No women at all

[roshnak 41]

Sorry but I really don't think you're representative of this community in any way. For most people here, it's not that big of a deal.

Yep. It wasn't a big deal when women couldn't hold guns and now it's not a big deal that women aren't in the game at all.

[MissionCreep 12]

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/field-mess/8571d1191425861-women-military-witm.jpg (123 kB) Edited November 3, 2013 by MissionCreep

[Arctor 1]

There's already women in the A3 config and they have weapon poses sooooo.......................... there's that.

[roshnak 41]

Cool. So what are we even arguing about?

[BadHabitz 235]

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/field-mess/8571d1191425861-women-military-witm.jpg (123 kB)

Where do I sign up for that?

[progamer 14]

Since no one seems to have any other reason for women being in the game, maybe there things no one thinks of?

For Arma 3 to create a believable conflict, many things are required. Thousands of social and polictical factors play into any conflict. Some factors are larger than others. War is not the good side shoots the bad side, it is any number of groups who start a conflict between each other for many reasons. People are a resource in any conflict In times of conflict were every resource counts, exists the population of the of the groups involved. In this population, you have people that can operate weapons and people who cannot. Why only use half of the people who can operate weapons? While some people seem to live in the past and think women are not equals and not an equal resource to men, the people who do will prevail over those who do not use all of their resources. Two people will always win against a single person.

[Alwarren 2767]

For Arma 3 to create a believable conflict, many things are required.

It's not only that. Not having female civilians at least makes it impossible to include females into the narrative of the story. I often hear the argument how Arma 3 is a canvas for user-created content, but that content better not contain females in the narrative, because that is not possible to depict.

I also think that arguments go too far into the military side of things. It is perfectly possible to have a SWAT team or general police force.

[steele6 0]

Look, this debate is irrelevant

there is no point to putting women soldiers in the game, for gameplay reasons they would perform the same. (IE: a soldier can't get pregnant) as much as a male avatar can't err.... make love to a lady.

if any at all, the woman's avatar's model would have to have slightly less endurance/carrying capacity than the male model. thatssss it. they can shoot the same, fly the same, talk the same. I really don't see any point in including them

for"immersion" you'd have women, sure, but then the new skeleton would need to be tested, probably new animations made (that's pretty expensive)

and, for real, who in game cares about civillians in game? they are just AI. they can't kill me.

so what if there is only males as civillians in game. as one cannot make love in arma3( thankfully, have you seen the mass effect romance scenes? its very lame. ) whether you see male civillians are female civillians it makes no difference

the only benefit is "immersion" (AKA real life, as men and women are everywhere in real-life, we expect them to be in game as well, tending to flowers, fixing cars, cowering in their houses while being bombed etc.

but, please, we are all grown-ups and we can recognise the difference between a game and real-life. so gender does not matter in a shooter game.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

any side debate about whether women should be able to serve in military forces in real life is irrelevant.

[13islucky 10]

We can pretty much make an educated guess and say that women ARE coming eventually, they're just not there now.

So why don't we wait and see what BIS can do then complain like the internet people that we are?

[iLLcAtTiViSsiMo 10]

I agree with OP. My girl and I game quite a bit and it always kills the experience a little bit when she can't play as a female character. Her reason for disappointment is obvious. As for me, well, it kinda sucks when everytime I look at her in game she's a friggin' dude! Please include female characters, BIS. We would be eternally greatful and the Arma 3 experienced would feel much more immersive for us as a couple.

Now, as for the game being a military sim and with woman not in frontline combat in real life, I would just like to add: Doesn't this game take place in the future? BIS could use the futuristic setting as reason to include woman on the battlefield.

All that being said, here's some food for thought. I do believe that woman ARE allowed, as of now, to participate in direct combat but never get chosen for what may be obvious reasons such as:

1) If a female's 300 pound buddy goes down, she may be physical unable to carry him to safety or help him off the battlefield.

