Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
amanita

Make some buildings require women to schedule

Recommended Posts

For some civilizations like eg. the Celts it would be fairer to require women to schedule some buildings, like for example civic centers. Women could attain powerful positions in some historic cultures. Boadicea could have scheduled projects as easily as male chieftains. Not saying the game should attain 21st Century equality, but womens construction capabilities are over restricted in case of britons/celts at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the current mechanics actually make construction too micro excessive. What is the point of not allowing women to place foundations when almost everyone build those structures using women. Each time there is an uneccesary micro of selecting a male citizen who's working, place a foundation and then retask him to gathering while the actual building is constructed by women.

Being a game which aims to be as realistic as possible, it is not possible to just make both types of citizens equal. It should be accurately portrayed.

Perhaps, the differentiation could go all the way and prevent citizens from constructing buildings which they cant place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Construction could be made to pass extra slowly when a required sex is not present, but that could cause chained constructions to unexpectedly stall sometimes. Id most like to see a modicum of balance between the sexs capabilities.

Edited by amanita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It should be accurately portrayed.

Amount of buildings women cant order/build in the game - about 60%

Amount of buildings men cant order/build - 0%

This configuration only exists in the game as an oversight. It wouldn't pass public review - its casual sexism basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 9:59 PM, amanita said:

Boadicea could have scheduled projects as easily as male chieftains.

She is a hero in this game and all heroes are purely military (can't build nor set foundations)

We're basically talking about peasant women (no offence meant) who might not be really qualified to oversee the planning of a military structure - something which perhaps a member of the local militia might comprehend

 

Therefore there is no reason to make some foundations only placeable by women, why should a militia soldier (however lowly and uncouth) be unable to set a grand civic centre when his wife/other can?

Sexism is a frequently recurring term nowadays but I'm guessing it wasn't so back then. It's actually a decently accurate depiction.

If you're looking for equality then there is evidence in the fact that mauryan Maiden Guard (both sword and archer variations) hold their own very well against their male counterparts.

The developers of 0 A.D. did not decide to create a sexist game just because they can, they just thought that perhaps it's best to leave military matters to the soldiers (who were on average men).

While it may be argued that soldiers don't build their own barracks or workshops, the citizen-soldier concept of 0 A.D. makes it so.

Although as @(-_-) mentioned it is perhaps not the most thrilling to set foundations with a soldier then order the women to build it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We're basically talking about peasant women

Only as far as we are just talking about peasant men.

Im not pushing pushing any radical or contentious position here:

Women could build rubbish barracks without men to tell them the way they need barracks to be - Just as easily as men could build rubbish homes without women to tell them the way they need homes to be.

But the game allows men to build good anything with no input from women. In this 'accurate portrayal' of history men didnt need women for anything - except maybe wives for horsemen or something. This little bubble will burst if 0AD becomes popular enough to get a few female players. Fix it ahead of time by just placing a few buildings to female involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women certainly not only could but did have essential involvement in building homes and civic structures throughout history. Its really chauvinistic to imagine they did not. Like the idea this just concerns the capabilities of "peasant women (no offence)" versus all available castes of men - the argument here so far has clearly been biased. An adhoc configured historical strategy game can certainly help reinforce such assumptions.

The ratio of structures/projects falling within sole domain of men vs women is about 60% vs 0%. Even a miserly 10% nod to womens organizational input, would play better, be considerate of any girls gamers who happen to try 0AD, and give a few boy gamers pause for thought ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chime in, 0AD is indeed not trying to be sexist or anything, but... Most of the civilizations portrayed were essentially sexist (explicitly patriarchal, with strong and rigid gender-roles). They were also mostly genocidal bigots... The ancient world was a little rough on the edges... Most of the ancient armies were close to 100% male, so in a game of historical warfare, it's relatively normal to have such an overrepresentation of men. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool to have more female representation, but as a game that strives for historical accuracy, women in military roles need to be well researched. As mentioned, the Mauryas have Maiden Guards, the Britons have Boudica, the Kushites have Amanirenas. In the mod Millennium AD, the Norse have shield maidens. I'm personally excited about a Scythian civ, as are others. Scythians would have plenty of female fighters (up to 1/3 of their forces), and lets not forget Queen Tomyris. It's a very civ-specific question... I believe Thracians might have had some female warriors, but I'd have to read up more on it.

That having said, Celtic women were definitely more engaged in military affairs than Roman or Greek women for example... Having Briton/Gallic women being able to build military structures doesn't actually sound totally terrible to me... It's an interesting idea for a civ-specific bonus.

