Disagreeing with a forced political narrative = no life incel virgins
Cuz logic lulz
Don't like the mod? Take Ella's advice and "just don't play it"

Little American boy, please try to type proper sentences in the English language, I am mildly confused.

Although I don't get to play games a lot, I have 197 hours in Rome II, I play CA games since the first Rome came out so I dare to say that I consider myself an "old guard". I don't get what's the issue with female generals, why is there such a havoc over something that does not alternate the gameplay experience? Frankly what's the big deal? Don't you lads have anything better to do in your life than going beserk over a minor update? What's wrong with female generals? I am totally indifferent to the new changes and honestly I wouldn't care less if it never happened but I have to say that female generals was something missing from the game. Now we can simulate the great Boudica and her rebelion against the Romans. As on the question of historical accuracy, it doesn't mendle with it at all, how many female generals have you noticed? I only got 2 leaders and 1 general in my campaign, which is fairly accurate.

Unfortunately, the Creative Assembly did not realise that the majority of people playing videogames on a regular basis are middle-class jobless virgin white males from first world countries (predominately American) and it was somewhat expected that no-lifer incels would have an issue with female generals, I just didn't realise that it would take such dimentions in no time!

Please be respectful to other Steam users. We need to be civil about this.

the man listed his sources, what are your sources? ah wikipedia, a platform known for it having to lock certain topics because people try to do revisionism.

The deal is, that you and I know that this game is not totally accurate, but some people do, and like what octavian did when he commissioned aenid to change and create a new colture the traitorous left is doing so too; even if the game is not truly accurate you cant go too much away from real history, then you might aswell call your game "fantasy land 2 totalwar".

"a new colture the traitorous left is doing so too" HAHAHAHAHAHAA

*Deep incel voice* MUH LUFT IS CRUATING A NUW COLTORE

I don't need to state any sources, I am not here to debate, I supported my claims with my historical knowledge and it's sufficient. Anyone who wants to waste his weekend studying female generals in ancient world be my guest. My point here is that we shouldn't overreact over something meaningless as a minor update in a video game. Those who cry about historical inaccuracy keep in mind that Rome II is a sandbox game and it's not meant to give you the best historically accurate experience. There are a lot of features that need change in order to balance the game other than reducing female generals (who actually existed and were plenty of them).

You whole list is a couple women a century, most didn't even lead anything! I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one!

The incoherent mumbling continues. As I said, I am not here to debate, I am here to make a point that it is meaningless to argue over a minor update and only incels would have an issue with female generals in Rome II.

May I ask why do you get on to call everyone an incel immediately? And yes, this update does not alter gameplay in any way, it's more matter of, let's say, immersion. What's CA doing is that they are forcing everyone to accept their Social Justice Agenda. Sorry but no, the almighty Rome was not lead by dozens of black female generals and politics. Female emancipation is, sorry to break it down for you, matter of late 19th, mostly 20th and, to some extent, even 21st century. I'm not saying there weren't any "amazing and super important" women in ancient, medieval and early modern times. Problem is that they were super rare, we know of just very few. Now CA's been proudly saying that they are trying to get to as histocially accurate presentation of those times as possible, with this patch they just sunk themselves. I personally don't have a big problem with women in games, but when they're forced in place where they clearly weren't or shouldn't be... that stirrs me...

There is no social justice agenda, quit conspiracy talking. As you said yourself CA chose to make a minor update that slightly changed the game immersion, having female generals is an important aspect that adds to the game flavour. I don't see what's the issue with it, did female generals exist? Yes they did! So what's wrong with having some female generals? In my campaign I 've seen 2 female leaders and 1 general so far on 160 BC. Even in my faction overview women do not get a position in the political chambers, they cannot become quastors or aediles, they get "power-hungry woman" title, it is a fact that women did not involve in politics in ancient Rome for example but keep in mind that they influenced many cases from the background. I don't think that CA has ever claimed that their games are historically accurate, Rome II is a sandbox game.

I am not hating about female generals in this game, myself had a few and no problem. And yes, they did exist, problem is that they were rare in such dominantly-male society, unlike CA potrays here where it looks like everyone is run by just women. "Slightly changed the game immersion"... you can't be serious...

You said you had a few not many, no problem then. Why would you mind anyway? It's just a sandbox video game. If you want a more historically accurate game, trying to balance certain military units and improove AI behaviour. Only incels would hate female generals, anyway.

Do you even understand the meaning of "incel"? Well in short it does not in any way "touch" the sphere of historical accuracy... And i said few because that was pre patch, right now it's a mess...

Involuntarily Celibate