203 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

Yeah, lets nitpick percentages, while the point still stands: women were not conscripted, no matter how necessary they were, because they needed to give birth to new soldiers. Dead women don't birth new soldiers, live ones do. (when I saw every man, infant and dog was conscripted I mean, of course, everybody who you can reasonably conscript without your country immediatly imploding, not 100%)

Send all your women into battle and you will lose the war in the long term. The enemy can just sit on it's ass and watch your empire crumble from within in the next decades.

I have no idea if societies did this consciously or not, probably not, but it's pure math: dead women hurt your society way more than dead men. Dead men can easily be replenished in a generation's time by one man and a lot of women. Dead women cannot easily be replaced by 1 live female and a lot of men in a single generation.

 

Please, that is incorrect.

 

Babies don't grow in a matter of days. It takes at least 15 years for them to be conscribed. A pre modern country at a blink of destruction will mobilize women if needed. It's just that mobilizing even 10% of population is impossible for feudalistic society, and if that's the case that less than 10% must be mostly men. You simply can't send enough women to damage the population growth.

 

Why are we talking about this? Even if we were to assume that you are 100% correct(including women being not weaker than men), last time I checked men don't conceive babies in the world of DA. 50% female soldiers is still ridiculous because as you said, only men would be replish-able.

[Farangbaa]

Please, that is incorrect.
 
Babies don't grow in a matter of days. It takes at least 15 years for them to be conscribed. A pre modern country at a blink of destruction will mobilize women if needed. It's just that mobilizing even 10% of population is impossible for feudalistic society, and if that's the case that less than 10% must be mostly men. You simply can't send enough women to damage the population growth.
 
Why are we talking about this? Even if we were to assume that you are 100% correct(including women being not weaker than men), last time I checked men don't conceive babies in the world of DA. 50% female soldiers is still ridiculous because as you said, only men would be replish-able.

I've stated a few times already that a society on the brink of collapse/destruction/annihilation would send their women to the battlefield. And the fact babies (=future soldiers) don't grow in 15 days is precisely why they are being kept from the battlefield. Had we been a species dropped babies by the dozens, and the babies would take care of themselves, this wouldn't come into play. A woman would just drop her babies and enter/return (to) the battlefield afterwards. But that's not who we (humans) are. We give birth to one baby (most of the time), then have to take care of it for almost 20 years before it can be a soldier. The female is infertile, most of the time, while she's still breastfeeding her baby, making replenishing the numbers even harder.

Sending your only baby producing members of society to the battlefield, given these circumstances, is ridiculous. You'd be commiting suicide. Unless you win of course, then you can steal all the women of loser, which happened all the time in ancient times, yet they still did't send their women to war most of the time, because were you to lose but not lose your country, your population would suffer because of a lack of women.

Never said women are stronger or equally strong than men. Just that them not participating in the war had other reasons than their physical strength.

I started this off because 50% of footsoldiers in DA being female is indeed ridiculous.

All in all it boils to this: lose a large portion of your males and you can recover relatively quickly if the number of females stays the same. Lose a large portion of your women and you're f'ed.

[FOX216BC]

Bioware targetting early teens?  

Enjoying ME since i bought it back in august 1st 2008 for 10 euros.

I loved it when i was 26 and i'll still enjoy it now.

But boys will be boys i guess.

[78stonewobble]

Hmm...

 

I'd say that the showing of miranda's ass, was only to show an ass. IF it belonged there, it was during the line of admiring her body.

 

...

 

I don't like... twisting the manuscript / story / lines, because "we have to" show some nudity / curves, gay romance, gore, awesome sunglasses that sponsors our game, make a completely unrelated comment on our treatment of squirrels in the forests of neverheardofitistan and what not...

 

...

 

Let a good writer... decide where the nudity / curves would fit in, which character should be gay, when there should be gore and action, when sunglasses add to the character, decide on the message of stories and so on...

 

Pampering just makes it seem ... like heavy handed commercialism and morality.

 

NOTE: I said "GOOD" writer...

[von uber]

I majored in history, by the way.

 

I'd ask for your money back.

And regards women being 'weak'.. the 1850's called, they want their milk back.

[Larry-3]

I wonder what opinion Ashley Williams would have here. Regardless, if a woman wishes to serve on the front lines just tell her what she is asking for, if she still says yes then who are we to tell her no? I personally have mixed views on the military; some good, some bad. But if a girl wants to march into battle she should have the right. (Prothean-type voice) I was unaware only guys could pull a trigger. Gender discrimination was punishable by death in the Empire.

[DeinonSlayer]

Deploying women on the battlefield seems to be working pretty well for the Kurds - the article isn't available anymore, but I read on Forbes that it was an all-female unit which recaptured the Mosul Dam from ISIS. As long as someone is physically capable of doing the job and willing to accept the risks it entails, I say more power to them.

[themikefest]

I have no problem with females in combat. If they meet the requirements to serve in combat, go for it. If not, try again or go do something else in the military

[ImaginaryMatter]

This is one of the more interesting off tangents on this forum.

[IntoTheDarkness]

I'd ask for your money back.

And regards women being 'weak'.. the 1850's called, they want their milk back.

 

For having a different opinion than yours? How dare I!

[OPM_Lunacy]

For having a different opinion then yours? How dare I!

