Considering that villager gender generation is totally random, absolutely not.
Reminds of the AoE2 AI surrender comment complaining he couldn’t win because all the villagers were men.
6 Likes
also in the late game, you will be incenivised to kill all the male villagers to maximise gather rate, fun /s
3 Likes
Female villagers have been around since AoE2 actually
1 Like
Nope, just adds unnecessary complexity to the game.
1 Like
Now I am not going to be a sensitive loon clutching my pearls at this suggestion, because in colonies you likely would not have seen women doing the same hard labor as men, such as being lumberjacks and miners, at least not in a 50/50 split. You would most likely see them as seamstresses, bakers, cooks, ESSENTIAL jobs by the way… And of course they could be used to help carry loads of lumber or crops, assist on farms… For the sake of efficiency, the hard labor workforce would most likely be men. This isn’t new, this isn’t revolutionary. Only historical revisionists will suggest otherwise.
So it would absolutely be awesome if the buildings had more life, if we could see women working on looms, working around houses, along with men doing house repairs, cutting lumber, heck a woman could be cutting lumber near the house too, cutting firewood, to better sell the illusion of your settlements rather than there just being static buildings placed in a pattern with no roads between them or paths…
However, the problem with what you are suggesting isn’t an issue because it would be problematic in our political climate, it would be a balancing nightmare. I assume that if they were different, we’d have two separate buttons to recruit female or male settlers. The problem that arises, is that it’s just pointless memorization and stat dumping, pointless min-maxing when it doesn’t even really fulfill creating the illusion of the gender roles which were present in colonies and settlements. And suggesting that a woman can work a plantation or mill faster and more efficiently than your average male settler, is in and of itself an inaccuracy.
It would create issues regarding the usefulness of each settler. Time to mass delete your male settlers when you have no more trees or mines, and dump into female settlers. It makes settlers less interchangeable, and from a gameplay standpoint… That’s too much min-maxing, and it’s wayyy more complex for new players. The economy in the game is not structured in a way to make such changes meaningful or warranted. Maybe if you had a much more detailed and economy focused simulation game, but that’s not AOE3.
There are certainly ways to introduce interesting gender dynamics in a colony sim. But that’s not AOE3, an RTS with a not-so-in-depth economy, with a primary focus on fighting and winning battles rather than spending hours min-maxing your economy to prepare for the winters or long term growth. Each match lasts 20-60 minutes. And economy only really matters in this game to get more powerful units out quickly so you can win the battle. While it may not be impossible to implement such a feature, AOE3 is already set in stone in terms of development, and such changes would be too major to warrant such an overhaul to an already existing system with no inherent problems already.
Simplicity for the economy is probably the best course of action, given most people play the game for fighting battles rather than trying to make efficient realistic colonies when the buildings don’t even have roads connecting them.
I get what you are trying to accomplish, but I think there are much better ways to achieve it.
1 Like
This topic should be deleted…Nobody should give this topic any more posts.
6 Likes