I want more women interactivity in this one.

[Ulixes]

Why is Total War so male dominated? It's almost like a male fantasy similar to Game Of Thrones (regrettably both of these are really good).

Can't Creative Assembly have more women folk in this one? How about a bigger focus on marrying women off to generals to form alliances, priestesses or celtic women warlords.

As a student of Classics I know women can't have that big a role but come on guys, can't us women have some total war women-victory fantasies too

[MasterBigAb]

Deleted all replies so far. If you want to share your opinion on this feel free to do so, however misogynistic, trolling, off-topic comments is NOT what I'd like to see here please.

[Ulixes]

So does anybody have any genius ideas of how women could be used 'ahem'

[rob-a-dogg]

So does anybody have any genius ideas of how women could be used 'ahem'

we already have female agents (good call imo), and also would like to see them used in a much more fleshed out political system, and even as generals for some factions although limited in number, and maybe with their own skill set to make them more interesting and special - not weaker maybe as buff oriented generals on the battlefield and being more volatile in the political and diplomatic realm. I think there is a lot of potential.

a) On average, women are indeed physically weaker than men. But still, some women are stronger than men.
b) Women in the western world are weaker than men partly because it is considered more important for men to be strong (sexism).
c) Physical strength is not the defining factor in (ancient) combat. Very often, soldiers were so young that they were not very strong, regardless of their sex. This was considered no problem. Combat is about command and control, weapon quality, formations, unit cohesion, tactics, weapon proficiency, and above all, morale.

You seem to be implying that women are equal to men physically, i don't think there is any evidence to support this

a)These 'some' women being a very small minority of the female population.
b)In the olympics men and women dont compete because of physical difference. It is not a fair competition. Men are by far much stronger, because of testosterone during growth and muscle development.
c)One of the Romans biggest advantages was the strength of the individual soldier. Roman troops were well fed, healthy and above all fit (and the later ones carried 40kg+ packs!). Strength is a massive advantage when fighting, a weaker opponent cannot effectively block or force movement on the opponent.

It is no secret that the vast majority of soldiers *everywhere in all time* have been men for these reasons (that and men are far more prone to violence). Thats not to say women are incapable of being warriors - that is patently false as there are plenty of examples of brave strong and inspiring women on the battlefield. It is just not possible for them to be the warriors you seem to be implying they were.

[DrSane]

It is no secret that the vast majority of soldiers *everywhere in all time* have been men for these reasons (that and men are far more prone to violence).

The best reason I've heard as to why women weren't soldiers was because they were more valuable to society than men were. If nearly all the men die in a war, it only takes a small handfull of (incredibly happy) men to repopulate. If you send off all the women and they're killed, your nation is completely ed.

[Praetorian349]

we already have female agents (good call imo), and also would like to see them used in a much more fleshed out political system, and even as generals for some factions although limited in number, and maybe with their own skill set to make them more interesting and special - not weaker maybe as buff oriented generals on the battlefield and being more volatile in the political and diplomatic realm. I think there is a lot of potential.




You seem to be implying that women are equal to men physically, i don't think there is any evidence to support this

a)These 'some' women being a very small minority of the female population.
b)In the olympics men and women dont compete because of physical difference. It is not a fair competition. Men are by far much stronger, because of testosterone during growth and muscle development.
c)One of the Romans biggest advantages was the strength of the individual soldier. Roman troops were well fed, healthy and above all fit (and the later ones carried 40kg+ packs!). Strength is a massive advantage when fighting, a weaker opponent cannot effectively block or force movement on the opponent.

It is no secret that the vast majority of soldiers *everywhere in all time* have been men for these reasons (that and men are far more prone to violence). Thats not to say women are incapable of being warriors - that is patently false as there are plenty of examples of brave strong and inspiring women on the battlefield. It is just not possible for them to be the warriors you seem to be implying they were.

Agree on all counts, +rep.

[Weltgeist]

It is no secret that the vast majority of soldiers *everywhere in all time* have been men for these reasons (that and men are far more prone to violence). Thats not to say women are incapable of being warriors - that is patently false as there are plenty of examples of brave strong and inspiring women on the battlefield. It is just not possible for them to be the warriors you seem to be implying they were.

