Women's role in the ROME II

[parthian shot]

Is there the same limit as in RTW I, in which women are not allow to be named characters?

And if women are allowed to be named characters, does ROME II allow spouses to be either male or female?

And what is more, can both spouses be the name characters (like Octavian and Livia)?

Can women be deployed as emissaries, spies, or assassins?

Is marriage going to be part of political intrigue? Like Caesar married his daughter Julia to Pompey thereby assured the alliance of the 1st Triumvirate.

[Border Patrol]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

[parthian shot]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

One of two genders are being ignored in RTW I, so why is it not a fair question to ask?

BTW, no matter how many factions/people CA adds, there will always be people out there crying foul that CA needs to add more.

[atila9000]

in RTW 1, womens werent ignored. when any women died, you received a message saying that that woman has died. in M2TW, you had princesses

[douglas]

I am not sure I understand the need for having named female characters. Historically the Roman (early anyway) social structure was not very favorable to the female part of the human race, especially among the nobility.

All that is to same though, what would your request have to do with game play? For me that is the battles.

[Evillemon325]

Women have always been a part of the tree, their will likely be a female agent given the trailer and precedence in S2 and MTW2, and in the past CA has put in hugely inaccurate units to allow women into the roster (e.g. wailing women).

Women are already very much a part of Total War and really always have been, often moreso than what is historically authentic. Applying 21st century standards won't change the realities of the past.

[Dan113112]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

What peoples are being ignored?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=560849

There was a similar thread about this a while back, it could provide some interesting points.

[Destraex]

IIRC wemon make up 50% of the soldiers in Rome2. Just like in modern times right now where wemon can make the choice freely and also make up the majority of fighters. Not sure about named characters though.
I sure hope Cleopatra makes it in and maybe boedicia

[Stavroforos]

I hope women have a greater role, especially when it comes to politics and political influence, and not just sexualized agents or wives.

I also hope we can have a female avatar in multiplayer.

[Captain Grimes]

OP is asking whether Rome II will be politically correct?? same sex marriages, a fair representation of women in politics? Get real - I hope for the sake of the Gods that a game can be made nowdays without political correctness getting in the way of historical accuracy and gameplay

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

there will always be people out there crying foul that CA needs to add more.

yes there is...........

OKI close thread!!

[scivian]

I thank the original poster for bringing up such an important topic. Unfortunately I will not give it the due it deserves here but will say just a bit.

To the those who dismiss the topic outright. Please attend a college course on the topic or read a few books on the history of any discriminated group from their own perspective, such as women. Only after putting in extended efforts to understand their views from their own perspectives, can you be informed enough to discuss such an important and relevant topic. There you will be educated on the people who did not make into some of your high school text books, who are minimized in value and who are still not involved in current public debates. Otherwise you risk spilling your ignorance all over the forum.

As to the original thought, I think it is incumbent on us, as educated individuals (and game makers), to include discriminated peoples in as many arenas as possible in relevant ways. This of course precludes forcing them into ahistorical positions such as overtly making them emperor. It means including them in the places that they were, and offering us as users, the oppotunity to consider their existence and make decisions accordingly. It is completely conceivable that a highly influential wife usurps power. That an influential mother guides public policy through her son. That a daughter changes the course of Roman history because of her decisions. All historical examples of course, which would not be known about unless they were included in various medias. In fact, to not give them their due is ahistorical. It should be a joke that such discussion is necessary, but the current thread also proves the need for it.

[snarst]

Political marriages and wives giving traits to their husbands are about the limit you can get in total war. So unless you want United States total war your not going to get much.

[parthian shot]

I am not sure I understand the need for having named female characters. Historically the Roman (early anyway) social structure was not very favorable to the female part of the human race, especially among the nobility.

All that is to same though, what would your request have to do with game play? For me that is the battles.

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master as well as the person who exercised great influence on which the candidates for what offices.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the patriarchal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

[Dan113112]

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master, as well as holding the vital religious office in the empire.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the paternal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

Okay, historically there were powerful women in politics. Livia and Cleopatra readily come to mind. Legally, however, women were not allowed to wield political power or own land in Roman times. Although, they did tend to have more autonomy then Greek women they were still considered property.

I do not agree with you saying that all male historians are woman-haters though many ancient, medieval, and even some early modern ones were.

[Roma_Victrix]

Okay, historically there were powerful women in politics. Livia and Cleopatra readily come to mind. Legally, however, women were not allowed to wield political power or own land in Roman times. Although, they did tend to have more autonomy then Greek women they were still considered property.

False. It is true women were not allowed to run for public office (instead sometimes wielding indirect power behind their husbands or sons). However, they were entirely able to own property. In fact it was their legal right to enjoy equal inheritance rights with their male siblings on the death of a father or mother who failed to leave a will. Roman history is littered with examples of rich and wealthy women donating their own money to fund building projects (the triumphal Arch of the Sergii comes to mind). Women were by law citizens, not "property" of their fathers or husbands as you falsely claim. As citizens they were able to run their own commercial enterprises and enter into business contracts. In fact, once a Roman woman's father died, she was completely legally emancipated and did not have to heed what her husband said. Your comparison with women of the Greek city-states (pre 146 BC of course) is a colossal understatement.

As for women in RTWII, they didn't play any role in the army (minus of course Scythian warrior women) so they don't belong on the battle map unless you're fighting Boudicca or something. As for women playing agents like spies, assassins, and diplomats, this also seems ahistorical. A spy perhaps, but a diplomat? You'd have to be serving in public office to handle such affairs of state and I've already stated women were barred from this. I'm not sure how prominent wives could be in a game where your military generals are pretty one-dimensional characters to begin with.

[saxdude]

Queens, Princesses, spies and assassins comes to mind, depending on the faction, other than that not much can be added. The rest is dudes because historically thats what armies were composed of.

[ROYAL SIPHAI]

I got a good idea. But If I say it I will get banned.

[snarst]

I got a good idea. But If I say it I will get banned.

Prostitutes?