3) The natural physical limitations of the female body as opposed to men. (in most cases lol)

2) Men would, without a doubt, perform chivalrous acts to save women. In other words, it may be more instinctive to save a female due to deep rooted primitive thought processes buried deep within the brain. This could certainly hinder a clear thought process and lead to bad decisions, trained or not.

All in all, this is a fictional game, no matter how much of a simulation it may be and BIS could certainly include females.

The only drawback to including woman is that I've played tons of multiplayer games where dudes are using female characters waaay more than I would expect. To each his(or her) own, but I just hope Arma doesn't turn into a battlefield full of estrogen, as that would certainly not be realistic in the least.

Edited November 5, 2013 by iLLcAtTiViSsiMo

[instagoat 133]

1) If a female's 300 pound buddy goes down, she may be physical unable to carry him to safety or help him off the battlefield.

3) The natural physical limitations of the female body as opposed to men. (in most cases lol)

2) Men would, without a doubt, perform chivalrous acts to save women. In other words, it may be more instinctive to save a female due to deep rooted primitive thought processes buried deep within the brain. This could certainly hinder a clear thought process and lead to bad decisions, trained or not.

All in all, this is a fictional game, no matter how much of a simulation it may be and BIS could certainly include females.

1: Individual soldiers who are weighed down by 70 pounds of gear + can not be carried by their male buddies either, which is why most of the time you see two people supporting a walking wounded or four carrying on a tarp or a stretcher.

2: For the average frontline soldier, females can get in fit enough shape to keep up. They don't need to be world class athletes like special forces: in those roles, females will be limited, at least traditional SF. There are special applications roles where female soldiers may be preferrably employed. Still, frontline use.

3: Completely idiotic. Militaries artificially create borderline homoamorous atmospheres of "brotherhood" to make soldiers behave like this anyway. Suddenly, if one of the soldiers who gets in trouble is female and the rest divert the entire mission to save their corpse, it's different?

That female physiology is different is no argument against their frontline use. They will perform up to the level they find themselves capable of, just like the average soldier. Do you argue against slightly unfit male soldiers just because they wouldn't make the cut for SF?

The reason females often DO perform worse than their male counterparts is the result of segregation bias (I think that was the term.). If you treat two groups of people exclusively instead of inclusively, and suggest to one group that they are expected to fail (Often this isn't necessary because society has ingrained this thought from childhood.) the chance that they DO fail increases significantly. The actual studies were done on students of different race, breaking them up by race and by sex. In the group where they were all treated equally without mention of sex or race, all performed equally well on average. Once race and sex were entered, women performed slightly worse than men, and blacks performed significantly worse than white people.

There is no difference between races and genders apart from the biases we maintain ourselves. These DO have an effect, and they are harmful, because not based in any factual psychology or biology. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, and all this artificial segregation of males vs females in "male specialty jobs" is driving me bonkers. Especially since females have already proven their mettle in combat.

[iLLcAtTiViSsiMo 10]

1: Individual soldiers who are weighed down by 70 pounds of gear + can not be carried by their male buddies either, which is why most of the time you see two people supporting a walking wounded or four carrying on a tarp or a stretcher.

2: For the average frontline soldier, females can get in fit enough shape to keep up. They don't need to be world class athletes like special forces: in those roles, females will be limited, at least traditional SF. There are special applications roles where female soldiers may be preferrably employed. Still, frontline use.

3: Completely idiotic. Militaries artificially create borderline homoamorous atmospheres of "brotherhood" to make soldiers behave like this anyway. Suddenly, if one of the soldiers who gets in trouble is female and the rest divert the entire mission to save their corpse, it's different?

That female physiology is different is no argument against their frontline use. They will perform up to the level they find themselves capable of, just like the average soldier. Do you argue against slightly unfit male soldiers just because they wouldn't make the cut for SF?

