Aeon221 Aeon221

Make Egalitarianism the default and charge for Sexism!

▼

Make Egalitarianism the default and charge for Sexism!

from Elemental Forums

It's silly that I have to give up power to use the other, meaner half of my population in combat. That's ridiculous! Especially in a post-apocalyptic game where I should be ecstatic to have anyone take up arms!

Make it so that recruiting women or men is the default. And then make it so that people who only want the one have to pay a point. After all, they're forgoing part of their population entering the combat force, they're the ones who should suffer. 

Either that, or make Egalitarianism halve the pop cost of recruiting a trooper -- your pool of military aged individuals is twice as large, it stands to reason that military units would be easier on the populace.

 

Bottom line though, being sexist shouldn't be rewarding. Right now it is! That's sexist! 

elemental
106,241 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

nothing stop the current game being Matriarchal...

 

you start with a queen.. and then all the grunts who do the dying and slaving away are men. those who hold power are women... you just don't see them.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

But, pop growth reduction is actually beneficial in most societies so long as they're making the replacement rate -- which they don't need to do so long as they encourage immigration *COUGH* I'm looking at you Germany, stop with the haterade *COUGH*. Lower pop growth means fewer dependents per wage earner, meaning more resources available per dependent. Countries that have an incredibly high number of workers per dependent are experiencing something called a demographic dividend -- which provides a huge medium term boost to the economy. Perfect examples are the US with the Baby Boomers, China/India right now, Africa in the near future.

None of which applies in Elemental where you are trying repopulate the earth. A low population growth rate is bad economically period, it's the entire reason we have immigration in the first place. I'm not going to get into a arguement on the pros and cons of immigration because it's not at all relevant here.

However, every demographic dividend comes with a demographic, well, I won't use the term I prefer here because it's not PC, but the closest equivalent would probably be bumpaddling. See, a demographic dividend also means a huge number of people in the same age category. And when that category marks the check box labeled Retirement, it imposes huuuuuuuge costs on their society. See Japan nowish, US and Europe in the upcoming years, China in the medium term. China is currently dealing with what's known as the 4:2:1 generation -- in other words, four grandparents, two parents, one kid. Once those parents and grandparents can no longer work

Which is solved by having more kids to support them?

Anyway I would like to reiterate that I have no preference here to debate. I just think that small reduction to population growth and large boost to available workforce(specialists) would accurately represent a Egalitarian society.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Aeon221, reply 18
In simple terms, given two equivalent economies where, ceteris paribus, one has no females in the labor market, the society with women as active participants in the labor market will economically dominate. Again in simple terms, given two economies where, ceteris paribus, one has a fluctuating dependency ratio and one of which has a stable drat, the stable drat economy will dominate. 

So make the Egalitarian society 50% better in all ways and you'll be closer to the mark on what difference having females as labor market participants makes.

 

While you might be right about the economic boost provided by including women in the labour market, I think it has a very poor effect on society when both parents are income earners. It leaves people much less time to raise their children, teach them, discipline them and generally look out for them. This has very adverse consequences for future societies. It seems we live in world where rather than work to live, you live to work.

 

[EDIT] Crap, it's too far off topic. Umm, I agree with Lord Xia!

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Wintersong, reply 9
... Would be best if we could have an alternate option (and free) that goes with "Patriarchal, Matriarchal, Egalitarian" and have some differences based on that (who goes with who in a diplo wedding and stuff). I'm, sadly, not holding my breath for this to happen though.

Oi, but I can't remember how long we've been agreeing on this general point. It's especially valid given the minimalism of the canon faction information. I need some in-game explanations of why patriarchy is dominant to help me accept the weird ways 'egalitarianism' has worked out so far. Don't even want to get started about the prominence of Procipinee and the lack of matriarchal anything...

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Istari, reply 28

In simple terms, given two equivalent economies where, ceteris paribus, one has no females in the labor market, the society with women as active participants in the labor market will economically dominate. Again in simple terms, given two economies where, ceteris paribus, one has a fluctuating dependency ratio and one of which has a stable drat, the stable drat economy will dominate. 

