Here comes the Gender Mod!

DOCUMENTATION
This mod allows you to choose between five Gender civics, in addition to the oiginal ones.

Patriarchy: default civic, no upkeep, no effects
Polygamy: requires Agriculture, high upkeep, +20% food
Recognition: requires Code of Laws, no upkeep, +10% food, +25% Great People
Equal Suffrage: requires Liberalism, no upkeep, +100% Great People
Sexual Freedom: requires Medicine, medium upkeep, +100% Great People, +3 happiness with Hospital, military units produced with food

Updates

Version 1.01: Changed the name of Birth Control to Sexual Freedom.

This seems interesting, though it would be nice if perhaps you might tell us what each civic does (gameplay mechanics) and your reasoning?

This isn't to put you on the spot or anything, but it would be nice to sorta know what I'm downloading. :mischief:

edit: it's too bad there's only five slots for consistancy, but if we've got the ability to run a Patriarchy, it would be fun to run a Matriarchy every once in a while too.

I chose not to include matriarchy because there are no known matriarchal societies in world history, and I want all elements of Civilization to represent authentic elements in world history (though combinations of elements is allowed to be fictional). However, I played with the thought of introducing a "Radical Feminist Bureaucracy".

Right now I am trying to balance out these civics, so that each would be the most useful at some occasion. Suggestions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

How does Polygamy translate into +20% food?

How does Polygamy translate into +20% food?
Polygamic societies where wives esentially are slaves of their husbands (and that is what polgamy represents in this mod) usually have great natural increase of population. The high upkeep cost is the cost of wasting the female physical and intellectual workforce.

Werent a lot of early mediterannean societies (early greece? crete?) matriarchal, or am I way off base on that?

I had something written here, but I think I understand what your getting at. You're substituting growth as food... I'm not entirely sure I like that. The wives aren't tilling the fields or anything of the sort, so that wouldn't really increase the food supply. Is there was a way to implement just raw growth instead of growth based on food? It would make more sense to me that way.

-- John

Birth Control: requires Medicine, medium upkeep, +100% Great People,
Birth control increases great people rate ? Then that should be called "Genetic Engineering", not birth control. Birth control just lowers birth rates, it doesn't include choosing to which to give birth...

Just minor nitpicks:

I think that Birth Control should probably have some sort of food/growth penalty associated with it. After all, if you look at the post-industrial nations of today, most of their pop growth is coming from immigration, while for lack of better words of stating it, the native racial group doesn't even have a replacement rate (ie. Western Europe).

Also, perhaps polygamy should also have a happiness penalty? I mean, sure you have the guys at the top socially who have many wives, but then you also have an underclass of males who can't "get any", so to speak. I dunno about you but that would make me rather despondent...

Birth control here looks like just an expansion of sufferage where women are in the workforce contributing and are recognized as some of the great minds of the age.

To balance the other civics, birth control should lower food production across the nation to mimic the lesser growth.. These days a normal family will have what, 2.5 children? Back even when sufferage was introduced it was definitely above 3.

To balance the other civics, birth control should lower food production across the nation to mimic the lesser growth.. These days a normal family will have what, 2.5 children? Back even when sufferage was introduced it was definitely above 3.

I'm too lazy to look it up... but if I remember correctly is the average family has more like 1.4 children in a first world nation. Low enough to make the population drop if it wasn't for immigration.

Werent a lot of early mediterannean societies (early greece? crete?) matriarchal, or am I way off base on that?

There is a wealth of verbal traditions, myths, archaeological evidence etc to indicate that many, if not all ancient cultures and tribes were matriarchal. However, with civilizations and sedentary life, this seems to have changed nearly across the board. There are still a number of hunter/gatherer style societies today that are matriarchal.... or at the very least - not patriarchal!

There is a wealth of verbal traditions, myths, archaeological evidence etc to indicate that many, if not all ancient cultures and tribes were matriarchal. However, with civilizations and sedentary life, this seems to have changed nearly across the board. There are still a number of hunter/gatherer style societies today that are matriarchal.... or at the very least - not patriarchal!
Can you please provide some source?

There is a wealth of verbal traditions, myths, archaeological evidence etc to indicate that many, if not all ancient cultures and tribes were matriarchal. However, with civilizations and sedentary life, this seems to have changed nearly across the board. There are still a number of hunter/gatherer style societies today that are matriarchal.... or at the very least - not patriarchal!

The idea of matriarcical prehistory is something feminists find very appealing, but the evidence is lacking. It is mostly based on the delusion that the concept of paternity was somehow "discovered" with the birth of civilization. It is ridiculous to assume that early humans (who were just as intelligent as people today), would be ignorant of the fact that sex leads to babies and not notice that the offspring tend to resemble both parents. Furthermore, the phallos was a fertility symbol already in the stone age.

...and about the mod, I don't think that birth control should increase great people birth rate, since with birth control educated people tend to have fewer babies than uneducated people.

...and about the mod, I don't think that birth control should increase great people birth rate, since with birth control educated people tend to have fewer babies than uneducated people.
Good point. So considering that uneducated people provide birth rate, there should be great people decrease, not increase.

I'm too lazy to look it up... but if I remember correctly is the average family has more like 1.4 children in a first world nation. Low enough to make the population drop if it wasn't for immigration.In Europe, yes. The US is at "replacement level," about 2.1.

Doesn't polygamy predate patriarchy?

About Birth Control as it is
Population increase in a civilization with Birth Control is be slightly smaller, because the MilitaryFoodProduction flag, which converts the food surplus into production when military units are trained. (This bonus can be interpreted as emancipated women serving in armed forces and military contraction instead of raising more children.)

The Great People birth rate does not represent how often Great Babies are delivered, but rather how often children reach adulthood with the right heredity and environment to be Great. And I believe that a society with birth control and equal opportunities will provide the environment to many more boys and girls than a patriarchal society where contraception is forbidden.

About Birth Control more generally
As always, we have the dilemma between realism and strategic depth. Civ needs both to be Civ. (If you want plain realism, go watch the History Channel. If you want plain strategy, go play chess.)

