What other female units would you like in the game?

[Taskeen]

For historical type purposes, see if its possible to add female and male 3d models to ONE unit type. Would be useful for northern Europe cultures, for instance militia type units.

[Humble Warrior]

This has absolutely nothing to do with any manner of sexual stimulation in the slightest,and to be honest I am fully aware of several women involved in antiquity/late antiquity battle re enactment societies that wield a spear of similar type and design,including a heavy ash/oak haft and large weighted butt cap as well as blade. They toss it a good measure too. I am willing to assume you yourself have never actually wielded a spear,else you would understand that even a large one is significantly lighter than the Japanese Naginata,which is to this day wielded by 12 year old Japanese girls. Otherwise there is nothing even remotely outside the realms of reality concerning her apparel and warpaint,nor the lime wash that gives her the white streaks in the front of her hair. Your "kiddie" comments and insults are wholly uncalled for,as where others may be impressed by your attempts toward belligerence no one here is. Further,for all those who insist on making claims that there were never and could never be effective female warriors on the battlefields of the classical era,I am readily expecting your credentials and sources outside of your own opinions with which you are going to refute the current cutting edge research that says otherwise.

AGAIN,no one is laying claims to entire armies of women commandeering the plains,but to say that there simply were NO women at all involved throughout the annals of military history is simple ignorance shaped by what you "think" you understand about the modern world vs what the ancient world really was.

for the record,as you have declared the image of Etain pure fantasy,is it her appearance or your inability to believe a woman can be an effective fighter? If it is the former,I fail to understand how as it is well within what we know the early Brittanic tribes to have looked like,especially the less cultured ones north of the wall,be it the latter,there are women actively serving TODAY that can lay an average as well as above average man on the ground. The inability of your average modern woman to perform effective feats of arms requiring demonstrable strength and fortitude does not automatically rule out the ability of an ancient woman from a far harsher age doing so.News flash,modern men cant even do what ancient men were capable of.I let good sized healthy men wear my kit and engage in practice for a few minutes and they are ready to drop.

I think,should this thread continue to serve a purpose there needs to be an end to the keyboard commando bravado and insults

Please. You remind me of my student days when kids believed anything because they wanted to or their Lecturer told them. I get tired of these silly little arguments. I'll keep it brief though I know I'm wasting my time. Common sense and extrapolation.

In reality, a warrior woman:

1. Would look nothing like you'd expect her to. You'd probably think she was a man until she shouted.
2. There are clearly straight forward cases where it was simply wiser for the woman not to be the fighter but the man to be. In fact, it's considered that it was women that energised men to go out and fight in the first place because y'know, fighting is dangerous and you would very well die horribly from it. Women aren't stupid, let the men go do it. Warfare is actually a horrible thing.
3. Common sense says that there must have been the rare case of the woman warrior, but it would have been rare, even secret in most societies. Probably less warrior, but more woman needed to fight in a desperate situation.
4. Men are obviously clearly suited to warfare better than women. Why? Step out the front door and LOOK.

It was no different in Classical days, stop wishing it was.

Now if women want to be all warriors and go out and die horribly in wars, fine. I myself am quite happy just being an artist and not risking my life, but that's not the point of this. The point is the REALITY OF HISTORY which if you're not careful you will pervert into something that is not true, just because you want it so. Be very careful not to make that error.

[stevehoos]

For historical type purposes, see if its possible to add female and male 3d models to ONE unit type. Would be useful for northern Europe cultures, for instance militia type units.

It's not historical, and it can't be done anyway.

[atheniandp]

Technology has gone a long way in reducing every person into a mere human resource. (Moderns call this "equality".) Hence women and children in today's world can and do operate guns, weaponry, etc. (This is supposed to be a good thing apparently.)

Nonetheless the overwhelming majority of soldiers today are adult men, despite the changing modes of warfare that make it more egalitarian. How then can we anachronistically impose contemporary feminist views on ages in history in which competence in combat was largely decided by physical strength and endurance, areas in which only the rarest of women can match men? Daughters of Mars is ridiculous.

[Chevalier IX]

Please. You remind me of my student days when kids believed anything because they wanted to or their Lecturer told them. I get tired of these silly little arguments. I'll keep it brief though I know I'm wasting my time. Common sense and extrapolation.

In reality, a warrior woman:

1. Would look nothing like you'd expect her to. You'd probably think she was a man until she shouted.
2. There are clearly straight forward cases where it was simply wiser for the woman not to be the fighter but the man to be. In fact, it's considered that it was women that energised men to go out and fight in the first place because y'know, fighting is dangerous and you would very well die horribly from it. Women aren't stupid, let the men go do it. Warfare is actually a horrible thing.
3. Common sense says that there must have been the rare case of the woman warrior, but it would have been rare, even secret in most societies. Probably less warrior, but more woman needed to fight in a desperate situation.
4. Men are obviously clearly suited to warfare better than women. Why? Step out the front door and LOOK.

It was no different in Classical days, stop wishing it was.

Now if women want to be all warriors and go out and die horribly in wars, fine. I myself am quite happy just being an artist and not risking my life, but that's not the point of this. The point is the REALITY OF HISTORY which if you're not careful you will pervert into something that is not true, just because you want it so. Be very careful not to make that error.

Please see this post from the main discussion concerning the DLC in order to better understand I am not the kid you want me to be....

We must be careful when considering something fact or fiction on the sole dependence of the character,unit or personality in question being present in primary source text,as remember,the majority of the "factions" currently in question made no written record of ANY of their history,and with the assumption that a warrior society such as the Germans would have seen it is no strange thing that a woman would fight when called to do so,it is highly unlikely they would have went out of their way to make any sort of record or mention of it,though there are scholars in the field with the belief that seeing they had myriad "mythical" female figures depicted in battle roles if not outright Goddesses of War themselves,it stands to any reason that such a thing as a warrior woman had to have been known to them in some capacity,especially if one wants to go with the assumption that tradition,spiritual faith and religion serve as a direct reflection of the society from which it springs and vice versa.

Also,Rome not going out of their way to mention the participation of female combatants could be explained away in several ways,the most obvious being seeing as we are not dealing with a fantasy movie or comic book(he least of which being Roman history and scholarship is questionable at best,with scholars constantly forced to separate fact,fiction and just blatant propaganda),the women on the field would have been just as armoured,if not more so than their male counterparts,rendering it difficult to tell what gender ANY opponent was,not to mention no one is paying too much mind to their foe in the thick of it. They would not even been able to rely on things such as Hair length as the barbarians would ALL have had long hair in varying types and styles.There are several well documented situations that saw women in history pass for men when in uniform,therefore why would we assume otherwise here,especially when considering a Barbarian Horde of over 100,000 ,is it so unrealistic to believe that as many as 500-1000 of them could have been women indiscernible of their gender? No one would really know until the bodies were stripped,and even then this might have warranted no mention as it may have not been remarkable enough to make note of considering the opponent in question.

This theory has also been put forth to reconcile recent discoveries that many of the discernibly warrior burials belonging to the Scandinavian/Viking raiders/settlers in Britain have recently been found to contain women,previously believed to be young boys. Why then,do we have numerous women in the burial mounds,not as slaves,servants or wives,but as warriors( Norse tradition does not support just anyone being buried with weapons,regardless of station therefore the warrior culture argument does not hold water here),buried with the very tools they used in life as they will need them again in death,but little to no mention of women by the contemporary sources? Because to an unwitting eye everyone looks the same in full kit.To test this theory numerous re enactors were gathered and dressed in full kit before being set off into battle. After the skirmish the opposing side as well as the audience were asked to pick out who the women were.The majority of participants didnt even know there were women there! See where this is going?????

This being said,again it is YOU who are making the error of superimposing a modern mindset upon a people that could not possibly have been more different than we are today,from the way they lived to the way they believed and how they viewed such things as battle,war and death. Believe it or not,the pre christian world was rife with men and women that not only held no fear in heart of death,but at times welcomed it not only as a blessing,but as an obligation to fight,struggle and possibly lose your life for the sake,protection and perpetuation of the tribe. Men being more suited toward warfare has zero to do with the participation of women,as a grown woman was likely more suited than a boy to war,but they brought them along as young as 12 years old. You must also keep in mind that during this era there was a much bigger motivation for going to war,that being SURVIVAL itself,of yourself,your family,your tribe,your very way of life. Raids were conducted to feed the tribe,hordes formed to battle an invading enemy,conquest engaged that your people might survive. This is not to be confused with warfare of the modern era in which we currently live,where the outcome of the current campaigns holds no bearing to us one way or the other. No one is going to sack our cities,no one is going to erase our culture,and no one is going to wipe out our bloodline. For example,the European forces currently engaged in theatres in the east,whether they win or lose I go about my life like it never happened. Not so then,with the full awareness that should I see the forces of my folk return in defeat,I can be damn sure our outright destruction may be close to follow. With that much at stake,why then,would the tribes of old not put a sword in every damn hand that could hold one,assuring that they were ready,able and willing to use it should the time come to do so?

again,there is no need to make assumptions and condescend when a mere conversation will suffice

[Sebidee]

This isn't necessarily true. Those of us who play multiplayer and want to feel immersed in antiquity, while playing against an unpredictable human opponent (multiplayer can contribute to realism), will now have to put up with people who field armies of or with women. Total immersion killer.

Have you played any multiplayer battles recently? It has absolutely nothing to do with history. Players use armies (Praetorians) and tactics (the noob square) which never would have occurred in real life. Why? because they want to win! Going to multiplayer for historical authenticity is silly.

Maybe you should think of multiplayer a little more. You are saying that people will use armies of women. Well, 'multi' implies that there is more than one player and if that player has female units then it because he wanted them. Who are you to say that people can't use units you don't like in their own games?

What is it about the use of historically accurate units that doesn't hold people's interest? Perhaps total war feeds those who are uninterested in history or even in the TW campaign game itself. Maybe the DLC helps to convince them that their boredom will change to interest and fascination.

People have said again and again and again that they like the new units, they like their history and they like to use them. Yet you believe that people could only like the game if it was 100% historically accurate. Why is it so mind boggling to you that players could like something that you don't or like it for different reasons? Broaden your horizons a little.

The fact that I made a one-line opinionated critique of his mod compilation as a matter of taste was by no means an insult, and if you think it was then you are overly sensitive.

Read that critique and then re-read it. Now think about how anyone could have considered it insulting (I think the lol at the end gives it away). You also insinuated that Radious' opinion is completely useless on this thread. It was NOT ok.

AGAIN,no one is laying claims to entire armies of women commandeering the plains,but to say that there simply were NO women at all involved throughout the annals of military history is simple ignorance shaped by what you "think" you understand about the modern world vs what the ancient world really was.

for the record,as you have declared the image of Etain pure fantasy,is it her appearance or your inability to believe a woman can be an effective fighter? If it is the former,I fail to understand how as it is well within what we know the early Brittanic tribes to have looked like,especially the less cultured ones north of the wall,be it the latter,there are women actively serving TODAY that can lay an average as well as above average man on the ground. The inability of your average modern woman to perform effective feats of arms requiring demonstrable strength and fortitude does not automatically rule out the ability of an ancient woman from a far harsher age doing so.News flash,modern men cant even do what ancient men were capable of.I let good sized healthy men wear my kit and engage in practice for a few minutes and they are ready to drop.

^ Can this please be the last word on history. That along with all of the sources we already provided should show that female warriors existed, though rarely. Any other arguement is just personal opinion and armchair historians shouldn't engage in that, otherwise their *incredible, infallible historical insight* might be in question.


But back to modding. Chevalier, You think Olga is looking well so far?

[Chevalier IX]

Have you played any multiplayer battles recently? It has absolutely nothing to do with history. Players use armies (Praetorians) and tactics (the noob square) which never would have occurred in real life. Why? because they want to win! Going to multiplayer for historical authenticity is silly.

Maybe you should think of multiplayer a little more. You are saying that people will use armies of women. Well, 'multi' implies that there is more than one player and if that player has female units then it because he wanted them. Who are you to say that people can't use units you don't like in their own games?




People have said again and again and again that they like the new units, they like their history and they like to use them. Yet you believe that people could only like the game if it was 100% historically accurate. Why is it so mind boggling to you that players could like something that you don't or like it for different reasons? Broaden your horizons a little.




Read that critique and then re-read it. Now think about how anyone could have considered it insulting (I think the lol at the end gives it away). You also insinuated that Radious' opinion is completely useless on this thread. It was NOT ok.




^ Can this please be the last word on history. That along with all of the sources we already provided should show that female warriors existed, though rarely. Any other arguement is just personal opinion and armchair historians shouldn't engage in that, otherwise their *incredible, infallible historical insight* might be in question.


