Weekly Dev Diary #2 | Page 11

Kumicho · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Aside from Jeanne of Arc I'm not familiar with any examples of women actually leading troops into battle and doing combat.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...HnRdiCQXFMTOngFYw&sig2=7fI3grAnurZNlOIrMwtVPQ

Slayen · May 21, 2015

Dirt McStain said:
I'm curious if the change capital holding can be exploited in the following ways or if there are certain checks that keep you from gaming the system:

1) A county has two baronies. The castle held by the baron is made the primary holding while the castle held by the count is bumped down. Doesn't this now give the baron a county claim to the rest of the holdings?
2) Your county is about to get seiged so, you make a vassal's barony the primary holding and bump your holding down so that it doesn't get sieged right away. In certain wars, this would affect war score, wouldn't it? Additionally, it would buy you some time with recovering/saving your own troops.

Is it safe to assume that changes can only happen during peace time?

I suspect that you can only make a holding you personally own the capital and only in provinces that are part of your demesne. The screenshot in the diary seems to back that up.

Apollonium · May 21, 2015

Oh that look just fine

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Aside from Jeanne of Arc I'm not familiar with any examples of women actually leading troops into battle and doing combat.

I just leave a link here. I explained it often on the forum. And I just say it again... Jeanne of Arc don't lead armies. She was never a real leader. She was just a figurehead for the French nation. Yes she was important and helped a lot as figurehead... But as real warrior or army leader she was not good. I preffer Mathilde of Tuscany as exemple... Or Sikelgaita

But there are more. Most of them were female rulers or consorts, of course. Female leaders have to lead there armies, like male rulers have to do it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare

And i'm very sad that the only female warrior in Catholic Europe ingame is this annoying Jeanne of Arc... Yes she was a great figurehead for the nation... but she was no mighty army leader *sigh*

TaintedRuins · May 21, 2015

Groogy said:
I fixed a bug in the ambition concerning characters with homosexual trait.

@Groogy, What was this so-called "bug"?

Groogy · May 21, 2015

TaintedRuins said:
@Groogy, What was this so-called "bug"?

That the ambition would abort if you were homosexual

Groogy · May 21, 2015

Thure said:
I just leave a link here. I explained it often on the forum. And I just say it again... Jeanne of Arc don't lead armies. She was never a real leader. She was just a figurehead for the French nation. Yes she was important and helped a lot as figurehead... But as real warrior or army leader she was not good. I preffer Mathilde of Tuscany as exemple... Or Sikelgaita But there are more. Most of them were female rulers or consorts, of course. Female leaders have to lead there armies, like male rulers have to do it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare

And i'm very sad that the only female warrior in Catholic Europe ingame is this annoying Jeanne of Arc... Yes she was a great figurehead for the nation... but she was no mighty army leader *sigh*

Actually we have been looking into giving the glory and praise Matilda she and many other ladies deserve. Any female ruler will be able to lead her own armies now actually with 2.4.

Thure · May 21, 2015

Groogy said:
Actually we have been looking into giving the glory and praise Matilda she and many other ladies deserve. Any female ruler will be able to lead her own armies now actually with 2.4.

That's awesome! Thank you!

And now we only nead the ability to give royal consorts with military education the commander title

Knotz · May 21, 2015

TaintedRuins said:
@Groogy, What was this so-called "bug"?

Groogy said:
That the ambition would abort if you were homosexual

Man. I'd feel so awkward for just assuming homophobia right now.

Good thing I didn't huh @TaintedRuins?

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

Thure said:
I just leave a link here. I explained it often on the forum. And I just say it again... Jeanne of Arc don't lead armies. She was never a real leader. She was just a figurehead for the French nation. Yes she was important and helped a lot as figurehead... But as real warrior or army leader she was not good. I preffer Mathilde of Tuscany as exemple... Or Sikelgaita But there are more. Most of them were female rulers or consorts, of course. Female leaders have to lead there armies, like male rulers have to do it too.

Read up on what she did during the siege of Orleans. Only someone completely ignorant of her achievements would call her a "figurehead".

Thure said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare

And i'm very sad that the only female warrior in Catholic Europe ingame is this annoying Jeanne of Arc... Yes she was a great figurehead for the nation... but she was no mighty army leader *sigh*

That list is mostly laughable. Most women listed have the infamous "citation needed" marker and nearly none of the western examples really fit what we are arguing. Eleanor of Aquitaine is listed, for instance.

A woman fighting during a desperate situation(Florine of Burgundy) or leading a siege defense in the absence of her husband/lord is not the same as being a fighter and leading a fighting force. A woman accompanying an army or giving orders from the background is also not the same.

Did Mathilda of Tuscany bear arms and armor? Was she capable of leading a cavalry or infantry charge at the head of the force? Was she capable of engaging an armed and trained oppononent in personal combat? Nope.

Zolotaya · May 21, 2015

Groogy said:
Actually we have been looking into giving the glory and praise Matilda she and many other ladies deserve. Any female ruler will be able to lead her own armies now actually with 2.4.

This is something I am more thankful for than simple words can convey. The bias in this community with regards to what can and can not be done is much less than elsewhere but at times it still affects me.

Edit:

SirRitter said:
... Did Mathilda of Tuscany bear arms and armor? Was she capable of leading a cavalry or infantry charge at the head of the force? Was she capable of engaging an armed and trained oppononent in personal combat? Nope.

