DrAlimantado Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Scipio: Your argument is political correct.B] Did not see that 'political correct' argument coming ... I promise As I tried to point out earlier, that something is only a graphical feature is not good enough to dismiss it off-handishly. Why not just have one generic tank for the whole of CM? The differences can be hardcoded independently of the graphical representation. If we do this BTS won't have to bother with doing all the tankmodels that just suck up a lot of polygons anyway. Right? My point is that if Soviet female soldiers were somewhat common (in frontline service), and that it is not too hard to code, then there is an argument to include them. Even if it only is a graphical representation and nothing else. If that is not the case, (easy to code, common, etc), then they should not be included. May so be. And if my failing memory serves me right there was a very heated discussion some months ago regarding black soldiers on the West Front. I think that the main consesus was that it was very uncommon for black soldiers to see the type of direct combat that CM covers. Mattias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Mikey, have you seen any photos of American, British or Canadian servicewomen of the period? Not a lot of what we call "lookers" today either. Mostly due to what passed for fashion then. It's like looking at the guys in a 1970s Sears catalog with the bellbottoms and wide lapels and afros and thinking "what the hell IS that?" I acknowledge your point...to a point. Again, this is one of those "Your Milage May Vary" kind of things, but I have definitely seen pics of servicewomen from America, Britain, Canada, and France who were beautiful by any standard (IMO). There were many others I would probably have thought better of had they been styled in the fashion of my own generation (which I take it is your point). But most of the Russian women in uniform from the WW II era that I have seen were beyond redemption as far as looks go. They may have been strong, capable, and possessed of all the other admirable qualities and thus preferable above all other women on earth. But beauties they were not. I want to make it clear (yet again) that I recognize this is entirely a matter of taste and personal preference. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me and there isn't a soul on this board that I feel a need to convince regarding my position. I am merely stating it and finding it interesting to hear what other opinions there are on this little matter. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Well, I do hope you wiped it off before you shared it DrAlimantado. The slippery slope argument as you put it, is not what I see as the main idea though from my experience here there is indeed a numerous presence of young lads and lassies about. No, it's more of my way of saying that while a few folks here think the female addition to CM2 to be a really nifty notion, is that really representational of everyone's opinion, or just those making the most noise. BTS stated that it wasn't going to happen, but on and on and on the thread goes. As did the M16 thread. Now, I never entered into that, but since they now say they will include the M16, I'm wondering, as probably are some others, why they are not including the German quad 20mm? (If indeed they are not. And maybe they are, but you see where it all leads?) Slippery slopes do exist. No what I see as the main concern here too is what is "most" important to the overall representational scope of CM(2), and based upon what, in who's opinion? As you seem to agree also, the process would amount to what is most representational to the scope of commonality. That is a judgmental call to be sure, but I would begin by weighing the secondary evidence. What is the overall volume of evidence as to the commonality of female combatants presence in a significant role in day to day combat over the span of the war as compared to that of other potential selections for inclusion. That isn't a slippery slope, it is rather an analysis of relevance and a choice of potential candidates. BTS does not have the resources to include everyone's favorite suggestion, therefore must "choose" wisely, or choose based upon as we've said a process which supports the games original intent. Not by what is "easy" to code into the game, but rather what is most "important" to the integrity of representation of the games scope. It would be easy to include all manner of things into CM, but easy isn't the sole measure of the reason for inclusion. If it is, or has become that, then I for one have certainly misunderstood the past quotes from BTS about the scope of CM. I'm not so sure but what we agree in principle, but whether we do or not, I'm of the opinion that BTS has done a pretty nifty job thus far, and they've said they don't plan to include women, and probably won't include some other things someone somewhere really thinks should have been. So, as I've stated before, unless there is an understanding as to the importance of producing the game with a certain degree of standards to go by, and some measure of importance as to what is included, then I would be speculative as to the longevity of its current levels of acceptance. Besides, as has been stated in here a few times now, adding women to the game is as easy as downloading Kitty's mod. That is about as "easy" as it gets. For BTS to include women in the game, is a wee bit harder unless they just randomly toss them in here, there, and yonder. That has not been their particular style. They research historical aspects, particulars, uniforms, weapons, in this case, common duties and functions, etc., etc. That is what has kept the high levels of integrity that CM enjoys and the high levels of acceptance as to historical authenticity. So it would be a little more than just coding. BTS would have to do what hasn't been done yet on here, and that would be to do the research necessary to attempt to prove that the presumptions and assumptions being made in this thread, based upon a few pictures, a few stories, and a few books were of such magnitude as to completely change what is otherwise the worlds current understanding that the Soviet Army was made up of predominately men, and it was those men who were the primary participants of front line, day to day, combat assignments over the course of the war, who primarily suffered the vast majority of causalities, and that the inclusion of women is somehow more representational than that of other potential inclusions. And ya ain't gotta wipe that off. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 02-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts