They better have female soldiers...

[KEVINMGXP 20]

well the soil perpose of the op is pointing towards the fact that surtain army's do have female soldiers in active duty on the battle field and they should put in female characters in game. Whether a female soldier on the battle field in real life has hes issues or not has nothing to with the mere fact that we have active female soldiers on the field that are not represented in this game, while the game is pointing towards realism it would be nice to have them in game so we can make missions and such with them, and even have just the female soldier represented so they also can be played online when female players desire it. i mean they are out there so why not having them? If people dislike the fact they can still choose not to play with that content but i don't see any reason not to have them because some people just think they have issieus with it on real world combat situations.

Edited May 24, 2011 by KBourne

[Dibuk 10]

I'm pretty amazed/impressed by the level of blatant sexism on display thus far in this thread, from the 'women are distracting on the battlefield' (which is a very interesting projection I think) to 'girls can't fire accurately because some dumb blond in a youtoob vid can't fire a 12 gauge'. OR the ever popular its not ok if women are shot in a game one, because you know theres a huge ethical leap between killing a bunch of pixels that looks male to a bunch of pixels that might look a bit female.

There have been female soldiers on the battlefield, and in many armies for the last 10 years or so, only recently Australia recommended that Women be allowed to serve in frontline roles. And one only needs to dig through the history books to find plenty of examples of women taking an active role in combat. I know for the patriarchal macho set this will be hard to deal with, but it doesn't make you less of a man because women can fight next to you. And if Arma3 is based around the kind of desperate scenario they describe, women should not be relegated to the role of animated furniture that they were in Arma2.

I don't even feel there should be a hugely different soldier model, and this isn't a concession to the 'cant fight if there's girls there' set, but an acknowlegement that however great the difference between the female and male body, under 50 pounds of combat gear its pretty hard to tell the difference apart from the face and/or hair.

So I don't view it as an impossibility to do, because a slightly altered/tweaked soldier model with diff hair/face texture selections can't be that hard to do for BI at this point in the picture.

So really, why not? The majority of the arguments I see against seem to revolve around some level of sexist opinion, tho there's a few technically based ones. I feel honestly the technical issues are nothing big (if they can be solved by Modders I feel BI should easily be able to implement at this point in development) and that given the scenario they're going with, and the way that military gender policy is headed, that not to not have women present in some combat roles (and I don't mean 50-50 representation, even 5-10% would be fine) is going to detract from the realism of what is supposed to be the biggest and best Mil-Sim yet...

Very well said, this is pretty much what I tyed to say too.

Many refers to the military in the US today, but this game is in the future.

as Sky999 said about Israel:

They require everyone to serve...

Well that would be the same in the bitter senario in Arma 3.

[dmarkwick 261]

well the soil perpose of the op is pointing towards the fact that surtain army's do have female soldiers in active duty on the battle field and they should put in female characters in game. Whether a female soldier on the battle field in real life has hes issues or not has nothing to with the mere fact that we have active female soldiers on the field that are not represented in this game, while the game is pointing towards realism it would be nice to have them in game so we can make missions and such with them, and even have just the female soldier represented so they also can be played online when female players desire it. i mean they are out there so why not having them? If people dislike the fact they can still choose not to play with that content but i don't see any reason not to have them because some people just think they have issieus with it on real world combat situations.

Actually my only issue with female soldiers in ArmA3 I made in my first post on this thread, that is, that I simply have no use for it. My main point being, if female soldiers are to be introduced, then also include other body types like fat, thin, tall short etc. Otherwise, soldiers in ArmA are representational only and have no real use for a *slightly* different model base for one detail only.

So, in summary, I am in favour of different body types in ArmA3 in general.

[ZacharyHawk 10]

If we BIS didnt make Female Soldiers.Who cares lol.We can make it ourself lol and btw I think its impossible to find a women play this game lol

[nodunit 397]

That is because generally they do not care, to many gender holds no significance of the player who plays the game, we all play, what does our gender matter other than having a different voice. (and likely that they will be pesterd if they come out as has been seen in EVERY gaming community)

[Sky999 10]

The thing about the campaign for ARMA3, is that from what we know the blufor consists of basically a special forces squad and a submarine crew (Which likely get's destroyed early).

From that basis alone we know that women will not play active combat units in the campaign, because despite not even playing active combat roles in normal units, they certainly don't play a part in special forces units.

[maddogx 13]

From that basis alone we know that women will not play active combat units in the campaign, because despite not even playing active combat roles in normal units, they certainly don't play a part in special forces units.

Cpt. Miller is alone on Lemnos after losing the rest of the team, but somehow goes from lone wolf to military commander in the course of the campaign. Something tells me he doesn't do that by magically spawning US Marines and assorted special forces out of thin air.

I think it's more likely that he either recruits the local population into a militia, or joins an existing resistance movement which - and this is key - would consist mostly of civilians...

[r3volution 0]

... because despite not even playing active combat roles in normal units...

Err were you sleeping through the rest of this thread? There are actually women in combat roles in many armies around the world. And yes, as pointed out above I forsee civilians playing a significant part in this which would indicate women should indeed be playing a role as combatants even if the quoted argument was NOT highly inaccurate.

[Sky999 10]

Err were you sleeping through the rest of this thread? There are actually women in combat roles in many armies around the world. And yes, as pointed out above I forsee civilians playing a significant part in this which would indicate women should indeed be playing a role as combatants even if the quoted argument was NOT highly inaccurate.

Can you point out an army that has female frontline combat soldiers that, unlike Israel, is engaging another army equiped with their same level of equipment, man power, tanks and aircraft?

[nodunit 397]

Cpt. Miller is alone on Lemnos after losing the rest of the team, but somehow goes from lone wolf to military commander in the course of the campaign. Something tells me he doesn't do that by magically spawning US Marines and assorted special forces out of thin air.

I think it's more likely that he either recruits the local population into a militia, or joins an existing resistance movement which - and this is key - would consist mostly of civilians...

Whew, anyone else get shivers and memories of this when reading that?

[ubermachtig 0]

Well just to summarize a few things about active woman combat roles:

• Woman are more accurate then men, especially with sniper-rifles but also with regular weapons. Prerequisite is that they had enough training and enough muscles to carry the weapon. Nevertheless, if those are alright; a woman is likely to outperform a man regarding accuracy. It is generally known that woman have steadier hands then men. This is also the reason why many who perform surgery in hospitals, are woman.
  
• A few months ago I spoke with a woman flying refueling aircrafts for USAF. I was really interested in the role of females in the army and asked her how that actually worked. She responded with:
  "Generally, it is less of an issue then you might think. Woman are excellent in non-direct combat environments. This includes transport aircrafts, refueling aircrafts, medical assignments and logistical tasks. The problem, however, is that men have a biological tendency to protect the woman. In a direct combat environment, this can make them put themselves into unnecessary risks. For example, when a woman gets shot and is lethally injured, men may still want to save her, although there rationally know that isn't possible."
  This was quite in line with my expectations and was surprised that she talked so openly about that.
  

All in all, woman will see much less active-combat situations then men. However, having them in military roles may lead, in special circumstances, that they WILL be involved into combat situations. I think, adding a woman character in-game is a welcome addition, but not neccesary due to the fact that woman generally see much less combat then their male counterparts.

[Tom1 10]

Add the possibility so others can use them in game, in 10-20 years time they will be seving in active combat roles in many modern armies, why not in arma. They should also be able to pick up and use guns so modders can allow them to shoot back in terrorist scenarios.

[Beagle 684]

Add the possibility so others can use them in game, in 10-20 years time they will be seving in active combat roles in many modern armies, why not in arma. They should also be able to pick up and use guns so modders can allow them to shoot back in terrorist scenarios.

I predict the opposite and it is happening right now already...the more actual combat mission are to espect the less women think about a career in the army. THis is happenign right now here in germany. At first it was a great thing that woen could serve 2001...but now we have 2011 and are in a state od neverendign war...and the number of women in service is dropping significantly..also because unemployment is low in germany...there are other carrers....another point...women already tend to have better qualifications as men in europe...why waste a life in the army when you can get a 30.000€ a year job near instantly with a bachelor in economics. As i already stated...the only women that i personaly know that is in service is a full physician in medical corps and she joined in the rank of Oberleutnant (1st Lt.] and is Haupmann (Captain] now just two years later. She spend the whole 4 month in A-stan in a hospital in Masar Sharif.

In genral you wil find women more often in the Navy, in the Airforce, in maintenance doing jobs with high grade qualification...but rarely in the dirt in some hole in A-stan or somewehre else.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Beagle

[dmarkwick 261]

Well just to summarize a few things about active woman combat roles:

• Woman are more accurate then men, especially with sniper-rifles but also with regular weapons. Prerequisite is that they had enough training and enough muscles to carry the weapon. Nevertheless, if those are alright; a woman is likely to outperform a man regarding accuracy. It is generally known that woman have steadier hands then men. This is also the reason why many who perform surgery in hospitals, are woman.
  
• A few months ago I spoke with a woman flying refueling aircrafts for USAF. I was really interested in the role of females in the army and asked her how that actually worked. She responded with:
  "Generally, it is less of an issue then you might think. Woman are excellent in non-direct combat environments. This includes transport aircrafts, refueling aircrafts, medical assignments and logistical tasks. The problem, however, is that men have a biological tendency to protect the woman. In a direct combat environment, this can make them put themselves into unnecessary risks. For example, when a woman gets shot and is lethally injured, men may still want to save her, although there rationally know that isn't possible."
  This was quite in line with my expectations and was surprised that she talked so openly about that.
  

