Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varyag1]

smjjames,
women can be warriors , but these moments are rare , mainly due to the life situation forced them to become so .
But they may be in many civilizations due to the particular culture as Amazons .

Moreover , it is more variety to the difference between males and females . Of course, there will need to add women more feminine psychology of behavior.

Well, as noted above post , a woman has a child, forced him to carry around with them , including the battles instead of what would have as much as possible to secure a place .

I think that the various races of the sex ratio ( soldiers ) may be different. For example :
People - men and women 99% 1%
Dwarves - men 70% and women 30%
Elves - men 50% and women 50%
Orcs and kobolty - no difference

Well, of course in the investigation of various external influences in the world when generating a map , the value in these civilizations can be change.

[smjjames]

@varyag1: if you mean historically, yes it's true that women aren't usually warriors due to the life situation and their societal norms, but there are plenty of women in the military today.

[Varyag1]

smjjames, Yes, it is. But, the modern and the medieval army cardinally differ. In a modern army is not required Serious physical effort. They are present, but not in such doses. Now the army is more accurate analytical, and to win, do not need to collect a lot of strong army that will fight wall to wall. Now, the army is dominated by high technology, whereas in Medieval dominates brute force.

[612DwarfAvenue]

The OP here evidently hasn't heard of the Vikings. They didn't give a damn about gender or anything, if you could fight then you could fight. Viking culture actually puts our supposed modern-day culture to shame because they didn't discriminate nearly as much as we do, they valued practicality.

Females may not've been as common as males, it is a simple fact that males tend to be stronger. But this 1% bullshit is way out there.

[Varyag1]

612DwarfAvenue
What mean "OP"?

[Manveru Taurënér]

612DwarfAvenue
What mean "OP"?

"Original Poster"

[Varyag1]

Manveru Taurënér, Thanks you!

612DwarfAvenue, heh, I read a lot and studied the culture of the Vikings. No special cases, I do not read of women by men. This honorable men to die in battle, and if women knew how to fight, rather as self-defense. The Vikings followed the woman home and farm and were central to the case.

(maybe I do not understand you correctly, it was hard to translate post mestati double meaning formed)

[My Name is Immaterial]

I think that this discussion can be concluded by asking two very simple questions:
What does it add?
Why should Toady spend time on it?

To answer the first one, it adds "Realism", specifically "Realism" in favor of one culture. It doesn't add functionality or atmosphere, so there's not much point to it.
I would appreciate Varyag1's answer to the second question, because I can't think of one.

[WillowLuman]

I think the better feature would be to add more caste-specific definitions of entity behavior to the raws, which would enable a lot of other things. For instance, a full-blown antperson civilization could ensure that only soldier castes got military roles, and the worker ants don't wind up in the majority of battles just because there are more of them.

[My Name is Immaterial]

That would be legitimately awesome.

[Dirst]

I think the better feature would be to add more caste-specific definitions of entity behavior to the raws, which would enable a lot of other things. For instance, a full-blown antperson civilization could ensure that only soldier castes got military roles, and the worker ants don't wind up in the majority of battles just because there are more of them.

I concur with the one whose name is immaterial.  With the Humans & Cave Spider Civilization example from the wiki, I thought arbitrary entity tags could be sloshed around castes.  Maybe the stuff about professions cannot, which means making it so qualifies as a suggestion.

[WJLIII3]

Sounds like the real fix to this is to add gender symbols to the military screen, art least on the assign positions part.

[shadowclasper]

Excuse me, just pointing this out.

But traditionally, women have taken up arms along side men when the situations in life were incredibly dangerous. Even in cultures where they traditionally did not take up martial laws. That's not even taking into account the dozens upon dozens of cultures where females could fight as a rule. China, for example, has a very long history of female martial artists, especially in the Knight Errant's period of their history before the unification. It was only with Confucius laying out the rules of society that things became a little more concrete, and even then, well, yeah, it didn't really change all that much.

And just look at the Spartans. Their women helped put down slave uprisings regularly. They were expected to work alongside the phalanxes in doing that.

And then we can look at dozens of african tribes, the vast majority of societies had far more lax rules about this sort of thing than we're lead to believe, and it probably was a slow thing that resulted from the predominance of patriarchal religions after the matriarchal 'mother goddess' religions were slowly stamped out.

Or do you REALLY think that mothers wouldn't pick up a fucking spear and know how to use it when there's fucking predators going after their children?

Or that in medieval times the lady of a keep wouldn't be the one to organize the defense when the lord was away? Or even when he was there but unable to direct every single thing?

Seriously. the worlds of DF are hideously dangerous. All of the time. Everyone capable of using a weapon is necessary. Cultures that denied 50% of their population from one occupation or another would probably die out in short order.

[WillowLuman]

The OP's not suggesting "MAKE FEMALES PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO PICK UP WEAPONS," he's suggesting that dedicated militaries favor one gender over another for recruitment. He's not suggesting that Toady remove the ability to arm everyone you've got in a crisis. There is a difference between "dedicated warrior" and "fights in self-defense."

In general, humans have tended to favor males for fighting roles, due to larger overall size, but it is not universal and fantasy races have different proportions.

[Varyag1]

HugoLuman
You understood me correctly)

I think that this discussion can be concluded by asking two very simple questions:
What does it add?
Why should Toady spend time on it?

To answer the first one, it adds "Realism", specifically "Realism" in favor of one culture. It doesn't add functionality or atmosphere, so there's not much point to it.
I would appreciate Varyag1's answer to the second question, because I can't think of one.

1. As it adds no functionality ? A defense of offspring in the absence of her husband , who will care for the child ? Both husband and wife in the war on the war , and the child with them , this is absurd )) You can also make less zhekschinu degradability berserk , that the children were not orphans and could protect their potovstvo . Yet female psychology in this plan aims to protect more progeny ( if any) .

2 . As it does not add atmosphere? Adds that zhenzhiny become more feminine , and that it feels as if the game is not talking with a woman and a man. Differences in psychology is still very weak , and sometimes none at all.