The reason females often DO perform worse than their male counterparts is the result of segregation bias (I think that was the term.). If you treat two groups of people exclusively instead of inclusively, and suggest to one group that they are expected to fail (Often this isn't necessary because society has ingrained this thought from childhood.) the chance that they DO fail increases significantly. The actual studies were done on students of different race, breaking them up by race and by sex. In the group where they were all treated equally without mention of sex or race, all performed equally well on average. Once race and sex were entered, women performed slightly worse than men, and blacks performed significantly worse than white people.

There is no difference between races and genders apart from the biases we maintain ourselves. These DO have an effect, and they are harmful, because not based in any factual psychology or biology. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, and all this artificial segregation of males vs females in "male specialty jobs" is driving me bonkers. Especially since females have already proven their mettle in combat.

This is all ephemera. You are indeed an intelligent and well informed individual in context. You look too deeply into the matter. I practice life in the manner of which you speak when it comes to approaching obstacles with pychological awareness to further reduce the chances of failure. However, to say that a particular race or sex would fail simply because they have been put in some sort of minority setting is insulting and belittling to that particular race and/or sex.

Physical cabability is absolutely an issue. To say that women and men are biologically equal is simply a lie and you are either misinformed or just looking for a debate. I'm all for equallity between women and men, but it doesn't mean our physical builds are equal, nor will they ever be and certain adjustments must be made to accomodate both.

Edited November 5, 2013 by iLLcAtTiViSsiMo

[motorizer 12]

All these comments about about capability are all well and good, but this thread is actually about female civilians if you read the OP

Anyway, the feedback tracker thread has an answer now, they are not in because of time and manpower constraints.

Hopefully this means they will get round to it (both civilians and soldiers) after the campaign is done and they are not so pushed....I'm still not holding my breath though..

[mjolnir66 48]

1: Individual soldiers who are weighed down by 70 pounds of gear + can not be carried by their male buddies either, which is why most of the time you see two people supporting a walking wounded or four carrying on a tarp or a stretcher.

2: For the average frontline soldier, females can get in fit enough shape to keep up. They don't need to be world class athletes like special forces: in those roles, females will be limited, at least traditional SF. There are special applications roles where female soldiers may be preferrably employed. Still, frontline use.

1. In an emergency situation, I can pick up anyone in my platoon and firemans carry them at least 50m regardless of what I've been doing beforehand, despite both of us being fully kitted up. Everyone in my platoon I know can at least drag me that far on their own. I can't think of a single female I've met in the armed forces that could drag me that far without kit.

2. A female will take a lot longer to get into the sort of shape required, and is more at risk of injuries in both the work up period and while performing the activity. This is a proven fact. As is the fact that women and men are not equal physically, if they were, we wouldn't have separate sports competitions.

[instagoat 133]

1. In an emergency situation, I can pick up anyone in my platoon and firemans carry them at least 50m regardless of what I've been doing beforehand, despite both of us being fully kitted up. Everyone in my platoon I know can at least drag me that far on their own. I can't think of a single female I've met in the armed forces that could drag me that far without kit.

2. A female will take a lot longer to get into the sort of shape required, and is more at risk of injuries in both the work up period and while performing the activity. This is a proven fact. As is the fact that women and men are not equal physically, if they were, we wouldn't have separate sports competitions.

1: You've got the experience, I can't argue with experience. But, frontline employment doesn't just mean infantry. The deadliest female soviet soldiers were all specialty roles, such as snipers, tankers and pilots.

2: Can't say about the first thing, but I´d not be so sure about that. I don't claim that women and men are physically equal, but I think if given the chance, females could and would find their niches in places they are currently prohibited from taking.

I am indeed overanalyzing, but that is just because this Issue is dear to my heart right now, so I apologize if I am an annoying nuisance right now. However...

as far as gameplay goes, and gamer equality, females should at bottom be available for play. They were in OFP, and all games after that took steps away from that. The basic thing here isn't the detailed whats and whys and hows of irl female frontline employment, but wether or not BI wants to acknowledge the existence of their female demographic, and accomodate them as far as ingame characters and voices are concerned.