Birth control should be represented when it comes to gender, and it should - like all civics - have effects balanced to be a good choice at some occasions and a bad choice otherwise.

One problem is that population increase has always been good in Civ. Though a new-born citizen will be tied up as unhappy (or as an entertainer in Civ 1-3) , they can be useful later. Therefore we have to provide some good and relevant advantages to Birth Control to offset the low population increase.

I chose not to include matriarchy because there are no known matriarchal societies in world history[/url]
In my world history, the Indian in North america were Matriachal.

I don't think that birth control should increase great people birth rate, since with birth control educated people tend to have fewer babies than uneducated people.
So true, this is the case in Canada right now...

To clarify myself, one reason why I have not included matriarchy is that I have not found enough documentation to make a good model or civilopedia description. If I got some links, I could consider a matriarchal civic.

but rather how often children reach adulthood with the right heredity and environment to be Great.
So all those kids which are born in drunkard, narcotic addict, etc families have right heredity and environment ? In countries with good working birth control, most of births happen in all these disadvantegous families, so the actual quality of next generation lowers.

The Dine, or Navajo. operate under a matriarchal extended-clan system. The N'dee, or Apache (a Zuni word for enemy), also operate under a matriarchal system. There are examples upon examples of matriarchal systems present on every continent and in every era.

Anyway, most of Great People in our world were nothing since they discover something... Most of them were poor children with nothing except a BIG dream(flying, Creating Light, Going on the moon, etc) i'm thinking about Einstein too (don't have to say why) ... Nobody knew Einstein was Smart... But now we got all respect for him cause we know he was too smart for us.

Great People are not from Great Family... most of the time it is natural born and there is nothing you can do about it... i think about Bush... He is not smart at all and he is suppose to be "some kind" of "Great People" and he is NOT !

My opinion tho, nothing personal about it ! ;)

There are examples upon examples of matriarchal systems present on every continent and in every era.
True, Québec is some kind of Matriarchal system... The Women here can get whatever they want and the law are made for them since the "Liberation de la Femme". Most of family are running under Mother's law and father are usually there to work and bring money at home (thats it). In return the women can do almost whatever they want with they're children cause the law is made to protect the women and not the man.

too bad but this is the REAL Liberalism after all !

So all those kids which are born in drunkard, narcotic addict, etc families have right heredity and environment ? In countries with good working birth control, most of births happen in all these disadvantegous families, so the actual quality of next generation lowers.
Your opinions on birth control are very prejudicing.

Children from heavy alcoholics and drug addicts are to few to have had any significant effect on population during the 50 years past since the birth control pill was invented. Despite what you think, most of the working-class in the western world is sober enough to know how to use contraceptives.

Peasant and working-class mothers (in western monogamous societies) have always had more children than upper-class mothers. Therefore, the labour movement was the strongest proponent for legalizing contraceptives and abortion. The difference is still there, but birth control has decreased it.

A majority of the world's doctors agree that birth control is one of the best things that happened mankind during the 20th century. There are many political and religious leaders with a different point of view. I would like Civ 4 to represent this controversy.

Anyway, most of Great People in our world were nothing since they discover something... Most of them were poor children with nothing except a BIG dream(flying, Creating Light, Going on the moon, etc) i'm thinking about Einstein too (don't have to say why) ... Nobody knew Einstein was Smart... But now we got all respect for him cause we know he was too smart for us.
I disagree. Most of the people we recognize as Great Scientists, Merchants, Prophets, Engineers and Artists would never have become Great People without proper education. And during most of history, education has been a luxury for middle or upper-class males. If a "natural born Einstein" had been the daughter of a shepherd in 19th century Arabia instead of the son of an entrepreneur in 19th century Germany, she would never have got the chance even to read a physics textbook, less to make a scientific career.

Contrary to common belief, Einstein's talent was well known even in early years - his school grades were excellent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Great People are not from Great Family... most of the time it is natural born and there is nothing you can do about it... i think about Bush... He is not smart at all and he is suppose to be "some kind" of "Great People" and he is NOT!
I do not know what you would like to say with this example. No one has claimed that all the children of multi-millionaire families have extraordinary talents.

The Dine, or Navajo. operate under a matriarchal extended-clan system. The N'dee, or Apache (a Zuni word for enemy), also operate under a matriarchal system.

As far as I know, the N'dee (or whatever they want to call themselves) have never had any urban culture. With all due respect to their their traditions and way of life, representing a society like theirs in Civ 4 would be hard, since Civ 4 is a game centered around cities.

There are examples upon examples of matriarchal systems present on every continent and in every era.

Can you please provide links to documents on these systems? I have looked through Wikipedia, finding no illustrative examples.

Matriarchal society is a topic in much debate. Like so many subjects, every scholar seems to bring their own definition to the discussion, and where one draws the line between matriarchal, gynarchal, matrilineal societies can be blurred. Also, it is obvious that many societies that held more egalitarian, or matriarchal views(differentiation depending on who's doing the research) have been historically marginalized for a number of reasons. But, regardless, there have been matriarchal societies in history, and there are still functioning matriarchal socieities today, and these societies have influenced, (matriarchy has influenced) the path of human history, and should (imho) be considered at least as seriously as patriachal society. Especially in the light of patriarchy being the point where the civic (where civilization, so to speak) begins. Another subject of some debate is the idea, hypothesis, or what have you, that matriachal society in fact predates partriarchal society. Not saying I hold that view particularly, but again it seems, to be fair, one should at least allow for that possibility as much as one allows for the possibility of patriachal pre-eminence.
Note that this sort of discussion seems to place matriarchy and patriarchy in a dichotomy, but again, there are many scholars now who would reject this type of analysis, citing that it can be seen as male-centric, and so on. But enough of that.

So, for a short list....

Mosuo
Khasi
Minangkabau
Nagovisi
Machinguenga
Minicoy

And on and on, jumping from hunter-gatherer type societies to agrarians and such from continent to continent. Depending on how one wished to define matriarchy, it could be said, as has been stated, that several Native American (North and South America) groups were matriarchies. There are more examples from different Pacific Islands, there are stories from the Aegean area of female societies, and so on.

