They better have female soldiers...

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

It is still simulator of life. If not, I strongly require a gauss tank like in Crysis. And I hope, requirements I've written above will be applyed. If not, I will migrate from this planet.

:bye:

I will hold you to that statement.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

But there is another thing I should tell: this doctrine should be used in local conflicts, but in case of global war, more or less - no one woman must be at the frontline or sabotage operations. No one. Never. Only in extreme case.

Why? To minimize female looses. Because it will not be question of sexism - feminism - antifrminism or other kind of breed. It will be question of surviving of the humanity, you want it, or not. A species can easilly survive, when it have 50 females per 1 male. But if it have 50 males for 1 female - it can't.

I think I understand where you pointing at, however your concern is surviving wise. On the other hand pure on the calculative pov I don't think you need to worry as far as I know females are still up to par with males towards the global population its a little give and take.

population 2009 (est.) males: 3,442,850,573 females: 3,386,509,865 total: 6,829,360,438

there is enough ..... to multiply :D I already did my part lol ...

but still, the op is about having the possibility to have female characters to be able to carry a weapon and fire it. Whether they will be implemented with referation towards the real world is in fact not a part of the discussion at hand and I ask myself why people even take it in consideration to make a whole thing about it.

the point is that in real life they do exist and they do serve their country well, I see a lot of arguments that they should not be on the front line but then again the question is where do you draw a front line in a guerilla war? It is in the way past to fight battles head on and front lines are rarely drawn these days you have a sector of control but still it can be a hot zone ... Females do see active combat and they perform actually pretty well you should look it up they do carry more on their back then a lot of others think.

besides that point I do understand the point to the nature of the male, when a female gets hurt shot/harmed in any way that they have the urge to put their lives at stake and to save her but I also know they get trained for that. Those that put their lives at stake without thinking are not thinking straight and should not considered combat effective in the first place that's why they get physical and psychological training anyway.

So I hope with all the information you can read on here in this thread we can go on in discussing the OP's question in stead of making a debate whether they should be on the battle field in real life or not.

I would like to see them in game but it will be unlikely that they will because like said before they will need to make a whole new set of animations for them and skeletons to make them work.

kind regards

Edited August 3, 2011 by KBourne
Gramma

[Haystack15 10]

It is still simulator of life.

:mad:Incorrect:mad:, the ARMA series is a "Combat Simulator," Not a "Life Simulator". If you want an example of what a "Life Simulator" is, then you might want to check out "The Sims".

And once again, As I keep repeating myself, The 3rd installment is set in the future. A time where anything can be change. This includes Laws about girls fighting on the battlefield......

Edited August 3, 2011 by Haystack15

[KEVINMGXP 20]

:mad:Incorrect:mad:, the ARMA series is a "Combat Simulator," Not a "Life Simulator". If you want an example of what a "Life Simulator" is, then you might want to check out "The Sims".

And once again, As I keep repeating myself, The 3rd installment is set in the future. A time where anything can be change. This includes Laws about girls fighting on the battlefield......

Don't get mad about it :p but yeah he can get the sims for that ....

I don't think they will be in, it will take a whole new set of skeletons to make for them, bis can't just build them on the male ones due to the fact that a female does move a little different then males and to simulate it correct they need a whole new setup. Not only that with the new feature that you will be able to setup your gear more freely it might complicate such things.

Besides that you might want to read my post above and others stated also that they already have females serving in the army in several country's that are effective fighting in a combat area for years now so it's not a future thing it's just something some people want to see in game of the third installment to get an more lifelike, blood curdling, hair raising experience then we already have now ....

kind regards

Edited August 3, 2011 by KBourne
Gramma

[woore 10]

Arsims. At the all shoops of the country!!! :-D Haystack15, in matter we're talking about it's not different

New models and faces isn't enough to simulate women. Also BIS need to make a lot of animations. Women's moves are a bit different then men's, an example, step is different)

On the other hand pure on the calculative pov I don't think you need to worry as far as I know females are still up to par with males towards the global population its a little give and take.

population 2009 (est.) males: 3,442,850,573 females: 3,386,509,865 total: 6,829,360,438

Incorrect logic result. I've told about world in global conflicts, not nowadays. If you have some doubts about the opinion that casualties have influence to demography balance, check the demography values in UK, US, and, especially, German and USSR after WW2. In case of active part of women in combats, it will be conversely.

Incorrect deduction. Equal count of males and females doesn't mean thet anyone can find youself a pair.

