Desert Kingdoms DLC

[black_Viking]

nubian queens were known too lead troops and also were armour there is the bas relief that depicts KentakesShanakdakhete dressed in armour wielding a spear,besides that Kandake Amanirenas personally led a 5 year campaign against roman egypt.

[Geffalrus]

@Vardano: Rome 2 and DeI are fantasy games. Full stop. They may be clothed differently and use different sets of logic, but they're fantasy nonetheless. If they were historically accurate, Rome would win the exact same way every time and players would lose the game every time they deviated from the prescribed path.

What you're actually talking about is having the right type of historical fantasy, which is fine. That's what we all want deep down.

And the increased amount of consideration for female gamers is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming consideration for male gamers that was and is the rule.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

@Vardano: Rome 2 and DeI are fantasy games. Full stop. They may be clothed differently and use different sets of logic, but they're fantasy nonetheless. If they were historically accurate, Rome would win the exact same way every time and players would lose the game every time they deviated from the prescribed path.What you're actually talking about is having the right type of historical fantasy, which is fine. That's what we all want deep down.And the increased amount of consideration for female gamers is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming consideration for male gamers that was and is the rule.

I'm a day late on this, but just for thought here.Why does a game need females in it to cater to females. Or vice versa?These are video GAMES, right? As in pretend, play. Not real. Why do we specifically need our own gender represented in the video game for us to be "considered"? This isn't even specifically a question for you Geffarius, but your post just made me really think, why.

I honestly don't know but I am pretty sure it will just keep you from starting new campaigns as those factions.

I'm 99.9% repeating sure it'll break his save so he won't be able to continue his campaign anyways.


Edit: Thanks Calig

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

A reminder: Be civil to each other...You can bash CA as much as you like...You know respectfully though.

[Dresden]

Lets remember to keep it civil everyone Its a contentious topic.

And Greek strategos beats me to it :p

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Lets remember to keep it civil everyone Its a contentious topic.

And Greek strategos beats me to it :p

Blame it on my Jedi reflexes.

[Geffalrus]

@Nordling: Again, it's to show that societal stresses change how people view gender roles. Not saying women WERE conquering foreign nations all that often, only that in the right circumstances they COULD have been. Just like how the Arevaci did not historically conquer Rome and Carthage, but in my game they did.

Maybe we should wait to see what actually is included in the final DLC before jumping to conclusions. And at no point did I argue against the idea that CA's armor design choices were stupid. They are. I already made it clear that I'm not overly optimistic about what they're doing to the Saba roster. That video had way, way too much cavalry. Saba could gain cavalry armies eventually, but that's rarely what CA portrays. They're going to have Saba start with mass cavalry armies, probably. That will be fairly ridiculous.

Marian legions are a modern creation and interpretation. What you're actually talking about is a military change where the poor are armed and trained at state expense. Which matches the example I used.

[Kolaris8472]

@Nordling: Again, it's to show that societal stresses change how people view gender roles. Not saying women WERE conquering foreign nations all that often, only that in the right circumstances they COULD have been. Just like how the Arevaci did not historically conquer Rome and Carthage, but in my game they did.

Those things are not remotely comparable. I get what you're trying to say, but you're looking at this through a modern lens. Thousands of years of best-fit societal norms were at work here, they were not "the right circumstances" away from changing. Or rather, the "right circumstances" involve a couple more thousand years of improvements to agriculture, medicine, and industry that made universal suffrage possible. To say nothing about the physical requirements of fighting in this era.

[Geffalrus]

Those things are not remotely comparable. I get what you're trying to say, but you're looking at this through a modern lens. Thousands of years of best-fit societal norms were at work here, they were not "the right circumstances" away from changing. Or rather, the "right circumstances" involve a couple more thousand years of improvements to agriculture, medicine, and industry that made universal suffrage possible. To say nothing about the physical requirements of fighting in this era.

And I made it very clear that the physical requirements of fighting in this era are/were not insurmountable to women of that era. You think peasant women who worked on a farm were weak? Some aspects of ancient fighting advantaged the larger on average size of the male gender. Those advantages disappear when you pit women with training and exercise against men without it. And - again - ancient warfare was as much about skirmishing as it was about big beefy melee scrums (probably even more so). Skirmishing is much less about size and muscle mass and much more about endurance, agility, and lean muscle - all things that women can develop as easily as men.

[Tiny]

And I made it very clear that the physical requirements of fighting in this era are/were not insurmountable to women of that era. You think peasant women who worked on a farm were weak? Some aspects of ancient fighting advantaged the larger on average size of the male gender. Those advantages disappear when you pit women with training and exercise against men without it. And - again - ancient warfare was as much about skirmishing as it was about big beefy melee scrums (probably even more so). Skirmishing is much less about size and muscle mass and much more about endurance, agility, and lean muscle - all things that women can develop as easily as men.