So, to basically sum it up. Views of what constitute a matriarchy are many and highly varied, but there are general agreements about several historical examples of women playing at least as important a role in society as men. On that note, patriarchy as the base of all civilizations seems a bit dubious. Also, part of the fun of playing Civ is deciding how to customize your civilization. So, to be forced, as it were, to play a male-centric civilization at the outset of history and slowing gain equality, seems rather unfair. Many so-called 'great' civilizations have struggled with equality of the sexes, but there are many societies that have survived for a long time free of such strife, or at least having mostly conquered it in the past.

At least since there are no bonuses associated with patriarchy in this mod it might seem unimportant. But if one wishes to differentiate between matriarchy and patriarchy to begin with, one should perhaps in turn differentiate between types of polygamy? Male or female centric types; polyandry or.........hmmm, forgot the other at the moment. But, eh, I do not know.

Of course I do not really mean any of this as criticism of the mod, just trying to offer another point of view that I feel could be equally valid. And since I don't know a thing about any coding whatsoever, my only hope to see my own desires realized rests on the shoulders of those more knowledgable than I.

In the 'pedia file, I explain that the Polygamy civic specifically represents the custom for one man to have several wives (polygyny), and women live under slave-like conditions (which is usually the case in polygynic societies). Polyandry - where one woman can have several husbands - is rather uncommon in world history.

Representing all the gender role systems in world history with five gameplay options is hard, probably harder than representing all government systems in the same way. Which five abstracted systems should make the cut? I feel that the historical impact of both women's suffrage and birth control is to large to be neglected. Polygamy (in the form defined above) has also be so common in history that it "deserves" to be included. But I am not sure what to do with the remaining two slots (currently Patriarchy and Recognition). Some new suggestions, ranked by plausibility:


Tribal Family
Victorian Morality/Puritanism
Matriarchy
One Child Policy
Radical Feminist Bureaucracy


Which would be your favorite, what historical society would be a good example, and what gameplay effect would it have?

Victorian Family/Puritanism is a somewhat vague name, the puritans and the victorians had very different child rearing methods, I would reccomend, "Nuclear Family" which provides +1 trade routes per city from tourism and +25% great people, but causes -3 happiness in each city and has high upkeep. My recommendation for birth control is -6 health per city due to lack of fertility and STDs, but a +50% great person rate and +4 happiness, at medium upkeep.

other than the fact that i think matriarchal societies are few and far between, and had little real impact on world history... (ie. a few societies where women are in power or at least gained equality sure didnt change the worldwide standard where they did not, nor did it help the situation in SOME countries very recently) can you explain to me any worthwhile differences between a patriarchal society that could be represented in the mod? it seems to me a matriarchal and patriarchal society would function very similarly, just with a woman at the head instead of a man.

so its not only, you have to admit, exceedingly rare... its functionality in game would be the same. i see no reason at all to include it except to please overly sensitive people with a pet cause. if it really jars you that its not included go in and change patriarchy to matriarchy

I don't know about 'pet cause,' but if one might give the subject serious thought, or perhaps try to broaden one's perspective on the issue through whatever means, other perspectives might gain a little light. There's plenty more that could be said, but it would, apparently, :rolleyes: be as useful as watering rocks.

Didn't the Minoans who lived in ancient crete give equal rights to women... at least that's what I remember from history class.. :rolleyes:

Optimizer, i see that i'm not able to change your thinking about birth control. But i'll try the last time ;) Are u not upset about Europe dying out ? I know, that my country has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. So i'm supporting every way to increase it, even banning abortions. But u still seem to be happy that white race in Europe is dying out. Are u yourself a real swede or some imigrant ? U just don't seem to care about your country. Imho, birth control was just one of many nails in Europe's coffin... :rolleyes:

About Birth Control as it is
The Great People birth rate does not represent how often Great Babies are delivered, but rather how often children reach adulthood with the right heredity and environment to be Great. And I believe that a society with birth control and equal opportunities will provide the environment to many more boys and girls than a patriarchal society where contraception is forbidden.

Well, I suppose you can say that there is a correllation between Birth control and Great people but not a causality. Birth control does not necessitate equal opportunities even though that is often the case. However, birth control could for examlpe also be present in a polygynous society where men keep a harem of women just for fun without having to support any offspring.

About the "Radical feminist beaurocracy"-suggestion (brr) that civic should definetly come with a huge science penalty. You being a Swede, I suppose I don't have to tell you about the general attitude towards natural science among radical feminists and the mockery they make of science in their own attempts at "research". Suffice to say, in this regard they're just as bad as the Right-wing Christians.

Crash757 - when you fear the extinction of "the white race" and claim that immigrants to Sweden cannot be "real" Swedes, you place yourself in very bad company. The debate whether genes for lack of pigment should be preserved is way off-topic, so let us concentrate on gameplay for now on.

Well, I suppose you can say that there is a correllation between Birth control and Great people but not a causality. Birth control does not necessitate equal opportunities even though that is often the case. However, birth control could for examlpe also be present in a polygynous society where men keep a harem of women just for fun without having to support any offspring.
I could separate (orthogonalize) birth control from equal suffrage and monogamy by using more civic categories. In that case, birth control would give no Great People bonus by itself. However - I want to keep this mod simple, by adding just one new civic category.

Here is my proposed description of Radical Feminist Bureaucracy (though I would not include it in a serious version of this mod):

Radical Feminist Bureaucracy (Communism): high upkeep, Universities and Jails give +3 happiness, -20% science, no foreign trade.
A Radical Feminist Bureaucracy is a "matriarchal dictatorship" inspired from Marxism. All public authorities are controlled by academics who have corrupted the strife for equality to stigmatize the male collective and use former sexual oppression as an excuse for authoritarian rule.

Government limits free speech - especially all kinds of sexual messages - to stop alleged sexism, and abridges legal rights in the witch-hunt of "men's violence against women". Like all societies, most sentenced criminals are men, but the Bureaucracy is the only one to use this as justification. Academic gender studies are reformed into authoritarian anti-male propaganda, taught as a mandatory subject on all levels. Achievements for equality are few, since these would destroy the ideologic base of the government. Both sexes are allowed to hold office, and through affirmative action the representation is mostly equal, but many governments have "separatist committees" where only women may participate.

