The file size is now much smaller: I realize you don't need the rest of the files in the sandbox except for the module data.
Just make sure you install it properly:
First go into your default sandbox and move your old module data folder somewhere else for storage, than simply add the new module data folder into the Sandbox folder.
Update: Because there has been so much salt, whining, and pointless arguing I will be locking this down. Sad but some people dont understand that the world is not their safespace where reality does not exist.
Upon Request I have decided to reopen the comment section with the mindset that whoever the people were who were crying/complaining earlier will have moved on or learned not to care. This is mostly for suggestions, please don't make me regret this.
Is this another dead mod that no one is updating and reporting on? There are a bunch of these as the dev's have all either decided to stop updating or just straight out abandoned there work. Please let me know if anyone has as strong working recommendations that do the same thing but for 1.7.0 or newer.
Yeah, medieval times were different for a reason. On average women had to give birth to 6 children to keep the population rate even. That was a significant drain on the health and time women could spend politicking or in productive labour, even if societies weren't rife with misogynistic social norms. In addition to this, women from a reproductive point of view are less disposable than men, because women serve as a bottle neck to reproduction. If the tribe has 100 women and one man, the tribe survives, but if there are 100 men and 1 woman, the tribe withers away. That is why women were not thrown into the battlefield, in addition to the fact that on average men have more physical strength. So yeah. SIMP!
@5lav Sure, but still it was exceedingly rare and nowhere near as common as in this game. I could see the empress of the Southern Empire being a good candidate for the one woman of the period to lead an army to battle, seeing as there would be strong ideological reasons for her to break the norm. Such as empress Matilda during the Anarchy in England.
no one is arguing for medieval equality. Im arguing that women absolutely werent passive and irrelevant. the biology argument is bad and boring cuz the average man is stronger than the average woman but most people arent average so it really doesnt hold up. women werent baby machines, then as now there were more women than men, and marriage was expensive so many never got any children at all. medieval people couldnt afford to totally sideline women, especially not the poorer classes. their role as mothers probably played a role in military being primarily men tho. their participation in defensive combat and in revolts and civilian conflicts is indisputable however, and poor, biased or unverifiable documentation makes it difficult to know how the situation looked outside europe and in pre-christian europe for that matter. see the viking warrior grave that turned out to be a woman.
@NuclearNoodle Sure, women had power in medieval times, but the way that power was manifest was rarely the male way of manifesting power, that is on the battlefield. I'd love it if female familial power had a role in the game. The overbearing queen mother would be a magnificent character to have. One can only hope that such things as intrique is added into the game eventually.
The biological explanation is not bs. It's the material explanation for misogyny. As a leftist I do believe that culture is down stream from material facts. When industrial society allowed for women material independence, they eventually got political freedom. As for women not being baby machines, I'm sorry. Most were. 50% of children died before their 15th birthday. It means that on the average every woman had to give birth to 6 children for the population to remain stable. Not grow, but remain stable. As for physical strength, you misunderstand the scale of difference between men and women in physical strength. If women were nearly as strong as men, why would women have been subdued by males in the first place? And of course, with good regimen, a woman will have more strength than the average man, but the nutritional state of medieval societies would make that all but impossible.
Edit: As for the viking grave, how do you know they weren't a transman?
In Medieval times women leaders on the battlefiedl were so RARE that 99% of people would never have seen a woman leader in HUNDREDS of years. There may have been a woman leader in battles once or twice (maybe even thrice) in a thousand years. So in the limitations of the game seeing no woman leaders is in the average Medieval lifetime actually extremely realistic.
Just look at reality in 100 years and two world wars, plus the Iraq wars, etc. We`ve had NO women leaders. THINK about it.
Also, Just don`t use it if you don`t like it. Go and make your own mod. We`ve had to sit here watching ludicrous feminist mods that are wholly unrealistic and none of you complained about that. p.s.By the way you`ll still get the Empress running around.
@Socratatus Agree totally with that statement and chirstian european nations treated women a lot better than islamic nations at that time and women in europe especially were treated with respect and honor but not the version that satanic feminists push but instead the idea that the woman needs the man and the man needs the woman as both are the building blocks of the family in the west and the world in general we to need bring that idea back to west and get rid of the satanic feminist garbage that started in the french revolution and was revived at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century and has led to this feminist bullshit.
Well said, lordgriffin2019. Feminism has twisted many young men and women`s minds today to the point they don`t even understand history that people all had a basic grasp of once.
I mean sure, if you mean one every few generations. Having Reghara (yeah spelling) and maybe one or two more? Sure. A dozen 18 year old women leading war parties in the empire? That's.... a stretch. They were far more active in court intrigue and politics, being part of battle was a very, very rare occurrence. You can name 3 or 4 across a 700 year period, what does that tell you?
"Passive" was probably a poor use of language by the mod creator, but having them being dynastic planners and political agents would be far more apt.
Except for the fact that back in the days, even MORE back in the days (Boudicca for example) there were countless of female "warlords" and Commanders, like, for just give you another example, Jean d'Arc, ofcourse none of them at Gotz-Berlichingen levels for f*** sake, but you get the idea.
Nonsense. Let me give you the quick true history. Boudicca was a one off unusual case documented by the ROMANS (the enemy) because it was so unusual to see a woman leading men on the field. It wasn`t about her fighting, she simply riled up the men to attack which women can do quite easily (shaming tactic). The only reasons the Romans initially lost was due to surprise at a horde of maddened MEN attacking and later (at Londinium). They simply didn`t have enough Roman soldiers to deal with the horde led by Boudicca, so they had to retreat. Also Boudicca did terrible things to the Londinium civilians (both men and women) left behind. Once the Romans were ready to fight, she was defeated EASILY with much fewer men compared to Boudica`s men, because all they did was attack. And she did not lead from the front by the way.
Joan of Arc is again, another unusual rare case. The men followed her, not because she was a woman but because she believed God told her and was spookily accurate in some things, so the men (who were extremely religious in those days) followed her. She didn`t even fight she just emboldened the men much like Boudicca.
Also these two things are over a thousand years apart! The reason they are mentioned is because they were so unusual. Had women been fighting among the armies or leading, they would have been mentioned by scholars too. Men would not have hidden it like the feminists like to lie to you; they would`ve written it down as nobody looks down on anyone that can fight and win wars. Women leading on the battlefield in ancient times did not exist except for the very, very rare cases mentioned.
Go learn your history (not feminist revisionist nonsense), stop watching feminist rubbish on netflicks or whatever, LEARN proper history then come back here.
@MaxRockatansky yeah bullshit the majority of celtic,iberian,illyrian,thracian,dacian and germanic generals were men not women and majority of their soldiers were men same with the sarmatians and scythians
@MaxRockatansky If they are so numerous as you claim, please name others than the two perhaps best known examples. And even then Jeanne d'Arc did not lead the army, she was more a figurehead for the army. Tacitus has Beodicca lead an army, it is true, so I guess that's one for you.
All this is not to say that female monarchs or leaders of countries did not engage in war. They obviously did, but they rarely lead the battles personally. Indeed at least in Europe female monarchs spent more of their reign in war than their male counterparts, because they could rely on their husband's country to participate in the war.
a fun but still not exhaustive list for people to google, in chronological order even: viking grave in birka, fallen soldier women in bulgaria, matilda of tuscany, countess richilde of hainaut, florine of burgundy, ida of formbach-ratelnberg, gwenllian ferch gruffydd, aoife macmurrough aka red eva, mercadera, walpurgis in royal armories ms l.133, female lancer in scotland who skewered her opponent simultaneously, joanna of flanders, johanna ferrour, joan of arc, elise eskilsdatter, jeanne hachette, brita olofsdotter, maria van schooten, mary ambree, catharina rose
The thing about progressiveness today is that it's not progressive at all and women have tried to lead in the past but it always went to disaster, men have done better historically. Plus, women were supposed to be following the men's lead in the first place. Did you know that Joan d'Arc never actually killed anyone but was merely holding her banner for moral support? Yet she wanted to cut her hair and look more like a boy instead of being her beautiful self.
"see the viking warrior grave that turned out to be a woman."
