Women in Total War Three Kingdoms

[Master Knight]

This is probably a bit of a touchy subject for some people.
As you might know, women weren't really much on the foreground in chinese history, and the three kingdoms period is no exception nor is the novel that was based on it, the Romance of the Three Kingoms.
I completely understand why they would make women more prevalent in the game, and I have to admit it's pretty cool to just send your wife and daughter into war or make someone's daughter kill her own family in battle.
It's not that women didn't have any power at all, they were just behind the scenes. Examples are Emperess Dowager Dong and Emperor Xian's consort Dong.
The only issue I have with it is that it is simply historically inaccurate and/or unfaithful to the novel to have female generals all over the place, it takes me out of the immersion a bit. Sure, there are some historical examples of women leading men into battle in ancient China but they are few and far between. It's certainly CA's right to have creative freedom when it comes to their adaptation but I would personally really like to see an option to change this or at least (more likely) a mod that adresses this.

Honestly it's not a big deal but it's just something I'd like to see. Workshop when?

[Insurgent Korrah]

You should not justify yourself so much, your point is correct. The developers had already discredited themself with a similar nonsense that was suddenly pushed into Rome II in form of an update, now they introduce it into the game on release.

By the way in the Chinese language they have a word to describe people like CA - 白左

[Budoshi]

Dont worry im sure many feels that way and mods gonna fix your issues. As for me i like having women in total wars games as fighters and generals,heros and so forth not just baby breeders .
But i understand some may prefer to stick to realist as much as possible so they probably should have remove all women from the fighting in record mode..but you bet mods gonna do that since other total war titles have them already.

[Ser Benjy]

In mods we trust

[Hollywood]

This is a non-issue, anyone who thinks this game is based off history is silly. Romance of the Three Kingdoms was fiction with "some" historical accuracy, unlike what other people who haven't been archaeologists will try to get you to believe. It's exactly the same as if someone today wrote a novel about 500 A.D. and it was accepted as history 500 years from now. This is a fantasy game, if you wanted a perfect historical representation, then take away every elite unit from every Total War game because for every hundred thousand people with clubs and tools, there was maybe 10 people with armor and actual weapons. Seriously, finding an ancient sword from that era is almost impossible unless you're digging up Greek and Roman sites. Almost every actual sword or other metal weapon we have discovered comes from less than 500 years ago unless they were the ever so popular lumber axe or farming hoe/scythe. Enjoy and embrace the fantasy my man, that's all this or any other TW title is.

[Betty]

Hollywoodkik, you're so wrong I don't even know what to say.

People want the women generals removed from the Historical version of the gameplay, that's fair as women weren't in military roles during that time. Even now very few woman are boots on the ground types.

Women and children were resources during this time, there was no medical tech and having a child could easily kill a woman. A woman fighter would make no sense because without children your population dies out, no population = no money and no troops.

Btw they weren't savages back then, armored horses and men did exist and well off factions could pull off armored regiments. The Koreans fought off the Japanese with metal spiked boats, Romans, Persians and Greeks fielded thousands of armored men for campaigns.

Not sure why this is a touchy subject, women didn't run around on the battlefield like it was some COD game.

[Hollywood]

Originally posted by Senler:

Hollywoodkik, you're so wrong I don't even know what to say.

People want the women generals removed from the Historical version of the gameplay, that's fair as women weren't in military roles during that time. Even now very few woman are boots on the ground types.

Women and children were resources during this time, there was no medical tech and having a child could easily kill a woman. A woman fighter would make no sense because without children your population dies out, no population = no money and no troops.

Btw they weren't savages back then, armored horses and men did exist and well off factions could pull off armored regiments. The Koreans fought off the Japanese with metal spiked boats, Romans, Persians and Greeks fielded thousands of armored men for campaigns.

Not sure why this is a touchy subject, women didn't run around on the battlefield like it was some COD game.

No I understand the element of wanting realism, I just think people take it too far. Trust me, I was a wrestler for 20 years of my life, I know women can't really compare to men and it's silly to think so as I've wrestled the "best" women in the world and there's no comparison. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't really an issue because modern entertainment includes many women in 3K, they are holding true to the fiction that this is based off, not attempting to be ultra-historical.

I never said they were savages, there just weren't as many blacksmiths around as people seem to think, nor did they know or have the logistics capable of mass producing weapons and armor. Your average craftsmen only knew how to reshape scrap into tools essentially, and they were few and far between as most metal was used for religious purposes or infrastructure. I'm not saying that there weren't occasions in history when people actually used flimsy pig iron and other metals for specific tasks, what I am saying is that most warfare was fought between people in rags with tools and wooden weapons because metal was far more precious in other fields, and they saw no reason to give people they didn't care about, except for labor, weapons. They just sent them into the battle and let them beat each other to death with primitive tools so that they didn't have to spend money or resources on giving them weapons which could be used against the ruling classes. Yes, some armored units existed, but that was very rare, which is why actual historical accounts of these guys showing up often caused an entire army to run away routing unless they were determined to fight to the death for some cause.