It is not strange that Bureaucratic governments shun the ideals of patriarchy. However, they accuse all other systems to be patriarchal, even each other. Boycotts and protest actions make international cooperation difficult.

About Birth Control as it is
Population increase in a civilization with Birth Control is be slightly smaller, because the MilitaryFoodProduction flag, which converts the food surplus into production when military units are trained. (This bonus can be interpreted as emancipated women serving in armed forces and military contraction instead of raising more children.)

The Great People birth rate does not represent how often Great Babies are delivered, but rather how often children reach adulthood with the right heredity and environment to be Great. And I believe that a society with birth control and equal opportunities will provide the environment to many more boys and girls than a patriarchal society where contraception is forbidden.

At the risk of triggering a flamewar, you can't possibly know that. Firstly, widespread contraception is a relatively recent phenomenon. The "pill" made its debut less than 50 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_pills
Sure, there were contraceptive methods available before that, but they were unreliable, dangerous, or both.

(Not that the "pill" is perfect ... but that would really trigger a flamewar, so let's not go there.)

Any way you look at it, that's way too short a timespan to be making the sorts of claims that you make above. You may believe that birth control does all of those things, but you'll have a heck of a time proving any of it.

Secondly, you seem to have confused birth control with gender equality. While many people believe that contraception is required for gender equality, many other people disagree. A truly feminist society would be more inclined to support pregnancy and childbirth. This was the opinion of many of the early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For more details, see:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm

Thirdly, in your argument for increasing Great People, you also seem to have confused birth control with education, nutrition, and many of the other advantages of being born in the modern era. Even if it were possible to somehow stuff the genie back into its bottle (which it isn't), taking away birth control would not necessarily remove anyone's opportunity to become Great.

Fourthly, I'm not even convinced that the modern era has any significant advantages in Great People terms. Yeah, the average Joe (or Jane, if you prefer) in a developed country is more healthy these days, and that's worth something, but our actual education is sliding backwards. Have we really had more Great Artists, Great Engineers, or Great Anybodies than we had in the past? There are many advantages to modern civilization (the Internet, for example), and I'm not trying to knock it, but I just don't see these Great People all over the place....

About Birth Control more generally
As always, we have the dilemma between realism and strategic depth. Civ needs both to be Civ. (If you want plain realism, go watch the History Channel. If you want plain strategy, go play chess.)

Birth control should be represented when it comes to gender, and it should - like all civics - have effects balanced to be a good choice at some occasions and a bad choice otherwise.

One problem is that population increase has always been good in Civ. Though a new-born citizen will be tied up as unhappy (or as an entertainer in Civ 1-3) , they can be useful later. Therefore we have to provide some good and relevant advantages to Birth Control to offset the low population increase.

I like your quote about realism and strategy. :goodjob:

Your point about population increase is absolutely true. More people are always a good thing, especially when viewed in the long-term. This is one of those areas in which Civ has gotten it exactly correct.

Secondly, you seem to have confused birth control with gender equality. While many people believe that contraception is required for gender equality, many other people disagree. A truly feminist society would be more inclined to support pregnancy and childbirth. This was the opinion of many of the early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For more details, see:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm

Thirdly, in your argument for increasing Great People, you also seem to have confused birth control with education, nutrition, and many of the other advantages of being born in the modern era. Even if it were possible to somehow stuff the genie back into its bottle (which it isn't), taking away birth control would not necessarily remove anyone's opportunity to become Great.

In the Gender mod, the Birth Control civic is an abstraction which does not only represent birth control. It represents all the properties of Equal Suffrage (which is not only equal suffrage, but also equal opportunities to education and property) as well as nursery schools, gay rights, fetal diagnostics and several other social, political and medical breakthroughs in the 20th centuries.

Maybe I should rename it to Liberal Family Values or something?

In the Gender mod, the Birth Control civic is an abstraction which does not only represent birth control. It represents all the properties of Equal Suffrage (which is not only equal suffrage, but also equal opportunities to education and property) as well as nursery schools, gay rights, fetal diagnostics and several other social, political and medical breakthroughs in the 20th centuries.

Maybe I should rename it to Liberal Family Values or something?

Fair point. Again, avoiding the temptation to launch a flamewar, I'll steer clear of the politics. :p Fortunately, your mod suggests several alternative names that would be more thematic with the gender concept:

True Gender Equality
Gender-Blind Society
AndrogynyOr whatever ... but I would stick with something "gender-specific". Otherwise, just rename your mod to "Liberal Mod" and go with that.... ;)

I chose to call it "Sexual Freedom". Now we can have a literary Sexual Revolution (though I have not linked it to Rock'n'roll yet).

I chose to call it "Sexual Freedom". Now we can have a literary Sexual Revolution (though I have not linked it to Rock'n'roll yet).
Much better :) ;)

I chose to call it "Sexual Freedom". Now we can have a literary Sexual Revolution (though I have not linked it to Rock'n'roll yet).

Peachy. :goodjob:

It's ironic that most civs will experience one or more years of anarchy during the Sexual Revolution, but Spiritual civs will not.... :D

Maybe Sexual Freedom can gain some happiness bonus with Broadcast Towers to represent rock'n'roll.

Please give more suggestions about pre-modern gender options!

I wouldn't worry about linking it to Rock and Roll, just as long as they are at similar points in tech progression/discovery.

I think you've done a really good job conceptually. The renaming to Sexual Freedom was a great step, and I think you should keep the five civics as they are. Maybe a slightly different name for Recognition, so that it isn't as vague - maybe if there is a particular concept or issue that reflects the pre-modern acceptance of women as "equal" or perhaps just "useful". But I wouldn't ditch Recognition for any of the other possible ideas, just not as significant.

Once I'm good enough in basic Civ, I will definitely give this a try. And to think, I came into this thread thinking I would mock it. :)

EDIT: Just realized my new sig is funnier in the content of this topic.