[laverniusregalis 10]

Look, this debate is irrelevant

there is no point to putting women soldiers in the game, for gameplay reasons they would perform the same. (IE: a soldier can't get pregnant) as much as a male avatar can't err.... make love to a lady.

if any at all, the woman's avatar's model would have to have slightly less endurance/carrying capacity than the male model. thatssss it. they can shoot the same, fly the same, talk the same. I really don't see any point in including them

for"immersion" you'd have women, sure, but then the new skeleton would need to be tested, probably new animations made (that's pretty expensive)

and, for real, who in game cares about civillians in game? they are just AI. they can't kill me.

so what if there is only males as civillians in game. as one cannot make love in arma3( thankfully, have you seen the mass effect romance scenes? its very lame. ) whether you see male civillians are female civillians it makes no difference

the only benefit is "immersion" (AKA real life, as men and women are everywhere in real-life, we expect them to be in game as well, tending to flowers, fixing cars, cowering in their houses while being bombed etc.

but, please, we are all grown-ups and we can recognise the difference between a game and real-life. so gender does not matter in a shooter game.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

any side debate about whether women should be able to serve in military forces in real life is irrelevant.

CIVILIANS

CIVILIANS

CIVILIANS

Get it?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yeah come on, can we stick on topic subject pls. Women soldiers has been discussed to death, and it never ends well.

[ruger392 14]

Look, this debate is irrelevant

there is no point to putting women soldiers in the game, for gameplay reasons they would perform the same. (IE: a soldier can't get pregnant) as much as a male avatar can't err.... make love to a lady.

if any at all, the woman's avatar's model would have to have slightly less endurance/carrying capacity than the male model. thatssss it. they can shoot the same, fly the same, talk the same. I really don't see any point in including them

for"immersion" you'd have women, sure, but then the new skeleton would need to be tested, probably new animations made (that's pretty expensive)

and, for real, who in game cares about civillians in game? they are just AI. they can't kill me.

so what if there is only males as civillians in game. as one cannot make love in arma3( thankfully, have you seen the mass effect romance scenes? its very lame. ) whether you see male civillians are female civillians it makes no difference

the only benefit is "immersion" (AKA real life, as men and women are everywhere in real-life, we expect them to be in game as well, tending to flowers, fixing cars, cowering in their houses while being bombed etc.

but, please, we are all grown-ups and we can recognise the difference between a game and real-life. so gender does not matter in a shooter game.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

any side debate about whether women should be able to serve in military forces in real life is irrelevant.

Yes, exactly. Immersion is a huge benefit to any game, and having females in ArmA 3 would certainly add to it.

[PN11A 2]

1: You've got the experience, I can't argue with experience. But, frontline employment doesn't just mean infantry. The deadliest female soviet soldiers were all specialty roles, such as snipers, tankers and pilots.

2: Can't say about the first thing, but I´d not be so sure about that. I don't claim that women and men are physically equal, but I think if given the chance, females could and would find their niches in places they are currently prohibited from taking.

I am indeed overanalyzing, but that is just because this Issue is dear to my heart right now, so I apologize if I am an annoying nuisance right now. However...

as far as gameplay goes, and gamer equality, females should at bottom be available for play. They were in OFP, and all games after that took steps away from that. The basic thing here isn't the detailed whats and whys and hows of irl female frontline employment, but wether or not BI wants to acknowledge the existence of their female demographic, and accomodate them as far as ingame characters and voices are concerned.

Snipers walk very far with lots of weight not good for a woman. Pilots are already implemented and 160th has also opened to woman pilots. Most of what people miss when discussing woman in combat MOS is the things that happen before you get to the combat. The work up to a deployment, the deployment, the missions this puts lots of stress on the body and that is wear a woman's body will not perform as well as a male. Given the time it would take for a female to get into the proper shape, and maintain that shape would take away from the time spent training on actual mission critical task.

