They better have female soldiers...

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Can have, but does not. Seriously. Arma2 came out in what? 2009? Half-Life had separate animations for every weapon in what 98-99?

You're comparing two very different things. Half-Life only has a handful of weapons compared to ArmA 2, and not nearly as many animations are needed since it's just first person (and no body parts other than arms are visible). Seriously, if you're going to complain, complain about something valid. We all know the animations in ArmA 2 have flaws, but that is totally irrelevant here.

@Everyone arguing over women in the US military. What difference does it make? If there are any women in ArmA 3 (which there likely will be, considering there were in ArmA 2), they should be able to fight.

[DerKonig 10]

Kind of irrelevant to many modern warfare situations wich have non existant or very blurred front lines. You could use google just as effectively to find many accounts of women IN action. The definition of combat occupations doesn't exclude other occupations being involved in combat. The bottom line for me is that the current limitations of felmale models is just plain dumb.

Yeah, except this is WW III, with both sides being major powers. This is not TF Knight fighting civil-dressed derkas in the mountains of Takistan. This is a major power(s?) versus another. The front lines will be completely clear in the force deployment sense. And again, you misinterpret the term frontline. And no, you can't just google and find pics of women patrolling in rifle platoons with men. You can find a pic of one in a support role talking to a local through a terp in a zone classified as "low risk". And yes, the definition of a combat occupation is an occupation in which the service member's job is (Guess what?) combat. A female being involved in direct action is mere happenstance. Should female models be able to fight? Sure, but only in guerrilla units.

Edited June 4, 2011 by DerKonig
Spelling

[lugiahua 26]

Yeah, except this is WW III, with both sides being major powers. This is not TF Knight fighting civil-dressed derkas in the mountains of Takistan. This is a major power(s?) versus another. The front lines will be completely clear in the force deployment sense. And again, you misinterpret the term frontline. And no, you can't just google and find pics of women patrolling in rifle platoons with men. You can find a pic of one in a support role talking to a local through a terp in a zone classified as "low risk". And yes, the definition of a combat occupation is an occupation in which the service member's job is (Guess what?) combat. A female being involved in direct action is mere happenstance. Should female models be able to fight? Sure, but only in guerrilla units.

Not necessary true.

Black soldiers were limited to non-combat roles back in WWII in US military. Yet often they have to fight for themselves when the lines were breached. In a few occasions they were sent to the very first line to fill the shortage of man power.

and even if females were limited in support role, that still mean the BLUEFOR gets female truck drivers, pilots or medic, right?

It is complete reasonable if randomly spawned AI trucks or aircrafts were controlled by female characters.

[Binkowski 26]

You obviously have no idea what the term "Frontline" means. These are not pictures of front line combat zones. These are pictures of female service members in second/third line occupations. I mean really, people, its not this mythical debate that's answer is hidden by the government. Google it, in most modern militaries (Including the one that matters, the US) women CANNOT serve in combat occupations.

just because they can't server in "combat" MOS' like Combat Engineer, Infantry, Armor etc. does not mean they will not see combat. Females can still be Military Police, Combat Medics, and Aviation. all of which see combat. just because your job isn't "combat arms" does NOT mean you will not see combat.

[-GR-Operative 10]

In the United States Army, females are allowed to serve in Military Police units even in combat zone.

You know what the Military Police Corps do, right? They patrol and secure areas (such as important facilities, like prisons and all). In other words, while light infantry is given the task "attack and occupy X zone", support units are given the task "patrol/recon/hold Y area because we are going ahead".

Pilots are not soldiers, in the common sense of the word, that designates personnel attached to land forces.

Female may face combat, but they can't be assigned to it. ARMA 3 involves spec-ops and researches. I really don't think a Female Soldier attached to the team would be something viable. As we are talking about Female soldiers (They better have female soldiers... being the title), it's reasonable to females pick up guns for survival and all, but not being assigned to combat.

Edited June 4, 2011 by [GR]Operative

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

just because your job isn't "combat arms" does NOT mean you will not see combat.

well said. some times the obvious has to be said in order for it to be recognized!

like, "HAWT"

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/Bigtires79/arma22010-01-0101-58-40-34.png?t=1298170186

[Binkowski 26]

Operative;1945439']You know what the Military Police Corps do' date=' right? They patrol and secure areas (such as important facilities, like prisons and all). In other words, while light infantry is given the task "attack and occupy X zone", support units are given the task "patrol/recon/hold Y area because we are going ahead".

Pilots are not soldiers, in the common sense of the word, that designates personnel attached to land forces.

