Female units (Yes, FEMALE!)

37 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Quincannon said:

Your last comment? I'm sorry, but no one, certainly not you or I have any business saying that this game will stay the way it is to teach women a lesson. That's a seriously scary attitude. Women should have the right to decide for themselves what they should value...

? what are you saying history can't teach us lessons?

That women rights, black rights and their fights should not be recorded and reminded by all of us?


I find so annoying that people forget that women fought and die to prove they were equal or as good as men. Are you like those sjw's that wanted that kingdom come deliverance set in 1400's in bohemia also put black people when there were none... LoL


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I'm curious as to whether or not you made this same argument about adding the Italians.

Negative. Italians, iirc, are textures along with the standard package for new infantry weapons: 1st and 3rd person animations, weapon models, weapon sounds. I believe the existing infantry model was re-used, just re-textured.

If just retexturing the existing model to look female would work, that'd cut back on things a lot. Then we'd only need to worry about voice work (which a slightly sped-up version of current voices might do in a pinch) and maybe work for any new special weapons to go along with it (to factor in partisan weaponry).

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. Let's then first start with color people to add diversity. Easier to mesh.

Altough OT would declare WWIII.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I just can't see adding female characters to a World War Two-themed simulation game.  I can see where female players feel under-represented by not having female avatars, but they just were not there, as front line troops in the actual war.  As a comparison, how many female avatars are there in Napoleonic-era games, American Civil War games, or combat flight sims?  There are not even female avatars/pilot voices that I know of in modern-day jet combat flight sims when there actually ARE female pilots in combat.


I actually asked my wife about it.  She's an occasional gamer, but is far from passionate about it unless she finds a game she really likes.  She's played mostly swords and sorcery style fantasy games.  She felt a female avatar would be out of place in a World War Two setting.  When I told her a female player had requested female avatars be added to the game, her response was (I quote her exact words, so don't blame me.  I didn't say it.), "She should take her whiny azz to a different game."


She actually disliked the idea of using female avatars in a game such as this as it was easier for her to think of only male soldiers killing each other rather than females suffering horrific wounds and having limbs blown off in explosions.  I pointed out to her the game was not -that- graphic, but she said seeing female avatars laying in contorted death positions with pools of blood under them would get to her as well.  I have to agree with her on that last one.







Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

I have to say that I'm incredibly shocked by the reactions of everyone to this concept.  I can understand that people might not want CRS to add more units, as everyone has their own development agenda. I was not expecting to see so many players simply say "no". I was also surprised to see the response that it is wrong to have a female avatar in a combat game, when there are female avatars in the majority of FPS games I have seen in the past decade. While I acknowledge the issue with the somewhat ahistorical aspect of such a unit, I fail to see how killing a female combatant avatar in this game is any worse than doing so in a game like , say, Fortnite, or Conan Exiles. A sword can be just as nasty as a gun.

To ME, if something is morally objectionable in one situation, it has to be morally objectionable in every setting. I simply can not imagine how it can be normal and expected in one game and a horrible action in another.

Oh well... It's not like I'm trying to start a revolution. I just didn't know that this community was so entrenched in what amounts to a male only environment. I thought we wanted to get new players, including women. Unfortunately, as long as things stand, I don't see any chance of that happening. It's our loss.

Not sure why you're shocked or morally offended.   The simple reality is that THIS game focuses on the National Armies and their combat on the western front during the opening phase of WWII.  These Armies simply didn't have females in large numbers engaged in combat roles.  That is historic reality.  Agree or disagree with the politics of the era, from a sim/game perspective it's really that simple. 

The only nation that had women directly integrated into combat units during this time period, is not yet represented in the game (Russia).  

The role that you propose these characters fill is also not a very good fit for the current game simply because there is nothing historically based for them to do once spawned:

  • There is no interdict-able supply lines.
  • Even if a bridge is blown by partisans it doesn't affect supply in any way. 
  • There are no destroy-able Rail Lines
  • There are no sabotage-able Air Fields
  • There is no way to intercept communications (one can spawn the other side but that defeats the 'partisan spy' purpose).
  • Even if the above were possible, there is no way to pass said message to the other side (again one can simply change voice channels so..). 
  • There are no field Hospitals.
  • There are no medical roles (where most of the forward deployed US women who served were located)
  • There is no cross ocean ferrying of manufactured aircraft.
  • There are no POW's to smuggle out
  • There is no munitions to smuggle around for use.

I don't decide what gets modeled and included, but, it seems it would not be the best use of limited resources (volunteer developer time) to create a new model (or re-purpose an existing one) to include into game in a role that simply doesn't exist within the current game structure. 

Maybe further down the road when Blowing a bridge actually means disrupting supply it may be practical for inclusion, but IMO at this current time it is not.   

NOTE: This is my personal opinion and in no way, shape or form is intended to be interpreted as that of CRS as a whole.

Those of you who like to screenshot posts then use them out of context later on please make sure to include the above line when you repost - thanks.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to get all the stuff on the 2018 roadmap online before even considering adding something extra. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

 I'm just waiting for the 2019 roadmap, because there's nothing in the 2018 roadmap that I'm waiting for at all. 

That too bad.......a lot is happening.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.