They better have female soldiers...

[STALKERGB 6]

@Ah ok,

Interesting to see that Bad Company 2 and Halo 3 were given 18 ratings by USK. A 16 rating needs "no visible blood" so doesn't that already rule Arma out? Or does the option to turn it off satisfy the rule?

I guess it's possible to kill women in ArmA 2 currently, but it's not a goal.

I suppose this is the point really,

If it was an 18 couldn't you use the tried and tested method of just getting it of amazon or somewhere online?

[Beagle 684]

@Ah ok,

Interesting to see that Bad Company 2 and Halo 3 were given 18 ratings by USK. A 16 rating needs "no visible blood" so doesn't that already rule Arma out? Or does the option to turn it off satisfy the rule?

I suppose this is the point really,

If it was an 18 couldn't you use the tried and tested method of just getting it of amazon or somewhere online?

Pure and rather "clean" military games always get a lower rating...don't ask me why. I don't know

But tech like ragdoll and dismemberment makes a 18 rating a very sure thing.

Also, the blood in ArmA is still low compared to other games. where you have blood everywhere in the walls after shooting someone etc. Simple blood textures for dead units are no problem...depends all on the "gore" factor. Another fact is that ArmA depicts war as somnethign creuel you don't want to be in and it does not glorify wars...that's something to consider in the reating too.

[bugkill 7]

I think it is best to have female models for all military factions. It will only add to the realism and for mission makers to have women attached to combat units or MP units. Female models are a must.

[Laqueesha 474]

I think it is best to have female models for all military factions. It will only add to the realism and for mission makers to have women attached to combat units or MP units. Female models are a must.

Agreed. Besides, the game takes place in the 2020s/2030s, and the barriers regarding women will probably be lifted by then. BIS already has female soldiers in their VBS series, so I don't see any reason not to include them.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Laqueesha

[Guest]

Include realistic female roles, that sounds good.

But please, I don't want to be taking orders from combat vertaran war hero Rambo Colonel Jessica.

Femalse soldiers should be doctors, artillery, dog handlers, etc. Roles they can actually do in real life. Not front line infantry.

[Laqueesha 474]

Include realistic female roles, that sounds good. But please, I don't want to be taking orders from combat vertaran war hero Rambo Colonel Jessica. Femalse soldiers should be doctors, artillery, dog handlers, etc. Roles they can actually do in real life. Not front line infantry.

I'd agree with you if this game took place in the present day, not the future. Besides, I think it's best to leave it up to mission makers and the players in the community to decide the roles. How do you suppose going about setting the roles then? The whole point of ARMA is that it is supposed to be modular. ;)

[bugkill 7]

The simple thing would be to just create a female model for each branch of service, but not assign them within the combat squads like infantry and special forces. They would just be character models that you could put anywhere you want in the editor.

[Laqueesha 474]

The simple thing would be to just create a female model for each branch of service, but not assign them within the combat squads like infantry and special forces. They would just be character models that you could put anywhere you want in the editor.

That's a good idea, mate. If a bloke wants them to drive lorries and fill out paperwork, they can do that. If they want them to command an infantry platoon into battle, they can do that also. ;)

[bugkill 7]

That's a good idea, mate. If a bloke wants them to drive lorries and fill out paperwork, they can do that. If they want them to command an infantry platoon into battle, they can do that also. ;)

Yep, that's the idea. Everyone is happy and can do what they want. ;)

[icewindo 29]

Won't happen.

The devs still live in the stone ages, it speaks for itself that the female civilians can't even equip a single gun, while the male ones can.

There also was some post about this were they explained they "didn't like the idea of putting women behind weapons" and all that blargh.

[Primarch 10]

Won't happen.

The devs still live in the stone ages, it speaks for itself that the female civilians can't even equip a single gun, while the male ones can.

There also was some post about this were they explained they "didn't like the idea of putting women behind weapons" and all that blargh.

The idea is that they do not want to use resources to something as useless as that. IF you look behind your obscure view of reality, you'll see that women are not biologically identical with males. 99% of females can not do what the army wants them to do, and most of those who can do what the army wants them to do, do not serve in the army. So there would be one out of a thousand soldiers a female. Now to increase the fact that almost every woman who serve in the army, are not in the frontline this means you'll get like 1 out of 10000 soldiers is a female you see in the field... See how useless it would be to model females in a game that should be almost realistic?

Edit: And yes I threw those numbers out of my head, but I thought about them for awhile.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Primarch

[ryguy 10]

99% of females can not do what the army wants them to do

There would be one out of a thousand soldiers a female.

1 out of 10000 soldiers is a female you see in the field... See how useless it would be to model females in a game that should be almost realistic?

Great job with those stats... :j:

Women make up 20% of the military.

[Primarch 10]

Great job with those stats... :j:

Women make up 20% of the military.

Yep, murriikkaa is the only country with an army. Amirite?

[ryguy 10]

No, but you forgetting that the US is going to be one of the main militaries as usual? Stop trying to avoid the point. You should be embarrassed at your ridiculously skewed view. I hate when this topic comes around and the ugly side of BIS forum members rears its head

[STALKERGB 6]

Yep, murriikkaa is the only country with an army. Amirite?

His point still stands that women make up a much bigger proportion of the army than you suggest. I believe the UK sits at around 10% and it's about 12% for Australia. I think Russia also sits at about 10%.

If you look at most Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway etc) although they have generally lower proportions of women in their military 5-10% (ish) often there is no discrimination with regards to what roles females can serve in.