Woman are doing wonderful things for our service SOCOM's Cultural Support Team is full of amazing woman but don't get it twisted physically its not the same.

[Alwarren 2767]

Look, this debate is irrelevant

Is there *any* thread that you do not pollute with your "this is irrelevant" posts? If you don't have anything to add, just stay out of the discussion instead of trying to stop them. There is no harm in discussing subjects.

[mistyronin 1181]

Most of what people miss when discussing woman in combat MOS is the things that happen before you get to the combat. The work up to a deployment, the deployment, the missions this puts lots of stress on the body and that is wear a woman's body will not perform as well as a male. Given the time it would take for a female to get into the proper shape, and maintain that shape would take away from the time spent training on actual mission critical task.

I've served with women and most of them performed as well or better than most of men ( both psychologically and physically ), carrying the same stuff and doing the same exercises.

Obviously there are women that are not fit for service, but neither some men. And its also obvious that genetically men tend to be stronger physically, but women tend to be able to deal better with stress ( while some men cry easily when beated in prisoner exercises ).

To me the point was that I didn't care about their gender as long as they performed inside the army standards. Besides that women bring a fresh view and improve armed forces capabilities.

So to me it would make sense the addition of women both as soldiers and civilians ( even Iran's army nowadays include women in their army, so it makes perfect sense that they would be also in CSAT ).

BTW they also look cute :cool:

Edited November 6, 2013 by MistyRonin

[instagoat 133]

The argument of "women won't cope as well" is idiotic. Show me the study that says so. Right now, as far as this point goes, everybody just asserts their opinion by adding "which is a well known fact." without any proof.

Until somebody shows me a valid, significant statistic that women are obviously more prone to injury during deployment from non combat causes, there is no point to be argued here. Further, there is proof positive that women can perform excellently in combat, in specialty roles suited to their physiology and psychology. Again, tankers, pilots, snipers, interrogation officers, liaison, military police, etc. But that is -not the argument here-.

The argument is about wether or not BI wants to acknowledge the existence of females playing games, and accomodate them in their own game(s), without artificially restricting them (such as in Arma 2) by not giving them animations necessary for active gunplay. Experiencing the whole dulce et decorum est pro patria mori should be an equal opportunity gig, and it is the artists responsibility to make statements about these things. Wether they intend it or not, BI right now is making a statement I don't agree with, by not including any female, playable characters at all. (Females missing in general has nothing to do with this, that's more a question of asset balance and content)

Which is the heart of the issue, I think.

[scrim 1]

I've served with women and most of them performed as well or better than most of men ( both psychologically and physically ), carrying the same stuff and doing the same exercises.

And this is where I explain that national service doesn't even remotely match up to an actual deployment, to an actual war.

InstaGoat: I know that I've posted several links to studies made regarding this, where the same conclusion has been reached time and time again: A person with 50% less muscle mass and a weaker skeleton can't cope as well. In fact, they can't cope at all in the end if they have to keep up with male servicemembers. I suppose I could post them again, but I've got this feeling that you've "forgotten" them because you want to.

I agree fully with PN11A; Women have a place within the military, and certainly within A3, but don't try to pull some BS supported only by political correctness, and detachment from the consequences of actually implementing what you want. There are very large differences between men and women genetically. Just learn to accept it.

[mistyronin 1181]

And this is where I explain that national service doesn't even remotely match up to an actual deployment, to an actual war.

In my home country there is no national service... Only professional Army which is part of NATO and EU, and we took part of international deployments in war zones :rolleyes: ( and no, I'm not a finnish citizen, although I live now in Finland ).

[motorizer 12]

We can all argue till the cows come home about the differences between men and women, and whether they are as capable...

What we can't do, is make a story based campaign or mission where these differences and the issues being discussed are a plot point or relevant to the story... because we don't have the models..