SP - General Too many women on the battlefield!

Users who are viewing this thread

I absolutely loved Prophesy of Pendor. Doomguides were amongst the most lethal units, and there were entire Knighthood orders comprised of just women. I had no problem whatsoever with that for the very simple reason the whole mod's setting was extremely clear in what "reality" was in that setting's context.
There were actual gods who spoke to people directly. Actual elves. There was a snake cult a la Conan the Barbarian. Demons. Undead. It was only natural that, in such a context, women could actually fight on a battlefield without a man dragging them away by pulling their hair and chastising them for being stupid and reckless. Hell, a doomguide could decimate a 50-man strong tier 2 army on her own.
But then there's Bannerlord. Bannerlord's setting is inspired by historical culture and events: the empire is fractured and employs cataphracts, therefore it's clear to assume it's basically the Eastern Roman Empire. Battanians are celts. Sturgians are slavs. Aserai and Khuzaits are basically arabs and mongols.
They're all part of a setting with a rather strong historically plausible foundation.
Where am I going with this? Referring to another comment I saw a moment ago talking about someone wishing Bannerlord could be a patriarchy simulator... I'm not sure you are aware of this, but in every single century aside from the last two every single country, nation and tribe on Earth has been patriarchal in structure - with notable exceptions that are, however, numerically *irrelevant.*
Speaking of practicality: if noble women fought in open field battles in a moderately realistic high medieval setting, the nobility would cease to exist in the timespan of a single generation due to miscarriages, deaths on the battlefield and the subsequent lack of heirs.
Noble women should, as someone ironically said before, be babymaking machines and pawns used to negotiate alliances and other treaties.
That is, if this wanted to be a historically (moderately) accurate game. If it's not trying to be so, then... why take so much from our own history and ignore anything that might be considered unrealistic? Pendor had Qualis gems and elixirs of skill and long life, Bannerlord does not.
It might make sense that, let's say, a Battanian noblewoman with the reckless trait (or something to that effect) would want to fight in a battle. Let her, but then let's say she fights against a Khuzait army and... loses. That's also why logically speaking her family would rather lock her up in a tower than let her fight on the field.
Do you know what the mongols used to do with captive women? That's why you *really* don't want them on the battlefield. If you do, you're probably a sexist because you wish harm upon women (just joking there.)
TL;DR=If Bannerlord embraces fantasy, then go all out with women fighting on the battlefield. If it wants to stay true to its own setting, let there be patriarchy.
 
A fish is still a fish whatever you associate it with. People are allowed to associate wrong - I mean, it´s not criminal or something. But re-labaling a fantasygame because some people think it´s something else? Common, that tires me :smile:
Mount and blade is actually labeled as action rpg, look it up. Surely you could call it a strategy game, economy simulator or fantasy game, but these are just certain parts of the game and dont describe its full scope.
 
Mount and blade is actually labeled as action rpg, look it up. Surely you could call it a strategy game, economy simulator or fantasy game, but these are just certain parts of the game and dont describe its full scope.
Sure! The game has many labels :smile: I have seen some scary examples of multilabeled games on Steam. None of them are exclusive though.
 
This thread is an example of how all this woke gender studies nonsense has ruined the majority of a whole generation of minds.

Everything has to be about "patriarchy" now.... you've been rendered incapable of identifying that there is a real problem here...

myb385ss
 
I was pulling my hair out at release over this but it has somewhat grown on me somewhat. I like to imagine that these noblewomen dont really have to worry about men bossing them around. It has problems though.

1) Calradia is clearly still patriarchal. Im not sure why nobles are so happy letting their wives get themselves killed before producing heirs in a medieval society.

2) I think that there are too many female noble warriors. There ought to be some sort of regulation about it. Lategame literally like half of all the nobles are female. I also doubt that every single culture has the same perspectives on female generals.

3) Sexism was a game mechanic that made the game different and ought to be represented somehow. Im not convinced that every man in Calradia is content with letting a random commoner woman leading soldiers.

4) If there are going to be female nobles everywhere then add swords sisters and peasant women to kill. Women shouldnt get the opportunity to lead men in Bannerlord, but not fight, unlike Warband where they wouldnt lead men, but fight. This doesnt make sense. I also want to hear peasant women scream when I chop them down, it was an iconic experience in Warband.

5) Give noblewomen auxiliary roles outside of battle.
 
I don't mind it at all, but I do agree all Noble women should just be given good armor and not load into battle in civvy clothes. I've only noticed it with them - hell - sometimes they show up butt ass naked haha.

I do like the suggestion of childless nobles shouldn't join / form Armies - good defensive mechanism against wiping them out prematurely. Or it will make them more likely to surrender. I am not sure if the AI even surrenders to each other but they should.

I usually play females in action RPG games anyway, I just don't in BL, the only one allowed to **** down my virtual MC is *me* damnit
 
Why? And why does it matter if it "sounds wrong"? It's a perfectly functional solution, simple to implement, and doesn't completely prevent women from leading armies (which would be the most historically authentic solution).
It isn't functional. Any clan with zero adults goes poof, regardless of child count.
 
It isn't functional. Any clan with zero adults goes poof, regardless of child count.
Well, you're right. If all of the clan's women already have children, and they get killed before the children reach adulthood, it's gone all same. I guess we shouldn't let women lead armies at all then. That way the clan will always have adults holding the clan together. Children alone can't hold power.
 
Well, you're right. If all of the clan's women already have children, and they get killed before the children reach adulthood, it's gone all same. I guess we shouldn't let women lead armies at all then. That way the clan will always have adults holding the clan together. Children alone can't hold power.
Bannerlord exemplifies why Medieval noblemen didnt like sending their noblewomen into battle.
 
Bannerlord exemplifies why Medieval noblemen didnt like sending their noblewomen into battle.
EXACTLY. People talk as if ancient people were just dumb sexists who were morally inferior to us. They think fighting in battle is an honorable privilege everybody should get. Not realizing that fighting is extremely dangerous, and anybody with a brain would want to avoid it if they could.
 
This thread is an example of how all this woke gender studies nonsense has ruined the majority of a whole generation of minds.

Everything has to be about "patriarchy" now.... you've been rendered incapable of identifying that there is a real problem here...

myb385ss
The problem here is that she is unarmed and unarmoured. A man would look just as ridiculous standing there without any equipment.

Her sexual organs make no difference to this; indeed if I'm not mistaken those two cavalry next to her are both females are they not?

Fantasy or non-historical; it doesn't matter. Bannerlord is not burdened by the requirement to be 100% historically authentic. In Calradia clearly female nobles are expected to fight - there are real nations that had this culture:


We even had some hints of this from Lady Isolla of Suno back in warband;


Frankly I find this whole thread a ridiculous and unhealthy distraction from discussing actually important things about the game (namely modding/server support).
 
A simple way to avoid this is to make men able to get pregnant as well and let them walk into battles unarmed. I bet those who were most adamant about keeping women in the kitchen saving women from injury, would have created threads "why are men unarmed?? fix plz" (credits to Axios).
 
The problem here is that she is unarmed and unarmoured. A man would look just as ridiculous standing there without any equipment.

Her sexual organs make no difference to this; indeed if I'm not mistaken those two cavalry next to her are both females are they not?
Armor and equipment only matter in deciding how easy the character "falls" in battle. It doesn't affect the chance of death. If they lose the battle, there's a chance they will die.

I'm not sure with what you mean by sexual organ not mattering. Women pretty much get disabled during pregnancy. That's why they stayed home and ran the household while the men were doing all the dying for them.
 
Frankly I find this whole thread a ridiculous and unhealthy distraction from discussing actually important things about the game (namely modding/server support).
Oh thank the gods! The arbiter of important game discussions has arrived to grace us with his wisdom regarding what is worth discussing!
 
Armor and equipment only matter in deciding how easy the character "falls" in battle. It doesn't affect the chance of death. If they lose the battle, there's a chance they will die.
Not correct. Characters die even on the winning side of battle.

If the character "falls" they have a chance of dying. If they don't "fall", they don't have a chance of dying.

Therefore, armor and equipment DOES matter in deciding chance of death. It determines whether or not that roll is going to be made.
 
Not correct. Characters die even on the winning side of battle.

If the character "falls" they have a chance of dying. If they don't "fall", they don't have a chance of dying.

Therefore, armor and equipment DOES matter in deciding chance of death. It determines whether or not that roll is going to be made.
In any medium-sized and even battle, the roll is always going to be made. AI doesn't value life much, so any characters present on the battlefield end up spanked around 0h:6m.
 
It's a fantasy world. I personally have no problem with women on the battlefield. I am sure there are mods you can use to rebalance the ratio, if you find it irritating.

Bring on the shieldmaidens!

Just a reminder: the way that show portrays "shieldmaidens" is pretty much fantasy too. Judith Jesch, a professor of Viking women, gives a good explanation of how a desire for female empowerment has led to jumping to conclusions to prove something that probably did not exist. http://norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html?m=1

Explicit Viking "Shieldmaidens" only appear in legendary sagas, which were the Vikings' contemporary equivalent of superhero stories (similar to Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel), and contained fantasy elements such as dwarves and frost giants.
The vast majority of soldiers on the field in this game are male and the inclusion of an unusually high number of lordly Boudica, Joan of Arc, Queen Fu Hao, Queen Nzinga Mbande, Queen Amanirenas, Queen Yaa Asantewaa, Rani Laxmibai, Queen Artemisia l, Queen Mavia, Queen Mandukhai Khatun, Queen Arachidamia, Queen Yennenga, Queen Tomyris, Cynane, Olympias, Eurydice, Queen Teuta, Triệu Thị Trinh, Zenobia, etc... -like warrior women in the game world all at once, for the sake of inclusion seems fair to me to bring them together in this fictional world.
Boudicca lived at least 400 years before Bannerlord's setting, and didn't actually fight. Joan didn't fight and lived 400 years after, Fu Hao was 1600 years prior in the Far East, Nzinga is 500 years later in southern Africa, Amanirenas is 400 years earlier, Yaa is 700 years later and West African, Rani is 700 years later and Indian, etc... Every woman on your list is either from a completely different historical context, a non-combatant, or both.

Bannerlord's setting is primarily based on 1000s Europe/North Africa/Middle East (with the names and geography altered). In the entire century from 1000-1100, there were only 5 female generals in this combined area. So in a single year, you would have to travel the whole world to find one female general. If inclusion is the concern here, I was under the impression the point of inclusion was to let people self-insert. Being able to play as a female character already does that. So the game doesn't need to be so different from the real world in this way, when it is so close in so many other ways, and both the players and developers say that Mount & Blade is good when it "cleaves closely to real history".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom