Questions:
How important is it to have possibility to choose to play female persons in historic strategic games (not fantazy but very realistic games)?

Please, tell if you are male or female if that isn't easy to see anyway on your signature, because it's interesting to see if there is any difference between if it is a female or male telling that they want - or not - that possibility.

--
"Background":
It's uncommon with female choosing possibility in strategic games of some reason. For instance have Settlers (=1) female personalities to choose among (for opponents), but Settlers II have only males! Of course a part of the reason in historic games is that there isn't so many female big rulers in history, but that reason isn't good enough, because there IS some to choose from ;)
For instance at least:
/three in Egypt pharaoh period
/two in Russia
/some in England
/and perhaps the most powerful of them all was Brunhild, which was married to Sigberet I (which is counted as the historic person behind Sigurd Fafnersbane/ S:t Georg (=the Dragon Fighter). He was a decendant of Carl the Great that ruled big part of Europe. After Sigberet was murdered Brunhild ruled direct herself, through young son and through young grandson in Central Europe for many years totaly.

Realism games should be based on reality whatever suits reality best works for.

Note: Perfection is male

>Perfection
Yes, but there can be female UNITS in a game, UNDEPENDING on if they can be choosen to be player himself or not. So what you wrote is an other question than what I asked about.

I'm a male so possibility to be female is nothing for me. :)

Females plays in strategies very little, I think.

>Hommer
Yes, the information that I have seen tells that females plays much less than males, but they play more and more. I don't know if that includes "normal" strategic games (as for instance Civilization) or "just" games like for instance Sims and Tetris.

But I don't agree with you that what we are ourselfes has to decide what to play, although I suppouse "own" type is more often choosed in average than other alternatives. (I for instance more often choose to play Wikings. But I can also think of playing for instance black or indian native, although I'm not either of them, so it's possible for me to play females also ;)

Originally posted by Coach
>Perfection
Yes, but there can be female UNITS in a game, UNDEPENDING on if they can be choosen to be player himself or not. So what you wrote is an other question than what I asked about. Sure if the represent real life female units ;)

>Perfection

Well. Surely we can't make them real, and I don't believe we can make their reactions perfect realistic either, because it's not so easy to understand women reaction sometimes. Do you want to be a consultant? ;)

I never said anything about perfect realism, but as realistic as within the confines of coding and playability

>Perfection
OK. (((I counted your earlier post as mainly a joke, and joked a bit back. But now we are writing about other things than the main subject.)))

Civ3 Conquests there will be a female settler in a scenario. :mischief:

Well. The question WASN'T if there is any games with female possibility, but the question was:

Originally posted by Coach
How important is it to have possibility to choose to play female persons in historic strategic games (not fantazy but very realistic games)?

:)

Oh. Well, that's very specific. But I'd say: not at all. :rolleyes: I don't mind playing with female characters.

fallout 2 had female options for characters, I enjoyed playing both genders, females had a bit easier time with male NPC's.

OK. But I guess by your signatures that you both are male ;)
But perhaps it can be more important for females to play females? Any females seeing the question?

It really doesnt change the game.

Originally posted by archer_007
It really doesnt change the game.

Oyes, it does. I mean in realistic games. Or do you mean that it isn't different to be female or male? ;)