But back to modding. Chevalier, You think Olga is looking well so far?

In respect to your wishes as the OP as well as your limitless positive contributions to the Rome 2 modding circuit,I will,for my part,cease the historical banter and instead focus on the task at hand,being the modding aspects <y apologies as I meant no disrespect. On the topic of the model,it is looks AWESOME Thanks so much for considering my suggestion Certainly looking forward to it in the field

[Sebidee]

She had a fur cloak in the picture I believe but that'll need texturing. Still a little puzzled on how to actually have her in game though.

[stevehoos]

It simply amazes me that people continue to argue that female warriors were prevalent enough in antiquity to be considered as units in this game- and be historically accurate. Fantasy is fun though, it's a free world.

[atheniandp]

Hannibal used what is essentially a 'noob square' at Cannae. Phalanx warfare was pretty much predicated on 'noob square' principles. More explicit 'noob square' tactics were used in the early modern and modern periods, in tercios and Napoleonic battles. It's not a ridiculous strategy. Nothing is, as there are no rules in war. While multiplayer battles are a poor place to seek authenticity, Total War is clearly the best existing platform on which to do so because it purports to be a historical strategy game. All I ask is that CA stay consistent with the very theme of Rome II, which is that of history, and that's not asking much at all. Your reasoning of "it's already inaccurate, so why not make it more inaccurate" runs a slippery slope, as I've already indicated. Where should it stop? At warrior women? At tanks? Starship Enterprise?

And you've offered no argument as to why you think I was insulting Radious, only your misguided intuition, even after I've affirmed that I had no intention to insult anyone. This accusation is becoming borderline offensive now.

[Sebidee]

In respect to your wishes as the OP as well as your limitless positive contributions to the Rome 2 modding circuit,I will,for my part,cease the historical banter and instead focus on the task at hand,being the modding aspects <y apologies as I meant no disrespect. On the topic of the model,it is looks AWESOME Thanks so much for considering my suggestion Certainly looking forward to it in the field

Actually Chevalier, I don't think Olga looks good. I mean in that picture she is clearly several thousand feet in the air, pure fantasy, people couldn't fly back then. She's standing on her spear too, another inaccuacy. Any self respecting warrior wouldn't stand on their spear.

On top of that the armour is way too heavy for a woman. Even today women have trouble withstanding the weight of their everyday clothes, hence why the bikinis exists!

[Huberto]

People have said again and again and again that they like the new units, they like their history and they like to use them. Yet you believe that people could only like the game if it was 100% historically accurate. Why is it so mind boggling to you that players could like something that you don't or like it for different reasons? Broaden your horizons a little.

I could just as easily say the same to you...because people have said again and again how much they don't like these units, precisely because they are fantasy and that they don't want them in their games, and that they don't like the stance of the developer in devoting 2 DLC's to such fantasy units. Maybe you should broaden your horizons and notice all the negative chatter around you? Because there are so many better ideas for DLC than this sort of thing, DLC that would be in keeping with the historical setting of the game.

[Chevalier IX]

She had a fur cloak in the picture I believe but that'll need texturing. Still a little puzzled on how to actually have her in game though.

I was thinking she could be the "captain" of an elite or perhaps specialist unit similar to the "Night Hunters" with stealth capability and good melee ,as well as "curse" and perhaps head hunt ,but of course not powerful enough to stand as a full front line unit,but definitely able to mix it up when called for. The "soldiers" of the unit I was thinking could be along the lines of the "painted warriors" but of course female,using a combination of the blue "woad" as well as the dark eye khol that is seen on some of the Gladiatrix models. This is of course simply a suggestion in line with how this "unit" was represented in the source material,being the cinema,in the interest of capturing the essence of the character. I am sure you will make the best decision at the end of the day

[saxnot]

Technology has gone a long way in reducing every person into a mere human resource. (Moderns call this "equality".) Hence women and children in today's world can and do operate guns, weaponry, etc. (This is supposed to be a good thing apparently.)

Nonetheless the overwhelming majority of soldiers today are adult men, despite the changing modes of warfare that make it more egalitarian. How then can we anachronistically impose contemporary feminist views on ages in history in which competence in combat was largely decided by physical strength and endurance, areas in which only the rarest of women can match men? Daughters of Mars is ridiculous.

