m7600

I think they look great, all of them should be used. They have my vote.

The mod is very simple: it introduces female citizens and male citizens. That's it. There are no political intentions to it. It does not change the gameplay mechanics in any way. And just for the record, I did not make it. So I can speak as an external observer. And it seems to me that there is nothing political about that mod. I'm being 100% honest here.

It looks exactly like what it is: male citizens, and female citizens. How the hell is that woke? What society? Puerto Rico? Then I have news for you: Calle 13, Bad Bunny and Ricky Martin don't look like conservatives to me. What the f-ck are you even talking about?

Yes, we're going woke. You see, there's a world-wide conspiracy of woke cultural Marxists that want to brainwash you by introducing subliminal political messages into your video games. There's even white knights that want to poison your Kool-Aid with a mind-controlling vaccine made in Russia. Either that, or maybe conservatives are simply batsh!t crazy with their paranoia, don't you think?

Alright, then we've reached the end of this discussion. Now @Yekaterina's elephant mod should get accepted, but that's a different topic, so maybe she can start a thread for discussing that.

Several people proposed to incorporate the two gender citizen mod, and I see no problem with that, not even historically. So incorporate that. Or are you against that as well?

There is a wrong and right opinion. If you say that the Earth is flat, you're wrong. If you say that it's round, you're right. Period. If you say that you have a non-arbitrary criterion for including some historical inaccuracies in 0 AD but not others, you're wrong. Period.

What's a white knight? I don't know what that is. Is that your secret word for "evil supervillain cultural Marxist that wants to brainwash me with politics?" Then why did you say that you're Swiss and that you live in a "real democracy" to begin with?

Basing your opinions on an argumentum ad populum fallacy is not a real democracy, that's demagoguery. And you shouldn't play the Swiss card here either, Switzerland wasn't exactly "democratic" by not choosing sides in WW2, for example. Majorities can be wrong. That goes for the community of 0 AD as well as for any other community.

And what if, in the next few years, the majority decides that they want female fighters and mixed armies of males and females? Then what, you would accept it? Because judging by how society is nowadays, as someone else said in this thread, it is very likely that it will happen at some point.

So, a fallacy is what constitutes the difference. Are you familiar with the fallacy of appeal to the majority, also known as argumentum ad populum?

So those "what if" that you mention are nonsense, but it's not nonsense to ask "What if the Britons had fought the Kushites, who would win?" And I'm saying that you have no criterion for distinguishing one set of questions from the other. The only explanation for resisting mixed armies of males and females would be either 1) that there's a conspiracy of cultural Marxists that want to brainwash you subliminally by inserting "political" content into your games, or 2) We're all just a bunch of stupid people, according to Hanlon's razor, and we stupidly want to introduce "political" content into your game. I say that's bullsh!t.

How about Britons fighting Zapotecs, if the latter get introduced to the main game? According to your argument, this is fine in custom battles and multiplayer, and it's not a problem because each civ is being "preserved" in the way that they existed historically, the only detail here is that they didn't fight against each other. Now, according to your argument, this is not the same for a mixed army of males and females, because in that case, we are not "preserving" the way that each civ was in reality. But it's the same thing. You say something like "yeah, I know that the Britons never fought the Kushites, or the Zapotecs, but what if they had fought, who would win?" And I'm saying "Yeah, I know that the Romans didn't have a mixed army, and the Kushites didn't have a mixed army either. But what if they had such an army, how would good would it be in battle?" You see? It's the same thing. You're thinking "what if?" for some cases, and I'm thinking "what if?" for other cases. And what if there were black Roman soldiers, or white Kushite soldiers? Would this make any difference? No, I don't think so. Should official campaigns include them in that way? No, I don't think so either. Should they be optional in custom battles and multiplayer? Here is where I say "maybe", and you say "no".

A lot of things in this game contradict reality. Soldiers appearing out of thin air from an empty barracks is one of the most ridiculous things that I can think of. True, all RTS games are guilty of this. And I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine with are allegedly "logical" explanations of this, there are no such logical explanations for it because soldiers appearing out of thin air from an empty barracks is not logical to begin with. But let's focus on the issue of mixed armies, shall we? I already know why this is being resisted so much. It's because you, and other people, think it's "political". As if there was some sort of world-wide conspiracy of cultural Marxists who want to weaponize every innocent game like 0 AD, right? Because that's what you and other people here are implying, I just went through the trouble of spelling it out for you. Guess what? You're wrong. There is no such conspiracy, and merely pointing out that accepting some historical inaccuracies but not others is completely arbitrary, does not automatically mean that I'm some sort of supervillain that wants to control your mind by implanting "political" contents into your favorite RTS games. So you, and the other people here that think that there's some "political" conspiracy here, need to back the f--- up a bit and re-examine the situation.

I don't think it makes sense even in that case. Elephants should only attack soldiers and other elephants, everything else is sheer fantasy. But I don't have a problem with it being sheer fanstasy. What I do have a problem with is with crackpot justifications of this, as if some inaccuracies were fine and others are not.