Please make it a little less ... sexist

[Yekaterina]

2 minutes ago, m7600 said:

And I take issue with elephants attacking stone fortresses with their tusks, but hey! It's all good! It totally makes sense! Except that it doesn't.

it doesn't make sense andd as I said, I tried to change it but some people like elephants bashing forts :p

[Lopess]

16 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

 The only reason why I mentioned two gendered citizen mod was because I thought that not every single male in a city-state is a capable, professional soldier. There has got to me some male civillian population, right? 

I really don't understand until today why the two gendered citizen mod was not added, I believe some civs, merchants and priests could also be of both genders.

[Yekaterina]

3 minutes ago, m7600 said:

And I take issue with elephants attacking stone fortresses with their tusks, but hey! It's all good! It totally makes sense! Except that it doesn't.

What I am suggesting is let the elephant keep its current stats but ban them from attacking buildings (this is easy enough to implement) or give them a negative bonus against buildings so players don't use them as rams. 

What do you think about using elephants to crush siege weapons? @m7600

2 minutes ago, Lopess said:

really don't understand until today why the two gendered citizen mod was not added, I believe some civs, merchants and priests could also be of both genders.

Carthaginian, Iberian use priestess. I don't use merchants so I don't know about them 

[Yekaterina]

why confused, @Lopess?

[Genava55]

1 minute ago, m7600 said:

And I take issue with elephants attacking stone fortresses with their tusks, but hey! It's all good! It totally makes sense! Except that it doesn't.

There is some sense in the use of elephants against structure. The Sasanian Persians used them in siege operation against structures according to Procopius. I am just saying it is not totally wrong.

5 minutes ago, Lopess said:

I really don't understand until today why the two gendered citizen mod was not added, I believe some civs, merchants and priests could also be of both genders.

For non-military units, I agree with the suggestion.

[Yekaterina]

Just now, Genava55 said:

There is some sense in the use of elephants against structure. The Sasanian Persians used them in siege operation against structures according to Procopius. I am just saying it is not totally wrong.

Surely they aren't as strong as actual rams? So we better nerf their siege ability

[Genava55]

1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:

Surely they aren't as strong as actual rams? So we better nerf their siege ability

Clearly not. They weren't used as siege rams but they have a good pulling power.

[Lopess]

3 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

why confused, @Lopess?

 

A small mistake, I have corrected it. 

[Yekaterina]

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

Clearly not. They weren't used as siege rams but they have a good pulling power.

Hmm, so I guess some siege capability but much inferior compared to ram... don't give crush damage but give a lot of pierce and hack. 

[Yekaterina]

1 minute ago, m7600 said:

Come on, man. The way that 0 AD depicts the case of elephants is flat out wrong and you know it. Some obscure reference to Sasanian Persians is not what a typical player thinks about when he sees a group of elephants crushing his fortress. For all we know, that player will end up believing that elephants were actually used that way, just as he/she would believe that Romans had a mixed army of males and females if the latter got implemented in the game. It's all historically inaccurate, just concede that some historical inaccuracies are allowed in 0 AD and others are not, and that this decision is purely arbitrary.

You have a point. Sassanid Persians are not implemented yet, so we can't really use their argument...

So why has no-one cared about Sassanids and Parthians? 

Instead of introducing mixed army, let's fix the elephant problem first?

[Yekaterina]

4 minutes ago, m7600 said:

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.

hmm, so you are suggesting elephants to be these very strong anti-infantry, anti-cavalry units that cannot be used to attack siege or buildings? I like this idea but not sure if many others will. 

tbh if we want to implement anything at all we have to wait until A27...

[Genava55]

7 minutes ago, m7600 said:

Come on, man. The way that 0 AD depicts the case of elephants is flat out wrong and you know it. Some obscure reference to Sasanian Persians is not what a typical player thinks about when he sees a group of elephants crushing his fortress. For all we know, that player will end up believing that elephants were actually used that way, just as he/she would believe that Romans had a mixed army of males and females if the latter got implemented in the game. It's all historically inaccurate, just concede that some historical inaccuracies are allowed in 0 AD and others are not, and that this decision is purely arbitrary.

I was just nitpicking, if the elephants lose their crushing damage, I am fine with it. Their role in siege warfare is minor. But I really object against any gender neutral army, this is going in contradiction with ancient cultures and their beliefs. 

[Genava55]

The problem with your position is that you are nitpicking every details unrealistic or not historical to argue for further unrealistic and not historical details. This attitude is really bothering and you are acting in bad faith. Where is the limit in your view? At which point you are considering that historical accuracy should have a weight in decisions if you consider de facto the game as inaccurate?

My position is always the same, the game cannot be totally historical or realistic but we can still portray civilisations the more accurate possible to give a better representation to people of what they looked like. For me, an issue like Britons fighting the Kushites isn't bothering me because at least the civs are more accurate on their own. Britons fighting Kushites is a contextual issue in regards to history. While a gender neutral society for each civ is an issue per se. It will dampen down the accurracy of the civilization portrayed on its own. For such cosmetic changes, I don't see the benefit outweighting the cost.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Genava55

[Genava55]

18 minutes ago, m7600 said:

As if there was some sort of world-wide conspiracy of cultural Marxists who want to weaponize every innocent game like 0 AD, right?

Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor? Personally I don't believe easily in conspiracies.

[Genava55]

3 minutes ago, m7600 said:

  

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".

What if the Romans discovered black powder?

What if the Spartans were bodybuilders fighting naked like in 300?

What if this is a pandora box full of nonsenses that knows no end?

Maybe you are simply lacking any motivation about history, thats why you are missing the point.

[Genava55]

11 minutes ago, m7600 said:

How about Britons fighting Zapotecs, if the latter get introduced to the main game?

If the Zapotecs are introduced, it is mandatory they could fight each other. It would be stup*d to forbid one faction to face another. Limiting the game like this would result in a backslash from the community. Thats the difference between self-whacking about fantasies  and reality. Nobody planned the Britons to face the Kushites, it simply happen because each of them have good reasons to be included in the game on their own.

[Genava55]

In the end, it will be the majority that decides and you will be disappointed. 

[Genava55]

Just now, m7600 said:

And what if, in the next few yeras, 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 some else said in this thread, it is very likely that it will happen at some point.

Accept it yes. I am Swiss, I am used to live in a real democracy. Support it no. 

But you can come back for this day, if you happen to be still around in a few years.

[Genava55]

4 minutes ago, m7600 said:

Majorities can be wrong. That goes for the community of 0 AD as well as for any other community.

White knights too.

4 minutes ago, m7600 said:

And you shouldn't play the Swiss card here either, Switzerland wasn't exactly "democratic" by not choosing sides in WW2, for example.

Rofl. This is so dumb I won't reply.

[Genava55]

1 minute ago, m7600 said:

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?"

People thinking they are moral zealots. You actually proved this is your motivation by implying there is a wrong and a right opinion.

2 minutes ago, m7600 said:

Then why did you say that you're Swiss and that you live in a "real democracy" to begin with?

In Switzerland we vote regularly and about numerous things (like laws) and we are used to see the majority not following our own personal view. That's all. 

[Trinketos]

I think the discussion is pointless, it is a game not a real life simulator.

The game takes place in the 5th century not the 21st century.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 minutes ago, Sneed said:

The Earth is a geoid so you're wrong.

Geoids are "round", which is a colloquial term and not incorrect.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Could there have been black Roman soldiers? Yes, but they would have been rare. Would it make sense to include a super rare black legionnaire or auxiliary variant? Yeah, it could make sense. It would be a nice little detail. It just takes someone with motivation to add such a variant (texture, actor work). Is it a bad thing that they have not yet been included? No. You can't expect an historical game to include every outlier imaginable. 

[Freagarach]

3 hours ago, m7600 said:

If you say that the Earth is flat, you're wrong.

Actually, the earth is flat on every infinitesimal point on it.

That said, please, @Genava55 and @m7600 keep it polite and don't attack eachother on this argument. You don't agree on this point but you both still love the game (and eachother <3 ).

[Genava55]

7 hours ago, m7600 said:

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.

That the Earth isn't flat is a fact, not an opinion. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right like you said.

Another example, a gender biased society during ancient times and across multiple civilizations is a fact. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right in regards to this fact.

Portraying differently the society in 0AD is a choice. Your opinion cannot be right or wrong in regards to a fact. 

7 hours ago, m7600 said:

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.

It is easy to critizise when you are not trying to formulate a criterion yourself. You are simply saying the game has inaccuracies and you follow by asking for further inaccuracies. This is a logical loop and there is no criterion in your formulation to bound it. When I gave you nonsense examples like what if the Romans had black powder, it sounded illogical to you. But at no point you were able to formulate a criterion to explain why it sounds illogical. That's the issue with your reasoning and your whole demonstration trying to say there is no absolute rule we follow. Your reasoning and arguments are a pandora's box by itself because you can apply it to any suggestions.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Genava55