Ya know, i'd feel a lot better about this discussion if we could stop confusing 'women did not regularly participate in battles so perhaps this is not a very historically accurate DLC' with 'The feminists are coming to take our willies away'

[Sebidee]

Hannibal used what is essentially a 'noob square' at Cannae. Phalanx warfare was pretty much predicated on 'noob square' principles. More explicit 'noob square' tactics were used in the early modern and modern periods, in tercios and Napoleonic battles. It's not a ridiculous strategy. Nothing is, as there are no rules in war. While multiplayer battles are a poor place to seek authenticity, Total War is clearly the best existing platform on which to do so because it purports to be a historical strategy game. All I ask is that CA stay consistent with the very theme of Rome II, which is that of history, and that's not asking much at all. Your reasoning of "it's already inaccurate, so why not make it more inaccurate" runs a slippery slope, as I've already indicated. Where should it stop? At warrior women? At tanks? Starship Enterprise?

Hannibal did not use a noob square at Cannae, if you're going to critique stuff on their historical accuracy then make sure you know some.

Total war has never been 100% historically accurate, it's authentically themed, that's a subtle difference but still a difference. I think maybe you are basing a lot of your historical knowledge on what you've experienced in total war. For example, I was convinced that Greek hoplites fought with pikes simply because that was how they were presented in Rome 1 (which, by the way, was a game with hundreds of historical flaws).

If you look at other TW games you will notice their inaccuracies. It's a little telling that you will scrutinise Rome 2 so closely while ignoring every game that came before it.

Also STARSHIP ENTERPRISE? Why is it necessary to exaggerate things like that? Anything CA adds will be authentic to the period.

[Huberto]

Total war has never been 100% historically accurate, it's authentically themed, that's a subtle difference but still a difference.

Classic straw man argument. No one is has ever asked for 100% accuracy. EVER. Rather, I think you are asking for us to swallow TW: cosplay in our game in a authentic historical setting.

[Sebidee]

I could just as easily say the same to you...because people have said again and again how much they don't like these units, precisely because they are fantasy and that they don't want them in their games, and that they don't like the stance of the developer in devoting 2 DLC's to such fantasy units. Maybe you should broaden your horizons and notice all the negative chatter around you? Because there are so many better ideas for DLC than this sort of thing, DLC that would be in keeping with the historical setting of the game.

I find that it is better to err on the side of positivity. Focus on the people who like those aspects and not those who don't. It makes people much happier. I have my own views (I actually do like accuracy, that's why my mods attempt authenticity) I also like and dislike certain mods, units and game features, I just don't voice me opinions in ways that would be offensive or force them on others.

Also, this was one of the most requested DLCs, you didn't notice that? It's a bit egotistical to think your ideas are better than those of others.

Classic straw man argument. No one is has ever asked for 100% accuracy. EVER. Rather, I think you are asking for us to swallow TW: cosplay in our game in a authentic historical setting.

Plenty have asked for 100% accuracy. And cosplay? what units in the Free-LC and DLC have anything to do with cosplay? This is exaggeration on the same level as the Starship enterprise. It's true that there may be some cosplay like mods but those are mods and you don't have to use them.

[General Retreat]

Given that this thread is running off-topic at a rate of knots, I'm requesting that any further historical discussion is moved to this thread here. Please keep this on topic and within the scope of the original OP. Future wandering may be moved or removed.

[crucify_ego]

Also, this was one of the most requested DLCs, you didn't notice that?

Really??? Anyway if so many wanted this as you say, wouldn't it have made more sense for ppl to pay for this dlc rather than have these fantasy girls dumped into the base game?

[Huberto]

Also, this was one of the most requested DLCs, you didn't notice that? It's a bit egotistical to think your ideas are better than those of others.

I didn't notice that. I would just say these aren't "my ideas," I didn't make up or invent the ancient world.

And cosplay? what units in the Free-LC and DLC have anything to do with cosplay? This is exaggeration on the same level as the Starship enterprise. It's true that there may be some cosplay like mods but those are mods and you don't have to use them.

No my use of cosplay is a tiny exaggeration, to make the point dressing up women as warriors in units in this setting is almost fetishistic RPG nonsense that is clearly inappropriate for the TWR2 setting.