I'm glad you had that direct experience, that is exactly one of the issues I was trying to vocalise a while back, but I didn't wish to couch it in such emotive terms, I'm happy that a serving woman identified that as a factor first-hand. Until now it was rather a subjective idea that I had.

[r3volution 0]

Can you point out an army that has female frontline combat soldiers that, unlike Israel, is engaging another army equiped with their same level of equipment, man power, tanks and aircraft?

Nowhere is anyone else engaging an army equipped with their same level of equipment, man power, tanks and aircraft? Or did I miss something and WWIII started overnight?

But there are many armies both engaged in combat operations and not, that have females soldiers in frontline roles. Australia has just announced it is putting forward plans to bring women into frontline roles, Denmark allows women soldiers in frontline roles, Germany and Ireland both have no restriction on women serving in combat either. The Ukraine has a massive proportion of women in its armed forces though apparently this relates more to the low pay, either way it stands at near 13%. Also last but not least, Canada has no restrictions on frontline combat roles for women. Now at least half of these countries have either been involved in combat in the last 5-10 years or are still involved now.

Enough facts for ya? :)

Edited May 25, 2011 by r3volution

[rye1 21]

Australia has just announced it is putting forward plans to bring women into frontline roles

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/09/10/1225771/284802-jacqui-de-gelder.jpg

[r3volution 0]

^ Bingo ^

:)

*Edit* Can I also point out to the 'Don't want no 35kg anime model set' that this woman just looks like an ordinary soldier under all the gear.

[Sky999 10]

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/09/10/1225771/284802-jacqui-de-gelder.jpg

That's a woman? Looks like a guy to me.

The thing with Australia allowing women on the front lines in combat roles, is that they aren't facing an opposing army consisting of Jets, tanks, submarines, entire navies, and hundreds and thousands of well trained men. If they were, then women would most likely start to demonstrate why they are detrimental to a unit on the battlefield.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Sky999

[r3volution 0]

Wow THAT is your argument?

A 2 part rebuttal consisting of:

a) The lady looks like a guy

and

b) Guerilla wars don't count in terms of proving women's ability on the battlefield.

I just wanted to make sure of that. Before I begin, I'm only going to argue to your second point as your first seems pretty much beneath any comment.

Firstly, I don't understand why you seem to believe women's supposedly detrimental qualities on the battlefield only arise as a result of exposure to enemy tanks/helicopters etc. This seems like the kind of argument which is just hiding behind the fact that there are no conventional conflicts currently raging to prove that women can fight just as well as men in a frontline role, which they are currently doing in Afghanistan.

Secondly I'd LOVE to see you put this to any servicemen/women who've come back from a tour in Afghanistan, as I'm sure they'd most likely be pretty insulted to have it suggested that somehow its not quite enough war to actually test people's will and mental endurance and that only a conventional State vs State conflict is a real war.

Thirdly, given that women are serving just fine and qualifying just fine for frontline combat in so many nations it seems that most of the people still arguing against the presence of women in frontline roles are doing so the basis that their presence negatively affects male combat ability and judgement under fire. IF a mans combat abilities are negatively affected by the fact that a woman is part of the unit, or is somehow less able to exercise good judgement on the battlefield, that is absolutely nothing to do with the woman. That just indicates that the man in question probably shouldn't be a soldier in an equal opportunity armed forces.

[dmarkwick 261]

Women on the battlefield.

[Cogar69 10]

:icon_rolleyes::icon_rolleyes::icon_rolleyes: It's just a game for Christs sake! What are you afraid of?...that the females can beat you or something?

Does the term "Respawn" mean anything to you? This game is not reality!

Edited May 25, 2011 by Cogar69

[Beagle 684]

:icon_rolleyes::icon_rolleyes::icon_rolleyes: It's just a game for Christs sake! What are you afraid of?...that the females can beat you or something?

Does the term "Respawn" mean anything to you? This game is not reality!

Do you know the term "dead is dead" in Sim Gaming...it's when your LOMAC or Falcon pilot died...he's dead and you have to make a new pilot profile...the old one wil still be there with all achivements and medals and a fat KIA under it.

Some of us play ArmA that way.

[PuFu 4600]

while i also like the immersion of a non-respawn game, dieing because of disconnect is not all that fun in armaverse

[Beagle 684]

while i also like the immersion of a non-respawn game, dieing because of disconnect is not all that fun in armaverse

there is more than just Multiplayer, and the more i play MP the more I see that SP is in fact more immersive. MP tend to be more and more pure arcade.

[DieterWeber 0]

No, thats ok. I do NOT want to hear a female robot voice telling me about an enemy 500 meters at 2 o' clock. Plus I think its ridiculous to have females in service. And as I've said before, women are an extreme danger to their male counterparts on the field.