All Activity

Look, if you felt attacked or ofended in any way, I apologize. I don't want to portrait myself in an innocent way nor my intention was to attack you. I discuss arguments in a public forum about a public matter that many players are discussing. There's no need to tag me for me to answer you about what you put here. I didn't insulted you I didn't ordered you to shut up and is OK if you don't like the change. I'm not here to change your mind. But yeah if your argument is: I answer this is nonsense, or "this doesn't make sense". Because is an overexaggeration (or however is it spell. Not using chatgpt to avoid unnecesary comments) that leads anywhere. Why? Because you can use that argument to almost everything the game, which leads to doesn't even have a game in the first place. Yes, the change has some historical ground and I told you: And about this: Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point. I agree about the audio feedback, not about the models or because naming has changed from women to civilians Yes, I wanted to bring this up because that's kind of a very characteristic mechanic of the game and it's a naming used for years, and even today. I get your point about "talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology." I'm a real player too. I play almost everyday, for years. Yes in lobby we commonly say "bring your army", "javs", "javcav", "make soldiers" etcétera. Still I've seen ppl in lobby start using civilians for former women and they are not robots. You say "civilian" is artificial and I argued that too. What about "villagers", would be better? Less artificial from your POV? Is honest not ironical question. Women are still there and I don't think someone had the intention of removing them or undermine them. Because, as we were discussing here, the intention were not political. Were historical. I don't get if this is some kind of joke or irony. As far as I know there has been aura damage and other types of auras for a long time

I’m considering buying an Apple Silicon Mac in the near future, and I just was wondering what frame rates people get on M4 or M5 chips with settings on highest. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. I expect we’ll be waiting a while for a bugfix, no?

Nope... I genuinely say: "I am currently initiating a large-scale demographic expansion program focused on the sustainable deployment of non-military economic personnel."

I think you’re the one losing context here, probably because you’re arguing in a language that you are not good at. I gave that example because you defended changing the name “Women” and said, “I’ve already seen many people adopt the term ‘Civilian’ without any issue.” And the examples you showed were messages from before the update anyway. No, the people who actually play the game don’t call them that. Maybe a small group on the forum approaches the issue from a nerdy, overly technical angle and see things with such classifications. But I’m talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology. You’ve portrayed yourself quite innocent here but that’s not how it happened. I was actually simply expressing my opinion in a normal way, I didn’t even tag you. Yet you jumped in with “And what you’re saying here is nonsense.” It wasn’t some calm, neutral “I just asked why it’s a bad change and now we’re discussing arguments, that’s all.” That’s not how it unfolded. I’m not sure whether to attribute this to a lack of language nuance or something else entirely. But if you genuinely value the idea of freely expressing opinions, then you shouldn’t immediately try to shut down views you dislike by labeling them as “nonsense.” Turning the issue into a kind of TG mainland with your allies and then framing it as “I was just sharing my opinion” doesn’t work. Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point. Politically speaking: Removing women altogether isn’t exactly a brilliant move either. I think it would have made more sense to keep the “women” unit and maybe even make it a better. Right now, the game has completely erased the only position women held. The “women” unit had its own unique role and abilities. Even her voice alone added a sense of balance to the game. Removing it now feels like an almost anti-women move. At least Ptolemaic hero Cleopatra is still around thankfully lol The update, claimed to bring “realism,” actually introduced wizards who deal things like “aura damage” into the game. If you genuinely say, “Let’s produce some CiViLiAnS” while playing, you are a robot bro.

How dare you....

Hi @Riley S. You are doing nothing wrong. I believe this is a bug from R28. You can check it out here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8735

It's not about "let them be equal to men". They are not showed as equal.

I call them "Civilians," checkmate and gg..