So make the Egalitarian society 50% better in all ways and you'll be closer to the mark on what difference having females as labor market participants makes.

 

While you might be right about the economic boost provided by including women in the labour market, I think it has a very poor effect on society when both parents are income earners. It leaves people much less time to raise their children, teach them, discipline them and generally look out for them. This has very adverse consequences for future societies. It seems we live in world where rather than work to live, you live to work.

Let's not get into a debate about the real world here please.

As I said earlier there is a definite boost to GDP and living standards brought on by gender equality. It is becasue of the doubling of the labour force and the fact that families now have double the income. This hardly translates to a %50 bonus to everything and if it does it's becuase you would have more people available to say produce materials or be researchers in Libraries. Which is again what I said earlier and consistent with an increase in specialists as I suggested.

I have a feeling however that my logical arguments are lost here. I think that my simple recommendation for a faction trait has become an argument about contentious real world issues. Which I did not intend at all.

 

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Listen. Guys. Making this trait cost 0 points is so easy, it's not even funny.

Yes, it would be nice if it had a bigger in-game effect, but you could say the same about almost all of the traits.

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Istari, reply 28
While you might be right about the economic boost provided by including women in the labour market, I think it has a very poor effect on society when both parents are income earners. It leaves people much less time to raise their children, teach them, discipline them and generally look out for them. This has very adverse consequences for future societies. It seems we live in world where rather than work to live, you live to work.

If world weren't as it is, we could have the state to actually care about such details. Would involve new concepts in what a familiy is and stuff (go Hive, go!!!).

Plus in the game span, inmigration is the only (according to Frogboy, which I find not believable at all but it's one of those compromises in the game) source of Population, so actually there is no need to worry about kids. XD

Quoting GW, reply 29
Oi, but I can't remember how long we've been agreeing on this general point. It's especially valid given the minimalism of the canon faction information. I need some in-game explanations of why patriarchy is dominant to help me accept the weird ways 'egalitarianism' has worked out so far. Don't even want to get started about the prominence of Procipinee and the lack of matriarchal anything...
I'd say that Procipinee is in power only because of her magics. But that she has no real power to shape customs/habits of her people and/or she is "old fashioned" herself (while understanding her special role in those special circumstances).

Pure speculation, of course. I would also love to know more details.

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 31
Listen. Guys. Making this trait cost 0 points is so easy, it's not even funny.

Yes, it would be nice if it had a bigger in-game effect, but you could say the same about almost all of the traits.

Amen. Sure, they could spend a lot of time and effort creating a realistic and complicated set of tradeoffs for Egalitarian societies, but do we really want them to? Consider that people complained about being able to suggest a homosexual marriage (even though the AI will not accept it), and I really don't think we want to get into the practical effects gender roles have on a society, no matter how you do it most people are going to disagree and some will even be offended.

Not to mention that just about every aspect of the game is badly needing more depth, more complexity, more interesting tradeoffs - and as easy as it is to think up possible improvements, I imagine it's somewhat more difficult to implement and balance them. Of all the aspects of the game that need some love, is the Egalitarian trait really the one we want Stardock to focus on? Seriously, just make it free and be done with it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading the real-world inspired debate, and think most game systems could do with a little more realistic inspiration. In a perfect world with unlimited funding and developer time and no people that get offended at the strangest things, I'd really like to see a fully fleshed-out "society type" option with things like Egalitarian (and something nearly the opposite, let's call it "Spartanism," and a dozen other choices) as real and interesting possibilities. Better yet, it should be something that you can change as the game progresses, a la Civ4 "civics". But practically speaking, I don't see it happening, and honestly don't really want it to when there are more straightforward and less real-world-argument-inducing aspects of the game that could use the attention.

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top

I have enjoyed this discussion with its many well read, intelligent, and insightful comments about "realism."  Realism arguments make for great discussions.  Remember Boudicia of the Icendi tribe whose women fought along side their men?  She led a revolt that destroyed a super-power rated Roman legion?  That got the Emperor Nero's attention.

But this is a GAME, and interesting choices should be challenging players as much as possible.  IF a choice for a trait, that has an in-game affect, is available, THEN, an appropriate 'cost' should be paid for gaining that game affect.  IF the trait (or whatever) has no in-game effect (except eye-candy), THEN it should have no in-game cost.

Did i miss something?

 

 

Reply #35 from Elemental Forums Top

Plus in the game span, inmigration is the only (according to Frogboy, which I find not believable at all but it's one of those compromises in the game) source of Population, so actually there is no need to worry about kids.

Hmmm. Apparently the only exception is yourself? You have kids and grandkids all the time. Anyway it's a good point so I will reevaluate my position and say that on top of allowing female soldiers Egalitarianism should give a boost to maximum specialists without a penalty. Fair enough? Hopefully this in uncontentious enough that the devs may actually consider implementing it.

Sure, they could spend a lot of time and effort creating a realistic and complicated set of tradeoffs for Egalitarian societies, but do we really want them to?

Yes. Yes we do want this. This is what makes creating your own faction fun. It also adds more layers to the strategic depth of the game.

 

Reply #36 from Elemental Forums Top

Yes. Yes we do want this. This is what makes creating your own faction fun. It also adds more layers to the strategic depth of the game.

I don't disagree with you completely. But since this is trivial to modify, the developers' time could be better spent elsewhere at this point.

Reply #37 from Elemental Forums Top

This is my last OT post. No responses will come for anything written about it!

Immigration is absolutely a net good, period full stop. It's pretty much win win win all the way to the bank. Low skill, high skill, no skill doesn't matter. That said, if the welcoming society isn't, well, welcoming, it ends up in the situation France and Germany are in -- tons of jobless, poorly educated and irate immigrants. America might not be coping perfectly, but it's doing a heck of a better job than most of the other major players -- immigrants who somehow manage to make it into this barb wired country have a reasonably good chance of success, where success is defined as a higher standard of living than the one they left behind. That said, America does have the ass backwards policy of subsidizing foreign graduate/doctoral degrees and then, upon completion of their studies, rejecting the requests of that same group for green cards. I mean, hello, we just paid to educate those people and they want to live here, let them!

Population growth is a net good so long as it doesn't affect the dependency ratio. Once things start getting lopsided, problems emerge. The solution is most certainly not  have more kids -- thanks to the lead time on child production, you'll just end up making the problem significantly worse in the short term, and repeating it in the long term.

Immigration is so gosh darned awesome and a special case because immigrants are usually people who A. had the balls/ovies to swap countries, no mean feat, B. are committed to working hard to better themselves (see A), and C. overwhelmingly adults. It's like people are popping into existence de novo! No paying for schooling, natal care, any of that. Fully formed (sans the language barrier, four to eight years of Spanish education really ought to be required of the average American, it would improve our country soo very much) productive citizens literally from day one.

My history major comment was intended as a zing. If anyone was offended, well, sucks to be you I guess? Feel free to take a pot shot at me! I recommend mocking my hair, it is quite mediocre.

Reply #38 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Aeon221, reply 37
This is my last OT post. No responses will come for anything written about it!

Immigration is absolutely a net good, period full stop. It's pretty much win win win all the way to the bank. Low skill, high skill, no skill doesn't matter. That said, if the welcoming society isn't, well, welcoming, it ends up in the situation France and Germany are in -- tons of jobless, poorly educated and irate immigrants. America might not be coping perfectly, but it's doing a heck of a better job than most of the other major players -- immigrants who somehow manage to make it into this barb wired country have a reasonably good chance of success, where success is defined as a higher standard of living than the one they left behind. That said, America does have the ass backwards policy of subsidizing foreign graduate/doctoral degrees and then, upon completion of their studies, rejecting the requests of that same group for green cards. I mean, hello, we just paid to educate those people and they want to live here, let them!

Population growth is a net good so long as it doesn't affect the dependency ratio. Once things start getting lopsided, problems emerge. The solution is most certainly not  have more kids -- thanks to the lead time on child production, you'll just end up making the problem significantly worse in the short term, and repeating it in the long term.

