Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It is not because the past was a world of oppression toward women that we need for the sake of "historaly accuracy" cancel them. The usual excuse of haters. It is a game not an history simulation
If you make something historically accurate you "cancel" noone, that statement is simply nonsense. What you make is how it was in a particular time and space, and you add or remove as little as possible, only what is necessary for the particular media.
A game can be historically accurate, just like any media, that statement is also nonsense.
Accordingly, there is no "hate" in what I asked ( it was a list of questions, not statements, so already difficult to put "hate" in there to begin with).
I would say there is "hate" in your post though, so if the shoe fits, wear it.
Considering there's some occult stuff and all that going on it's not exactly a history simulation either. Funny how people like this always seem to find that stuff more plausible than women wielding weapons. In a turn based game where everyone politely waits their turn, just like in real life of course.
If the game had no connection to it or any history, they would not have mentioned it.
Besides, I was not talking abou women wiedling weapons, but fighting as frontline warriors. Details matter.
As for turn-based games, that's a poor try at gaslighting. Turns are a simplification to make a game playable easier if it's not a real-time game. There is no other option if you don'twant to design a real-time game.
And of course you had a bunch of semi-armed camp followers or women who fought when their towns or cities faced pillage.
Of course these were exceptional cases, and in the case of the two Jeannes they were either aristocratic in their own right or in the case of the Maid of Arc given aristocratic patronage and equipment. But it isn't quite as fantastical as one might think.
Camp followers were women employed for cooking, cleaning and as prostitutes. They followed armies on campaign.
It is as fantastical as I said, which you have confirmed with your own words above (again, thank you for that).
My guess is you know already what I said is true, but it contradicts your world view so disagree with me based on ideology, not on facts (there are none on your side, but that's just an aggravating factor). I want to encourage you to be a bit more courageous next time and admit the truth, even when you don't like it.
I wasn't trying to make anybody's point but history's, and I largely agree with you. That said, we know full well that Jeanne de Penthièvre did fight in armor and with knightly arms on many occasions (MOSTLY defensive sieges, but a few others), and of course a besieging army could expect desperate women to take up arms to fight rather than be killed or worse. And apparently this sometimes spread into "stasis" or civil war within cities when the Armagnacs and Burgundians killed each other. Parisian women got quite a bad reputation for being staunch Burgundian supporters.
But that wouldn't mean the Duke of Burgundy would go around recruiting them into his standing force.
And as a result a bunch of them did pick up SOME weapons or tactics, and we have a bunch of accounts of them killing the wounded of the other side after victories. Of course some of this was doubtless propaganda to demonize the other side and particularly hammer their women, but it stands to reason some were based on truth.
Of course, that hardly means they would be in full plate armor with a polearm. It's one thing to go around killing stragglers or the wounded after a battle, another to fight in it itself.
Camp followers were women employed for cooking, cleaning and as prostitutes. They followed armies on campaign.
Not trying to deny it.
Let me get this straight. I put forth a case based on history - as you full admit - in which I expressly stated it was meant to be "completely fair" and the like, and you automatically assume I am opposed to you, and because of ideology?
Get your head out of your ass and stop looking for a fight.
"On my side?"
You've openly admitted I have a good grasp of the facts, and that they often agree with you. So it sounds like you're conflating me with anyone else who disagrees with you.
And being a boorish fool in the process.
Mate, I've volunteered to track Islamist paramilitary groups around on the homefront. I have nothing to prove to you on the subject of courage.
Now try and stop being an idiot making enemies, even of people who largely agree with you.
To be fair, it isn't strictly optional. The tutorial features female characters in rather unlikely (to put it mildly) roles, and from my startup about half of the characters were female.
Zombies and magic weren't a thing in real life, but I do think it undermines the verisimilitude of the game world, especially in contrast to say the Plague Tale or even Mordheim settings, which have this stuff explained in fairly great detail and in ways that fit the setting.
I don't even know anyone who dislikes female characters.
What many people including me however dislike is for any group, including women, being shoehorned somewhere where they historically don't belong, just for preaching a "message", instead of based on story.
Btw it's the publishers/developers who insist on a historical setting, not me. This could have easily been a complete fantasy setting just inspired by the 100 years war. But that would be bad for virtue-signaling and would get no ESG money.
Does this game provide any explanation for why women suddenly are capable of surviving or even winning against men in melee combat? No, they are just there so that, you can already guess, the developers/publishers can virtue-signal and/or collect ESG money.
If the devs want women in the game then it's their choice nobody cares but losers like you, it's not "virtue-signalling" and "ESG money" (imagine making a RTTRPG if you wanted money).
Get off the youtube quatering and archwarhammer videos my dude and get some fresh air.
It's a game, and half the potential playerbase are women. Most men aren't bothered about the presence of women either and might just be happy to at least have extra options.
Feel free to not have any women in your force or limit them to specific classes. Maybe someone else wants to have a team of black women fight for France dressed in gold armour.
lmao.
alt+f4
the same, deleted demo, ignored game at store page
no questions
Reported for using misandrist slang. OP didn't even insult anyone just asked a question.