to an average low of roughly 65.75 inches (167 cm) during the 17th and 18th centuries.

its from this article

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

 

[Night Ninja]

Codpieces were perfectly servicable. Oh, and sitting on a horse makes it really easy to kick someone between the legs. Brilliant.

There are multiple examples of full-body plate protection in the late medieval period, for foot combat. Get an athletic cup and try sitting upright on a bicycle seat for a few minutes. It's not bloody comfortable. Now imagine being bounced around on that for minutes at a stretch.

Nearly everything that works good in combat works better and easier if you're stronger.

And there are multiple ways to achieve that strength. Physical prowess is not the only means. Breaking a person's structure by use of the appropriate techniques to isolate and attack a component appears in almost every martial art I know of, and that's accessible to a trained person of any reasonable physical capability.

That's because nowadays you're not used to seeing gross mis-matches in strength. You watch two heavy-weights box, one is a bit stronger than the other... no big deal. Yes, the training will provide most of the difference between those two.

That's why they're combat sports. There's meant to be a semblance of fairness. Dunedin put it better:

It's like that guy's brick wall analogy. Boxing is a closed in combat form that places pressure on the individual. Grapples, holds, 'cheap strikes' and many other techniques that don't require brute force to overcome are considered illegal.

By limiting the combat form through rules to create a situation where strength has increased value is an excessively detached and artificial circumstance, and by you calling it 'fact' as if it applies to real combat elates directly to your inability to acknowledge the other influencing factors that I've all ready provided you.

Try putting a 120lb pro boxer in the ring vs a 200lb pro boxer and see what happens. That difference is roughly equivalent to the difference in average upper body strength between men and women.

Try removing any restrictions on combat techniques and see what happens. The physically inferior fighter is now capable of holding his/her own, at the very least. To paraphrase a German fencing master, strength always has the advantage in play, but in earnest combat a well-trained and experienced fighter is capable of defeating a stronger opponent.

Physical prowess is much more important in combat sports because the most debilitating techniques are removed for safety, in an earnest fight there's no such damn thing. An armbar doesn't work quite as well when the victim can bite a chunk out of your calf. A double leg takedown is quite a bit harder to pull off without serious injury when your opponent can drop an elbow on your neck vertebrae from 12 o'clock or rabbit punch you.

I'd be fine with women being inferior to men in the physical areas, and I'd strongly suspect all of the women in the thread would agree with me.  Lop off a point of STR, give a point of AGI, cap STR to 15 for women while capping AGI at 20 for men... give women a starting bonus of +5 to CHR because they're obviously something special. 

Strength is an important component of agility, no? A gymnast is immensely agile, but without strength he/she could not claim the same.

No, waving a light piece of metal around doesn't require a lot of force.

The only thing I can infer from this statement is that you've never had any training in the use of a rapier.

Also, aren't all swords light pieces of metal? Heck, most longswords are around three to four pounds and are pretty damn well-balanced to boot. Single handed swords average about a pound or half a pound less. That's not heavy by any standards. My girlfriend is 5 foot nothing and 100 lbs, and she's capable of throwing strikes with the longsword that are at least as fast as mine.

IOW, you guys are spouting a bunch of theoreticals here.  I'd take any decently-trained woman over a guy in hand-to-hand; training makes a giant difference.  I'd take a woman with armor and a weapon over practically any guy without either, even if he has training- weapons make a giant difference.

Of course you would, training provides an immense advantage. So does arms and armour. Power generation and physical prowess become less valuable when your opponent can take your hand off with what looks like a love tap.

A woman with brains would be superior to any stupid commander, male or no.  Nobody in the thread, so far as I can remember, has even objected to women being forced to use their minds, not their mighty thews, either.  So that could very well have solve this problem, from a game-design perspective.

That's a bit of a strawman, no?

Reach, you say?

What about... flexibility?

Aaah, yes,

flexibility

. We have dismissed that claim.


To end off:

Men are stronger than women, on average. Some women are stronger than some men. Look at ability instead of gender.

Pretty much this. There are women stronger than men. Most men are stronger than most women. Strength is an advantage, but it's not the be all and end all of earnest combat. Combat sports are not a particularly relevant comparison to earnest combat because of their rules and restrictions.

This is not rocket surgery, people.

 

[Darkcerb]

I love how this thread is about men vs women with both sides just hurling strawman/made up statistics/anecdotal/outright bs arguments at eachother.

And not about why women aren't available for play in this game <-- Which i feel needs to be bolded since a few people are under the belief that this is an accurate simulation of the times which as has been said even if this were female characters would still be available and could still enter the political arena.