Now that I thknk about it, I would lower Polygamy to a low upkeep (compared to the other few high upkeeps), and have Sufferage give a few hammers and commerce instead of great people (to signify women entering in the workplace). Maybe the hammers carry over to Sexual Freedom?

Not sure about the reasoning behind military units produced with food.

PRESIDENT: We need another infantry division. Oh, and can I have some fries with that?

Patriarchy: default civic, no upkeep, no effects

I can see having this as the default for "civilized" cultures but matriarchy should be an alternative avalible early on. I am more interested in playing history through my own way that repreating the exact same gender strugles that happened in western civilization.

Polygamy: requires Agriculture, high upkeep, +20% food

I see the concept but I understand the issue with this being a food bonus as opposed to a more direct and realistic representation of the increased growth rate. Also I disagree with calling it polygamy, polygamy can mean any form of marriage including more than two partners. Call it polygyny since that is specfically multiple wives and what you are going for here. I agree that polynadry isn't nessicary not so much because of its historical rarity but because it doesn't have the same signifigant social effects that polygyny does.

Recognition: requires Code of Laws, no upkeep, +10% food, +25% Great People

Again I dislike civilizations' general focus on the progression western civilization took and it's general newer and more democratic is better, totally ignoring the many variations history has taken and mariginalizing early democratic societies. Civ4 has moved away from this a bit but it needs to go further. Instead of using greater and varied forms of women's suffrage just leave Partiarchy as the default with Polygyny an early option. Ditch recogonition in favor of Matriarchy, 2 male dominated vs 1 female dominated early gender civics give us a historical slant while keeping options open.

Equal Suffrage: requires Liberalism, no upkeep, +100% Great People

Not sure about the bonus here but one civic for modern western democractic style suffrage is good.

Sexual Freedom: requires Medicine, medium upkeep, +100% Great People, +3 happiness with Hospital, military units produced with food

I don't think we need a sexual freedom civic, I would rather see a Birth Control civic that represented not merely the avalibility of contraception but a restricticted birth policy like One Child per Family.

I am trying to balance the civics, so that the AI uses them all. Polygamy (or Polygyny - a more correct, but less understandable term) needs the high upkeep to offset the food bonus. As I said before, it represent the cost of not utilizing womens' intellectual capacity.

I have tried to find reliable documents on historical matriarchies. The idea of these has been popular within the social sciences at least since the 19th century. The search seems to have been in vain. There is no evidence for a "matriarchy" (defined as a society ruled by women in the same way men historically ruled most agricultural societies in world history) ever to have be existed. History has some examples of matrilinear (kinship inherited from mother) and matrilocal (home inherited from mother's family) societies, but none where women really rule.

If this was an add-on to a fantasy or science fiction game, I would have included Matriarchy. But I want all separate components of Civ 4 to represent documented events in the history of civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Matriarchal_Prehistory

I haven't tried it, but I really like the idea of this mod. As AnarhCassius pointed out, though, it would be nice to have a more restrictive modern civic to go along with equal sufferage/sexual freedom. Something like One Child Policy or "State Control". You could combine equal sufferage and sexual freedom into a single civic.

For gameplay, that would add another totalitarian civic to go with police state and state property, and could have similar (military and production) benefits, while sexual freedom could give happiness and great people.

For realism - while I'm not an expert on the subject, and it may be a Western bias coloring my perceptions - don't most nations that grant equal rights to women also have something like "sexual freedom"?

Both sexual freedom and state control of the family depend on the existence of birth control; it's interesting how these polar opposite policies both became possible because of a single technology.

Werent a lot of early mediterannean societies (early greece? crete?) matriarchal, or am I way off base on that?


Everything I've read about ancient mediterannean history and archiology says so. The Minoans were a matriarchy who built a vast trading empire in Crete and the Agean Islands prior to the rise of the Greek city states.

However, I have no idea what the advantages or disadvantages of a Matriarchy system might be, so it's rather a moot point...

The archaeological findings from the Minoans suggest that women had generally more power than men, but we know to little of the Minoans to tell about their political system.

I am not so keen about adding another late-game civic - the player should have several options during most of the game.

So I've been playing with the Gender civic in my mod and here is what I have right now. First a few things to bear in mind. I am using religeous options in some of the early gender civic, I like the idea of two catagories affecting religeon and gender is not a bad secondary choice. Optimizer, you mentioned wanting to emphasize religeous struggles and this approximates this somewhat as religeons loose some power as you switch over to modern gender civics. I also like these bonuses because I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say religeon enforces gender roles. So here is what I have right now...

Patriarchy - Default Civic - Lowest Cost (I changed all the default Civics to half of Low cost so they are more attractive. It also offsets the costs of having a 6th catagory)
No effects

No real changes here, I think it makes sense for the default

Matriarchy - Pottery - Low Cost
+2 Health
+10% Building Production in City's with State Religeon

Less happy here, there isn't much to go on for matriarchy but I definettely think it should be included. I could easily swap the health bonus for something else but I kinda like the Religeon effect. Pottery also isn't a great discovery tech but Agriculture is a start tech which I don't like and nothing else quite works.

Polygyny - Monarchy - High Cost
+100% Cottage, etc. Growth
+25% Unit Production with State Religeon

Monarchy is little late but I think it's appropriate, this is a powerful Civic. So the Growth bonus just seemed nessicary and appropriate and the Unit production is nice because it not only helps with military but I am pretty sure should also affect Settlers and Workers, thus helping your overall Growth. Overall these make Polygyny worth its High Cost and I wanted atleast one High Cost civic for Gender. Aside from the lateness of Monarchy I love how this one came out.

Equal Rights - Democracy - Medium Cost
+50% Great People rate
:( Penalty for Civs without Equal Rights
+3 Happiness with Hospital

Another favorite of mine. Like I said before I don't think we need this and Sexual Freedom so I stole the Hospital bonus from Birth Control and applied it here. Equal Rights are good in and of themself but once contraception and anti-STD pharmaceuticals are avalible you get the full benefits of that sexual freedom. Making one civic for this also let me use the happiness penalty, I felt it's appropriate here, this is the only gender civic I have that grants all citizens total control of their sexual identity. I have too much fun causing unrest in my unenlightened neighbors.