Immigration is so gosh darned awesome and a special case because immigrants are usually people who A. had the balls/ovies to swap countries, no mean feat, B. are committed to working hard to better themselves (see A), and C. overwhelmingly adults. It's like people are popping into existence de novo! No paying for schooling, natal care, any of that. Fully formed (sans the language barrier, four to eight years of Spanish education really ought to be required of the average American, it would improve our country soo very much) productive citizens literally from day one.

My history major comment was intended as a zing. If anyone was offended, well, sucks to be you I guess? Feel free to take a pot shot at me! I recommend mocking my hair, it is quite mediocre.

Your opinions have been noted.

Reply #39 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Dsraider, reply 35
Hmmm. Apparently the only exception is yourself? You have kids and grandkids all the time.
 
Imagine a Dynasty system without kids and grandkids to marry! :O (aka Your Sovereign and his/her children are the only ones to bring new life to the world. The rest? Immigrants seeking refuge in your cities. :P )

Reply #40 from Elemental Forums Top

you should have a reduction in your birth rate.  Women in war means they are not pregnant. If you want to utilize the whole population for armies then there should be a penalty.

Reply #41 from Elemental Forums Top

Ya know, normally the pick up line about needing to repopulate the earth is supposed to be one of the cheesy blow off ones that gets you slapped, Not the literal truth.

Reply #42 from Elemental Forums Top

So, non-egalitarian factions will find the following joke funny:

Why did the woman cross the road?

Who cares? What was she doing out of the kitchen?

 

And, as Peter Griffin supplied as an answer to a particular question... 'So you have something to look at while you're talkin' to 'em!'

:grin:

Reply #43 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Dsraider, reply 17

Quoting Aranneas, reply 15Applying any sort of specific penalties or bonuses to all societies of a particular gender bias is not something that the game has the latitude to do. It makes a social and historic statement that by its very nature is unfounded. I could almost see a simple 'integrated workforce' thing but what about caste-based societies, which just happen to have castes also divided along gender lines? I'm talking about a situation in which not every gender is considered 'suited' for every task, but every individual's talents are fully utilized. Modern western views on equality would tell us that any sort of separation in roles is morally and socially mistaken, but we simply don't have the data to make the statement that they are any less functional.
Kinda but not really.

From a economic and historic point of view there are certain traits in societies that have obvious consequences. Not saying that some are better then others but that they all have pros and cons. For instance the growth of gender equality in countries all around the world has been closely studied and the results are pretty well documented. Just look at any western country. Equalizing gender roles basically means almost doubling your workforce. In the short term this will drive down wages but in the long run increase GDP and living standards. It also leads to a decrease in population growth because you no longer have %50 of your people dedicated to raising children.  Women have to now balance work and home, some choose not to have kids because it would negatively affect their professional lives. Thus it would be pretty safe to add say a %50 bonus to specialists(available workforce) and a 25% reduction in population growth to Egalitarian societies.

On another related note the Death Worship trait really bugs me. Sure "culling the weak" could make your people stronger but it would also reduce population growth because you keep killing your own people.

Just saw this (still reading through the thread).

I like your rationale about a production bonus, but with reduced growth for Egalitarian!  It makes sense, and has concrete game mechanisms that are easy to implement.

Also, on Death Worship, again reducing the pop growth makes sense.

Good thinking man!

Reply #44 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Aeon221, reply 18
Any country that chooses not to arm women out of some sense of obligation to being douchebags is going to do with a military capable force that's roughly half as large as the available pool of a group that is willing to put their women on the line.

Any country that is so desperate that it needs to field his women in the army cause it already enroled all mens will have soon a very nice starving army with nothing to defend.

Reply #45 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Trojasmic, reply 10



Quoting Lord Xia,
reply 7

Quoting impinc, reply 4I think the reason some gear isn't allowed on some races is that the models are bigger. So when you equip the gear, it clips through and looks weird. They'd have to create new models for the Fallen race, and anything it looks weird on.