[Primarch 10]

No, but you forgetting that the US is going to be one of the main militaries as usual? Stop trying to avoid the point. You should be embarrassed at your ridiculously skewed view. I hate when this topic comes around and the ugly side of BIS forum members rears its head

I am not avoiding the point. The point is exactly as I said it is, there's barely no woman in active frontline duty, why should BIS concentrate their resources in such non-critical shit? Get real, you won't see US Army using women in a battle as infantry as an active force.

---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 AM ----------

His point still stands that women make up a much bigger proportion of the army than you suggest. I believe the UK sits at around 10% and it's about 12% for Australia. I think Russia also sits at about 10%.

If you look at most Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway etc) although they have generally lower proportions of women in their military 5-10% (ish) often there is no discrimination with regards to what roles females can serve in.

Yet almost none of them actually serve in the field, because losing a woman in an armed fight is much more media failure than losing a man.

[-GR-Operative 10]

The death of a female soldier is much more, psychologically speaking, hard to surpass than of a male soldier, fact.

The enemies would simply aim to the women, so that the male soldiers would do whatever they could to save them, risking everyone's life in the process. Sad but true.

[ryguy 10]

Yet almost none of them actually serve in the field, because losing a woman in an armed fight is much more media failure than losing a man.

30,000 of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 41 of them have died in combat... You clearly are just pulling everything you say out of your ass. At minimum you should be at least somewhat informed while talking. Besides, nowadays "being in the field" just means being in the country. There's no such thing as front lines in these wars, because you can be attacked any where at any time.

[-GR-Operative 10]

ryguy is right. Logistic troops are the most common victims of ambushes (because they move in long convoys, easy targeting).

Females may be not in infantry battalions, but they can still serve, like in medic corps, combat engineer, artillery and support.

[Wikipedia] Dave Grossman, in his book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, argues that male soldiers are really affected after seeing female soldiers wounded, developing a kind of protective stance. Also, islamic soldiers rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. The civilians are also less inclined to be intimidated by female soldiers.

To have women in the military (specially for ground work) is the possibility of searches on female civilians, and currently entering the female areas in the mosques of the current occupied countries.

There are some programs including women in the operations, mainly in checkpoints but also in patrols and even special operations support units, but, quoting Melody Kemp, the soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it is not as easy to program men to neglect women."

*Not that I really trust Wikipedia, but this is a valid point.

This one is a direct quote from Wikipedia:

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 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.

Sgt Leigh Ann Hester, among other decorated soldiers in the Raven 42 unit, received the Silver Star, the third highest US combat decoration. While nurses under fire had received this award previously, Hester was the first woman to receive it for direct participation in combat.

Also, there are these two articles:

Womem in warfare (2000-present) and Women in the military by country

[Laqueesha 474]

30,000 of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 41 of them have died in combat... You clearly are just pulling everything you say out of your ass. At minimum you should be at least somewhat informed while talking. Besides, nowadays "being in the field" just means being in the country. There's no such thing as front lines in these wars, because you can be attacked any where at any time.

Pwnt.

I threw those numbers out of my head, but I thought about them for awhile.

You seem to pull a lot of things out of your head.

"A while" = Two and a half seconds.

Yep, murriikkaa is the only country with an army. Amirite?

For those of you who don't understand idiot speak, here is a rough transliteration.

"Murriikkaa" = United States of America

"Amirite" = Am I right?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Laqueesha

[Wolfrug 0]

Stop with the medieval woman bashing, the juvenile kitchen jokes and the rest of the bullshit you're trying to pull, guys. ._. Seriously, this is 2011 (and the game is going to be set even further in the future), not 1811. Although I think big-breasted action chicks in games is sometimes as demeaning as not including women at all, I still prefer that to the sausage fest you're proposing.

What more, as the good Cameron said, there are no men or women in Arma, just bits and bytes: making the "women" bytes capable of bearing arms, shooting and having all the other animations necessary is purely a good thing: after that it's up to the mission maker to decide if they want to include them or not.

The only reason I can see that BIS wouldn't include women is the same for why they wouldn't include full interiors: lack of time.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Beagle 684]

"Women bashing" is not a invention of medival age, in fact the supression and belittleling of women is a invention of the 19. Century. It sound strange but women supression hadn its high peak after the upper bourgeoisie took over ruling power fromn the aristocracy and imposed their babbitry over the whole Society.

[dmarkwick 261]

Anyone mentioned Hitler yet?

[Primarch 10]

Pwnt.

You seem to pull a lot of things out of your head.

"A while" = Two and a half seconds.

For those of you who don't understand idiot speak, here is a rough transliteration.

"Murriikkaa" = United States of America

"Amirite" = Am I right?

Why do you never contribute in any thread you come around?

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

30,000 of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 41 of them have died in combat... You clearly are just pulling everything you say out of your ass. At minimum you should be at least somewhat informed while talking. Besides, nowadays "being in the field" just means being in the country. There's no such thing as front lines in these wars, because you can be attacked any where at any time.

Yeah, right.

Now tell me how do you think this will show in ArmA 3 as there will be no logistic simulation since that is useless in a 20km map.

[Laqueesha 474]

Why do you never contribute in any thread you come around?

I could ask you the same thing. What's your excuse?

Now tell me how do you think this will show in ArmA 3 as there will be no logistic [sic] simulation since that is useless in a 20km map.

No logistic [sic] simulation? Ever heard of ammunition, repair and petrol lorries? Not to mention the bloody WARFARE system? Do you even play ARMA at all, or do you spend all of your time trolling the BI forums? :rolleyes:

Edited May 30, 2011 by Laqueesha