Large disproportion in sex ratio causes "hidden" casualties a long time after a global war, that means a population decrease, because many people will not be able to multiply. And women's casualties will aggrevate this a lot. I've written above why.

Large population decrease causes problems with surviving. It's not like apocalypse in the films, of course, but a very big problem with development of society and so on.

I see a lot of arguments that they should not be on the front line but then again the question is where do you draw a front line in a guerilla war?

Ununderstanding a sence the word "frontline" in the context in which I used it. Frontline in this context "frontline" means each field of action with constant fight, more or less. Sorry for replacing of definition with single impercise word

Link to stereotypes

Substitution of the thesis(I've told about global war, it can't be fully guerilla)

Glad to see you begin to understand my point of view)

Edited August 3, 2011 by woore

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Why? To minimize female looses. Because it will not be question of sexism - feminism - antifrminism or other kind of breed. It will be question of surviving of the humanity, you want it, or not. A species can easilly survive, when it have 50 females per 1 male. But if it have 50 males for 1 female - it can't..

Arguments entirely flawed.

There are more than enough people in the world to ensure the survival of humanity (assuming they dont all die in the same war) and population arguments can seem in poor taste connected to this topic as the horrors of war are often brought on by complications of excesive population pressures.

Any problem with a decreased population is usualy a lack of imagination in dealing with said problem or a difficulty in correctly understanding the change.

The plagues that spread across medieval europe greatly reduced the populations, but didn't end hunanity

I also wonder if your calculation of female losses on the front line mean anything at all when held up against the loss of civilian females. My take would be that those conflicts where females have seen the most action on front lines are those where they would probably have been civil casualties anyway.

A Dr in Genetics once told me it would take about 15 people of each sex to ensure enough genetic variation for humanity to survive (don't supose that takes into account climate change, or acts of God). But I think your emotive rant indicating easy survival of 50 females to 1 male may only work in a society with either great medical coverage to deal with all the conjenital defects and disabilities, or keep a morman type register, keeping you from sleeping with your sister or first coz.

Anyway lalalaing about front lines is entirely pointless. As a combat simulator ArmA encompases many of the other roles as in supply, transport and medical, not to mention combat arials, areas wich have readily accepted females in many forces around the world for longer than BIS have been making games.

So please no more of this psudo science, masoginistic rhetoric

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Incorrect logic result. I've told about world in global conflicts, not nowadays. If you have some doubts about the opinion that casualties have influence to demography balance, check the demography values in UK, US, and, especially, German and USSR after WW2. In case of active part of women in combats, it will be conversely.

Incorrect deduction. Equal count of males and females doesn't mean thet anyone can find youself a pair.

Large disproportion in sex ratio causes "hidden" casualties a long time after a global war, that means a population decrease, because many people will not be able to multiply. And women's casualties will aggrevate this a lot. I've written above why.

Large population decrease causes problems with surviving. It's not like apocalypse in the films, of course, but a very big problem with development of society and so on.

Ive would of give you the benefit of the doubt. You say I am unlogical? Like the person before me already said your calculations have zero meaning and you are basing these facts on what? WW2? People where still multiplying in that global war like rabbits mate, humping like crazy for the love of god ... I have been reading more biography about deaths in wars then you can count on your 2 hands in Europe alone there where more deaths amongst civilians then soldier casualties in the past 2 centuries not only that European wars where the most devastating things on the entire earth so far so let me try to put this nicely you are NOT making any sense at all ...

Even to add some extra after all those past wars we have had so far, the global population is growing at a higher rate then ever so what you are saying is just uhm bull :/ and to be totally clear wars will never be banned out of our lives we can dream on it but it will never happen. And don't try to contradict it with something like "If we would not lose females we would even multiply faster." I will just contradict it with HOW are we going to feed the mayoraty of the population then huh? (which will not mean that it justifies war in any way!) but we are barely able to feed the population as it is now look at Africa mate, they are starving to death .....

Ununderstanding a sence the word "frontline" in the context in which I used it. Frontline in this context "frontline" means each field of action with constant fight, more or less. Sorry for replacing of definition with single impercise word

A front-line is a line where soldiers try to push the enemy back as far as I recall we live in 2011 but like you put it above, thats sector controlled warfare it is not even constant. This means guariallia warfare! A field of action is not a front line these days we did not had a global front line anymore for more then six Decenniums.