Questions in ethics are always good to ponder on, but are a little awkward in a game where you're tasked with wiping out all that oppose your domination of the map. You can realistically kill up to several thousand people in a match, putting games like GTA to shame... 

On a personal note I would actually like to see male and females combined in an economic villager unit without specific gender-roles. 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, amanita said:

This little bubble will burst if 0AD becomes popular enough to get a few female players. Fix it ahead of time by just placing a few buildings to female involvement.

Many vastly popular historical RTS either feature no woman at all or use them only for support roles, similar for the woman in 0 A.D. I don't see any bubble to be bursted here. Of course that is not to say there won't be people who find this offensive. People get offended by everything nowadays, they made this an art.

On a personal note I also find it weird that women = peasant and men = fighter. At the very least women should be made a generic "citizen", "villager" or "peasant", a generic economic unit, half of them being men and half women, like in AoE. There were non-fighting men in most societies.

Also, and this was already brought up in other topics, currently women have very little role in the gameplay. Basically they are only required for gathering food, but one can get away entirely without training them. This leads to the game being mostly about spamming the most citizen soldiers possible. I think citizen soldiers' economic capabilities should be nerfed and the basic economic units' should be boosted, making them a much more central piece of one's economy, not just a support role.

Edited by macemen
Submitted earlier than intended.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Just to chime in, 0AD is indeed not trying to be sexist or anything, but... Most of the civilizations portrayed were essentially sexist (explicitly patriarchal, with strong and rigid gender-roles). They were also mostly genocidal bigots... The ancient world was a little rough on the edges... Most of the ancient armies were close to 100% male, so in a game of historical warfare, it's relatively normal to have such an overrepresentation of men. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool to have more female representation, but as a game that strives for historical accuracy, women in military roles need to be well researched. As mentioned, the Mauryas have Maiden Guards, the Britons have Boudica, the Kushites have Amanirenas. In the mod Millennium AD, the Norse have shield maidens. I'm personally excited about a Scythian civ, as are others. Scythians would have plenty of female fighters (up to 1/3 of their forces), and lets not forget Queen Tomyris. It's a very civ-specific question... I believe Thracians might have had some female warriors, but I'd have to read up more on it.

That having said, Celtic women were definitely more engaged in military affairs than Roman or Greek women for example... Having Briton/Gallic women being able to build military structures doesn't actually sound totally terrible to me... It's an interesting idea for a civ-specific bonus.

Questions in ethics are always good to ponder on, but are a little awkward in a game where you're tasked with wiping out all that oppose your domination of the map. You can realistically kill up to several thousand people in a match, putting games like GTA to shame... 

On a personal note I would actually like to see male and females combined in an economic villager unit without specific gender-roles. 

What about upgrade some women to soldiers. archers but must be in great numbers.

 

https://ansionnachfionn.com/2017/09/13/did-celtic-and-viking-female-warriors-exist/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, macemen said:

On a personal note I also find it weird that women = peasant and men = fighter. At the very least women should be made a generic "citizen", "villager" or "peasant", a generic economic unit, half of them being men and half women, like in AoE. There were non-fighting men in most societies.

 

:D 

athen_support_citizen.pngcelt_support_citizen.pngkush_support_citizen.pngmaur_support_citizen.png

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Having Briton/Gallic women being able to build military structures doesn't actually sound totally terrible to me... It's an interesting idea for a civ-specific bonus.

Like Spartans currently in main game?

But perhaps that would make it not-so special

Peasant men get equipped with spears and swords

The women get kitchen knives or something like that

 

Anyway sure support units don't have to be all female, it's just easier to visually define who is who currently

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be cool to get male actors for DE, IIRC only female citizens are created. Then it could go like AoE’s style. Randomly select a male or female citizen when being trained. Probably only the actor part would be difficult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

These are from DE, where your workers are male and female variations. Only the Spartan worker is all female in DE. 

Oh I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Like Spartans currently in main game?

But perhaps that would make it not-so special

Peasant men get equipped with spears and swords

The women get kitchen knives or something like that

 

Anyway sure support units don't have to be all female, it's just easier to visually define who is who currently

 

Like this? looks really good.

Resultado de imagen para plebs rome rise republic "total war"

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think many women have really been equipped with the required draw strength to be archers. Some female skirmishing/support units may be realistic. Women's timber collecting rate in the game seems overpowered but its good for gameplay. I tend to sprinkle women into all work and military squads for the 15% aura which seems a good mechanic.

The gender balance of the structure creation options in the game really could disappoint some potential players and viewers. Its not like this is the games representation of dwarves or a notorious tribe. This is your mothers gender, of half the people on the planet being encapsulated. None of the structures are assigned to female domain and that doesn't represent female involvement in design and organization, even though this has been historically hidden behind layers of subjugation.

Even if we cant say any one kind of structure is beyond the capabilites of men to create alone - having assigned a load which females cant create alone, to balance the scene a few of the most 'feminine' structures should be assigned to counterbalance the overall impression.

When choosing these assignments we are basically making a black and white image out of a colorful scene, if you dont allow some dither you end up with a poor image, with completely blanked out features - and that has happened precisely with the zero options currently assigned to women. Its as bland and sad than it is poor representation.

Homes and farmsteads seem like perfect candidates for most civilizations to require women to create. Particularly - at least for celtic cultures - civic centers should be placed in female domain due to matrilineal inheritance and favorable marriage/divorce rights - and again a bit 'dither' for a more interesting, overall more balanced image.

Edited by amanita
grammar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some civs (like the mauryans) have male villagers that were not citizen soldier, because if I recall correctly, they had a caste system, with a warrior class, priest class , so forth. So perhaps some civs should have male villagers too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all civs would have had male citizens who did not necessarily participate in battles. Its unlikely that even half of all able males in a nation would have fought, especially when most of the time they have to get battle equipment themselves.

Thats just a speculation from my side though. So could be wrong. Perhaps one of our forum historians may know better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, amanita said:

all work and military squads for the 15% aura which seems a good mechanic

Military squads?

Unless you intend them to soak up missiles which isn't nice, the 10% aura is only for gathering/building.

 

Anyway, it wouldn't change much, same mechanic as building a fortress with women, just have to set it with the correct gender and all is well.

So I'm fine with seeing it implemented

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

I think that all civs would have had male citizens who did not necessarily participate in battles. Its unlikely that even half of all able males in a nation would have fought, especially when most of the time they have to get battle equipment themselves.

 Thats just a speculation from my side though. So could be wrong. Perhaps one of our forum historians may know better.

Indeed. Athens, a city of 40,000 male citizens, could only muster 10,000 hoplites to fight at Marathon. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, how could I forget this.... FEMALE PRIESTS! Women with clerical roles were a thing across the pre-Christian world... Maybe we could have two types of priests, giving female versions a healing bonus or something, and male priests, I don't know, something else...

Would inceltivize sending a few women with a healing touch along with the army (not necessarily unhistorical). 

 

2 hours ago, (-_-) said:

I think that all civs would have had male citizens who did not necessarily participate in battles. Its unlikely that even half of all able males in a nation would have fought, especially when most of the time they have to get battle equipment themselves.

Correct!

 

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. Athens, a city of 40,000 male citizens,

And those are just the citizens! The total population of Attica was even larger, and the total population of Athenian possessions even more so! Actual fighters were probably less than 1/10 of the men (even during war). 

 

Warrior tribes, where all the men are fighters are just unnecessary Hollywoodisms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Ooooh, how could I forget this.... FEMALE PRIESTS! Women with clerical roles were a thing across the pre-Christian world... Maybe we could have two types of priests, giving female versions a healing bonus or something, and male priests, I don't know, something else...

Would inceltivize sending a few women with a healing touch along with the army (not necessarily unhistorical).

0 A.D. already has priestesses (e.g. Carthaginian healers).

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

And those are just the citizens!

Indeed. For Athens, citizens were about 10% to 15% of the total population, because women, children, slaves, and foreign residents did not have citizen rights. Estimates of 490 BC Athens are c. 10,000 hoplites out of 40,000 citizens with a total population of c. 300,000. However, if we keep in mind that there are generally at least as many women as men and that because of high child mortality at least a third of the population was underage in Antiquity, then that means there were c. 100,000 adult males (citizens, slaves, and foreign residents).

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Actual fighters were probably less than 1/10 of the men.

In 480 BC (ten years later, population about the same) Athens had c. 200 triremes at Salamis. Each trireme required a crew of 200 (3×60 rowers and 20 hoplites), which means about 40,000 (the entire citizen population, 40% of all adult males) participated in the war.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

The total population of Attica was even larger, and the total population of Athenian possessions even more so!

You're mistaken. Since Cleisthenes' reforms of 510 BC Attica (the countryside) was part of Athens (the city). And Athenians serving abroad or garrisoned amongst allies and vassals continued to be Athenian citizens and part of the Athenian population.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...