Birth Control - Medicine - Medium Cost
Unlimited Engineer and Scientist
Produce Military Units with Population

Here Birth Control means state Birth Control, the society dictates who reproduces, when and how to control its population levels. Its a hard effect to represent in game so here it basicaly takes the form of giving you population control options as a player. Militart Units are produced faster at the cost of city growth (great idea Optimizer) and Engineers and Scientists don't produce food while still helping your cities. It may piss of citizens used to more freedom but you can find ways to manage that unrest.


Finally I am going to have 6 civics in 6 catagories in the mod I am making so I do want another gender civic, I probably will bring back something like Recongnition since I don't have a "somewhat equal" early civic avalible and that really seems to call out as what is missing from my set up.

I do not know what you would like to say with this example. No one has claimed that all the children of multi-millionaire families have extraordinary talents.[/QUOTE]

Wealthier families can afford the best education, which automatically allows for control of the upper echelons of society by a select few members of the wealthiest families, a mathematical formula I would like to call the George Bush Constant, the idea that large wealth and a network of familyfriendships/business connections can lead to a higher success rate in society than higher intelligence, unless the individual with higher intelligence is extremely lucky and driven by ambition to succeed in his chosen field.

I'm too lazy to look it up... but if I remember correctly is the average family has more like 1.4 children in a first world nation. Low enough to make the population drop if it wasn't for immigration.

That number is accurate for most of Europe and Japan and Australia(?), but the United States fertility rate is still the highest in the industrialized world at 2.1 children per woman.

This is a pretty cool idea for a mod, and an important part of history. Good job for attempting to address it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e

Now if we ignore Israel, yes the United States is the country with the highest fertility rate out of the "developed countries".

Now what would be interessting would be to find out which ethnicity in the USA did have the most children, and how this correlates with gender issues. Or am I mistaken to assume that the USA is much more heterogenous in this question then most european countries?

One reason for the high fertility rate of the USA is teenage pregnancies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

So maybe its wrong to reason: "the USA is having high birth rates, so its possible to have birth controll and high birthrates". Maybe its better to say: "the USA citizen while technically having access to contraceptives, are not using them like citizens from other developed countries (religious or whatever reasons), so they should not assumed to have this civic"

My only complaint about the mod is there is only one clear choice. While complete gender equality is far preferable to the opinions on sexism a caveman would provide us, there is only one choice for gameplay. As messed up as it is to think about, have each (except the starting one) have gameplay value.

Sex naturally sparks a lot of contraversy. But I'm with Leif. For the sake of the mod, each civic ought to have its own niche, with its own value. It's understandable if the later civics are more powerful than the earlier civics -- but then you should avoid designs that turn the column into a mere progress report.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the action in Civilization takes place before the industrial era. Hence, holding off on too many civics tends to limit choice AND impact. Note that there's only one civic column that kicks in later -- the economics column.

So I've been playing with the Gender civic in my mod and here is what I have right now

Anarh

I liked the changes you made on the Gender Civic topic. Yours seem much more reasonable than the original one presented on the topic (do we have any exemple of sexual freedom anywhere in the world? Monogamy is still the official 'way' in most of the civilized world).

If theres one example of society lacking, i guess it would be in those where reproduction is sacred, sex is a ritual, etc. Ive done a school work in this subject once, so i know a few things. The (cant remember the name, it was some small central american nation, im too bored to look right now) where monogamic, but had sexual equality (theres info about their women asking for divorces, for exemple). The main difference is that for them sex was sacred; there would be public fertility rituals (sweet sex with people looking :) ), and for some women it was a job to have kids; the priestess of some goddes would be having sex 12 hours per day! (with many different men, off course) in order to bear the children of their people; it was a very prestigious profession back them!

Other civilizations, like (AFAIK) the summerians, assyrians, and some tribes in south america, they all had mating rituals, with several acts and charms to assure strong kids, and most of them were not necesarely a matriarchaly (sp?).

Ill use the changes AnarchCassius made in this mod (and since im so bad at modding, could you send me your modified files, please???), and then ill look into adding this new Gender civic option wich seem to be lacking IMO.

And; what do you think would be a good bonus for this Civic? My idea would be a xp bonus, since 'strong' kids will be expected to act stronger and will have a better education; maybe +1 food and -1/-2coin from towns, to simulate some increase in population (due to all this public fornication) and decrease in research (due to many beliefs who can prejudice research); and a medium or high cost, since all those acts will be held at the expanse of your gold.

Please Anarch send me your modded files :)

Of course, no country has total sexual freedom - so the concept is relative. However - abortion, contraceptives, child daycare and acceptance of homosexuality have together have a tremendous economic and social impact on all countries where government has allowed them. The game should represent this with a civic.

Brancaleone's idea, which could be called "Fertility Cult", seems very interesting. There shouldn't be a link to Towns, since the civic would be most useful for undeveloped civilizations.

Nevermind. :P

...but I just don't see these Great People all over the place.Elvis? :king: :D
Bill Gates (GS or GM), Bin Laden (GP, what?! LOL). Sorry about that last one, but I'm struggling to think of anyone more religiously inspiring, Mother Theresa perhaps.

The thing about a patriarcy is that it evolved from a hunter gatherer socity, insted of having your pregnat or milk berring woman ( few men - or woman for that matter where monogomas in the stone age ) go out and hunt; the male would put himself, and only him self in danger as opposed to the female taking the child and hunting. and the female would gather around there "home" ( most civ's where nomatic untill around the 4,000's bc when argroculter started to develip- ( or perhaps the later was first ))

but over the years we evolved, and the men didnt take control of the world so much as that the woman never realy tried, it was more of a social control that was placed, men did there job, and woman did theres. it was just that men had alot more options i guess? the men would have the option of being a smith or, nothing realy, but the woman could merry around her social class or up if lucky.

Are we REALLY trying to overthink this or what? Trying to figure out why men hunted and women gathered food/child reared? Come on people, engage common sense here, try sending the women to hunt and have the men nurse the infants... Jeez...

