- Status
It's not speculation. It's a question. Also, um. what do you expect with a highly anticipated game? People are gonna speculate.
Actually, it's only the heavy armor and a body type less suited to using pole arms effectively. Trained women aren't the inferiors of trained men in sword skill and endurance. And with the Nilfgaardian regular army, we're not dealing with conscript cannon fodder but with the best-trained professional army (or at least the equal of the Order) in their world.
Last edited:
Once a game is out changing it is unlikely changes will happen, if you want a game to be in a certain way or have concerns the only time to lay them down is during development.
I find it unlikely there wouldn't be women among Niflgaard's forces, don't expect any in the army as soldiers though.
Last edited:
It's part of the purposes of forums, if people couldn't speculate, well what else would we talk about? Bickering of crossbows and full horse combat?
I think it's possible to see some outstanding women in special forces, secret services, etc.. And of course as medics and sorcerers. As infantry regulars, cavalry siege engineers, I would think not. Archers, maybe.
Mutant Rayla. Queen of the Night and her employees (a vampire woman is still a woman). Adda (in striga form). Can't remember if Toruviel was directly killable or not, but you definitely get her killed by siding with the Order. You could also mow down Bruxa, Alps, and Noonwraiths to your heart's content and slaughter any townsperson outdoors after or near dark in the first game if you wanted to ( but you do end up with a bounty hunter after you).
Then there is the Succubus (she's an intelligent being, so it counts) and Sile in the second game (refusing to save her is still killing her. It's just less exertion than using a sword). Oh, and don't forget Saskia.
ETA: Oh yeah: Malena and Cynthia.
Last edited:
There is also a female elf bounty hunter with the group outside Vergen when you side with Iorveth.
And really the only realistic regular roles for women among the Nilfgaardian forces are medics, spies and sorceresses. Why would you put women in physical confrontation against the enemy when the fact is that average man is stronger than athletic woman unless it's a really desperate situation? However I wouldn't be surprised if there are special cases.
I should have been more clear
In most of those cases you get a choice, and you can avoid killing them.
I don't consider monsters to be women.
I was talking about being forced to kill women. You are forced to kill male soldiers and Loredo's mother otherwise you get killed. But most of your other encounters with women have significance and you can avoid killing them. For example there are no female enemy archetypes to mow down without second thought.
I really wish to see female enemy archetypes, and also Dwarven enemies fro variety sakes and believability.
Are women OK with Geralt using his sword to cut them to pieces, just like all the other male enemies? If so, then by all means, put them in. I don't mind. The more realistic this game gets, the better.
As long as it's a realistic amount which would be...really rare if we're talking about "soldiers" in an army, there's a lot of of factors(some period specific) that make it so, even today. But roles that aren't...'frontline' so to speak, well BRING IT ON. Spies, assassins, archers, mages, etc.
A still photo and a two-minute video are not really representative of the strenuousness of an archer’s job. Also, those bows are not what would’ve been used on most medieval battlefields. Those had a draw weight of 80 pounds and upwards.
I thought women were generally not used as soldiers because it’s a pretty stupid idea in regards to the survival of one’s clan/city/nation. Men are generally more dispensable in the whole repopulating-one’s-citizens thing.
Last edited:
I'm too impatientSee my edit. Should’ve waited twenty more seconds with your post
Is there seriously a debate going on whether women are capable of being Medieval soldiers? I don't even...
They are. End of story. How do I know? Because it happened in real life. There are plenty of records from the Crusades where the Saracens noted to their surprise that when an enemy knight was stripped of their armour, they turned out to be female. Women have been fighting in wars as long as wars have existed, generally with little choice on the matter.
Yes, a woman is perfectly capable of pulling a fully sized longbow as long as she has the proper training. Bow hunting was a popular sport for Medieval noblewomen. Yes, a woman is capable of wearing full plate armour and swinging a sword just as well as a man; those suits of armour weight less than a modern soldier's gear, ditto for the sword compared to an assault rifle.
They are. End of story. How do I know? Because it happened in real life. There are plenty of records from the Crusades where the Saracens noted to their surprise that when an enemy knight was stripped of their armour, they turned out to be female. Women have been fighting in wars as long as wars have existed, generally with little choice on the matter.
Yes, a woman is perfectly capable of pulling a fully sized longbow as long as she has the proper training. Bow hunting was a popular sport for Medieval noblewomen. Yes, a woman is capable of wearing full plate armour and swinging a sword just as well as a man; those suits of armour weight less than a modern soldier's gear, ditto for the sword compared to an assault rifle.
This is true. Historically, probably the most important reason for employing women as soldiers is there were not enough men. Dahomey (the "Amazons") had sold many of its men as slaves. The Soviet Union in World War II had a horrifying level of casualties and needed women as medics, pilots, and partisans. Serving as a rifle-toting medic was one of the best (though dangerous) career moves a woman could make at that time.
And the problem with women as longbow archers is not that they cannot develop the strength but that they did not receive the lifelong training required to master that extraordinarily difficult weapon.
Last edited:
God dern it folks. Why are people arguing that we shouldn't be seeing women in the Nilfgaardian army because medieval army life was too tough? I'd much prefer not to see any but not because I deem women unfit for the tasks. That' just not my perception but it has been the perception of societies all over the globe for millennia and thus I'd like to see it implemented. We all know that women are slightly impeded by their biology but not by that much when it comes to soldiering. Let's have serving women be a rarity not because they are weaker but because society perceives them as weaker.
- Status