Please include women with shirts on.

[dan107]

If you want to talk about practicality and realism, there shouldn't be any women warriors period. A woman running around in plate mail, swinging a sword, and killing male fighters in fair fights is fantasy to begin with. How revealing her armor may or may not be does not really add to or detract from the "realism" of this already fairy tale premise.

It happened in real life though. It just wasn't the norm, and varied with culture. A woman can murder a man. The average man is stronger than the average woman, yes, but an average woman is still lethal, and a very above average woman vs. an average man could end very badly for the male.

 

Of course a woman can murder a man. She can murder a man by poisoning him, stabbing him in the back, or strangling him in his sleep. But show me any historical precendent where women were able to defeat trained men with any kind of consistency in hand to hand combat.

[The Sharmat]

he idea of a woman being able to defeat a trained male fighter in sword combat wearing heavy armor is fantasy, period. Whether she's wearing full plate or a string bikini doesn't make it any more or less realistic.

 

Whatever your reasons for not wanting to see chainmail bikinis may be, realism has nothing to do with it.

Are you seriously taking the position that because the general trend in human sexual dimorphism is that women are physically inferior to men, that a female fighter defeating a male fighter is actually impossible? Men are generally taller than women, but there are women that tower over men. They're just rare.

 

And in any case, we're not talking about a military unit. We're talking about an adventuring party. They tend to be kind of rag tag. I'd rather have a female soldier helping me than no soldier at all, strength be damned.

 

EDIT: The raw weight of plate armor is overblown. The primary issue is endurance. You're wearing it for a long time and doing a lot of repetitive motion while wearing it. I don't see why both fighters wearing plate changes the scenario at all, either. Plate is plate. it has the same weaknesses and exploitable gaps as every other armor of its make. Women would generally lose, but a minority of victories would go to the female. And a victory is a victory.

Edited September 16, 2012 by The Sharmat

[Delterius]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield?

 

Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway.

 

Next I see Joan of Arc's chainmail bikini, I'll know that my concerns have nothing to do with logic or realism.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[Darji]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield?

 

Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway.

 

Yes and they wore no heavy Armor they used their own strong points to defeat them and none of them were wearing heavy plate armors not only because they did not have them but because it would give them a huge disadvantage.

[dan107]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield?

 

Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway.

 

Strawman arguement. One, no one called you an idiot. Two, no one said that a woman can't SHOOT a man. We're talking about women defeating men in hand to hand combat wearing heavy armor. Which is indeed fantasy.

Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107

[Delterius]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield?

 

Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway.

 

Yes and they wore no heavy Armor they used their own strong points to defeat them and none of them were wearing heavy plate armors not only because they did not have them but because it would give them a huge disadvantage.

 

Neither did who they fought.

 

Strawman arguement. One, no one called you an idiot. Two, no one said that a woman can't SHOOT a man. We're talking about women defeating men in hand to hand combat wearing heavy armor. Which is indeed fantasy.

 

No one called me a idiot, that was a indicator of how stupid the 'fantasy' argument is.

 

And no, a woman defeating a man in hand-to-hand combat isn't fantasy. Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons. It would still be all the way up the world wars.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[Catamite]

If you want to talk about practicality and realism, there shouldn't be any women warriors period. A woman running around in plate mail, swinging a sword, and killing male fighters in fair fights is fantasy to begin with. How revealing her armor may or may not be does not really add to or detract from the "realism" of this already fairy tale premise.

It happened in real life though. It just wasn't the norm, and varied with culture. A woman can murder a man. The average man is stronger than the average woman, yes, but an average woman is still lethal, and a very above average woman vs. an average man could end very badly for the male.

 

Of course a woman can murder a man. She can murder a man by poisoning him, stabbing him in the back, or strangling him in his sleep. But show me any historical precendent where women were able to defeat trained men with any kind of consistency in hand to hand combat.

 

 

Google is your friend: http://listverse.com/2008/03/17/top-10-badass-female-warriors/

 

 

Just because female fighters don't feature greatly in your education, doesn't mean they haven't existed.

 

And even if no woman has ever beaten a man in combat (a laughable premise) this thread is about representation within a fantasy game. No elfs or dwarves have beaten a man in combat either.

[dan107]

Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons.

 

Source?

[Darji]

http://en.wikipedia....Dahomey_Amazons

 

Why do you keep linking that? Do you think it proves anything? That because some Amazon tribe had female fighters 200 years ago, that women are equal to men on a battlefield?