Female may face combat, but they can't be assigned to it. ARMA 3 involves spec-ops and researches. I really don't think a Female Soldier attached to the team would be something viable. As we are talking about Female soldiers ([i']They better have female soldiers...[/i] being the title), it's reasonable to females pick up guns for survival and all, but not being assigned to combat.

just because you're a support unit doesn't mean that you won't see combat. however, if ArmA3 involves a regular US Army unit (by some stroke of luck..) then you could have the medic model be a female. or do what vbs2 did, and have a Rifleman (Female) and Rifleman. very simple. just have a Medic (Male) and Medic (Female). or, if they decide not to do that they should at least release source files for people to make female soldier addons, and they should also improve the capabilities and functions of the females so they aren't as they were in arma2 where they couldn't do anything. they should be more along the lines of ofp, where a female had the same capabilities as a male soldier.

[Laqueesha 474]

just because they can't server in "combat" MOS' like Combat Engineer, Infantry, Armor etc. does not mean they will not see combat. Females can still be Military Police, Combat Medics, and Aviation. all of which see combat. just because your job isn't "combat arms" does NOT mean you will not see combat.

This, right 'ere. ^

[lone.wolf 80]

Just add all the female soldiers to the IDF faction :) then they are allowed all the killing and combat as you wish..!

[paecmaker 23]

Yeah, except this is WW III, with both sides being major powers. This is not TF Knight fighting civil-dressed derkas in the mountains of Takistan. This is a major power(s?) versus another. The front lines will be completely clear in the force deployment sense. And again, you misinterpret the term frontline. And no, you can't just google and find pics of women patrolling in rifle platoons with men. You can find a pic of one in a support role talking to a local through a terp in a zone classified as "low risk". And yes, the definition of a combat occupation is an occupation in which the service member's job is (Guess what?) combat. A female being involved in direct action is mere happenstance. Should female models be able to fight? Sure, but only in guerrilla units.

Accually, talking to civilians and locals are the patrols in Afghanistan is never safe, the swedish forces are in a relativly secure location (and they bring female soldiers in combat patrols) and are still attacked many times. If there are no frontlines how can there be safe zones.

That females cant be infantry is just old believes.

[aart112 12]

this thread is almost getting as idiotic as the "we want samesex lovestories in the new mass effect game'

cmon guys is it really any difference to the experience if the other soldiers see you're a woman or a man ? no.. why is this such a big issue ? the ammount of women in the militairy is so low even for that alone they dont need to be in the game. the only reason why people want female soldiers in the game becouse they want to look like a 'sexy-cool-combatchick' isnt all the futuristic crap 'cool' enough ? if we keep pushing it on these stupid points the next arma game will be even closer to the modernwarfare/battlefield/shit type of game.

if it in or not doesnt rly matter to me. il stick with a guy soldier anyway. just getting sick of having this useless topic on the top of the forums constantly. shouldnt we be worrying about all the bugs and stuff that was wrong in arma 2 ? taking the time to design female models/textures/animations/voiceacting is taking time away from fixing bugs adding new stuff and improving animations

[onlyrazor 11]

this thread is almost getting as idiotic as the "we want samesex lovestories in the new mass effect game'

cmon guys is it really any difference to the experience if the other soldiers see you're a woman or a man ? no.. why is this such a big issue ? the ammount of women in the militairy is so low even for that alone they dont need to be in the game. the only reason why people want female soldiers in the game becouse they want to look like a 'sexy-cool-combatchick' isnt all the futuristic crap 'cool' enough ? if we keep pushing it on these stupid points the next arma game will be even closer to the modernwarfare/battlefield/shit type of game.

if it in or not doesnt rly matter to me. il stick with a guy soldier anyway. just getting sick of having this useless topic on the top of the forums constantly. shouldnt we be worrying about all the bugs and stuff that was wrong in arma 2 ? taking the time to design female models/textures/animations/voiceacting is taking time away from fixing bugs adding new stuff and improving animations

^this

[Daniel 0]

A female Apache pilot would be interesting. There's quite a lot of them, they see a lot of combat and obviously they rack up a lot of kills... I'm not saying it's worth the effort on BIS' behalf, but it'd certainly be representative to include them.

[-GR-Operative 10]

Bink, I never said women don't face combat situations, but it's a fact they cannot be assigned to combat missions in most coutries of the world. It has much to do with the psychological aspect of the thing.

Accually, talking to civilians and locals are the patrols in Afghanistan is never safe, the swedish forces are in a relativly secure location (and they bring female soldiers in combat patrols) and are still attacked many times. If there are no frontlines how can there be safe zones.

That females cant be infantry is just old believes.

