Civilians with female voices

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

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

[Tapothei]

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.

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

You’re taking the historical accuracy argument to an extreme. It doesn’t even make sense to debate it. 

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? 

 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

I’ve already seen many people adopt the term “Civilian” without any issue.

“Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

Seriously, is having male models working on farms as civilians really that upsetting? It’s kind of funny.

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.

[Deicide4u]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

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. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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? 

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.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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.

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. 

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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.

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. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

“Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

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.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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? 

Maybe that was the case. And maybe now someone is fixing it. But you seem to have a problem with that.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

You think these realism obligations are ridiculous, yes, because they are. 

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.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay.

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. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Looks like it only serves to satisfy the people who suggested it.

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

Edited 1 hour ago by guerringuerrin

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay.

I think that's a bit restrictive no?

3 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The justifications being offered are “historical accuracy” and “realism.” If that’s the case, then we should also add mechanics like sleep, rest, parents having children, a full day–night cycle and redesign the entire game from scratch. We should also reconsider how a “hero” can survive after being hit by 50 arrows.

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?

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

14 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Who cares how people call them in the lobby, there's so many players who don't care about the lobby.

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. 

 

17 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Almost no one used men to gather crops in the fields.

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. 

 

20 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

I really struggle with understanding your opposition to this change. 

And I'm actually amazed at how determined you are to defend this change, even though it adds nothing to the game. 

 

21 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

It’s called Age of Empires — maybe you’ve heard of it. 

That sounds a lot ChatGPT. Lol are you copy-pasting directly from ChatGPT? 

 

21 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

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? 

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.

 

30 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

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. 

 

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. 

 

33 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Yeah, maybe you are right on this. 

I guess we’ve finally found some common ground there.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

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. 

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. 

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How is removing "women" part of a "politically correct trend"? Sounds backward to me. 

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. 

[Gurken Khan]

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

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.

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

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.

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

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.

[Gurken Khan]

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

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.