Pls give us an option to turn off female generals

[SmattlePattle]

no i love this thread

 

[Negative Ramos]

I don't remember OP asking for a debate here. He didn't mean anything sexist by it, all he asked was for an option for no female generals. Which Warband had none, and not even an option for that. As much as I love this thread collapsing and burning, OP didn't ask for a debate.

 

[Narduiran]

This thread reminds me why I shouldn't be reading forums.

 

[Timmortal]

Dont try to turn the argument in your favour man, you need to re-read the messages. First you say TW should spend their time on something more important which is not your job to do then attack people by saying they cant handle females and talk about sieges and stuff. I can't see a good argument as to why there should be or shouldn't females in the game. Come with a better argument then we can talk.

so the OP is allowed to say what the devs should implement, but im not "which is not your job to do". Then i point out that their issue is females not realism, with their emersion breaking arguement, as there are many things in Bannerlord that should break immersion if thats what you truly care about. That you cant see a good argument shows either that you are already painted in your view, which your use of the term PC already do aswell, and that you dont care about realism, but your view on the role of women in society, or it shows you lack of historical insight, if the use of armors and weapons of a 1000 year period being put up against each other does not break your immersion, would women in For Honor also bother you, or do you consider it realism having Vikings ca 750-1100 fight against Samurai ca 1200-1800. These games are not realism game, I WOULD LOVE a 100% realism Bannerlord word taking place in the Dark Ages or the high middel ages Europe and yes, female genereals would have very little to do in that game, but to claim it breaks your immersion in Bannerlord, a game which mixes armors and weapons from about year 0 to year 1200 is just not a valid argument.

 

[SmattlePattle]

I don't remember OP asking for a debate here. He didn't mean anything sexist by it, all he asked was for an option for no female generals. Which Warband had none, and not even an option for that. As much as I love this thread collapsing and burning, OP didn't ask for a debate.

I mean, you post something on a public forum you get a discussion and a debate. This is also the "general discussion" forum, not even the suggestion forum.

But I think we're getting sidetracked from the purpose of this thread:

Women are scary and different and I don't want them near my things. Thank you.

 

[IngvarK]

i didn't expect such activity. Moders close this topic

 

[xthefreemason]

Anyone who thinks we need to recreate historical sexism in its entirety is a ****. End of story. If you don't like it, how about you go cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

 

[Aerouant]

i didn't expect such activity. Moders close this topic

Because people are waiting 1.1.0 ^^

 

[SmattlePattle]

i didn't expect such activity. Moders close this topic

Moders, I implore you. Don't close this topic.

 

[imgran]

This is not our world, this is Calradia. In Calradia, maybe females had more political power/

 

[Orbit-]

so the OP is allowed to say what the devs should implement, but im not "which is not your job to do". Then i point out that their issue is females not realism, with their emersion breaking arguement, as there are many things in Bannerlord that should break immersion if thats what you truly care about. That you cant see a good argument shows either that you are already painted in your view, which your use of the term PC already do aswell, and that you dont care about realism, but your view on the role of women in society, or it shows you lack of historical insight, if the use of armors and weapons of a 1000 year period being put up against each other does not break your immersion, would women in For Honor also bother you, or do you consider it realism having Vikings ca 750-1100 fight against Samurai ca 1200-1800. These games are not realism game, I WOULD LOVE a 100% realism Bannerlord word taking place in the Dark Ages or the high middel ages Europe and yes, female genereals would have very little to do in that game, but to claim it breaks your immersion in Bannerlord, a game which mixes armors and weapons from about year 0 to year 1200 is just not a valid argument.

Wow man, you have a nice head on your shoulders. I cant remember me saying I dont want female generals in this thread at all and I didnt claim anything at all you speak as if it was me who started the whole thread... I said you attacking people was wrong. If you have suggestions go ahead and start a thread, I said here is not a place to talk about sieges or tell devs whats more important. Get it? And For honor example... really? sigh. Whatever man.. Just stop assuming everyone is a female hater okay? Because that will not help you believe me. Because you keep talking like I'm bothered with female presence. Just be reasonable or at least try.

 

[staleturd]

Yes...yes...Let the hate flow through you.

 

[IsvRada]

devs dont waste you time on implementing something like this, make actually useful additions. If some people cant handle women in games, let some like "minded" indvidual make a mod for it. Unless these people also want to see game functions implemented like sieges lasting ingame months, not days, and 30% of their troops dying of dysentery, or the revoval og all armors and weapons that are several 100 years out of their time period, then i dont give much for "it breaks my immersion".

Well said.

Here myself playing with a female hero.

 

[ginto]

I'm not saying you're wrong because I totally agree, but this is some modern PC crap that only mods will fix.

Lul even Warband had female generals. It was a bity harder for them to get fielfs, bot still.

 

[banzaiee]

I don't mind it really, it's not like it's a true historical representation. Now if you swapped the names around, had a more accurate map and economy, and pushed the religious aspect, then I'd probably say... Yes. But in the current state it's in? Nah. I'm fine with it. There's a lot of give and take in the game that's purely there for y'know... Fun. Having female generals is fun, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Vashonn]

This thread reminds me why I shouldn't be reading forums.

+1
Mods should close thread soon.

 

[duchuy613]

Alright, so I'm all for realism, but turning off all female generals is just not realistic.

Vlandia has 2 female generals.
Sturgia has 2
Khuzait has 3
Aserai has 1
Battania has 0
Empire (3 factions) has 4

That's a total of 12 female generals out of 120+ male generals. 10% sounds like a realistic number. Turning off female generals would be even more unrealistic, if you're into realism.

 

[Narduiran]

Wow man, you have a nice head on your shoulders. I cant remember me saying I dont want female generals in this thread at all and I didnt claim anything at all you speak as if it was me who started the whole thread... I said you attacking people was wrong. If you have suggestions go ahead and start a thread, I said here is not a place to talk about sieges or tell devs whats more important. Get it? And For honor example... really? sigh. Whatever man.. Just stop assuming everyone is a female hater okay? Because that will not help you believe me. Because you keep talking like I'm bothered with female presence. Just be reasonable or at least try.

Damn Aruda, you got got! The last time I saw someone get got like that was when Salvia Erik was tricked into being taken in a picture ****ing robot by Alexa.

 

[Rconner]

There were only several women who had lead armies. And pls notice, all of them - for a short period of time, Boudica and Joan of Arc were more symbols than generals.

Spoiler alert: This is NOT EARTH this is NOT REALITY.
Get over it.