You're grossly underestimating the advantages of men over women physically here. I don't mean to be negative though, and some of this is more for the broader discussion rather than simply replying to you.

Women cannot develop endurance, agility, and lean muscle as well as men can. Men can run faster for longer with more weight and their bodies can handle more physical abuse (even in modern marathon running, there's a disparity of rough 15~20min between the best male and female, in favor of the man). I'm not claiming that women cannot develop these qualities, it's patently clear that women can make great athletes, but many top-performing women in any given athletic arena get absolutely out-competed by men who aren't even in the top 100s of it. Even Serena Williams, a world famous female tennis player, has admitted that she couldn't compete with the best men even remotely. There is no denial of exceptions here, but said exceptions prove the rule by their innate rarity. If anything, it makes top-performing women all the more spectacular. It does not, however, make them the pragmatic choice in army composition.

So, that's at the high-performance end of the distribution. When you need to raise an army of thousands? There is no point in picking women. In every melee, they will lose overwhelming against male-only units, as all the men have to do is set their weight-advantage against them, and they'll topple them over, shock their bodies, et cetera. In skirmishes, they will tire out well before men do, and they won't be capable of throwing javelins as far. And the mean male physical competence is so above and beyond women's that the average woman would be utterly defenseless. Not to mention women have less aggression in general due to lacking the amount of testosterone that men thrive upon.

In essence, you will lose your battles tactically just by having the enemy set his force upon yours. It would be disastrous.

Women can be fantastic leaders, politicians, and strategists; there is overwhelming evidence of female capability in these respects that it need no argumentation on its behalf. Yet to be a military strategist, especially of that time, you had to fight and bleed alongside soldiers, or in the very least look capable of it, in order to secure loyalty and lead effectively through difficulties in campaigns. This is to say nothing of the military service requirements in much of Roman political life. The odds are against women in uniting fighting men to a cause and leading them directly, and women would likely lack any kind of perspective on what fighting was like.

I'm glad CA is adding women like Cleopatra, and that you can use women has generals, but I'm uncomfortable with forwarding the notion that women could do the job of men so often; it's just untrue, and it actually devalues the feats of many women in history, because generally speaking, those women had a mountain to climb to do what they did. It cannot be simultaneously true that women were largely competitive with men in history in terms of military and politics, yet they are so rare and inspiring and so forth.

[Nordling]

@Geffalrus: No, it could not have been. Mainly because women are just generally weaker in physical terms than men and cannot compete with them in ancient style of warfare. This is just biology and distinction between geneders. And if you're suggesting that if one tribe/people can beat other in-game in contrary to history then it means that there are no limitations left then go ahead. I'm trying to stay in the area of reason.

[Geffalrus]

@Geffalrus: No, it could not have been. Mainly because women are just generally weaker in physical terms than men and cannot compete with them in ancient style of warfare. This is just biology and distinction between geneders. And if you're suggesting that if one tribe/people can beat other in-game in contrary to history then it means that there are no limitations left then go ahead. I'm trying to stay in the area of reason.

Clearly you've never met my mother.

On average, yes, men have some advantages in terms of body size, muscle mass, and aggression. Those things have their place in war and fighting. But they are by no means the entirety. Loyalty, obedience, speed, and agility are also important - and - places where male superiority is not as much of a thing. On top of that, those "male advantages" really only come into play when you're dealing with a man and woman of equal athleticism. The Olympics are a good example where victory comes down to minor differences yielding noticeable results. When you take maximization out of the picture, you're left with a situation where the person (male or female) who has trained/practiced/exercised more will be stronger, regardless of gender. So if I'm Sparta, and I put my ladies through the Agoge, they will wipe the floor with the part time citizen levy of Athens. Training is superior to genetics and gender in most cases.

And that's just when talking about heavy infantry combat that favors big strong men. Skirmishing? Stealth? Light cavalry? All things that benefit someone who's not super heavy and muscular. All things that women could do just as well as men provided they got the same training and opportunities. Which is - again - why I'm presupposing everything on societal upheavals and/or political decisions to devote state resources to the conscription and training of women. Those are the things that would change the martial calculus regarding gender.

You can talk about "reason" all you want, but misogyny is what is coming out of your mouth. Sorry if that's not civil, but this person is seriously closed minded.

[Nordling]

Clearly you've never met my mother.

On average, yes, men have some advantages in terms of body size, muscle mass, and aggression. Those things have their place in war and fighting. But they are by no means the entirety. Loyalty, obedience, speed, and agility are also important - and - places where male superiority is not as much of a thing. On top of that, those "male advantages" really only come into play when you're dealing with a man and woman of equal athleticism. The Olympics are a good example where victory comes down to minor differences yielding noticeable results. When you take maximization out of the picture, you're left with a situation where the person (male or female) who has trained/practiced/exercised more will be stronger, regardless of gender. So if I'm Sparta, and I put my ladies through the Agoge, they will wipe the floor with the part time citizen levy of Athens. Training is superior to genetics and gender in most cases.