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken. On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

Yeah, I'm not an english native speaker and my english is not very good so when I need to write long sentences I use it for quick translation. It is better to use others translators like google translate which sometimes can make very literal translation that are not quite common in native english speaking. The the arguments are my own. You missing the point. You said: And I argued that currently the soldiers are in fact commonly called citizen-soldiers (not civilian-soldiers) , then calling Civilian to the former women is consistant with the naming convention the game already has and you seem to completely ignore. Here are some examples of the use of this term or you can just use the search bar and look for the amount of threads with this naming. Just in case you still believe I think is my brilliant idea: This is from 16 years ago and I leave some more in the spoiler And if its that meaningless, what's the big deal? It's ok if you don't like the change. I'm just discussing some of your arguments that I don't agree or I find exagerated(historical) or just totally false from game design perspective, like saying: "This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay." I just asked why is a bad change and from that point we are discusing arguments. That's all. I do agree this change added some confusion, but not because there is now a male model and a new naming for the former women but because the male voices are the same as citizen-soldiers and now player is forced to look to see what is selecting/spawning. It's ok if it doesnt strikes you. I guess I wasn't that wrong when I said some people are just upset because they think this is a change based on political ideas.

One of the benefits of the Romans was always the ability to train women from houses without upgrading the house. But since R28, civilians are both male and female, and you can no longer train them from houses. The civilization overview still says it can be done, but no can do for me. Am I doing something wrong here?

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken. On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken. On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive. While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken. On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive. While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken. On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

I agree. However, the role of women in that period of history wasn’t exactly prominent. Reflecting that in the game, where women are seen as simple laborers, can understandably feel uncomfortable from a modern perspective. That’s probably why a political approach emerged, like “at least let them be equal to men, even if it means making them just as weak.” This change felt so unnecessary to me that I’m now finding reasons for it on their behalf.

How is removing "women" part of a "politically correct trend"? Sounds backward to me. If you look at it in that light, then we have removed representation.

This is a very condescending statement. You’re basically saying you don’t respect the people who play the game. I don’t know who you are, but you’re not who you think you are. This comment was a response to the guy who said, “Haha, I guess seeing men working in the fields upset you.” We could already see men working in the fields before. In fact, using soldiers for farming is actually a very good strategy in the mid-to-late stages of the game. And I'm actually amazed at how determined you are to defend this change, even though it adds nothing to the game. That sounds a lot ChatGPT. Lol are you copy-pasting directly from ChatGPT? Just like no one says “Lusitano Ezpatari” and simply calls it “jav,” the term “civilian-something” doesn’t really mean anything in practice. People will keep calling them "women". That’s not going to change no matter how brilliant you believe your idea is. That’s why this feels like a meaningless change, it doesn’t add anything to the game except confusion. I’m obviously not against artistic work, nor could I be. But we all know this wasn’t an artistic or aesthetic change. It looks more like something that came out of someone obsessing over a minor issue and trying to smooth out a “flaw” that wasn’t really there in the first place. It even feels like the late effects of a “politically correct” trend. Visual changes can absolutely affect gameplay and player experience. However, removing the concept of “women” from the game doesn’t strike me as an artistic decision at all. I guess we’ve finally found some common ground there.

I think that's a bit restrictive no? The only harm to gameplay is the sound queues really, which can be improved upon. Visually, i think they are distinct enough. Despite attacking realism (which I agree with to some extent), you seem to be upset about something unrelated to gameplay, could you elaborate?

No, obviously there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and there are clearly artistic and aesthetic considerations that come into play. In the (probably) most popular historical RTS franchise in the world, there are “villagers” of both sexes. It’s called Age of Empires — maybe you’ve heard of it. I don’t know how each civilization historically referred to its non-soldier people. But the term is entirely consistent within the game’s universe. In fact, soldiers aren’t simply called “soldiers” — they’ve been called “Citizen-soldiers” for a long time. So on one side we had “Citizen-soldiers,” and on the other side we had “women.” Does that sound more consistent to you? If you want to put it in those terms, of course not. Maybe that was the case. And maybe now someone is fixing it. But you seem to have a problem with that. What’s ridiculous is pretending those are valid arguments when they’re clearly exaggerations that no reasonable person would take seriously. So if you use ridiculous arguements, thats on you. Citizen-soldiers don’t gather food as quickly as civilians. If a player chooses to use them on farms, that’s a gameplay decision. They’re accepting the trade-off in exchange for having their farms/CC/base better defended. The addition of a male model for what are now civilians responds to the reasons already stated. I’m not sure where you got that definition from, but it’s far from correct. There are artistic and aesthetic decisions that add nothing directly to gameplay, yet they are there precisely because this is a game — and they add aesthetic value. There’s even a mod that replaces trees with pink cubes and metal deposits with yellow rectangles. I invite you to start using it, since apparently having attractive 3D models has no value to the gameplay experience. Yeah, maybe you are right on this. Maybe there are people who have been working on the Art Team on this game for more than fifteen years or so, making it look better every single day. Improving every single model, adding different variants for the same unit. So yeah

Such a strong argument. You should be a game developer, I'm sure many would love to play your games. Who cares how people call them in the lobby, there's so many players who don't care about the lobby. Or who don't even know that the game has a lobby, for that matter. Now, this is written in bad faith. It was called "woman", because that's what it looked like. You could argue that original developers should have gone with the standard gendered villager unit, but people wanted to try something different. AoE is a great franchise, but it doesn't need yet another clone. Almost no one used men to gather crops in the fields. Only the AI and some dedicated Sparta player with a lot of Helots. I really struggle with understanding your opposition to this change.

Congratulations to the team on this milestone release! I have been playing a few games and already noticed some big changes. Especially in the AI, it has gotten much better. It can be a challenge even on Medium difficulty. Gendered Civilians is such a major change. I remember suggesting this change some time back, and I'm glad it was included in the game. It helps some players who like to distinguish between economic and military unit roles. It is also logical to have civilians (or pure economic units) of both genders in the game. GUI scale sharpness is also a great fix. As for the Germans, I had a such a surprise when I sent my clubmen to chop wood I don't think I'll like playing with them, but they're nice. Someone mentioned better performance. Maybe in multiplayer, I didn't feel the increase in performance in my SP matches. Here's to many more great releases!

When the argument of “historical realism” comes into play, then all other realistic options should also be considered. In some games, there’s a rest mode, day–night cycles and children born from parents etc. You think these realism obligations are ridiculous, yes, because they are. Why was the unit called “women” in the first place? I think we should reflect on that. Was it originally chosen with a sexist idea in mind? “Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. The thing is this: we were already seeing men working in the fields. The ability to use men for farming or gathering fruit has always been in the game. This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay. This change doesn’t contribute anything to the game, looks like it only serves to satisfy the people who suggested it.

In case some peeps are blind that includes me, when selecting in area filled with soldier and civilians, there is a button to select civilians only and then there is soldiers only, may it help you a bit.

Reminds me of how a minority of people went absolutely ballistic when I updated the game's default cursor. The entitlement is incredibly unreal.

@ittihat_ve_terakki I can truly understand that people consider the lack of appropriate audio feedback to be a problem. From a gameplay perspective, it’s reasonable to see that as an issue, and something should be done about it. But... This is merely your assumption. I’ve already seen many people adopt the term “Civilian” without any issue. Historically, agriculture was a task carried out by the whole of civil society—within families or communities. I think this change aims to represent that. And what you’re saying here is nonsense. You’re taking the historical accuracy argument to an extreme. It doesn’t even make sense to debate it. If you want to keep playing without your comfort being challenged, the favor has already been done for you — enjoy. Honestly, what exactly is the problem? I’m genuinely struck by the reaction of some people, who I’m really seems to be motivated far more by ideological concerns than anything else. I’ve read comments in the lobby claiming this is part of a “woke agenda” (absurd argument) and that we should add r4pes to the game to be historically accurate.... Seriously, is having male models working on farms as civilians really that upsetting? It’s kind of funny.