 
I know, and they need to fix it.  In fact, they need to give every single race it's own distinct look to their armor.  When you create a faction, there are 6 different races of men, whats the difference between them?  Well, they have different clothing and hair...but after they have armor on?  Not a god damn thing.  Boring. 


 




Quoting Wintersong,
reply 9
Egalitarism should not be the norm. It may be natural for some people now but go tell the first humans about egalitarism (if you could tell them, that is).

If Egalitarism was to be kept as Talent for the faction, it should cost points. Period. Why? Well, because it should do something more than "Oh, cool! I can have dudettes in my army!" (which by itself is a ridiculous excuse but that's another story).

Egalitarians societies should get diplomacy penalties with non egalitarian societies (which by itself goes against what a Talent is right now in the game because Talents don't give penalties, so this part could be optional but "unrealistic" for those who complain whenever something isn't "realistic" enough). The good sides are the "dudettes" in the army (still cosmetic details, so no effects on population growth or special abilities/penalties for them) and increased production in the city (and/or similar bonus that reflects the non segregation of tasks based on biological differences).

Would be best if we could have an alternate option (and free) that goes with "Patriarchal, Matriarchal, Egalitarian" and have some differences based on that (who goes with who in a diplo wedding and stuff). I'm, sadly, not holding my breath for this to happen though.


If Stardock would just listen to Wintersong and Lord Xia, we'd have a great game.

:yes:  AGREED

Reply #46 from Elemental Forums Top

Personally I think they should just drop "egalitarianism" altogether and every faction should default to having both male and female soldiers.  If you want your army to be all male (or all female), just click "New" again if a female model comes up.

 

Reply #47 from Elemental Forums Top

Solution, because I'm in the holiday spirit: 

1) Create an XML file in in your mydocuments/games/elemental/mods directory.

2)Paste the following into that file:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<AbilityBonuses>
 <DataChecksum NoParse="1">
  <Ignore>DisplayName,BonusUnits</Ignore>
  <Translate>DisplayName,BonusUnits</Translate>
 </DataChecksum>

<AbilityBonus InternalName="Egalitarian">
    <AbilityBonusType>Player</AbilityBonusType>

    <AbilityBonusOption InternalName = "EgalitarianBonus1">
      <DisplayName>Egalitarian</DisplayName>
      <Description>Can design male and female warriors.</Description>
      <Bonus>10</Bonus>
      <Cost>0</Cost>
      <GameModifier>
        <ModType>Player</ModType>
        <Attribute>AbilityBonus</Attribute>
        <StrVal>A_Egalitarian</StrVal>
        <Value>1.0</Value>
      </GameModifier>
    </AbilityBonusOption>

  </AbilityBonus>

3) Egalitarian is now a free, cosmetic trait for custom factions. If you want the option for female units, now you have them at no cost. If you don't, ignore steps 1 and 2. :grin:

4) If you want a non-zero cost trait that actually does something, I'll draw up a custom xml for that too, to the best of my ability.

Reply #48 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting tjashen, reply 43
... I like your rationale about a production bonus, but with reduced growth for Egalitarian!  It makes sense, and has concrete game mechanisms that are easy to implement.

Also, on Death Worship, again reducing the pop growth makes sense. ...

I'd completely agree, if it weren't for the fact that Elemental (and its predecessors, GC1 and GC2) have bluntly rejected trying to include 'realistic' pop growth and decline in either the foreground or background mechanics.

Some, but not all, of the gender-based bonuses and penalties people are talking about would make sense if the un-modded game world for Elemental had some fake history to support variables like bonuses and/or penalties for being egalitarian, patriarchal, matriarchal, or something else.

I'll probably startle Wintersong by typing this, but this thread and the related 'gender mechanics' threads strike me as an instance of the larger problem that has me ranting about how the magic system still has no bones and how the design a spell contest made me feel like the devs had told us to sketch a Halston gown for Jabba the Hut. If I was good with sports metaphors, I'd have something handy to say about coaches and/or playbooks.