Link to stereotypes

Substitution of the thesis(I've told about global war, it can't be fully guerilla)

Glad to see you begin to understand my point of view)

1 what link? and 2 global warfare ... can I ask you where do we have a global war? .... as where we stand now in this world a global war will not happen very soon on the scale like we knew it at the period of WW2 or we will have to see a mayor shift in how coalitions/alliances are formed at this point. For the record I did not stated anywhere that I am agreeing with you, I however stated that I can understand some views said by DMarkwick and others you where amongst them.

The perception on your concern on humanity to survive and not able to survive because to many females will be on the front lines, I responded on that you don't need to worry. And also the perception on the mere fact how men react when a female takes a bullet but you should read whole the paragraph where I also say that when people react dumb and without thinking they need to be considered combat ineffective.

It is not because I say I can see and understand your pov that I agree on it, those are 2 different things. Don't read what you want to read just to feel right about things you have said. Besides that I also thought I said that I like to put this thread back on topic but in stead you are bringing this whole thing WAAAAY OFF TOPIC so my final question would be are you willing to start a own thread or are you planning to hijacking this one? ....

kind regards

Edited August 4, 2011 by KBourne
Gramma

[Haystack15 10]

Besides that you might want to read my post above and others stated also that they already have females serving in the army in several country's that are effectivly fighting in a combat area for years now so it's not a future thing it's just something some people want to see in game of the third installment to get an more lifelike, blood curdling, hair raising experience then we already have now ....

True, However for some reason people still think those countries don't exist in this world and keep saying "Women don't fight on the front lines in Real Life". It would be alot better if the say "Some" countries don't allow it, However I do forget to say or tell that they do in some countries.

I just keep trying to tell those same people that just because it don't happen in real life doesn't mean it could happen in ARMA. :)

so it's not a future thing it's just something some people want to see in game of the third installment to get an more lifelike,

Understandable :), I know its not just a future thing. But However, for the countries that don't allow women to fight on the battlefield (As of Today) Who knows, maybe there rules can change in the Future... :D

Edited August 3, 2011 by Haystack15

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Understandable :), I know its not just a future thing. But However, for the countries that don't allow women to fight on the battlefield (As of Today) Who knows, maybe there rules can change in the Future... :D

Who knows, I am not entirely known to which country's don't allow females to enlist in the army or even to do duty for their country in any form. But I feel if an individual is fit and mentally able to defend or to serve their country they need to be able to do so.

but just for the fun of it ill look it up which county's don't allow it ....

edit: this is what i can find so far i cant find a direct exact list but ill look in it deeper later on ... uhm looked for hours now this is funny I can find a entire list of countries without military forces but I cant find an exact listing of countries that enlist females in the army :o ?????? lol I know Belgium and the Netherlands also enlist females I do not think wikipedia has entirely correct info ...

Female allowance to serve active duty: source wiki

From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty. Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, including New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. Other nations allow female soldiers to serve in certain Combat Arms positions, such as India, the United Kingdom and the United States, which allows women to serve in Artillery roles, while still excluding them from units with a dedicated Infantry role. The United States allows women in most combat flying positions. Turkey uses female officers in combat flying (bombardment) missions over Northern Iraq and in ISAF patrol missions in Kabul, Afghanistan. Pakistan employs women in Air Force and has used female fighter pilots in search, monitoring and bombardment operations in her war against militancy.

back on topic ...

The point of having female soldiers in ArmA's 3th installment is just something I like to see because I like to be in the editor and make some footage to edit it again in vegas, but like I said I think the chance of it is pretty small because of the skeletons and animations. They might add it later in a DLC or maybe never but at least I am open for it when they will bring such a feature to the ArmAverse. I don't see any harm and it will add something different then the usual.

kind regards

Edited August 4, 2011 by KBourne
Gramma

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Female head and textures c/w hair. If this head is selected only female voice will work. We may (a bit uncertain atm) have a female signed up for an upcoming event, and I guess it could have been fun to have her play an actual female unit.

We haven't decided on what units to use yet, so it may prove impractical to use that one female addon, without any retexture work done on a private basis. If we go for generic USMC, we can't have her walk around like a US Army woman.

For the general non combatant females we have today, typically civilian with specialized animations, I don't really care if they can shoot or not. But selectable headmodel with appropriate faces/hair would work out just ok.

But, I want to limit the amount of females I will allow in a mission somehow. I need a mission to appear somewhat realistic, and won't allow 30 females to join. I need believability enforced by mission, not ridiculousness caused by "fun players".