 

Does that quote somehow historically equalizes the sexes in matters of war? Certainly not, that would be ridiculous. But its the actual example of a all-female army, one that defeated a contemporary and much stronger force no less. I saw it as a apt response to the post I quoted, more apt than 'LOL ITS FANTASY IDIOT LOL' anyway.

 

Yes and they wore no heavy Armor they used their own strong points to defeat them and none of them were wearing heavy plate armors not only because they did not have them but because it would give them a huge disadvantage.

 

Neither did who they fought.

 

Strawman arguement. One, no one called you an idiot. Two, no one said that a woman can't SHOOT a man. We're talking about women defeating men in hand to hand combat wearing heavy armor. Which is indeed fantasy.

 

No one called me a idiot, that was a indicator of how stupid the 'fantasy' argument is.

 

And no, a woman defeating a man in hand-to-hand combat isn't fantasy. Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons. It would still be all the way up the world wars.

 

Ok then lets skip plate armors completely because they are stupid anyway. I am totally fine with that.

 

Again if you want to go for realism do it right. Penalty in strength and constitution for women. Maybe some penalties for men in charisma. And than also give woman player a heavy malus while wearing plate armor.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji

[Delterius]

Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons.

 

Source?

 

The bayonet.

[dan107]

If you want to talk about practicality and realism, there shouldn't be any women warriors period. A woman running around in plate mail, swinging a sword, and killing male fighters in fair fights is fantasy to begin with. How revealing her armor may or may not be does not really add to or detract from the "realism" of this already fairy tale premise.

It happened in real life though. It just wasn't the norm, and varied with culture. A woman can murder a man. The average man is stronger than the average woman, yes, but an average woman is still lethal, and a very above average woman vs. an average man could end very badly for the male.

 

Of course a woman can murder a man. She can murder a man by poisoning him, stabbing him in the back, or strangling him in his sleep. But show me any historical precendent where women were able to defeat trained men with any kind of consistency in hand to hand combat.

 

 

Google is your friend: http://listverse.com...emale-warriors/

 

 

Just because female fighters don't feature greatly in your education, doesn't mean they haven't existed.

 

The links you've provided reference women LEADERS, not warriors. Typically generals and emperors/empresses do not fight hand to hand on the front lines. And if they do, they are surrounded by some of the best bodyguards in the world.

 

And even if no woman has ever beaten a man in combat (a laughable premise) this thread is about representation within a fantasy game. No elfs or dwarves have beaten a man in combat either.

 

Indeed it is about representation in a fantasy game. Therefore, the notion that women fighting in chainmail bikinis is unrealistic does not hold much water. Like I've said twice already, women fighting men in hand to hand combat is unrealistic to begin with. What they're wearing doesn't really matter.

Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107

[The Sharmat]

And don't forget magic. It could be an even greater equalizer than gunpowder. Especially if it can be used to give you super strength or turn a sword into a lightsaber or something.

 

I'd also like to comment on the implication that post gunpowder warfare takes strength and endurance out of the equation. Forced marching is forced marching, and modern soldiers carry up to 100 pounds of equipment on their backs.

[dan107]

Melee was still very important in the era of those dahomey amazons.

 

Source?

 

The bayonet.

 

When did those amazons you're so enamored with defeat men using primarily bayonets?

[The Sharmat]

The links you've provided reference women LEADERS, not warriors. Typically generals and emperors/empresses do not fight hand to hand on the front lines.

Pretty sure Boudica at least did actually fight in hand to hand combat, as would have been expected of a woman in her position in her culture.

[Volourn]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

[Darji]

The links you've provided reference women LEADERS, not warriors. Typically generals and emperors/empresses do not fight hand to hand on the front lines.

Pretty sure Boudica at least did actually fight in hand to hand combat, as would have been expected of a woman in her position in her culture.

Yes but not in a plate or very heavy armor...

 

These armor were for prestige and not really for fighting in real battles. Maybe in some tournaments.

[Longknife]

I still say we need a chainmail bikini easter egg.

[Darji]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

I said maybe to "equal" the malus in strength and constitution for woman. I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^

[dan107]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

I said maybe to "equal" the malus in strength and constitution for woman. I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^

 

Well, realistically that ought to be the case. I'm not saying that that's a good way to make a game, but the notion that women should wear similar armor to men because of REALISM is absurd. If you want to bring realism into the equation, women fighters shouldn't be there to begin with.

Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107

[Rostere]

Just so you know, there is a reason why even in the 21st centrury, a time when physical strength is less important in combat than it has ever been the overwhelming majority of the world's militaries do not allow women in combat units. That reason is that men are far superior physically. That difference is only exacerbated in hand to hand combat. The idea of a woman being able to defeat a trained male fighter in sword combat wearing heavy armor is fantasy, period. Whether she's wearing full plate or a string bikini doesn't make it any more or less realistic.

 

Yes!

 

Whatever your reasons for not wanting to see chainmail bikinis may be, realism has nothing to do with it.

 

WTF? Where the heck does this come from?

 

Chainmail bikinis in Project Eternity would feel just as stupid (and unrealistic) as half- naked women with flak bikinis in a Modern Warfare game.

[Darji]

"maybe some penalties for men in charisma. "

 

How is that realistic? The greatest leaders in real world history have been men. There have been men who can get women (and other men for that matter) to do anything for them. Then you got males like Beiber 9and other celebrities0 who have women literlaly fawning over them and males like Ahnold who have men wrapped around their fingers. L0L Men should get charisma penaltiies. That is not realistic at all.

I said maybe to "equal" the malus in strength and constitution for woman. I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^

 

Well, realistically that ought to be the case. I'm not saying that that's a good way to make a game, but the notion that women should wear similar armor to men because of REALISM is absurd. If you want to bring realism into the equation, women fighters shouldn't be there to begin with.

 

Yeah realism should not really play a role in this. Because than you also would be dead in 1 or 2 hits.

 

Also we do not even know what kind of world it will be. Yes fantasy but fantasy can mean many things. Maybe they do not even have such a material to make heavy armors. Maybe the metal in this world is very light who knows^^

[The Sharmat]

Yes but not in a plate or very heavy armor...

Neither did the men in her army, in general.

 

These armor were for prestige and not really for fighting in real battles. Maybe in some tournaments.

Not entirely true. The era when plate was really great protection was brief, but it did exist. And it wained due to the proliferation of the crossbow, and later gunpowder. If your setting has neither, heavy gothic plate could be a great force multiplier.

 

Also: average weight of plate armor? 50 or so pounds. Modern female soldiers (though not front line general infantry, as most militaries, wisely in my view, don't allow it) carry more in their kit anyway.

 

This is a useful thing for you to read, I think: http://www.metmuseum...ams/hd_aams.htm

 

I do not think that you actually could make a game anymore where woman are the only ones with penalties in their stats^^

 

So you are willing to make concessions to gameplay that go against realism, however minor? Why not just ignore the penalty altogether then, rather than saddle male characters with an utterly arbitrary stat penalty for the sake of balancing female characters' stat penalties?

 

EDIT: Where did you get the idea that even with armor on, you're dead in one or two hits anyway? Why do you think people even bothered to make armor if that was the case?

Edited September 16, 2012 by The Sharmat

[Catamite]

"The links you've provided reference women LEADERS, not warriors. Typically generals and emperors/empresses do not fight hand to hand on the front lines. And if they do, they are surrounded by some of the best bodyguards in the world.

 

Indeed it is about representation in a fantasy game. Therefore, the notion that women fighting in chainmail bikinis is unrealistic does not hold much water. Like I've said twice already, women fighting men in hand to hand combat is unrealistic to begin with. What they're wearing doesn't really matter."

 

 

Alot of those women were active fighters not just leaders, and that is a small list from the first result in Google, there are many different historical examples, but this is a tangent.

 

NOW we hit the nail on the head- representation means more than you suppose, women shouldn't wear chainmail bikini's for MORE reasons than just realism.

 

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

[The Sharmat]

Note that I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be women in skimpy clothing in this game who care primarily about being attractive to males. Just keep it in the appropriate context.

[dan107]

So many games at the moment cater almost exclusively to teenage heterosexual male viewpoints. There are plenty of women and gay gamers who feel that these fantasy worlds exclude them. That is why all women featured in a game wearing skimpy whorey clothing is not right.

 

That is an entirely different arguement altogether, and one that has far more merit than realism. If you want to say, "I want a game where I play a badass female fighter that kicks everyone's ass and screw realism", more power to you. All I'm saying is don't use realism as an arguement in a situation that's quite absurd to begin with.