They better have female soldiers...

[PN11A 2]

roflmao, your heart is a muscle and your cardio strenght develops with proper excercise just like muscle strenght, I was only using an example.

Ofcourse, professional athletes are the type of people who drive themselves to the limit, regular dudes in the military are not even though they are all put into relatively good shape.

edit: having looked at some numbers, the VO2 max differences between men and women aren't dizzying. you might even say women can get closer to men in endurance than in muscular mass.

You have no idea what you are talking about. First off, people in the military are not "every day dudes" so there is your first issue. We do push our bodies to the max, I understand you may not see it or understand it since you are outside looking at the situation. We have a physical trainer at my unit, who used to work training rookies for the NFL combine. You know the main difference he sees in military athletes vs pro? Endurance, cardio endurance we run longer and farther than NFL players which result in us not being able to gain the size that those athletes gain.

The endurance that comes into question with woman is muscle endurance not cardiovascular. A womans body is not constructed in a manner to bear heavy loads of weight over long periods of time. Can a woman train to break even with a male counter part ? yes they can however, with equal amounts of strength and muscle endurance training a male soldier will out perform a female soldier. I understand what you are trying to do, you want females in the game I get it, however dont try and bring "skewed" science into your post.

That being said Im all for woman being in the game.

[scrim 1]

+1. Common sense just became more common in this thread.

[accapella 1]

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf

Yeah right, women are physically capable of the job. Now I remember why I detest this thread: It's because not only are most arguments OT, they're flat out lies. It doesn't matter if a military combat veteran makes a post based on his experience and real life facts, or if I post studies that are specifically about this very subject; The very next post will invariably be written by some "equal rights" guy who blatantly disregards the obvious truth whenever it suits him (or maybe it's just genuine ignorance, who knows), and makes fun of anyone who disagrees with him, and uses arguments such as "it's already happening" (it isn't), "I've seen a woman who beat me in arm wrestling/target shooting" (because arm strength and shooting is all a soldier will ever do).

youre awfully emotionally involved about this matter. what i wish to say is that some women are physically capable enough to be soldiers, it even says so in your research doc and the issue seems to be the lack of knowgledge about how men and women will mix in teams which is still being researched or whatever.

secondly, that's a british paper, in the yankie forces women can already fight in combat roles afaik so why not include them in this videogame on the american forces?

[scrim 1]

One would think that having been called out on BS arguments would be followed by a response defending said arguments, not another round of "yes they can, because I say so" and nonsense. But hey, if you can't actually defend the argument on account of it being what PN11A said, why bother?

And do you know why it isn't until now that women were allowed in combat arms, despite Obama having been in office for 5 years now? It's because by the time a female recruit actually makes it through basic training and infantry training, there won't be ebough time left of the war for them to deploy, and be MEDEVAC'ed home after less than a month due to being worn down and about to be medically seperated.

"the issue seems to be the lack of knowledge about how men and women will mix...". Yeah, I'm gonna call that out for the lie it is. The issue is that the "Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles."

Not to mention that Blufor in Arma 3 isn't neccesarily American. For starters, their camouflage is named MTP, which is a British camouflage...

[Silent_Thunder 1]

Not to mention that Blufor in Arma 3 isn't neccesarily American. For starters, their camouflage is named MTP, which is a British camouflage...

Can't seem to find it, but I could have sworn they said BluFor is a NATO coalition in this case.

[Assifuah 1]

MTP is worn by British Forces. Naming it "Multicam" however would probably cause copyright issues, same reason as the Hunter isn't named M-ATV. I imagine it's just extra safety precautions.

Also, would be cool to see females in-game despite all this *insert word* with so and so research. Who said the females had to be infantry to be in-game?

As for BLUFOR, I think they're NATO. But the fact that you play a British dude from the SBS in Singleplayer (from previous footage), there are British voices on my damn characters, they named the camouflage MTP just steers towards Brits.. but you train local forces, so who's to say you play as one country?

[PN11A 2]

No one has to say it that is how NATO works. NATO does not mean that whatever unit you are in or portraying vanish. NATO is an umbrella entity in which the coalition and members of that treaty submit forces for the effort. SO if these are sbs, para or royal marines they are still that unit just performing a NATO mission.