There was so much wrong with this comment, but this was the one I picked, since she wasn't a warrior. She was some highly regarded woman of the age, but the warrior thing was apparently total BS. Just like some of these comments.
And all these female name drops... The point was, that women wouldn't generally be warriors, and thus, in this mod, they are passive. No one is saying historical women stopped breathing, or weren't part of society. They weren't part of the military, except only a handful of examples. Because they weren't allowed to, and because I would image they are humans who don't want to. It would be awesome, if the whiners would actually do something to change things, like, be a woman and study science, or go to business, or join the army. If you want something to happen, you go do it. Nothing in this modern society is stopping you from being your best, except excuses, or physical and mental disabilities.
Where I live, women serve in the military if they want to. Not many of them want to, but some do. They are a fraction (0.024%) of the yearly conscription. Also, the men not being average, so a lot of women could fight with them? These are soldiers for gods sake, not some average modern people sitting on couches. A lot of women could kick my ass, but saying that, an enormous portion of women could not. This is such a futile and ridiculous argument, and I wish people would just let history be.
There's no point in inventing things, like female warrior graves, when there were actual female warriors and leaders who existed. It's pissing on their graves.
Lmao everytime someone says there are countless examples of women fighters, they always name the exact same people (Boudica and Jean of Arc), surely you'd name someone else if there are literally millions? Oh, that's because there aren't millions, they're rare and this should be reflected in a mod literally titled IMMERSION AND REALISM MOD. Inb4 you don't die irl when you die in game so clearly a mod called realistic horses should change all horses to cars because it's not 100% realistic. Incel mod? You don't even know what an incel is. Satanic feminism? Imaging thinking giving the other half of a country a vote is the work of the devil. Yeah christianity nations treated women much better, evil feminist stops women from marrying the person who violated them without permission. If you hate the French Revolution so such, you are free to be a serf.
"Immersion and Realism Mod" How difficult is it to read.
Im only interested in the permadeath feature. I play with a army of companions and im looking for something to increase my companions permadeath chances...as of now my army very seldom has its troops killed.
This mod needs an update for 1.4.3 please. I am also wondering, will our wives(for male players), still be companions in our parties?(or for female players, will their ai husbands/lords still be a companion?)
What a response! Yes, that's exactly why people have been playing games throughout history, for the improvement of the human condition (honk honk), why don't you tell her about how you defended nonexistent females from a video game to exalt humanity?
I take it you havent read Homo Ludus nor The Video Game Theory Reader. I also recommend Medieval Women by Eileen Power, Medieval Women and the Sources of Medieval History by Rosenthal and look up some cool women fighters like Jeanne la Flamme and Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd and social critics like Christine de Pizan also Im not the one so threatened by women irl and in video games that I have to mod them to conform to my imaginary version of the middle ages.
you do realize Im not insulted by incel dog whistles right?
edit: oh and check out the new cool discovery that a warrior grave in Birka turned out to be a woman
youre right, I did write Ludens wrong. youre missing my point tho, but I also suspect you do it deliberately so whatever, I have these arguments for the benefit of others who read them and might want some good sources, not for the reactionary incel Im fighting with.
Im a woman and not terribly threatened by my kind so I guess Im using progressivism dog whistles and being a clown is my dream job so jokes on you.
@NuclearNoodle Isn't it curious how now, when progressivism/feminism has ascended to the position of official ideology of the brahmin class in the west, suddenly histories have sprung up that try to argue that females did much of the same things as men did in history. Picking up the few examples that did. It's almost as if it's tendentious revisionist history. Hmm.
Edit: It's also pretty hilarious that when you mouth for "progressivism" your go to insult to a (supposed) man is an "incel". What you are doing is participating in harmful stereotypes about men as sex hungry ogres, and the value of a man coming from the amount women he conquers, and thus implicitly women as recepticles of male dominance. You are participating in misogyny, my friend, when you use the lack of sexual conquests by men as an insult.
@peuri Im using "incel" to mean the cultural identity of men who think women owe them sex and that blame society instead of themselves for not getting any, not as men who just are virgins which is fine @mausava its honestly more lack of interest than time today, a discussion that boils down to "NU-UH" is very boring. but alright, you got me. the point of the works are that games can be important as an influence and for building identity which means the content of games arent unimportant for the society it exists in. women in combat roles didnt happen often, especially in christian europe, but it did happen which doesnt make it unrealistic when it is portrayed in games (I got really interested in the subject when kingdom come was announced). and it makes it absolutely okey and immersive to have women in combat roles in fantasy and historical fiction. women were especially prominent in sieges and in revolts, check out the interview at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18373149 which is pretty good. for positions of power the examples are too numerous to count so to say they were all subservient and powerless is not only wrong but also ridiculous
I know you didn't write that first part @me but I just can't help but wonder why again you ignored the point given to you when @Peuri told you:
"What you are doing is participating in harmful stereotypes about men as sex hungry ogres, and the value of a man coming from the amount women he conquers, and thus implicitly women as receptacles of male dominance. You are participating in misogyny, my friend, when you use the lack of sexual conquests by men as an insult"
Instead you just pretty much repeated the definition but excuse it with, ah I didn't mean it like that, sure whatever.
Then, again with a lack of self-awareness, saying nuh-uh women exist every time everyone tells you is not that simple in history, again, we all know women exist, I know games are important and influential in human history, just like war is important and influential in history, or psychedelics were for evolution, or cooked food even, or women lol, you can make that argument about pretty much anything, that's not the point, we are not talking about the philosophy and impact of games on civilization, we are not talking about game theory, this not complicated, we are talking about an optional mod, for a video game, what part do you not understand?
But look, it seems to me like you're beginning to tone down your argument, good, it looks like you DO know that the fact is, most (keyword being "most") women throughout history were in fact not involved in wars directly, again, for the third time, WE ALL KNOW #NOTALLWOMEN, I'm sure there'll be plenty of mods and full conversions with tons of women in them, GOOD, that however is not this mod, this mod is attempting to simulate (keyword being "simulate") history, it really is that simple.
I would agree that the first words that were used to describe the mod were a poor choice, but that doesn't invalidate the mod. The aim of the mod is really good and I intend to try it.
About progressivism, it is a dangerous ideology, for thinking that it knows what is good for mankind. Concepts come and go. It is good to discuss, but to think that you know what it is better, it's the best way to create problems. Today we can see that everybody knows what is better, and no one listen to each other. It's just a shame, we are just talking on our pain, and we keep hurting each other on that pain. The problem is that, in the middle of all of that pain, we can sepparate arguments. But with so much pain, it gets difficult to discuss. Even that word, discuss, one could argue today that it means to fight or to hurt someone.
Greetings Adding this one in is not an option right now, but prolly will be later on. Splendid to see these sorta modifications coming alive that also integrates smaller mods in'em. Team work! Ty.
Wouldn't making the Sturgians be more attractive be the bow to put it all together, seeing as European racialist theories were centered around the "Nordic race" ie. Germanics, being supreme. Even inside France (Vlandia), the aristocracy saw them selves as the descendants superior (in their mind) Franks, and the peasants as the descendants of the inferior (in their mind) Gauls.
Give Feedback
93 comments
Just make sure you install it properly:
First go into your default sandbox and move your old module data folder somewhere else for storage, than simply add the new module data folder into the Sandbox folder.
Update:
Because there has been so much salt, whining, and pointless arguing I will be locking this down. Sad but some people dont understand that the world is not their safespace where reality does not exist.
An army commanded by a woman would be realistic.
Sure, but still it was exceedingly rare and nowhere near as common as in this game. I could see the empress of the Southern Empire being a good candidate for the one woman of the period to lead an army to battle, seeing as there would be strong ideological reasons for her to break the norm. Such as empress Matilda during the Anarchy in England.
Sure, women had power in medieval times, but the way that power was manifest was rarely the male way of manifesting power, that is on the battlefield. I'd love it if female familial power had a role in the game. The overbearing queen mother would be a magnificent character to have. One can only hope that such things as intrique is added into the game eventually.
The biological explanation is not bs. It's the material explanation for misogyny. As a leftist I do believe that culture is down stream from material facts. When industrial society allowed for women material independence, they eventually got political freedom. As for women not being baby machines, I'm sorry. Most were. 50% of children died before their 15th birthday. It means that on the average every woman had to give birth to 6 children for the population to remain stable. Not grow, but remain stable. As for physical strength, you misunderstand the scale of difference between men and women in physical strength. If women were nearly as strong as men, why would women have been subdued by males in the first place? And of course, with good regimen, a woman will have more strength than the average man, but the nutritional state of medieval societies would make that all but impossible.
Edit: As for the viking grave, how do you know they weren't a transman?
Just look at reality in 100 years and two world wars, plus the Iraq wars, etc. We`ve had NO women leaders. THINK about it.
Also, Just don`t use it if you don`t like it. Go and make your own mod.
We`ve had to sit here watching ludicrous feminist mods that are wholly unrealistic and none of you complained about that.
p.s.By the way you`ll still get the Empress running around.
Agree totally with that statement and chirstian european nations treated women a lot better than islamic nations at that time and women in europe especially were treated with respect and honor but not the version that satanic feminists push but instead the idea that the woman needs the man and the man needs the woman as both are the building blocks of the family in the west and the world in general we to need bring that idea back to west and get rid of the satanic feminist garbage that started in the french revolution and was revived at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century and has led to this feminist bullshit.
Ok boomer.
"Passive" was probably a poor use of language by the mod creator, but having them being dynastic planners and political agents would be far more apt.
Joan of Arc is again, another unusual rare case. The men followed her, not because she was a woman but because she believed God told her and was spookily accurate in some things, so the men (who were extremely religious in those days) followed her. She didn`t even fight she just emboldened the men much like Boudicca.
Also these two things are over a thousand years apart! The reason they are mentioned is because they were so unusual. Had women been fighting among the armies or leading, they would have been mentioned by scholars too. Men would not have hidden it like the feminists like to lie to you; they would`ve written it down as nobody looks down on anyone that can fight and win wars. Women leading on the battlefield in ancient times did not exist except for the very, very rare cases mentioned.
Go learn your history (not feminist revisionist nonsense), stop watching feminist rubbish on netflicks or whatever, LEARN proper history then come back here.
yeah bullshit the majority of celtic,iberian,illyrian,thracian,dacian and germanic generals were men not women and majority of their soldiers were men same with the sarmatians and scythians
If they are so numerous as you claim, please name others than the two perhaps best known examples. And even then Jeanne d'Arc did not lead the army, she was more a figurehead for the army. Tacitus has Beodicca lead an army, it is true, so I guess that's one for you.
All this is not to say that female monarchs or leaders of countries did not engage in war. They obviously did, but they rarely lead the battles personally. Indeed at least in Europe female monarchs spent more of their reign in war than their male counterparts, because they could rely on their husband's country to participate in the war.
Please go educate yourself before saying sexist shit.
There was so much wrong with this comment, but this was the one I picked, since she wasn't a warrior. She was some highly regarded woman of the age, but the warrior thing was apparently total BS. Just like some of these comments.
And all these female name drops... The point was, that women wouldn't generally be warriors, and thus, in this mod, they are passive. No one is saying historical women stopped breathing, or weren't part of society. They weren't part of the military, except only a handful of examples. Because they weren't allowed to, and because I would image they are humans who don't want to. It would be awesome, if the whiners would actually do something to change things, like, be a woman and study science, or go to business, or join the army. If you want something to happen, you go do it. Nothing in this modern society is stopping you from being your best, except excuses, or physical and mental disabilities.
Where I live, women serve in the military if they want to. Not many of them want to, but some do. They are a fraction (0.024%) of the yearly conscription. Also, the men not being average, so a lot of women could fight with them? These are soldiers for gods sake, not some average modern people sitting on couches. A lot of women could kick my ass, but saying that, an enormous portion of women could not. This is such a futile and ridiculous argument, and I wish people would just let history be.
There's no point in inventing things, like female warrior graves, when there were actual female warriors and leaders who existed. It's pissing on their graves.
Oh, that's because there aren't millions, they're rare and this should be reflected in a mod literally titled IMMERSION AND REALISM MOD.
Inb4 you don't die irl when you die in game so clearly a mod called realistic horses should change all horses to cars because it's not 100% realistic.
Incel mod? You don't even know what an incel is.
Satanic feminism? Imaging thinking giving the other half of a country a vote is the work of the devil.
Yeah christianity nations treated women much better, evil feminist stops women from marrying the person who violated them without permission.
If you hate the French Revolution so such, you are free to be a serf.
"Immersion and Realism Mod"
How difficult is it to read.
Could you please update the mod to the latest Patches, 1.5.0 Main and 1.5.1 Beta?
Thank you!
"It is based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."
fair enough, but Im gonna say based on this introduction that progressivism in games is good.
also Im not the one so threatened by women irl and in video games that I have to mod them to conform to my imaginary version of the middle ages.
you do realize Im not insulted by incel dog whistles right?
edit: oh and check out the new cool discovery that a warrior grave in Birka turned out to be a woman
Im a woman and not terribly threatened by my kind so I guess Im using progressivism dog whistles and being a clown is my dream job so jokes on you.
Isn't it curious how now, when progressivism/feminism has ascended to the position of official ideology of the brahmin class in the west, suddenly histories have sprung up that try to argue that females did much of the same things as men did in history. Picking up the few examples that did. It's almost as if it's tendentious revisionist history. Hmm.
Edit: It's also pretty hilarious that when you mouth for "progressivism" your go to insult to a (supposed) man is an "incel". What you are doing is participating in harmful stereotypes about men as sex hungry ogres, and the value of a man coming from the amount women he conquers, and thus implicitly women as recepticles of male dominance. You are participating in misogyny, my friend, when you use the lack of sexual conquests by men as an insult.
@mausava its honestly more lack of interest than time today, a discussion that boils down to "NU-UH" is very boring. but alright, you got me. the point of the works are that games can be important as an influence and for building identity which means the content of games arent unimportant for the society it exists in. women in combat roles didnt happen often, especially in christian europe, but it did happen which doesnt make it unrealistic when it is portrayed in games (I got really interested in the subject when kingdom come was announced). and it makes it absolutely okey and immersive to have women in combat roles in fantasy and historical fiction. women were especially prominent in sieges and in revolts, check out the interview at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18373149 which is pretty good. for positions of power the examples are too numerous to count so to say they were all subservient and powerless is not only wrong but also ridiculous
"What you are doing is participating in harmful stereotypes about men as sex hungry ogres, and the value of a man coming from the amount women he conquers, and thus implicitly women as receptacles of male dominance. You are participating in misogyny, my friend, when you use the lack of sexual conquests by men as an insult"
Instead you just pretty much repeated the definition but excuse it with, ah I didn't mean it like that, sure whatever.
Then, again with a lack of self-awareness, saying nuh-uh women exist every time everyone tells you is not that simple in history, again, we all know women exist, I know games are important and influential in human history, just like war is important and influential in history, or psychedelics were for evolution, or cooked food even, or women lol, you can make that argument about pretty much anything, that's not the point, we are not talking about the philosophy and impact of games on civilization, we are not talking about game theory, this not complicated, we are talking about an optional mod, for a video game, what part do you not understand?
But look, it seems to me like you're beginning to tone down your argument, good, it looks like you DO know that the fact is, most (keyword being "most") women throughout history were in fact not involved in wars directly, again, for the third time, WE ALL KNOW #NOTALLWOMEN, I'm sure there'll be plenty of mods and full conversions with tons of women in them, GOOD, that however is not this mod, this mod is attempting to simulate (keyword being "simulate") history, it really is that simple.
About progressivism, it is a dangerous ideology, for thinking that it knows what is good for mankind. Concepts come and go. It is good to discuss, but to think that you know what it is better, it's the best way to create problems.
Today we can see that everybody knows what is better, and no one listen to each other. It's just a shame, we are just talking on our pain, and we keep hurting each other on that pain. The problem is that, in the middle of all of that pain, we can sepparate arguments. But with so much pain, it gets difficult to discuss. Even that word, discuss, one could argue today that it means to fight or to hurt someone.
Adding this one in is not an option right now, but prolly will be later on.
Splendid to see these sorta modifications coming alive that also integrates smaller mods in'em.
Team work!
Ty.