Afghanistan is about occupation. The WWIII the other guy mentioned is not.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

cmon guys is it really any difference to the experience if the other soldiers see you're a woman or a man ? no.. why is this such a big issue ? the ammount of women in the militairy is so low even for that alone they dont need to be in the game. the only reason why people want female soldiers in the game becouse they want to look like a 'sexy-cool-combatchick' isnt all the futuristic crap 'cool' enough ? if we keep pushing it on these stupid points the next arma game will be even closer to the modernwarfare/battlefield/shit type of game.

I think you, like many others, are completely missing the point of the suggestion. At least for me, it's not about wanting to see more women in the game, but it's a real disappointment when the female characters already present in ArmA 2 can't be used in combat. If put in the situation, a woman should be just as capable of picking up a rifle and fighting as any man.

Essentially with your (maybe not necessarily you, but people arguing that women in the military don't serve in combat roles) logic BIS should only allow pilot characters to fly, or tank crew characters to operate tanks. If that happened it would kill a lot of potential scenarios. We all know how improbable it is in real life for your average rifleman to jump into the cockpit of an attack helicopter and fly around busting tanks, as it may be improbable for women to be involved in combat. But that doesn't prevent the former from being possible in ArmA, and shouldn't prevent women combatants appearing in future versions of ArmA.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[Chibi-Alien 10]

Just to drop my 2 cents in here, google Female Engagement Teams and read about some of the stuff they did in Afghanistan. While my POG ass was on the FOB last year several of them were around Helmand Province getting combat action. For all of those who don't want to believe that the line separating women from combat roles is dissolving, you may want to think again.

[Choki 10]

In many armyes the womens dont figth, they do administrative works or another thing not figthing

[.Taffy 10]

And in many other armies women do so much more, particularly in the ones that are expected to appear in game!

[jblackrupert 14]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A1C_Kristin_Ferris_at_Eielson_AFB,_Alaska_8_August_2006.JPG

http://www.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123045566

Edited June 5, 2011 by jblackrupert

[dysta 10]

I think we have a lot of arguments of female soldier for ARMA3, that because, we don't give characteristics to females of why they have to join the army. Just like AIs shooting each other in editor without any mission, that's really pointless why they just shoot and kill.

Everything must have comes with a reason, like "I join the army because of money!". Reason enough, then give the characteristic to "a soldier for money" in case to make him more worthy to be in the battlefield. And don't, ever, use gender as a reason to put different genders as a character role, gender is not affecting the soldier's role at all.

There's a lot of females whom wish to fly with aerial vehicles, as well as helping teammates at the support line, that's the characteristic of the female soldier, and you cannot argue why have to let female done the job. If that's their career or even a duty have to be done, let them be.

[-GR-Operative 10]

The question is (if you are/were a male soldier in RL): in an ambush situation where all your teammates can actually get killed, and even you, if you had a female teammate would you let it go and concentrate on the mission or would you concentrate on her safety, even the chances of getting killed being equal to everyone in the unit?

[rye1 21]

Operative;1945937']The question is (if you are/were a male soldier in RL): in an ambush situation where all your teammates can actually get killed' date=' and even you, if you had a female teammate would you let it go and concentrate on the mission or would you concentrate on her safety, even the chances of getting killed being equal to everyone in the unit?[/quote']

Mission.

Nah, seriously, you save who you can equally but the mission comes first.

[onlyrazor 11]

Actually, female Pilots would be a good idea. Hell, even CoD4 had a female pilot, and there were only two women in the damn game. The idea to have women pick up rifles and fight could be a good idea, but the truth is that they shouldn't be able to carry as much equipment. After all, they're not exactly bodybuilders or anything.

Just my two fractions of a single cent.

[.Taffy 10]

Actually, female Pilots would be a good idea. Hell, even CoD4 had a female pilot, and there were only two women in the damn game. The idea to have women pick up rifles and fight could be a good idea, but the truth is that they shouldn't be able to carry as much equipment. After all, they're not exactly bodybuilders or anything.

Just my two fractions of a single cent.

Well physical requirements for women would be the same as men, as that is what is deemed necessary for survival. This in itself would likely limit ther number of women who could serve but those that do should be just as capable.

[nodunit 397]

Actually, female Pilots would be a good idea. Hell, even CoD4 had a female pilot, and there were only two women in the damn game. The idea to have women pick up rifles and fight could be a good idea, but the truth is that they shouldn't be able to carry as much equipment. After all, they're not exactly bodybuilders or anything.

Just my two fractions of a single cent.

Err, helicopter pilots fly with rifles. http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8810/dutchbs1.jpg and there are stories of Kiowa pilots actually firing their M4's out the door, as a helicopter pilot if you crash you'd probably want something to defend yourself until CSAR arrives.