Leaderboard

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

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.

Preview (WIP) By Victor Rossi.

It would be a small and incremental change, to make homes require females to schedule, just as barracks, fortresses loads of other stuff requires men to schedule. Depending on historical knowledge of the civilization, the scheduling of farms, civic structures, even markets could also be assigned to female - not for the idea/impression they often had the civic authority to commission projects, but because they have had significant inputs into many spheres of cultural life and perhaps technologies when they were the main practitioners, like weaving. These would be little tweaks to the game which add depth to its historical story.

@Nescio, I think you're probably right about all that, but in terms of modern parallels the Pax Americana is definitely a thing, and is more often than not viewed with extreme cynicism (American Imperialism), and is related to Neo-colonialsm, which is in itself a very real thing as well, with most African resources remaining very much in the possession of foreign actors (corporations) from Britain/France/USA/China, and to a lesser extent Russia/India/Gulf countries/Iran/Turkey/Italy/Germany/Brazil, while at the same time systematically undermining the sovereignty of national systems, removing, installing, supporting, assassinating whatever political force they see fit.. And this isn't limited to Africa either. The American example you give is an excellent showcase: "United States Armed Forces are about 0.4% of the US population, probably 0.5% of its adult citizens". Might be true, but you're forgetting that America fights wars by proxy. So in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, you'll see very few actual Americans still there, but there are tons of mercenaries from all over the world (particularly liberian ex-child soldiers, funilly/not funny enough). The numbers of these mercenary forces are so great that nobody actually has exact figures. In addition you will see that the "national" armies are trained and equipped in the "American style", and fight for "American backed" regimes. The primary purpose of both the mercenary forces as well as the "national" armies is to protect foreign (read Western/American) economic interests (like pipelines). They have little to nothing to do with national defense. Again, this isn't limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, but follows a recurring international pattern. National sovereignty is often nothing more than make-believe. The point being that the ratio of American forces might be small compared to it's national population, but the total population of the geographic regions effectively controlled by America, either directly or indirectly further reduces both the ratio of "American" forces to this total population, as well as total ratio of "native" American" (no pun intended) forces to all the forces trained and financed by the USA. Ooof... All of that is totally off-topic of course, and somewhat controversial, but what's life without a little bit of controversy eh? Lol.. Anyway, female clergy, specialized in healing. Male clergy used to boost moral (when implemented of course). Good? Nay? We get some more realistic and specifically female representation. Win/win?

By "possessions" he means their Delian League "allies" and colonies. The Athenian Empire was indeed much bigger than Attica itself. But you knew that and relish in pedantry.

You seem to be equating Athens with the Delian League, which are two different things, just as Sparta and the Peloponnesian League; likewise, the USA isn't the same as NATO (speaking of which, the modern United States Armed Forces are about 0.4% of the US population, probably 0.5% of its adult citizens). Besides, founding colonies was a way to offload excess population; people who settled in the colony became citizens of the colony and ceased to be part of the city they migrated from; the colony kept religious ties to its mother-city (-cities), but were autonomous and often fully independent in practice; e.g. Carthage was a colony of Tyre, Syracusae of Corinth, and Taranto of Sparta. In modern terms, Liberia would be a "colony" of the USA: an independent nation-state, originally founded by Americans. Furthermore, during the Persian wars (early 5th C BC) Greek armies consisted entirely of their own population; during the Peloponnesian wars (late 5th C BC) Greek city-states paid poorer classes to serve in their navies, coerced allies to supply them with additional troops, and recruited large numbers of mercenaries from elsewhere (Cretans, Scythians, Thracians, etc.). Because the population of Greece as a whole probably didn't increase but the number of people involved in warfare did, the ratio of fighters to the total population must have been actually higher. Anyway, back to the topic. Currently female citizens can build everything but only order a small subset of available structures. It might be better to either enable them to order and build everything, or nothing at all, making them non-builder resource gatherers.

Maybe you misunderstood. I mean that every civ that had female priestesses or women in other clerical roles could have a female unit recruited at the temple that would specialize in healing. Male priests would remain the same for all civs, except they could be used to boost moral in the future instead, for example. Just a thought. Would be nice imo... 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. I was talking about the ratio of fighters to the total population of the so called "Athenian Empire", not just Attica, but you're right about this: My bad, But the total population of the Athenian colonies and vassals just further decreases the ratio of combatant to non-combatant. That was my point. Citizens oversea naturally remain citizens, but they were ruling over territories with much larger populations that weren't citizens. Athenians didn't just rule Attica, but of course you knew that

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

Ubisoft = EA.

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.

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

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.

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.