Print

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

[krisslanza]

I want my damn female commanders already Paradox.

Like who? Seriously, do you know any medieval woman even close to being a commander of anything, except Joan of Arc? There were a good number of female rulers on/behind thrones, but commanding was a "man's job".

I never said it was historical, I just said I want it. Tired of getting less things to do just because I try to run Queendoms. Can't even do like, half the things a King can do. I mean, yeah Paradox is all about history, but why can't I just change it radically if I want too? It's not like Female Rulers have any aspect of the game easier, considering they get opinion hits.

[lordcooper]

I want my damn female commanders already Paradox.

Like who? Seriously, do you know any medieval woman even close to being a commander of anything, except Joan of Arc? There were a good number of female rulers on/behind thrones, but commanding was a "man's job".

http://womenshistorymonth.wordpress.com/resources/women-and-series/women-and-war/female-warriors/

Disclaimer: I couldn't be bothered to go fact checking.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I want my damn female commanders already Paradox.

Like who? Seriously, do you know any medieval woman even close to being a commander of anything, except Joan of Arc? There were a good number of female rulers on/behind thrones, but commanding was a "man's job".

http://womenshistorymonth.wordpress.com/resources/women-and-series/women-and-war/female-warriors/

Disclaimer: I couldn't be bothered to go fact checking.

Half of those can be dismissed because they were pagan cultures which had a very different understanding of a woman's role than that of generic western Catholicism.

That said I'm not against women being able to take marshal or commander duties in Crusader Kings II. It did happen. I think they'd need to have very high diplomacy and marshal stats as well as the ambitious trait to make sure that only a very select few females could lead armies.

I dislike the notion of having women being able to command armies on the same bases as men since it's something completely out of the timeline and something even today we have trouble with. I think that having a woman powerful enough to lead armies and command the loyalty of men should be an extremely rare but rewarding event that female rulers could inspire to. 

It of course should be moddable so if you really want an ahistorical approach you can.

A tip for people wanting to have a Queendom; get the attractive trait. The bonus it gives the male vassals is massive and will over-ride the "female ruler" penalty. For this reason you should also seek out and revoke the titles of any homosexual vassals since they'll get a massive relationship penalty and will often try to plot you off the throne. They're usually easy enough to excommunicate however.

[krisslanza]

For modding, we'd have to ask Paradox. Because right now, a modder found a way but the game does a check every second to make sure a commander is still "capable". Meaning it automatically boots a woman out of the commander position as soon as you unpause the game...

[Rakonas]

Not to be that guy, but do you guys seriously not know that it takes one line of code to make pagans playable, and that it's been that way since the first patch or two after the game's release? Mongols are playable as pagans thusly, and I seriously doubt that it won't be the case for the Aztecs.
Anyway I think this DLC is stupid because I really want a dlc that expands theocracies, as I want to play a game where I realize the dream of Gregory VII.

You want a DLC that has a different governmental system but you think DLC's for Pagans and Mongols would be a waste? You do know they have different governmental systems, right? Yes, you can make Pagans playable, but they'll use events that are not Pagan oriented.

Not to be that guy, but do you guys seriously not know that it takes one line of code to make pagans playable, and that it's been that way since the first patch or two after the game's release? Mongols are playable as pagans thusly, and I seriously doubt that it won't be the case for the Aztecs.
Anyway I think this DLC is stupid because I really want a dlc that expands theocracies, as I want to play a game where I realize the dream of Gregory VII.

Changing one line of code doesn't make playable pagans. Changing one line of code allows you to play as a christian ruling over a pagan territory, only pagan in name.

Events is the key word. Events are moddable, see the Norse Mod for instance. Pagan dlc would be nice, yes, but it's not essential as most of the issues can be dealt with through mods. DLC expanding playability in terms of government type, especially in regards to making republics and theocracies not just randomly generate heirs unrealistically, would be highly preferable to dlc which focus on flavour.

[Leatra]

In the east, it wasn't unusual for women to learn how to fight. Some women fought against bandits, some learned how to fight by their husbands or fathers and stuff like that. However, officially becoming a commander was seen as a man's job in most nations. I know this is true for Ottoman Empire.

I wish there was a DLC allowing you to play as the Amazons

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Events is the key word. Events are moddable, see the Norse Mod for instance. Pagan dlc would be nice, yes, but it's not essential as most of the issues can be dealt with through mods. DLC expanding playability in terms of government type, especially in regards to making republics and theocracies not just randomly generate heirs unrealistically, would be highly preferable to dlc which focus on flavour.

Well to be fair pagans religion/cultures often had very complex succession rituals and laws. Usually the whole nobility would have to meet and elect a new leader causing all manner of problems. A succession crisis is what stopped the Mongols from conquering central Europe. This meeting of the nobles is currently impossible in CKII. 

There would also have to be a new set of "virtues" and "sins" since pagans had different views of morality to that of Abrahamic religions. There would have to be a complex system of either embracing or resisting monotheism that events might not do well enough. There would have to be changes to the Teutonic Order and the handling of the northern pagans. Sprite and UI changes. Removing the concept of bastards for pagans. Being able to incorporate non-blood related allies into your dynasty. A better system of tribal warfare. Religious factions worshipping cults and different idols.

There is quite a lot that could be done with pagans if they want to go in-depth. I would like to see republic and theologies first though. They would be more like EU3's "playing as a country" rather than CKII's "play as a dynasty" however.

[Kanil]

Does it really matter whether it's historical or not when Paradox has already said you'll be able to mod it in the next patch?

[Rakonas]

All of the trait stuff is actually workable, Norse Mod does it through modifiers. Ie: Let's say you're norse and you're lustful, you'll immediately get a modifier which makes negates the -opinion modifiers, loss of piety, etc. A lot of those other parts are great but personally I don't think that alone would be worth a $5 dlc, though perhaps a universal enhancement to succession crisis dlc with those parts added in would be great.

[EuchreJack]

I want my damn female commanders already Paradox.

Like who? Seriously, do you know any medieval woman even close to being a commander of anything, except Joan of Arc? There were a good number of female rulers on/behind thrones, but commanding was a "man's job".

I never said it was historical, I just said I want it. Tired of getting less things to do just because I try to run Queendoms. Can't even do like, half the things a King can do. I mean, yeah Paradox is all about history, but why can't I just change it radically if I want too? It's not like Female Rulers have any aspect of the game easier, considering they get opinion hits.

If Paradox can release a DLC where Aztecs invade Europe, they no longer have ANY excuse not to allow female commanders.

I suspect the real problem is they lack female programmers (please correct me if I'm wrong, really)...

[krisslanza]

I want my damn female commanders already Paradox.

Like who? Seriously, do you know any medieval woman even close to being a commander of anything, except Joan of Arc? There were a good number of female rulers on/behind thrones, but commanding was a "man's job".

I never said it was historical, I just said I want it. Tired of getting less things to do just because I try to run Queendoms. Can't even do like, half the things a King can do. I mean, yeah Paradox is all about history, but why can't I just change it radically if I want too? It's not like Female Rulers have any aspect of the game easier, considering they get opinion hits.

If Paradox can release a DLC where Aztecs invade Europe, they no longer have ANY excuse not to allow female commanders.

I suspect the real problem is they lack female programmers (please correct me if I'm wrong, really)...

Why would they need female programmers to code in female army commanders?

[a1s]

An interesting fact about women not being commanders in the game, is that Paradox doesn't see a problem with them being educated as commanders (this isn't even some weird unexpected bug- roughly 1/4 of your women will routinely get one of the 'red' warrior profession traits.) If they can do that (which they, maybe, shouldn't) they should lead armies too.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

An interesting fact about women not being commanders in the game, is that Paradox doesn't see a problem with them being educated as commanders (this isn't even some weird unexpected bug- roughly 1/4 of your women will routinely get one of the 'red' warrior profession traits.) If they can do that (which they, maybe, shouldn't) they should lead armies too.

That's always annoyed me. It also limits your education options for an heir if you don't want a military trait. I suppose it's still there because they're isn't much to replace it with, women generally weren't educated in any formal studies unless they were extremely powerful.

[Leatra]

I definitely agree with this women-commanders argument. I don't care if it's not historical or not.

But it's not like they are just an indie dev willing to hear every opinion. Maybe if we join the Paradox forums with fake female profiles and troll them we might get their attention.

[krisslanza]

An interesting fact about women not being commanders in the game, is that Paradox doesn't see a problem with them being educated as commanders (this isn't even some weird unexpected bug- roughly 1/4 of your women will routinely get one of the 'red' warrior profession traits.) If they can do that (which they, maybe, shouldn't) they should lead armies too.

Not to mention in most of my games, women always have the highest Martial scores out of everyone.

@Leatra:
I think it's been brought up, but Paradox never responds to people asking.