And that's just when talking about heavy infantry combat that favors big strong men. Skirmishing? Stealth? Light cavalry? All things that benefit someone who's not super heavy and muscular. All things that women could do just as well as men provided they got the same training and opportunities. Which is - again - why I'm presupposing everything on societal upheavals and/or political decisions to devote state resources to the conscription and training of women. Those are the things that would change the martial calculus regarding gender.

You can talk about "reason" all you want, but misogyny is what is coming out of your mouth. Sorry if that's not civil, but this person is seriously closed minded.

I'm not saying that women can't fight. I'm saying that men are more naturally inclined to fight in ancient style of warfare. And when I say it is not possible however you want to put it is because civilisations were patriarchic at that time and there was no way it could have happened. In that scope it is a wild fantasy of yours and I don't get why do you defend it "to the last man" (pun intended). And saying that you can sack Rome as Arevaci does not mean that there are no limitations anymore and you can go on developing gunpowder for your front lines.

Misogyny is one thing, being reasonable and taking numerous variables into account is another.

But whatever suits you best.

[Jin-]

1:35 000 ratio females to men in WW1, still not much higher.
Tests show that men have +50% of upper body strength by default and +30-40% lower body. That alone makes things like shield maidens ridiculous Hollywood stunt. If the armies consisted 50/50 of both sexes then who would take care of the children and household. Hollywood does it in movies but who in real life? Men? No lol

In Fantasy games i play 100% of the time female, but when it's historical title and marketed as such i can't stand it

Maybe have sport cars or flying donkeys in next DLC, pretty sure some Hollywood movie had it so it must be true

[papaya beast]

It seems like this post has gone wildly off course.

Women or no, none of us give a about the actual content of the DLC. The question is, how to push back since they just stole the DEI teams work, corrupted it, and now want to paywall us with it.

Any ideas?

[Aristeides]

The question is, how to push back since they just stole the DEI teams work, corrupted it, and now want to paywall us with it.

Any ideas?

I'd like DeI developer team to come up with short, clear and definitive list of bug fixes they wish from CA. And then we can find ways to communicate this wish list efficiently to CA RomeII team, which gladly is still active.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I'd like DeI developer team to come up with short, clear and definitive list of bug fixes they wish from CA. And then we can find ways to communicate this wish list efficiently to CA RomeII team, which gladly is still active.

Many of us have tried various ways of communication for bug reporting, modding wishes etc to the company. They usually agree and promise to ''look into the matter'' but you know the results...

[Colest]

Many of us have tried various ways of communication for bug reporting, modding wishes etc to the company. They usually agree and promise to ''look into the matter'' but you know the results...

I can see the frustration there but it couldn't hurt to have more people pestering them about it, especially if they're sinking dev time into Rome 2.

Barring map editing which is unlikely to ever come with warscape, what are like top 5 things the team wishes were fixed, more editable, or features implemented?

[Vardano]

Clearly CA knows where to find a place for inspiration to develop their new games. The way they do it is really cheap, I personally despise this type of things but still think it potentially could lead to much better things for a team...


Anyway, let's really try to find the way to communicate with CA. We should write official letter from a DEI team and community and ask to add and fix some stuff since they officially care about old titles and want to support Rome II in particular.
What I would like to see?

1. Please extend the number of building slots. It is critical change for AI.
2. Fix naval landings. Help AI to use it naval fleet with more logic and not stuck in the middle of nowhere for many turns and starve.
3. Help DEI team to make AI able to upgrade its units after reforms and not stick with old units. Very important change at some point.
4. Make AI actually do something when it declares war, not to sit there and wait for their doom.
5. Some formations are clearly not working and modders finding their ways to fix it somehow. Please fix it too.
6. Pathfinding on walls still a bit of an issue. Units still starting to run in the wrong way and only later heading in the right direction.

You'll surprised but family free would be very nice addition.

[pawelrut]

Putting the physical aspect aside, women have a value, men are expandable.
A tribe using female warriors on a large scale would not survive.

Let’s assume a tribe losing it entire fighting force of 1000. All that is left is just 50 men and let’s say 1000 noncombatant women. This tribe will recover its fighting force in just one generation.

Consider if the opposite was true, just 50 women and 50 men left, or let’s say 1000 noncombatant men left. This tribe will not recover the lost of its warriors in a long, long time. It's not going to survive.

It’s simple survivor behavior. Battles and even entire wars ware fight over women. A tribe was willing to lose men in battle to gain women.