[zinc 0]

The point of having female soldiers in ArmA's 3th installment is just something I like to see because I like to be in the editor and make some footage to edit it again in vegas, but like I said I think the chance of it is pretty small because of the skeletons and animations. They might add it later in a DLC or maybe never but at least I am open for it when they will bring such a feature to the ArmAverse. I don't see any harm and it will add something different then the usual.

I'd also like to see female soldiers in Arma 3, the video above has a selection of female service personnel from around the world.

[STALKERGB 6]

As the Israelis have proven, it IS possible to look sexy in uniform, although I think just the standard approach would do.

Indeed they have, I would direct you to work by an Israeli photographer, Rachel Papo, who was herself in the IDF. She did a project called "serial no.3817131". Certainly shows how feminine females can still look while in active service.

[dmarkwick 261]

This thread is all over the place. Can we all agree that the poll suggests most people would like, or don't mind, to see female combatants in ArmA3?

Edited August 4, 2011 by DMarkwick

[dunedain 48]

I don't really see the point of adding female fighters, it isn't realistic nor I see any interest at all but make happy a handful hardcore feminists and their army of dumb white knights filling this thread...

But whatever, Arma3 is about some jews and persians fighting each others on a Greek island using all sort of exotic weapons and a few US super soldiers saving the day as usual. At this point I don't really care about authenticity.

I don't mind at all if BIS decide to do as this poll says, however I do think it is a stupid idea regarding all the extra work required for such irrevelant feature.

Edited August 4, 2011 by dunedain

[KEVINMGXP 20]

I'd also like to see female soldiers in Arma 3, the video above has a selection of female service personnel from around the world.

thanks thats a good find, however I would like to find an entire exact list would be easy to know then which countries do have combat enlisted females in the army and which countries only enlist at curtain brashes like logistics or combat fighter pilots helicopter pilots and so on, which i cant find atm its kinda strange ....

kind regards

[Kingsmurfy 10]

Thinking about it, we should get a US Coast Guard faction. That way we can have women in there and some Baywatch action.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't really see the point of adding female fighters, it isn't realistic.

I don't see how someone can even argue how something like this can be unrealistic in a game that takes place in a fictional future setting. What, can you predict the future and know with 100% certainty that female combatants will not be common in 20-whatever?

[cozza 24]

Australia is going to be allow females into combat roles in the Armed Forces in 2012

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/combat-roles-offered-to-women/story-fn59niix-1226037485919

So maybe in 2025 other nations have followed in this.

Rether women in Arma3. Meh. Not for it, not agaisnt it. Something I will probably never notice but it might add something diffrent with hearing a female say

"Enemy Car, 2 o'clock, 500"

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

Thinking about it, we should get a US Coast Guard faction. That way we can have women in there and some Baywatch action.

Lol Coast Guard.

[ghostnineone 10]

Lol Coast Guard.

they do more work than most are willing to do, especially the rescue swimmers. not to mention they had a bud/s program and they get attached to seal teams,

[wipman 1]

Hi, for add female playable models they should:

- Hire voice actresses.

- Hire a female for the motion capture.

- Add a female skeleton to the female unit models.

And maybe some more things; if they don't add playable female combat units is more a budget and time thing than anything for sure. But it would be sad if they don't add 'em to the game as playable combat units. Let's C ya

[Haystack15 10]

I don't mind at all if BIS decide to do as this poll says, however I do think it is a stupid idea regarding all the extra work required for such irrevelant feature.

A Stupid Idea that alot seem to agree with..... BTW, you also think that Females fighting in possible future war isn't realistic..... Now that's stupid ;)

Edited August 6, 2011 by Haystack15

[paecmaker 23]

Hi, for add female playable models they should:

- Hire voice actresses.

- Hire a female for the motion capture.

- Add a female skeleton to the female unit models.

And maybe some more things; if they don't add playable female combat units is more a budget and time thing than anything for sure. But it would be sad if they don't add 'em to the game as playable combat units. Let's C ya

About the voice actresses, I think thats pretty obvious, I dont want to hear male actors pretending to sound like females :rolleyes:

[CameronMcDonald 146]

pitch=1.2 was hilarious in the original OFP. :D

[HELOFAN 10]

LOL at the thread title.

just waiting for the next part..like or else??

It kinds almost sounds creepy.

(takes 2 steps away)

I wouldnt care if it was all women in a squad etc..certainly easier on the eye even if they are wearing the green skin.

HELOFAN

:cool: