Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

Allow women citizen to lay the same foundations as citizen soldiers.
ClosedPublic

Authored by wraitii on Mon, Jul 27, 10:00 AM.

Details

Summary

We currently have a distinction between women and soldier citizen -> the latter only can lay military foundations.
Women, however, can still contribute to building military building.

This:

  • makes no sense
  • is very micro-heavy

There are three possible fixes:

  • Make it so that women can't contribute to military building (! care must be taken that the maur worker elephant still can)
  • Let women lay all foundations.
  • Prevent women from building entirely.

IMO this is an uninteresting difference between our workers, and so I'd rather see it removed. I'd rather not force citizen soldiers as the only builders, ads I believe that result in more un-necessary micro.

Ping @badosu which suggested this recently too.

Test Plan

Ensure I've not forgotten anything and this actually works.

There might be some text somewhere about how women can't build military buildings?

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

wraitii created this revision.Mon, Jul 27, 10:00 AM
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Mon, Jul 27, 10:00 AM
Nescio added a subscriber: Nescio.Mon, Jul 27, 10:03 AM

There are two possible fixes:

There is also a third option: remove their ability to build, keeping them as resource gatherers only, and further differentiating them from citizen soldiers.

wraitii edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Mon, Jul 27, 10:05 AM

There is also a third option: remove their ability to build, keeping them as resource gatherers only, and further differentiating them from citizen soldiers.

You're right, I added that.
IMO >> I'd rather not force citizen soldiers as the only builders, ads I believe that result in more un-necessary micro.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/docker-differential/2784/display/redirect

Another solution, though not possible right now, would be to allow moving the build lists to the simulation/templates/special/player/*.xml files, rather than defining them in individual unit templates.

Stan added a subscriber: Stan.Mon, Jul 27, 10:28 AM

That sounds very restrictive in terms of moddability ?

How so? player.xml would define the build list shared by all civs, and the individual player_{civ}.xml files would add and remove entities to get an available build list tailored for each civ.
I'm not saying that must be implemented, but at least it would allow female citizens to have the same build lists as their infantry soldier counterparts, and make it less likely to forget updating build lists in individual unit templates.

borg- added a subscriber: borg-.Mon, Jul 27, 12:45 PM

May be important for future patches that prohibit or train military units in cc for example.
Yes, an unnecessary micro is very bad.
Should look at spart.json and remove special ability from spartan women.
This was one of the main positive points in my mod, it had a lot of positive feedback and most players like to be able to build everything with women.

Nescio accepted this revision.Mon, Jul 27, 7:30 PM
  • This patch is correct and complete.
  • The current situation does not really make sense, this addresses that, and is an improvement over the status quo.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, Jul 27, 7:30 PM
Stan added a comment.Mon, Jul 27, 7:41 PM

For the game POV it would be the same especially if this patch gets committed, but for mods that might want to retain that functionnality for other reasons it will be annoying

What do you mean exactly?
The build list does not determine which structures units can build, only which foundations they can initiate.

borg- added a comment.EditedMon, Jul 27, 7:49 PM

@wraitii need remove "They are also capable of constructing defense towers and palisades" on spart.json.
Slave also needs to be updated too.

borg- accepted this revision.Mon, Jul 27, 7:49 PM
Stan added a comment.Mon, Jul 27, 8:13 PM

What do you mean exactly?
The build list does not determine which structures units can build, only which foundations they can initiate.

Sure but if all those are determined in the player, then you can not say add a special unit who is the only one that can initiate a foundation, for all the building units have the same list defined in the player.

Sure but if all those are determined in the player, then you can not say add a special unit who is the only one that can initiate a foundation, for all the building units have the same list defined in the player.

The suggestion was to have a default list in the player.xml file shared by all civs and civ-specific additions and exclusions in the player_{civ}.xml files, yes, to eliminate the need to define the same lists in various templates. However, individual templates can still add or remove entities to their respective build lists, that shouldn't change.

Stan added a comment.Tue, Jul 28, 9:55 AM

Makes more sense now. Thanks. My last concern would be such a code, as I don't think it will be a trivial thing to implement.

In D2911#126264, @Stan wrote:

Makes more sense now. Thanks. My last concern would be such a code, as I don't think it will be a trivial thing to implement.

I think D2915 is similar and more worthwhile.

That being said, this isn't about this diff guys ;)

Yes, it's an idea that's not yet possible right now. I don't know how difficult it is to implement, though I expect it to be doable, since e.g. entity limits, battle detection, and team bonuses are already defined in the special player templates.

If you make women build everything, even military buildings and fortresses and stuff, then you should go the DE route and change "Female Citizens" to just Citizens (male and female) using the phenotype system.

At the moment I don't think we plan on stopping citizen soldiers from being soldiers, so that's a likely no for now.

I am looking for more opinion on this, @ValihrAnt maybe? @Itms ?

Itms added a comment.Sat, Aug 1, 8:20 PM

At the moment I don't think we plan on stopping citizen soldiers from being soldiers, so that's a likely no for now.

I am not sure I understood you, I 100% agree with Justus that the current "female citizens" should just be "citizens" with two kinds of models/voices, using the phenotype system. Those citizens with various phenotypes would be better at gathering food, would have a boosting aura, couldn't fight, etc. I don't see how that conflicts with citizen soldiers, which are different units?

Maybe the confusion arises from the word "citizens" which wouldn't be clear anymore if all units are citizens (workers or soldiers). Maybe call them farmers, or maybe do the naming depending on the civ. For instance, in Athens I believe all citizens go to war whereas the ones who always stay in the country do not have citizen rights.

Unrelatedly I agree with the change here.

Nescio added a comment.Sat, Aug 1, 9:09 PM

Yes, calling workers (i.e. gatherers + builders) in 0 A.D. “citizens” is a really unfortunate choice of words. Citizenship implies legal and political rights, and is limited to only a subset of the population (the French revolution had not yet happened in our timeframe).

If you make women build everything, even military buildings and fortresses and stuff

Actually female citizens can already build everything, they just can't initiate all foundations (that's not a problem for the AI).

then you should go the DE route and change "Female Citizens" to just Citizens (male and female) using the phenotype system.

I would welcome having male non-soldier “citizen” workers, but that requires someone to create the actors, and is outside the scope of this patch.

borg- added a comment.Sat, Aug 1, 10:37 PM

I like how 0ad works now, women with different attributes than men. I really don't see a problem with that. Add another male unit to the game so soldiers couldn’t collect resources. Anyway Its for another discussion in the future, now this patch is good and fix current balancing issues.

In D2911#126760, @Itms wrote:

I am not sure I understood you, I 100% agree with Justus that the current "female citizens" should just be "citizens" with two kinds of models/voices, using the phenotype system. Those citizens with various phenotypes would be better at gathering food, would have a boosting aura, couldn't fight, etc. I don't see how that conflicts with citizen soldiers, which are different units?

I think I remember that in DE, workers aren't "citizen soldiers" but either pure citizen or pure soldier. That I don't think we're considering at the moment -> hence my "no"?

Maybe the confusion arises from the word "citizens" which wouldn't be clear anymore if all units are citizens (workers or soldiers). Maybe call them farmers, or maybe do the naming depending on the civ. For instance, in Athens I believe all citizens go to war whereas the ones who always stay in the country do not have citizen rights.

Indeed, . I don't actually mind having a "worker" class instead of just women, which has always seemed kind of odd, but it's somewhat accurate for Greek society that citizens were both workers & soldiers, and that non-citizens weren't soldiers. We chose to not really represent slaves iirc, which would be the obvious choice.
In other culture of the time, things _would_ be different, but that's a bit of a different issue.

Though, to take e.g. Sparta, my understanding is that Spartan citizens were what' we'd define as Champions, the Perioikoi (not technically citizen) were citizen soldiers (for the men), with women in an worker role, and then you had helots which were basically slaves - which iirc we chose not to represent in the game.

So things are already somewhat confusing... Muddying the issue further, societies like the Gauls, from what I gather, did not really have working men that might not be called to war.
If we go Aztec at some point, things will get even messier.

So, on the basis of trying to represent societies of the time, I'm not entirely certain what the best move would be.

Unrelatedly I agree with the change here.

Then I'll commit it shortly, I think that's enough votes for "yes".

borg- added a comment.Sun, Aug 2, 1:11 AM
In D2911#126234, @borg- wrote:

@wraitii need remove "They are also capable of constructing defense towers and palisades" on spart.json.
Slave also needs to be updated too.

@wraitii?

wraitii updated this revision to Diff 13004.Sun, Aug 2, 1:43 PM

borg-'s comment before committing.

Vulcan added a comment.Sun, Aug 2, 1:57 PM

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/docker-differential/2840/display/redirect

badosu accepted this revision.Sun, Aug 2, 2:39 PM

Thanks for this patch, this is a really annoying issue indeed!

So things are already somewhat confusing... Muddying the issue further, societies like the Gauls, from what I gather, did not really have working men that might not be called to war.
If we go Aztec at some point, things will get even messier.

So, on the basis of trying to represent societies of the time, I'm not entirely certain what the best move would be.

Why would we need to equalise all civs? We can give Hellenic factions cheap slaves, with expensive citizen soldiers, Celts only citizen soldiers and so forth?

Why would we need to equalise all civs? We can give Hellenic factions cheap slaves, with expensive citizen soldiers, Celts only citizen soldiers and so forth?

Unless you do my suggestion here -> https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25992-splitting-our-civs-by-tier/ , this is imo a recipe for a balancing nightmare.

Nescio added a comment.Mon, Aug 3, 9:26 AM

Why would we need to equalise all civs? We can give Hellenic factions cheap slaves, with expensive citizen soldiers, Celts only citizen soldiers and so forth?

Slaves weren't cheap. Moreover, Celts, Persians, and others had slaves too.

Freagarach added a comment.EditedMon, Aug 3, 9:30 AM

I know ^^ The point was that not all civ's need to be equal, they can be vastly different in their setup.

Nescio added a comment.Mon, Aug 3, 9:33 AM

True. Though it does make sense to clean up the current situation first, remove things that don't make sense, get a balanced state, and only start differentiating civs from there.