The mod is interesting to be sure. Suffrage should lead to Equal Rights, which should be the last civic. Equal Rights producing +100% great people is enough of a bonus, and fits well with the concept of equal participation of women in society doubling the chances of a great person.

Polygamy needs more than just +20% food. Polygamous societies end up with a great many unmarried men - do the math. Perhaps that is where you would want food to build military units, as the unwed men have idle hands...

Spare us with matriarchy - it's so obtuse and rare that it's the exception that proves the rule. The reason it never took off is simple genetic - men are physically stronger, and for 99% of human history, physical strength was a large determinant in who was in charge. Perhaps a way to include women in the ruling class should be considered as substitute - women have ruled in history. But lets be clear - Elizabeth the First did not rule a matriarchy...

Venger

Polygamy needs more than just +20% food. Polygamous societies end up with a great many unmarried men - do the math. Perhaps that is where you would want food to build military units, as the unwed men have idle hands...

On the contrary. In many polygynous societies, such as the so-calles Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (not to be confused with normal LDS), women (or girls) marry much earlier than men. Since polygynous societies tend to grow quickly, there may very well be more than twice as many 14-year old girls as there are 35-year old men. The younger men spend their time getting educated and acquiring the resources to support a large family, and so can't exactly be considered "idle".

Patriarchy - Default Civic - Low Upkeep
No effects

The Default, nuff said.

Matriarchy - Hunting - Low Cost
+ 2 Health
+ (2?)4 exp for archer units

Matriarchal societies, such as the minoans and the early japanese and the Amazonesses were often the societal hunters as well as authority figures, japanese clans took the wife's family names and such. But these societies very often kept a very tidy home, therefore I feel that the the health bonus is justified. The hunting and exp are a bit of a strech admitably and focus more of the "amazons" then anything else.

Polygamy - Monotheism - High Cost
+20% food
+1 unhappiness in every city
-10% science
-25% military upkeep

A pretty weighty civic, my justifications are as follows:
Monotheism is a bit of a stretch as well, but seems to fit in best in the tech tree, tho i did consider bronzeworking or ironworking, but that didn't seem in place either, as jewish society was often polygamous, and monotheism gives judaism... i figured why not.

the food production has been debated back and forth and i think it makes sense... here's my rationale, polygamous societies work because the men are often at war and therefore the women outpopulate them. men take multiple wives as a result, these are mostly the rich men tho. the poor as a result get pissy (+1 unhappiness) but there's less concern with all the men marching off to war, since wives don't like it when thier husbands go fight and get killed, if they're married to a man with 12 wives however the husband's rich and therefore less likely to go... i think the military upkeep then is justified.

the unhappiness is a no brainer, if the peasants don't get 12 wives much less 1 pretty often then what's the big deal

The Science, is partly in there for balance, but partly that a society like that breeds frivolity to some degree which hampers scientific progress.

Women's Rights - Liberalism - Medium Cost
+50% Great People rate
Penalty for Civs without Women's Rights
+2 Happiness with Hospital

The great people is because society will stop ignoring the women that may be important members of society but are swept under the rug due to thier gender.

The hospital happiness bonus is for women's health issues, modern gynecology, contraceptives, and medical treatment.

Limited Birth Policy - Nationalism(Communism?) - Medium Cost
Unlimited Engineer and Scientist.
Produce Military Units with food.

Similar to what war previously preposed this will allow for only so many children in a city based on the nations policy (this policy may fluxuate over times and this is reflected in the military boost in production.)

The Engineer and Scientist have to do with the caste system that is often assocaited with said national limitations.

Just my opinions, feedback appreciated thank you.

AnarhCassius- that looks perfect, the best ideas thus far bgy a long shot. The only thing I'd question is the Equal rights civic, it seems a tad overpowered, esspecially compared to Birth Control. I think losing the great people bonus, and replacing it with soemthing relivant to Towns would be a good idea- SEs are fading by this point, and CEs are coming into the fray.

Also, men deviate from the mean a lot more than women. While this means that most criminals are men, so too are most of the high-flyers. For this reason I'm sceptical about the GP bonus, I think a small commerce increase would be better.

The other issue is with the Polygyny civic- the bonus to cottage growth already is from a 'liberating' civic, emancipication, not a word often used to describe Polygyny. While I'm sure soem sort of bonus would be apropreot, the rise of the urban beorgeous isn't soemthing I'd put down to gender-inequality.

Firoso- "the unhappiness is a no brainer, if the peasants don't get 12 wives much less 1 pretty often then what's the big deal"

In polygynic societies, there were far more women than men. Indeed, this was normally the cause of the extremes of multi-wifing, like at the dawn of Islam (it allows many wives because many widows at the time had no-one to look after them). AS such, iot was the women who were at risk of being alone, not the much more indemand men.