You just named the three people I said could field armor regularly, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Persians/Arabs and Greece was all part of the Macedonian empire, or had connections/warfare with them. This means that the Macedonian armor and weaponry was found throughout the area, and this is also why Rome was so strong, because they had armor and weapons allowing them to quite literally push some nations into absolute extinction.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Senler:

Hollywoodkik, you're so wrong I don't even know what to say.

People want the women generals removed from the Historical version of the gameplay, that's fair as women weren't in military roles during that time. Even now very few woman are boots on the ground types.

Women and children were resources during this time, there was no medical tech and having a child could easily kill a woman. A woman fighter would make no sense because without children your population dies out, no population = no money and no troops.

Btw they weren't savages back then, armored horses and men did exist and well off factions could pull off armored regiments. The Koreans fought off the Japanese with metal spiked boats, Romans, Persians and Greeks fielded thousands of armored men for campaigns.

Not sure why this is a touchy subject, women didn't run around on the battlefield like it was some COD game.

Specific accuracies aside, the point is they take some creative liberties, and a lot of the game is based more on the novel.

For example Lui Beis unique mechanic is unity. Now I'm not gonna lie and say I know the history well, but the impression I got is only Lu Bu had more betrayals. It's pretty obvious though why he's unity, because that's how he was portrayed in the novels (I think, I don't know what happens in the novels but everyone says Liu Bei is the good guy).

Women generals are just a tier up on the creative liberties they've taken. I think only strategists actually make sense (for example I read an instance or 2 of Lu Bu taking his wife's advice, so I think there's rationale for strategist).

[Master Knight]

Originally posted by Budoshi:

Dont worry im sure many feels that way and mods gonna fix your issues. As for me i like having women in total wars games as fighters and generals,heros and so forth not just baby breeders .
But i understand some may prefer to stick to realist as much as possible so they probably should have remove all women from the fighting in record mode..but you bet mods gonna do that since other total war titles have them already.

I'd still like to have women though, just not as administrators or generals. I'd like to see female spies that specialize in seduction and manipulation similar to diaochan in the novel. I wanna at least manage marriages and such as well. Women were pretty useful throughout history, even if they were used as tools and opressed as ♥♥♥♥. Culture dictated it and nobody questioned it.
Anyhow, it would be much more empowering and awesome to have females depicted realistically and then have a female character ascend the ranks regardless, similar to the legend of Hua Mulan.

[Master Knight]

Originally posted by hollywoodkik:

This is a non-issue, anyone who thinks this game is based off history is silly. Romance of the Three Kingdoms was fiction with "some" historical accuracy, unlike what other people who haven't been archaeologists will try to get you to believe. It's exactly the same as if someone today wrote a novel about 500 A.D. and it was accepted as history 500 years from now. This is a fantasy game, if you wanted a perfect historical representation, then take away every elite unit from every Total War game because for every hundred thousand people with clubs and tools, there was maybe 10 people with armor and actual weapons. Seriously, finding an ancient sword from that era is almost impossible unless you're digging up Greek and Roman sites. Almost every actual sword or other metal weapon we have discovered comes from less than 500 years ago unless they were the ever so popular lumber axe or farming hoe/scythe. Enjoy and embrace the fantasy my man, that's all this or any other TW title is.

I am reading the novel and women are pretty much depicted exactly the same as they are in history. Besides, records mode attempts to stick to the historical records more rather than the novel, even though it fails in some areas lol.

On another note, I'm pretty sure that most soldiers wore some form of armor, if not lamellar then hide. The vast majority of Han dynasty forces wielded the Máo, which is a spear. Most armies during that time were relatively well-equipped, only peasant militia would go into battle with anything but government-issued weaponry and armor.
There were obviously way more farming scythes than there were weapons since the majority of the population consisted of peasants so that pretty much explains why they are found more often at excavations.

And with that wrestling anecdote you're proving that you're missing the point completely. It's not that women are less competent in whatever field than men, it's just that women were put in that position because of culture, as they have been since the dawn of civilization and before.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

This would be a valid criticism if this game was historical. Nothing but the names in this game are historically accurate. If you think any Total War is anything close to reality you need to read more history. The warfare, the battles, the sieges, the diplomacy, the look, the characters, most if not all is fiction, particularly this one.
Battles did not involve a couple of thousand men, whats more they were not that quick, giving quite a while for people to make decisions. Sieges rarely ended in an assault, especially just one assault. China was all about Navy in the South and cavalry in the north. In this game cavalry is ok to use anywhere. And no, records mode isn't much closer.

I love TW so im not attacking the game, but its the COD of strategy (alongside more modern paradox games). Its what I play when I dont want to have to think too much, but still want to play a fun strategy game.
Check out AGEOD, Grisby, Field Of Glory, graviteam or Scourge of War those are much closer to reality, though most TW players would find the reality of warfare (long periods of nothing, and lots of logistics) boring.

