• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eh, its not that the women couldn't fight in a war or at least serve in support roles. The reason women didn't serve in army on large is because of their value to society. Throughout history men went to war to often fight for or protect their women, its something that remains true till today even in egalitarian democracies. Most have conscription for men in case of war, but not for women. Only fringe or radical ideologies, such as communists viewed women as men and tried to get them into the army, although not to much of a success.

For a game, I would be more interested to see broader incorporation of women into work force, especially in times of war. Although I guess it would be fine if they could be soldiers too, provided that their dependents are solved in some manner.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
For a game, I would be more interested to see broader incorporation of women into work force, especially in times of war. Although I guess it would be fine if they could be soldiers too, provided that their dependents are solved in some manner.
This should probably be dependent on other factors e.g. birth rate, infant mortality rate and public education.
Dont put women into the game where it doesnt fit the era. Ask EA how Battlefield 5 turned out.
Not the same problem. Even if integration of women into the military is possible in Victoria 3, it should not, and almost certainly will not, be the case in 1836. It should be something that the player has to actively work for over a long period if they want it to happen (and probably shouldn't be something the AI is likely to do).
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The game will go into the 1920s, maybe a little longer. I don't need to bring obscure examples from the first world war in russia: (a regiment which purely served to motivate the men). Soviet Russia is enough. Paramilitary training was also provided for girls. Yes, higher ranks were unusual, but theoretically possible. Later we have Israel which, out of desperation, also improved military service for women.

It's not entirely obscure for the era, it just assumes that a radical left-wing group comes to power in the game at the beginning of the twentieth century. Then you can also decide on conscription for women. Why not? yes, it shouldn't be possible when the game starts, but it should be possible later on.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Since we might’ve gotten a little too deep into the weeds here and lost sight of the main point, let me give a clear example of a woman who, in Vicky 3 terms, was unambiguously a military officer and not a dependent.

1626935080387.png

This is Lt. Lorena Reed of the US Army Signal Corps. She was born in Maine in 1895, served as a sergeant in the Women’s Radio Corps, then was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Signal Corps. Her jobs included commanding a station of wireless radio operators, teaching Morse code to naval cadets, and working on radio equipment in a testing lab. She married Owen Protheroe at the end of World War I and later became the first WAC from Maine in WWII. She passed away in 1974. Her medals “include the New Guinea Campaign Medal, the WWII Victory Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Asiatic-Pacific Theater Ribbon, the Victory Ribbon, the WAC Service Ribbon and the Victory Ribbon.”

There’s no real point in engaging with the kind of person who wants to argue that she and tens of thousands of women like her do not truly count as veterans who served her country. The distinctions they’re trying to make are simply not represented in the game.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I think it would make sense to have the option of also having women as soldiers (with some negative consequences not to make it a nobrainer). In OTL Israel enacted a universal draft for both men and women in 1949, which is only 16 years after the game's end date. Although I would try to balance it so that it would be very difficult to get into that situation before the early 20th century.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like to see examples of this 'woke baiting' and explanations as to why it's so historically inaccurate for each one.
Here are some:

in HoI4:
They’ve added multiple female rulers, generals and advisors with unique portraits for them.
Some of these (e.g. Victoria, Dürrüşehvar and Wallis I) are very implausible and require some meme paths to come to power.
Meanwhile many male historical generals are either not in the game or have generic portraits.

Imperator Rome:
The gender equality game rule is completely unbalanced, you NEED to enact it to be competitive.
Until the 1.3 update there were a few minor disadvantages of having gender equality (mainly loyalty of families with 1 man and multiple women), but the Great families rework removed them completely. Since then you have to play with full gender equality enacted or cripple your country by using subpar leaders.
 
  • 9
  • 3Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
How is it "the zenith of women's rights" to push women on the frontline to do some of the most gruesome work one can imagine. Trench warfare isn't exactly piloting a drone from 3000 km away
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Female soldier pops needn't be only a feminist cause- the Dahomey Amazons were one of the most famous female fighting corps of the era and they were considered symbolic wives of the King, hardly an emancipated role, though they did have certain rights and privileges, and most of all, political clout compared to women of many other countries. Though yeah, women in the armed services should generally be reserved for far-left movements or rebellions/revolutions.
And they were quickly defeated vs modern French arms
 
  • 5
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Here are some:

in HoI4:
They’ve added multiple female rulers, generals and advisors with unique portraits for them.
Some of these (e.g. Victoria, Dürrüşehvar and Wallis I) are very implausible and require some meme paths to come to power.
Meanwhile many male historical generals are either not in the game or have generic portraits.

Imperator Rome:
The gender equality game rule is completely unbalanced, you NEED to enact it to be competitive.
Until the 1.3 update there were a few minor disadvantages of having gender equality (mainly loyalty of families with 1 man and multiple women), but the Great families rework removed them completely. Since then you have to play with full gender equality enacted or cripple your country by using subpar leaders.
What nonsense. Yes of course you have a greater choice between the rulers if you introduce such a rule. But you are not forced to introduce such a rule and neither does the AI. It's just an option. I CK3 I can also stipulate that homosexuality occurs just as often as heterosexuality.

But this is about historical possibilities. Was full equality for women part of the debate at the beginning of the twentieth century?

Yes.

From the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, did governments or rebels give women massive training in weapons or use them in the armies?

Yes

why shouldn't my Bavarian Soviet Republic be able to call up women into the army around 1905? Don't tell me that such a thing was taboo for left-wing extremists.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
I don't know what a redcap is but I think modern progressives are the absolute scourge of the west. Nevermind my opinion on the matter though but hasn't it been pretty much empirically proven at this point that wokeness in video games, movies, comic books and so on has led to poor financial performance?