[Silent_Thunder 1]

Also the reason all the soldiers sound British is because the Alpha only has two voice actor's sets competed. So its not that you're hearing all these Brits, you're hearing the same Brit over and over.

[The7even 10]

If it is a realistic simulator of war there have to be women.

On real war when you get some town your soldiers rape all the women which are there. With no women you have no one to rape and you dont feel like on real war.

Thank you

[TheReffecT 1]

Female soldiers in Arma 3 sounds good to me. In the IDF the women are a huge part of the army, they serve in almost every job a male can do, from an Apache helicopter pilot to standard infantry.

And even in standard infantry women have a great past in the IDF. So yea why not, besides, female soldiers are pretty bad ass. Whats sexier than a lady in combat uniform ;)?.

[Dallas 9]

If it is a realistic simulator of war there have to be women.

On real war when you get some town your soldiers rape all the women which are there. With no women you have no one to rape and you dont feel like on real war.

Thank you

Probably not the best first post.

[nodunit 397]

if they make some female soldiers i wont fight just watching the characters :))

maybe it's good for pilots but not the others.

Saddly this is an excuse I have heard many times..and from a game standpoint, frankly it is both disturbing and disgusting how often it comes up.

Edited March 15, 2013 by NodUnit

[Heradon 1]

What do you think this is, an mmorpg? Even then most guys playing as girls don't really give two shits about other guys, I've played WoW, Rift, Guild Wars 2 and I'm sure plenty of these characters were actually men but I never saw a single one flirting, no we were too busy on our little adventure sooo...presumptuous much?

Why is it so important for you to play a female character?

[nodunit 397]

Why is it so important for you to play a female character?

It's not, all I care about are mechanics and inferiority despite being part of the same class.

In Arma 2 there were both female and male civilians yet only the males were capable of using weapons and driving vehicles. This made the female civilian worthless mechanically and thus a waste of time to create.

Many people went on about it being a "white knight" case, about how it was better to not see them in the war zone when the simple truth is there is nothing stopping the player from killing them just the same.

This being a game, and so open to modding and not our universe, I don't give a damn what a military does and does not do, for me it is about the gameplay, if something shares the exact same entity in a game where everything is playable but it is not as mechanically capable, then it either needs to be made capable or done away with.

I've seen this thread from start to finish and it's been the same thing again and again, people straining as much as they can to nullify the thought by subjecting military protocol and doctrine, tossing accusation of how few female players there are, and fearing the concept of seeing a female with a males voice and due it being so amazingly immersion breaking.

From Arma 2 to Arma 3 this increasingly pointless "debate" will likely continue to run the same track with a mindset based soley upon reality (yet so few seem to grasp the concept of female soldiers in a militia or just civilians using weapons and vehicles). It is a narrow mindset, the kind of mindset that prevents expansion, encourages stagnation and gleefully turns a blind eye to game function for fear of 'reality' offset.

Edited March 15, 2013 by NodUnit

[DieAngel 0]

I don't understand the "against" side either.

1. It's a game.

2. Set in a fictional timeline.

3. We already have a wide selection of white and black skins.

4. We already have a crazy (and unnecessary but cool) clothing system, you can change clothing, armor, helmet, hell even your glasses.

5. This game is not affiliated with the US Army, nor does it has a duty to follow it's policies (We have anti personel landmines, which violate the geneva convention, also see point 2.)

I don't see where having more options, both for mission designers and for player preferences is a bad thing really.

[Buckly 10]

I do not see the importance of this issue and why it is kept alive? Why don't we all see what the dev's do at finial release? We can keep rehashing it over and over,every point has been made multiple times over. They are not excluding women to offend any one, so get over it. Every player has their own beliefs of what should and shouldn't be in the game, and thats all fine and dandy. But it is still in Alpha so maybe we should just see what happens and go from there. As Dwarden said let's wait to see what happens and you can all go back to bitching about it after final release. For now let's focus on the things that will make for a better game, like bugs and broken mechanics. If worse comes to worse if some one feels so strongly about females being in game maybe some one can request a female mod be made, or if you have the skills make one yourself.

When I played CoD I was in several clans that had a majority of females playing n the game, and not once did one ever complain about not having a female avatar. All they cared about was playing a fun game with a group of people they liked being on line with. And all the women that play Arma that I know none of them have cared either. I am not trying to speak for them, just sharing my experience.

What I would like is avatars that had a difference in height by a few inches from 5'6" to 6'2", would add a little I think. Am I not going to play the game because it's not in game? No I will just enjoy it for what it is.

Just saying

[scrim 1]

Only reason I can see why it's still alive isn't because anyone is against female soldiers, but rather because someone says something, someone proceeds to say something that is complete and utter BS, but presents it as the one and only truth, after which several people have called said persons on their BS, which some have interpereted as being against female characters.

Oh, and the random herpaderps who come along and write something along the lines of "me wants to look at b00bs", or "we need women, otherwise we can't rape anyone when we win"...

[r3volution 0]

Only reason why this is still alive is that a whole bunch of guys can't seem to let go of their frustrations about the boys own military club being open to women. So they come to a thread about whether or not there should be female soldier models in a game, and argue about it here.

Every time I see an argument back about this it centers around whether or not female soldiers should be in combat. That's not what this thread is or has ever been about. This thread is simply asking the following.

Since women can and do serve as frontline soldiers NOW in most NATO militaries, why are there no female soldier models in this future NATO oriented game?

[scrim 1]

Case in point, BS arguments. You brought up the realism argument, when no one was arguing against female characters, or even mentioning realism as an argument against having female characters. You said that women are already serving on the frontline in most NATO countries both then and now, which is a blatant lie. Most NATO countries do not allow women in combat arms, and the US have done it for such a relatively short period of time that the first female combat branch recruits, if there are any, haven't even made it through basic training.

Of course the above argument is irrelevant to the question of having female characters, but since you lied and claimed it would be realistic, people called BS on you, which pretty much made you resort to once again calling people sexists.

[kireta21 13]

It's a technical issue. Just this, and as much as this. Equipement fit only male models. If you make female soldier model, harness, vest etc. will not fit, because model shape and proportions will be different, and I'm not talking just about boobs. To make it work it would either require mirrored but not interchangeable equipement for both models, which sounds like bad solution, or equipement using different model, based on type of soldier wearing it, which seem plain impossible ATM.

Unless by "female soldiers" you mean male model+female head, which would look simply weird (somehow worked in ArmA2 though), but honetly, this is as far as BIS can go for such minor issue.

[r3volution 0]

Scrim, people were arguing that women should not be serving on the frontlines and that for this reason they should not be in the game, or that it would distract them from playing the game. My response to that is that women are serving on the front lines in a great many countries. Women are now permitted in frontline infantry units, but prior to that they have been actively engaged in combat for much of the past 10 years in what would be conventional 'support' roles which are regularly exposed to combat. None of that is lies.

I called sexism because a huge number of replies were making hugely sexist statements about the inability of women to be effective combat troops. This has been assessed by many countries and they have found women are indeed effective as combat troops, hence allowing them on the frontlines now. Not to mention the sexism of the 'herpaderp' crowd as you referred to them earlier.

So it is not a lie to say it's realistic to have female soldiers represented in an infantry simulator. Even more so when the game is set 20 years from now.

[scrim 1]

Except that's another lie. Many countries have not found them to be effective combat troops at all, and basic flipping biology tells us that women are capable of carrying considerably less, over shorter distances, and be more worn out than men. Does that sound like a recipe for a good soldier, let alone a good combat soldier?

[PN11A 2]

Scrim, people were arguing that women should not be serving on the frontlines and that for this reason they should not be in the game, or that it would distract them from playing the game. My response to that is that women are serving on the front lines in a great many countries. Women are now permitted in frontline infantry units, but prior to that they have been actively engaged in combat for much of the past 10 years in what would be conventional 'support' roles which are regularly exposed to combat. None of that is lies.

I called sexism because a huge number of replies were making hugely sexist statements about the inability of women to be effective combat troops. This has been assessed by many countries and they have found women are indeed effective as combat troops, hence allowing them on the frontlines now. Not to mention the sexism of the 'herpaderp' crowd as you referred to them earlier.

So it is not a lie to say it's realistic to have female soldiers represented in an infantry simulator. Even more so when the game is set 20 years from now.

Link and examples please.

[HellToupee 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

Not effective at all, how she even lift rifle it weighs something!!

[scrim 1]

HT, thank you for illustrating my point about BS arguments from the "equality side" (it's not really equality when you say that women should be allowed access to something they're not physically capable of, just because they're women, now is it?)