 

There are always a solution for a problem, every ME player knows that

Usually, there are three solutions, or you can just do nothing, and see what will happen 

[Signuversum]

The female is infertile, most of the time, while she's still breastfeeding her baby, making replenishing the numbers even harder.

 

What kind of sorcery/pseudoscience is this?

[Farangbaa]

What kind of sorcery/pseudoscience is this?

 

Lactational amernorrhea. I might've exaggerated the length of it a bit (is more a year than two years ) but I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

 

You can safely assume I'm not pulling **** like this out of my ass. I've studied biology with a focus on biomedicine, behavioural biology (which is NOTHING like psychology) and neurology.

 

Not that I finished my studies, but I didn't leave it having learned nothing

 

Most of what I said in this topic doesn't apply anymore btw, because of how the human life strategy has changed in the last few centuries. 

[Signuversum]

Lactational amernorrhea. I might've exaggerated the length of it a bit (is more a year than two years ) but I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

 

Well, a bit, you did. Not that I'm assuming anything.
 

All in all it boils to this: lose a large portion of your males and you can recover relatively quickly if the number of females stays the same. Lose a large portion of your women and you're f'ed.

Yup, but when facing galaxy-wide harvest/genocide, you can't simply hide your women deep behind the lines anymore. Since there are no lines...

[Farangbaa]

Yup, but when facing galaxy-wide harvest/genocide, you can't simply hide your women deep behind the lines anymore. Since there are no lines...

 

I know, mentioned multiple times. Just giving a historical and biological reason why women weren't the actors in war, but the spoils of it.

 

I have no problem with females in combat. If they meet the requirements to serve in combat, go for it. If not, try again or go do something else in the military

 

Neither do I and it was not my intention to make it seem like they aren't fit for combat (which I explicitly stated but seems to have gotten lost somewhere). I just explained why they weren't in the past, for reasons that I hope are obvious by now.

 

Short summary: one man can produce virtually limitless amounts of children, if need be. One woman can not. If you wish to sustain your population sending women to war/on raids is ludicrous and endangers your entire tribe/town/citystate.

 

In tribal society women were the prime motivator for wars/raids. In a society with a population of at best a couple hundred, but mostly less that, you can't keep reproducing within that group forever. Incest will destroy it. Wars/raids were instigated to steal women.

[Ieldra]

I am being a bit over dramatic, but the honest feeling I had when playing ME3 was that my intellience is being insulted at every cornor.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. The amount of "You don't really expect me to buy this crap, do you?" moments was rather annoying and reached a new level in ME3. Then add the mind-numbing stupidity of some of Shepard's lines and the stupidity of basically everyone in power (except some of the military types of course), and the implementation of certain aspects of the endings. If I hadn't been invested in the universe through the earlier games, I would've walked away in disgust.

[Iakus]

Glad to see I'm not the only one. The amount of "You don't really expect me to buy this crap, do you?" moments was rather annoying and reached a new level in ME3. Then add the mind-numbing stupidity of some of Shepard's lines and the stupidity of basically everyone in power (except some of the military types of course), and the implementation of certain aspects of the endings. If I hadn't been invested in the universe through the earlier games, I would've walked away in disgust.

I was invested in the universe through the earlier games, and was still disgusted.

 

Heck being invested only made it worse.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Glad to see I'm not the only one. The amount of "You don't really expect me to buy this crap, do you?" moments was rather annoying and reached a new level in ME3. Then add the mind-numbing stupidity of some of Shepard's lines and the stupidity of basically everyone in power (except some of the military types of course), and the implementation of certain aspects of the endings. If I hadn't been invested in the universe through the earlier games, I would've walked away in disgust.

 

I think of the games as leaky ships with active bilge pumps. The first two games, while not flawless by any means, were able to continually keep me invested despite the plot holes, narrative failures, and just plain frustrating moments with the characters and galaxy building. ME3 though, especially as the game goes on, is the point where the ship starts to sink; the ending was just some explosion that happened once the wreckage hit the bottom.

[CptFalconPunch]

Lets do an intelligence test for the members here: Which is the most mature Mass Effect?

 

1 2 or 3?

[Oni Changas]

OP's post













Everyone's head.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Misadventures of Darya Shepard.

 

/thread.

[Jorji Costava]

Glad to see I'm not the only one. The amount of "You don't really expect me to buy this crap, do you?" moments was rather annoying and reached a new level in ME3. Then add the mind-numbing stupidity of some of Shepard's lines and the stupidity of basically everyone in power (except some of the military types of course), and the implementation of certain aspects of the endings. If I hadn't been invested in the universe through the earlier games, I would've walked away in disgust.

 

In fairness, this trope probably reached its apex in ME2, with the "Ah yes, 'Reapers'" ineptitude of the Council, Admiral Koris' general nebbishness, and the positioning of Cerberus, a paramilitary organization, as the only group able and willing to do what was necessary to save the human colonies.

 

Lets do an intelligence test for the members here: Which is the most mature Mass Effect?

 

1 2 or 3?

 

I'm a bit confused here: How does this question constitute a test of intelligence?

[AlanC9]

Intelligence = agreement with CptFalconPunch's opinion?

[KaiserShep]

What's this nonsense about percentages of women in combat in real life? I don't play these fantasy ass games for real life.

[CptFalconPunch]

Intelligence = agreement with CptFalconPunch's opinion?

 

Afraid to answer?