Make some buildings require women to schedule

[Hannibal_Barca]

11 minutes ago, Nescio said:

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

Iberian skull priestesses

 

Anyway this topic is drifting a bit

Are we seeking to make women even more insignificant by adding male servant/whatever counterparts, thus having them as either unique units or aberrant variations of one?

Or make women the only ones to set X and Y buildings.

Doing both will basically limit civic to civic and military to military (at least laying the foundations part?

[Sundiata]

38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

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

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...

 

44 minutes ago, Nescio said:

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.

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:

51 minutes ago, Nescio said:

You're mistaken. Since Cleisthenes' reforms of 510 BC Attica (the countryside) was part of Athens (the city). 

My bad,

 

52 minutes ago, Nescio said:

And Athenians serving abroad or garrisoned amongst allies and vassals continued to be Athenian citizens and part of the Athenian population.

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  

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

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  

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.

2 hours ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Anyway this topic is drifting a bit

Are we seeking to make women even more insignificant by adding male servant/whatever counterparts, thus having them as either unique units or aberrant variations of one?

Or make women the only ones to set X and Y buildings.

Doing both will basically limit civic to civic and military to military (at least laying the foundations part?

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.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, Nescio said:

 

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.

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.

Edited August 23, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Sundiata]

@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?

 

54 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

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.

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? 

[amanita]

Quote

Nesico said: 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.

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.

 

Spoiler

On 8/22/2018 at 11:40 AM, amanita said:

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

Hannibal_Barca Replied:

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

I was'nt sure since in some wargames 'Maidens' can confer buffs to their fighters. I dont feel like they mind that much taking an arrow or two as long as they get ordered to the church in time to survive - doesnt hold great sway against the potential traumas of child birth