Rather than fight you, all I am going to say is: Your knowledge is lacking. This is a prime example of something that affects me.

sreckom92 · May 21, 2015

Government changes, HRE pictures, Matilda of Tuscany......
Is our favorite blob going to be the focus of this expansion?

nOxr · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Did Mathilda of Tuscany bear arms and armor? Was she capable of leading a cavalry or infantry charge at the head of the force? Was she capable of engaging an armed and trained oppononent in personal combat? Nope.

Why on earth would this be requirements for a commander?

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Did Mathilda of Tuscany bear arms and armor? Was she capable of leading a cavalry or infantry charge at the head of the force? Was she capable of engaging an armed and trained oppononent in personal combat? Nope.

Most likely, yes. But it's debatable.
"she was one of the few medieval women to be remembered for her military accomplishments, thanks to which she was able to dominate all the territories north of the Church States"
"The extent of Matilda's education in military matters is debated. It has been asserted that she was taught strategy, tactics, riding and wielding weapons, but recent scholarship finds these claims contentious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany

And somewhere in Italy her armor is part of a museum if I remember correctly... I have to search it

But did you even read something in the article? Many of the fomen on that list did exactly that. They lead there armies into battles.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

nOxr said:
Why on earth would this be requirements for a commander?

In most of the middle-ages it was so, An able-bodied nobleman was supposed to be fighting along with his men. It was not uncommon for kings to die in personal combat. Harold Godwinson for instance. It was only later that the habit of safeguarding the ruler from action became the norm. Leading from the background is a staple that begins only in the 14th century and then only in the most advanced european cultures. More importantly, that is the way things work in the game(rulers engaging in combat and possibly being killed, wounded or captured).

The only notable well documented example of a Christian woman being armed and leading forces into the thick of battle as any able man would is probably Jeanne of Arc indeed. The link cites anecdotes and legends(such as that of Isabel of Contes), but I'm not sure how reliable those histories are. Everything was exaggerated by chroniclers back then.

The very depictions of Florine of Burgundy valiantly and ably slaying several muslims at the side of her husband before being overwhelmed is probably much exagerated as well, though she did die fighting and bearing a sword.

Thure said:
Most likely, yes. But it's debatable.
"she was one of the few medieval women to be remembered for her military accomplishments, thanks to which she was able to dominate all the territories north of the Church States"
"The extent of Matilda's education in military matters is debated. It has been asserted that she was taught strategy, tactics, riding and wielding weapons, but recent scholarship finds these claims contentious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany

And somewhere in Italy her armor is part of a museum if I remember correctly... I have to search it

But did you even read something in the article? Many of the fomen on that list did exactly that. They lead there armies into battles.

You could as well argue that Jimena Diaz "lead her army into battle" after El Cid passed. Or that Eleanor of Aquitaine did lead troops into battle(she is listed there). But that would be baloney. They did not engage in combat along with their troops as most rulers did in the middle-ages and as is depicted in CK2. They might hae issued orders or even have been present during the fighting, but there was a man actually leading the soldiers into battle and they did not do so.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

If women will be able to regularly lead armies now as a non-exception I find it lamentable that the game is abandoning all claims to historicity. It was extremely uncommon for women to commmand armies during wars and even more uncommon for them to actually lead their armies in the batte as is depicted in the game. It will be quite ridiculous now to see females regularly engaging is fighting as if it were commonplace.

Might as well make women marshalls and have them enter jousting tournaments while we are it, eh? Rename the next dlc "medieval feminist fantasy world" or some such.

nOxr · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
If women will be able to regularly lead armies now as a non-exception I find it lamentable that the game is abandoning all claims to historicity. It was extremely uncommon for women to commmand armies during wars and even more uncommon for them to actually lead their armies in the batte as is depicted in the game. It will be quite ridiculous now to see females regularly engaging is fighting as if it were commonplace.

Might as well make women marshalls and have them enter jousting tournaments while we are it, eh? Rename the next dlc "medieval feminist fantasy world" or some such.

Thank you for the clarifying post. I will now take nothing you say seriously.

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

It has been already explained to you that ruling during war and actually leading an army into battle are not the same thing, specially in the medieval period when rulers actually engaged in combat and were expected o do so.

That list as well as most of the wikipedia articles you link to lack citations and are quite fanciful. Moreover, even if you can find a few examples of such(Jean of Arc being still the most notable) it does not change the fact that it was extremely rare and that it is quite silly to implement it in the game. Any respectable medievalist will tell you exactly that.

I see where this is going and it is ridiculous to be offended by history and facts, Sadly, feminists tend to do that and frequenty behave as autistic children.

loup99 · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
That list as well as most of the wikipedia articles you link to lack citations and are quite fanciful. Moreover, even if you can find a few examples of such(Jean of Arc being still the most notable) it does not change the fact that it was extremely rare and that it is quite silly to implement it in the game. Any respectable medievalist will tell you exactly that.

Powerful real female rulers were quiet rare too though in comparison to males, so there are not that many female rulers to go from.

Field Marshal

Lt. General

Recruit

Chartularius Hamburgensis

Second Lieutenant

Fossilized Platypus

Fossilized Platypus

Chartularius Hamburgensis

[un]Secret Witch

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Major

Chartularius Hamburgensis

First Lieutenant

First Lieutenant

Major

Chartularius Hamburgensis

First Lieutenant

Godogost of Armorica