Please make it a little less ... sexist

[Freagarach]

(I really like the constructive way you discuss this, a real example! ^^ )

[Ceres]

What are the pros and cons about adding more female aspects? Should 0ad be as realistic as possible? Would the main stakeholders and contributors allow that this great game gets a bit "progressive" even if not realistic on some aspects? I think about the sometimes hysterical discussions (not only in Germany, I guess) about genderism (is that the right word in English?) in language: Personally, I don't like to write "Nutzer*Innen" ("users" - males & females), as it makes reading a text really difficult. On the other hand, I do have sympathies for women who feel that also by changes in language one can help making their life better. Back to 0ad, I wonder if the users' (females & males) game experience would suffer when introducing more female units. Again, it's also a question how close one wants to be to realism. But (maybe, surely) most of history was written/ documented by men, so women have been neglected. Are we always sure to know all historic facts? I have no strong feelings but this: Please let's try making as many players of 0ad happy, as far as it's possible with the developers' time they spend on this huge project, as many other contributors do. Thank you!

[LienRag]

Well, to me the idea that we can correct the misogyny of most of the depicted ancient societies is preposterous and bordering on delirium.

That by making them appear less misogynous than they were we would be doing anything good is also imho a completely perverse way of thinking and certainly not "progressive" in any manner.

What we can do (and that's what I'm advocating) is correct the misogyny of historical representations of these ancient societies.

So imho it can be a good thing to highlight in-game any aspect of ancient society that actually empowered women of these societies, and to also highlight any ancient society that was less misogynistic than the others (so as to pinpoint that misogyny isn't "the natural order" nor "what people did at the time" but a political, social and cultural choice that some people/societies made and some others refused), in order to avoid reproducing usual prejudices that people may have about ancient cultures after a XIX° century of male historians projecting their chauvinistic and misogynistic prejudices on their study subject.

This work to debunk historical misogynistic misinterpretations by providing historical accuracy in-game (as long as it keeps the game fun and strategic) is endangered imho by the introduction of "antisexist" historical inacurracies in the name of "making girl players happy", so I deeply object to any attempt to do so.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

[Gurken Khan]

I think we should stick with historical accuracy as much as we can. If there are sources for female soldiers I'm perfectly fine with incorporating them. Already there are some, although I think there is some artistic freedom taken. If there are sources for female leaders I also think it's good that we include them, like we already do.

I don't think this game is able to depict ancient societies in depth, so I don't think we should try or present them as something they never were. I'm still in favor of having male and female villagers, as I believe that's historically accurate.

[LienRag]

15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers."

But in Greek and early Roman civilizations at least (less sure about the others, though I'm quite convinced that's also true for Gauls and the like) these male citizens would go to war as soldiers when needed.

It's afaik a core feature of these societies, so removing the way that 0ad pictures them accurately doesn't make any sense.

If that's not true for Egyptians (it's not real historical knowledge, but I'm under the impression that the peasant class in Egyptian society wasn't composed of citizen-soldiers, but you really better check rather that believe me at face value) then by all means yes, go for including male villagers in their civilization !
Ditto of course for any civilization that would have free villagers unable/unexpected to fight in wars.

Edited September 26, 2021 by LienRag

[LienRag]

...

(double post deleted)

Edited September 26, 2021 by LienRag

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, LienRag said:

But in Greek and early Roman civilizations at least (less sure about the others, though I'm quite convinced that's also true for Gauls and the like) these male citizens would go to war as soldiers when needed.

 

This is overblown. One's suitability to join the army on campaign was often predicated on economic status and age. Middle class Greeks and Romans did serve in the infantry, but lower peasants and those too young and too old often did not. A certain number of upper class citizens had to provide cavalry for the army, but those were often the sons of the landowners and serving in the cavalry could be avoided by being willing to supply additional horses. Often a campaign did not necessitate a "full call-up" of available manpower either. Full call-ups usually only occured during times of severe national emergency or siege. Athens could only field 10,000 hoplites from a population of 30,000 citizens and 100,000 non-citizens for the "national emergency" Marathon campaign. And Gauls had a warrior class, separate from the peasantry.

[Ceres]

Yep, it does! Besides, I personally like "working side-by-side", irrespective of gender etc. Whether this is historically correct or not, I don't care too much, but I respect contrary opinions on this. If my previous post was misunderstood, it must have been me being not clear enough and what not.

[Jofursloft]

20 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

I think we should stick with historical accuracy as much as we can. If there are sources for female soldiers I'm perfectly fine with incorporating them. Already there are some, although I think there is some artistic freedom taken. If there are sources for female leaders I also think it's good that we include them, like we already do.

That's definitely the case of mauryan Maiden Guards. That units (champions!) don't absolutely make sense and I think should be reviewed. 

Another big problem (in my opinion) is about heroes. Boudica and Cleopatra have a insane and totally unrealistic damage attack and amount of HP. 

[thephilosopher]

The OPs original proposal of having male citizens who gather resources and don't fight is one that seems worth taking seriously. And it passes any realistic test of historical accuracy. Just about all civilizations have had both men and women who gather resources and don't fight. There's variation in terms of which classes they come from, and so on, but the underlying fact of people of multiple genders who gather resources and don't fight is near universal.

Edited September 27, 2021 by thephilosopher

[Stan`]

I haven't tested but I think one can specify multiple times the phenotype to get an non equal distribution. This could be interesting in depicting civs where there would be less women doing such work

Sadly you can't abuse it to create a mix of citizen, slaves and mix genders.

 

[LienRag]

On 27/09/2021 at 7:33 PM, Jofursloft said:

Another big problem (in my opinion) is about heroes. Boudica and Cleopatra have a insane and totally unrealistic damage attack and amount of HP. 

As long as we don't have a morale and/or "orders" system, there's no realistic way of depicting heroes, so we're more or less stuck with unrealistic damage attack and amount of HP.

One way to alleviate this problem would be to make clear that the hero represents not only the actual hero, but also his/her personal retinue.

[AlanSh]

Hello Crea,
I am a beginner too. What you say about sexism in the game is real. However, I have come to realize that the best defenders against gear are women (try it out). That said, we could give them a more appropriate role. Garrisoning in the "House of Women" (to be created) would turn them into fearsome warriors.

I told you, I'm a beginner too. My level is "Easy". However, if it's easy for me to win against "very easy", winning against "easy", it's another story. When I see my results, I dare not imagine myself facing higher levels. There is a level gap between "very easy" and "Easy".

For the designers of 0 A.D.. Bravo! I really became addicted to this game. What would be good as a game would be a version based on ecology and global warming. A mine, in fact, is very little resource for a lot of waste. For example, you have to process a ton of ore to find 1 gram of gold. In the game, this could result in a rotting of the land around the mine (the land becomes unbuildable). If we use fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) we poison the atmosphere and the characters in the game drop like flies. Finally, you have to think so that the game is consistent with reality. This would give it a pedagogical virtue.

Edited May 9, 2023 by AlanSh
traduction fault