The reason why the vast majority of soldiers were men is sexism, of course. Gender roles. How did those roles evolve? The neolithic revolution increased agricultural productivity, allowing for division of labour. Surplus food is the basis of every economy, for when there is no surplus food, everyone is equal in the sense that everyone is a hunter/gatherer. AFTER the neolithic revolution, there were different jobs in society, and different roles. (for example, priests and nobles) The simple reason for women being oppressed is that they have a slight disadventage, namely, that they can get pregnant. After male superiority as an ideology had been established, women were excluded from every important part of society.
So what I say is:

1) Women were indeed very seldom soldiers. Most soldiers were men.
2) The reason why there were few female soldiers are not mainly biological, but social.
3) There are cases of female soldiers in history. They should not be omitted from the game.

Strength is a massive advantage when fighting, a weaker opponent cannot effectively block or force movement on the opponent.

An ill-founded claim. Source? Have you ever held a sword? I know the scutum is very heavy, but there is a certain point when you can effectively USE your panoply, and if you go above that point strength-wise, it doesn't help much. Most panoplies can be used by fit, trained people regardless of their sex. (I said trained, not untrained) Blocking with swords is about the right angle and distance to the enemy. ("Time and place") Blocking with shields is very easy. Buy a shield, and tell a normal girl/woman to hold it. Tell the strongest guy you know to bash it. You will see, nothing happens, the shield still blocks the attack.

Also, remember:
1) Fighting was never the physical hollywood contact most people think of. It is rather advance and scare away than bludgeon people to death with clubs.
2) Most of the actual fighting was doratismos-style stabbing. Don't imagine something else.

shooting arrows off horseback was different to fighting in melee. sarmatians had men and maidens fighting in wars without discrimination. once women began childbearing they would stay back. it was on very few occasions that barbarian women went to fight battles and the ones they fought in were mainly defensive battles.

Shooting arrows from horseback is actually much more physically challenging than fighting in melee. Mad-rushing and spear-stabbing (95% of melee attacks are either the sword+shield mad rush, or the spear jab) are very easy compared to drawing a bow.

[Alkaline Earth]

The reason why the vast majority of soldiers were men is sexism, of course. Gender roles. How did those roles evolve? The neolithic revolution increased agricultural productivity, allowing for division of labour. Surplus food is the basis of every economy, for when there is no surplus food, everyone is equal in the sense that everyone is a hunter/gatherer. AFTER the neolithic revolution, there were different jobs in society, and different roles. (for example, priests and nobles) The simple reason for women being oppressed is that they have a slight disadventage, namely, that they can get pregnant. After male superiority as an ideology had been established, women were excluded from every important part of society.

ROFL WHAT IS THIS SCHOOL?

I'm in 10th grade and we learned about that this year in history. You are so ignorant of the truth man.

It was aliens.

[chris10]

The reason why the vast majority of soldiers were men is sexism, of course + wall of text

There was never, can never and will never be "equality" between men and woman and trying to talk this to death wont change that simple fact and the issue is somewhat tiresome since some social romantics always think they can discuss nature away which has designed different roles for both genders and that says it all. In our modern world both genders can fill more roles cause the obvious physical
female disadvantages have a less dramatic effect but still...the differences wont go away...same goes for thinking...men and women think different..men are more relying on the left brain hemishpere which houses logic, reason and so forth while in females the right brain hemisphere dominates... all this is scientificly prooven
And if you seriously insinuate an average trained woman can stand her ground in melee combat with swords,speers or axes against an average trained men you are delusional at best.
43 % of a mens weight is muscle mass and only 23% of a womans weight and men weight average 20-25kg more, additionally mens muscle fibers produce more power than the same female muscle...females muscles are desigend for low tension over longer periods of time...they can hold a baby on one arm for hours for example...its how we are designed

Blocking with shields is very easy. Buy a shield, and tell a normal girl/woman to hold it. Tell the strongest guy you know to bash it.You will see, nothing happens, the shield still blocks the attack.

Plain wrong...very strong and heavy guys will blow her to the ground together with her shield on the first blow as the hit energy may exceed by far the womans bodymass and the average trained man will send her to the ground with the 2nd to 4th blow...let alone that the woman needs all her energy to withstand the blows and maintain herself on her feet without having a single Watt of energy left to counterattack.
The difference in physical strength between men and women becomes dramatic in trained individuals (I know what Iam talking about) and is far greater than the difference between untrained individuals...so everyting you say is either moot or wrong. A trained man is aprox. 4 times stronger than a trained woman...all this talk on woman can do the same and stuff is ideological claptrap and utterly ignores the reality.
A woman can pull a trigger on a rifle but for prolonged physical warfare a female is no match for a man let alone during longer campaigns where the huge difference in muscle mass and bodyweight (on long campaigns soldiers loose weight) will have a dramatic impact on the overall physical condition, strength and endurance of a soldier.

Anyway...would love to see the 55-65 kg female warband fighting it out with the 80-90 kg male roman cohort...you gotta be kidding me.
The men probably wont take a single casualty if nobody stumbles over his own feet and falls into his own sword.

What I said was that strength is not a big factor in battle, because a) strength is not a big factor in sword/spear fighting, and b) fighting is not a big factor in battles.

Logical fallacy and all this is anyway moot in the moment you have to fight it out and physical strength and endurance (which are mutually dependant in meele trained individuals) are the most important things in melee combat apart from knowing how to use your weapons of course...you are a theorist but you have no clue about how hard and exhausting melee fighting really is.... I do.

Shooting arrows from horseback is actually much more physically challenging than fighting in melee.

Again, you never have been in melee combat or you would not says such utter nonsense.
A woman can train to put 30 kg of pulling force on a bow but melee combat would exhaust her entire body energy in 20-30 seconds.

[Tim_Ward]

It's almost like a male fantasy similar to Game Of Thrones (regrettably both of these are really good).

Because there are no female characters in that one.

[Elianus]

Using political marriages should certainly be presented in a better way and have a stronger effect. That should also apply to marriages inside the player's faction.
It is not really about women. It seems to me like another feature that CA never really explored that much. If there were any important female leaders in the celtic factions it goes without saying that they
should be in the game. I don't understand what you mean about the priestesses though.

[Nearby]

There was a feature to marry a princes to heir and gain alliance bonus in medieval total war .. so your ideas are not new , regarding women warlords , there should be few in britain ..

Because there are no female characters in that one.

There was the mountain chick in season 2 ???

[Emrys]

Boudicca was an Icini war lord from the time period that gave the Romans a run for their money, sacking two towns and defeating an entire Roman Legion. She may be featured in the game.

[Elianus]

Boudicca was an Icini war lord from the time period that gave the Romans a run for their money, sacking two towns and defeating an entire Roman Legion. She may be featured in the game.

The revolt took place in AD 60-61 so that seems unlikely.

[Sir. Cunningham]

The revolt took place in AD 60-61 so that seems unlikely.

Why ? AFAIK the game is going to stretch from ~280 BC till ~300 AD.

[Elianus]

Why ? AFAIK the game is going to stretch from ~280 BC till ~300 AD.

Has CA confirmed this? I hope it's true but it doesn't seem possible.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Has CA confirmed this? I hope it's true but it doesn't seem possible.

I remember that it was mentioned in an interview that Rome II will cover a very long period, stretching from the early republic and well into the time of the empire.

I believe a German article mentioned the starting date as 242 BC and the end date ~150 AD, so perhaps 300 AD is abit of a stretch, but 150 AD is fine as-well, expansions will be able cover the later as-well as much earlier periods.

[He111]

Boudicca was an Icini war lord from the time period that gave the Romans a run for their money, sacking two towns and defeating an entire Roman Legion. She may be featured in the game.

Actually she defeated a forward element of the IX Hispana, which the retreaded back. The Legion itself was more then 50% Intact. Some Internet media, like Wikipedia etc., is wrong about this one.

[Colonel Mallard]

Boudicca was an Icini war lord from the time period that gave the Romans a run for their money, sacking two towns and defeating an entire Roman Legion. She may be featured in the game.

She did then lose a battle where she had a 23 to 1 advantage losing 80000 men in the process whilst inflicting only 400 casualties or some-such embarrassing amount. As long as it increases realism without messing up gameplay, I'm a fan of it. If that means adding in women as well it's all good...

[Himster]

The recorded history of human violence is overwhelmingly male dominated.
The god-complex, that is a pre-requisite for being a total war fan, is far less common in females.