Personally though, as far as politics go I'm just happy if I get 19th century politics in my 19th century history video game instead of 21st century politics, for the sake of immersion.
Ask for a link to these empirical studies.

But see. The SJWs are called communists for a reason. Which doesn't mean the SJWs are communists. But this means, among other things, that the idea of equality between women is a bit older. To be precise, these ideas began to emerge from the late nineteenth century.

If the conservatives of the time had problems keeping the much more militant SJws out of their century. Why shouldn't it show up in the game? Corresponding idologies should certainly first be researched. But don't tell me it was a completely absurd thought
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Tell the stories to female Soviet snipers who received paramilitary training and were raised to volunteer at the start of the war. I don't even talk about the medical staff and all of the logistics. We're talking about a million women here.

Wiki says this about women in soviet land forces : The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, and should avoid tactical hand-to-hand combat.
 
Wiki says this about women in soviet land forces : The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, and should avoid tactical hand-to-hand combat.
It doesn't mean, of course, that women were treated in exactly the same way. Traditions are difficult to change. But it was formally part of the propagated ideology - the state tried to educate the girls accordingly. And since they feared the rieg, young people of both genders were trained to be paramilitary. It wasn't as if the volunteers had come completely unprepared.

The introduction of compulsory military service as an additional step was not an absurd thought.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What nonsense. Yes of course you have a greater choice between the rulers if you introduce such a rule. But you are not forced to introduce such a rule and neither does the AI. It's just an option. I CK3 I can also stipulate that homosexuality occurs just as often as heterosexuality.

But this is about historical possibilities. Was full equality for women part of the debate at the beginning of the twentieth century?

Yes.

From the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, did governments or rebels give women massive training in weapons or use them in the armies?
No. It was still exceptional, even in the USSR, and in very specific roles. There has never been a large use of women in frontline combat roles, not anywhere near men's use. The 2000 soviet snipers and the handful of machine gunners/tank crewers are famous because of that, it was exceptionnal.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It doesn't mean, of course, that women were treated in exactly the same way. Traditions are difficult to change. But it was formally part of the propagated ideology - the state tried to educate the girls accordingly. And since they feared the rieg, young people of both genders were trained to be paramilitary. It wasn't as if the volunteers had come completely unprepared.

The introduction of compulsory military service as an additional step was not an absurd thought.
How do you imagine a large scale use of women in infantry tactical combat role, in say WW2 warfare ? would there be mixed gender brigades, of all female brigades ? Or in trench warfare ?

Just imagine, let's say, hundred of thousand of female soldiers trapped in the Kiev pocket, or women soldiers being ordered to fight starving to death in the cold of the Stalingrad Cauldron. It simply doesn't work. There is a biological response to that, that means it wouldn't ever happen.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
No. It was still exceptional, even in the USSR, and in very specific roles. There has never been a large use of women in frontline combat roles, not anywhere near men's use. The 2000 soviet snipers and the handful of machine gunners/tank crewers are famous because of that, it was exceptionnal.
The direct combat roles are uninteresting. We're talking about a million volunteers who served in World War II. The same applies to Israel. Women then took on roles that did not necessarily require combat contact. 100,000 were for example active as crews of the flak for the Soviets.

And we're talking about the historical possibilities. Were there radical leftists who had further demands with regard to women? Yes, these people existed.

The anarchists never got their way. Even so, they'll show up in the game. We are talking about the epoch in which all modern ideologies begin, not the Napoleonic era. Nobody demands that you unlock something like this at the start of the game. But from the beginning of the twentieth century it should be quite possible for radical movements.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How do you imagine a large scale use of women in infantry tactical combat role, in say WW2 warfare ? would there be mixed gender brigades, of all female brigades ? Or in trench warfare ?

Just imagine, let's say, hundred of thousand of female soldiers trapped in the Kiev pocket, or women soldiers being ordered to fight starving to death in the cold of the Stalingrad Cauldron. It simply doesn't work. There is a biological response to that, that means it wouldn't ever happen.
Yes, there were quite a few women in such battles too. Despite all the rumors, only a small minority of one division is fighting directly. You need cooks, paramedics, truckers, clerks, telephone operators. These are all activities that must be carried out. We're not talking about theory here. Most of the activities required routine. According to this logic, women could not have worked in the fields either. Yes, they might not have been able to fight that well in individual combat. But modern war did not require a lone fighter, just cogs in the system.

For other reasons, conscription was not introduced. There was enough population available and it was more rational to employ women in the factories. With fewer people and in a desperate situation, it would have been done without hesitation.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I’m not sure it’s worth getting into this topic any further, but can someone explain to me how the (historically incorrect) claim that women never fought in front-line combat would be relevant to the game?

For example, suppose the Devs put in an event where, if the US is at war with another Great Power and either the Suffragists have enough clout or there’s enough of a manpower shortage, Edna Owen (or another suffragist) proposes creating a Women’s Radio Corps as part of the Army Signal Corps. Saying yes would convert some dependents to Serviceman pops, and boost the political strength of Suffragists. Or this is abstracted into a more generic law for Women’s Auxiliary Corps, with Female Aviators being something that radical feminists proposed at the time. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, I granted that it would be an anachronism for women to serve in front-line combat, even though some armies of the time historically did allow it. How would that be relevant to the other edicts and laws?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ask for a link to these empirical studies.
Empirical means it can be discerned from observation not necessarily formal studies. My point is that there's a trend going for a while now that wokeness doesn't necessarily lead to more commercial success for companies but rather, the opposite. Maybe there are other issues at play but from my personal observations I get the feeling there's a bit of a correlation going on, I could be wrong though.
 
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.