Another great game that, whilst not as accurate as the above mentioned, is Oriental Empires. Its a 4x and looks sooooooooo much more like real imperial China did. They even have a three kingdoms coming out.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by Master Knight:

Originally posted by hollywoodkik:

This is a non-issue, anyone who thinks this game is based off history is silly. Romance of the Three Kingdoms was fiction with "some" historical accuracy, unlike what other people who haven't been archaeologists will try to get you to believe. It's exactly the same as if someone today wrote a novel about 500 A.D. and it was accepted as history 500 years from now. This is a fantasy game, if you wanted a perfect historical representation, then take away every elite unit from every Total War game because for every hundred thousand people with clubs and tools, there was maybe 10 people with armor and actual weapons. Seriously, finding an ancient sword from that era is almost impossible unless you're digging up Greek and Roman sites. Almost every actual sword or other metal weapon we have discovered comes from less than 500 years ago unless they were the ever so popular lumber axe or farming hoe/scythe. Enjoy and embrace the fantasy my man, that's all this or any other TW title is.

I am reading the novel and women are pretty much depicted exactly the same as they are in history. Besides, records mode attempts to stick to the historical records more rather than the novel, even though it fails in some areas lol.

On another note, I'm pretty sure that most soldiers wore some form of armor, if not lamellar then hide. The vast majority of Han dynasty forces wielded the Máo, which is a spear. Most armies during that time were relatively well-equipped, only peasant militia would go into battle with anything but government-issued weaponry and armor.
There were obviously way more farming scythes than there were weapons since the majority of the population consisted of peasants so that pretty much explains why they are found more often at excavations.

And with that wrestling anecdote you're proving that you're missing the point completely. It's not that women are less competent in whatever field than men, it's just that women were put in that position because of culture, as they have been since the dawn of civilization and before.

Read Chinese history and you'll find it is very down on women. The only powerful women are normally depicted as scheming or evil (like Wu Zeitan or Cixi). The novel is not a valid source of historical information, its just a fun book and many women in it were invented like Diao Chan I believe (prob due to lack of records covering women because again very sexist society imperial china, like medieval europe).

That said Hollywoodkik is also wrong, considering on my last trip to china I saw tons of weapons from hundreds of years before the Three kingdoms. As for your comments on armour, most wouldn't of worn more than say lamelar. This is because is really hard to move in heavy armour more than anything else (plus metal armour is harder/longer to make and expensive). But you are right about the weapons. In fact at one point in Chinese history so meany ordinary people had crossbows that laws had to be passed to outlaw them! Think that was in the 10th century Song but dont quote me on that.

[Ingvar]

I personally have no issue with female generals, however I preferred the Rome 2 implementation where they were rarer. If you look at history female generals were present but extremely rare (I can only think of two off the top of my head). I can understand why it might turn some people off, and people are entitled to their opinion. However dismissing these opinions because the game is "Not meant to be historically accurate" or "The setting is mostly fantasy anyway" is not only disrespectful, but uncalled for.

[Inductionist]

Agree with the OP, feminist history revision is plain stupid and takes away from the games.

[EternallyHers]

So, did CA say that they're going to add more women or make there chances of babies being women higher or something? Or is this just a thread to kind of counter the other threads about needing more women in the game?

I just wish there was more women in the game so that my son's could get married and have kids. Currently it's kind of get them married in the first 5 turns of the game or not at all.

[Master Knight]

Originally posted by Keaton:

Okay, you want the removed. But how should the family mechanic be handled then? Remove it?

Originally posted by OBESE MONKEYY(肥胖猴子):

This would be a valid criticism if this game was historical. Nothing but the names in this game are historically accurate. If you think any Total War is anything close to reality you need to read more history. The warfare, the battles, the sieges, the diplomacy, the look, the characters, most if not all is fiction, particularly this one.
Battles did not involve a couple of thousand men, whats more they were not that quick, giving quite a while for people to make decisions. Sieges rarely ended in an assault, especially just one assault. China was all about Navy in the South and cavalry in the north. In this game cavalry is ok to use anywhere. And no, records mode isn't much closer.

I love TW so im not attacking the game, but its the COD of strategy (alongside more modern paradox games). Its what I play when I dont want to have to think too much, but still want to play a fun strategy game.
Check out AGEOD, Grisby, Field Of Glory, graviteam or Scourge of War those are much closer to reality, though most TW players would find the reality of warfare (long periods of nothing, and lots of logistics) boring.

Another great game that, whilst not as accurate as the above mentioned, is Oriental Empires. Its a 4x and looks sooooooooo much more like real imperial China did. They even have a three kingdoms coming out.

Have you two even read everything i've said in this thread?
First of all, I don't want women removed. I've clearly stated that I want them in the game, just not as generals or high-ranking officials. Sure, it could be an option but it shouldn't be common.

Secondly, I know total war isn't historically accurate but at least it tries to be, and it tries to adhere to the novel in this case. The novel might not be factual, but the cultural elements are authentic.
I know records mode isn't much closer, I wish it was though.

Lastly, I'm not asking the game to be completely historically accurate when it comes to the amount of troops, the logistics of warfare and state and so on. They don't have an infinite budget or infinite time, and there are hardware limitations to consider. Of course we can't have armies of tens of thousands, some times hundreds of thousands of men.

Anyway this whole discussion is pointless really. I just wanted to say that I am bothered by all the female generals and ♥♥♥♥ cus it kind of takes me out of the immersion somewhat.