I like this basic idea, and am adopting it for a mod of my own, with SERIOUS revisions. First, I would like to point out that (with the exception of the Labor tree, where the second civic is slavery) all of the civics trees begin with a characteristic of primitive, barbaric society, followed by a more advanced civic intended to impose order on chaos (Hereitary Rule clearly defines succession, Vassalage formalizes rule by the strong in a way intended to protect the weak, Mercantilism clearly defines acceptable commercial practices, and Organized Religion defines commonly-accepted religious practices.
From here, each civic tree can evolve in either of two directions; an authoritarian elite may seek to establish ever-greater control (Police State, Nationhood, State Property, Theocracy), or a benevolent and/or weak elite may establish more tolerant, open, and limited structures (Representation, Bureaucracy, Free Market, Pacifism) that can go on to become still-more enlightened systems.
What does this mean for gender issues in Civilization? For starters, Patriarchy is not primitive enough, in my opinion, to be an initial civic. Unlike the other initial civics, it defines a rigid power structure. So what is the chaos that this order ameliorates? In the human species, where the average male is nearly twice as strong (physically) as the average female, the answer is obvious: in the primitive state, man may do what he will with the woman. Patriarchy evolved so that the dominant man would protect the subordinate woman. (I will note here that, as mentioned earlier in this thread, this is also the place where matriarchy would occur on the civics tree, with the woman, rather than the man, defining the terms of her protection.)
Once civilization, defined by the rule of order over the chaos of the natural state, took a firm hold, male protection was no longer necessary for the female. In those cultures where men had come to view women as property during the preceding period, the brutal yoke of polygamy fell on woman's neck. However, where men continued to view themselves as protectors of the rights of their wives, sisters, and daughters, they began to loosen their hold. While maintaining a certain degree of control over the family, these men began to defer to their womenfolk in certain areas. This structure, which, for our purposes, we will call the "Nuclear Family," characterizes the majority of Western households today.
From here, many women seek further rights, aiming for full equality. Western society appears to be in transition from the Nuclear Family to "Free Sexuality," whose name I will keep.
*Primitivism (Name tentative) - Low upkeep
*Patriarchy - High Upkeep - spend food to produce units (Appropriate for a gender-based civic based on protection)
*Polygamy - Medium upkeep - Cities retain 25% of food after growth (stacks with granary) (this seemed more appropriate than a production bonus from an unproductive way of life)
*Nuclear Family - Low upkeep - +50% great people (Here, women still face barriers to success, but those who make it through the glass ceiling SMASH through)
*Free Sexuality - Low upkeep - +15% science, +15% gold in all cities (When contraception is readily available, those most likely to succeed spectacularly are least likely to be born. However, the economic benefits of a fully-employed workforce are immense. Precise percentage gains are subject to revision in playtesting; these are an estimate.)

I was looking at Aussie Lurker's Ultimate Civics Expander, in particular the Ideology element, which appears to be problematic. Might it be possible to create, from the ground up, a "Culture" system, relating to civics in a similar way to how Corporations relate to religions, to include Gender, Ideology, and other social issues?

For anyone interested, this is a very interesting article by David Friedman (milton's son) on the reasons for and functioning of marriage, and how different societies create different systems, and even the different affects of different systems http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_21/PThy_Chap_21.html

Realisticly evey civic EXCEPT Polygamy should spend food on military units, the production of units would cost people and stiffle growth.

It should be noted that there is a big difference in Polygyny allowed like Judisim and Polygyny mandated like Mormons. In the (rare) case that the genders are nealrly balanced one can have a polygamy where most men only have one wife, haveing a second is merely a circumstantial option.

For gameplay though Polygamy should be the war advantage civic, you can wage war without sending women into harlotry thus preserving families and family lines. A - to WW and bonus to unit production would be good, and a low overall upkeep. I'd say if you're thinking Polygyny is somehow more oppressive than Monogamy you have a good shine on monogamy and you're only looking at the modren Mormon and Islamic polygamists. I would be willing ot maintain Monogamy only got mainstream becaues of the likes of Tertellian and other 2nd-4th century Christian writers who held those ideals along with the oppinion that people got rowdy at sporting events becasue of demonic possetion. The European Jews didnt give it up till C 1000 AD, and it was specifically said that that was a (now expired) law to prevent the Christians getting jealous and killing them.

To that end mandatory Monogamy should be more of a religious tied civic perhaps benifiting culture (25%, to echo how much influece it had) {GPP if you need something more than that.) but adding a lot of WW (25%). Womens Lib would come around libralism and be the option for someone who goes free speech\free rel. I could go for a small hammer and sci bonus for that, perhaps 5% sci and 10% Hammer to prevent it from being overpowered.

For a teir 2 you should probably go for somethign that IS a directly oppressive poilicy. Women as breeders and emphisis on male homosexuality like Rome at its darkest. What advantage this would have I couldnt think, but it seems like going past Womens Lib goes out of the scope of the game or puts it as a very late game civic, and giving everything a GPP% bonus is very bland gameplay wise.

In case anyone is interested, I made a quick update that brings this mod up to BtS standard and also added custom civics buttons. I was going to use it in my edit of Wolfshasne's mod, but I was unhappy with the gameplay aspects of it, so I never used it.

Hey, Wolfshanze has a good mod!

Hey, Wolfshanze has a good mod!
I was talking about the Gender mod, not Wolfshanze's mod. I meant I was going to put the Gender mod into Wolfshanze's mod, but I didn't because I didn't like the gameplay and balance aspects of the Gender mod.

Sorry, text doesent convey tone very well. What I meant was more along the lines of "Hey, you like wolfshanze mod to? He has a good mod!"

Needless to say I play wolfshanze too, and I've been meaning to add a family civics line for a while, so I gutted Optimizers work. Take a look, perhaps you will find it more balaced and flavorfull than the original food mods and GPP spamming.


Tribal Family
No state interferance in Marridge. No changes, low upkeep.

Arranged Marridge
High Upkeep
Currency
+1 Trade Route

Harsh Oppression
High Upkeep
Iron Working
+50%Pop+4 Free units
+1 Drafts Per Turn

Monogyny
Low Upkeep
Theology
+50% Culture
+25% WW
+2 Happy with State Religion

Womans Suffrage
Medium upkeep
Mass Media
+25% Hammers, all cities

The early 3 are availible around the same time depending if you go the military or economic or religious tech path. They all serve a unique purpose and I think they are all balanced fairly well. The last one is late game but has a fairly clear desirablility, unless you really want the culture most civs will go to this once they get the tech for it.

What is represented is substantially different than Optimizers. Tribal Family simply represents no state interference in marridge. Arranged Marridges are very old and common thing, so I felt they needed an in, plus they play differently than other civics (I wanted them to have synergy with caste system, but I couldnt think of how). Harsh oppression could represent several things, but it mainly represents the harsh view of women as inferior breeders like the Roman sentiment of some times. Monogyny makes it on there while Polygamy doesent becasue Monogyny is a much more specific term with much more specific origins. Specifically its a policy of one man to one woman forever, no room for homosexuality or anything extra marital. Its a very religious policy so it's tied to you're state religion. It finishes with Suffrage, which comes late (as it did) and can encompass as much or as little sexual freedom as you imagine, the only thing it does is add to the workforce and add hammers.

I dont really care about being PC but this version is (I belive) less contriversal (even oppression is analgus to Slavery or Police State civics) and more playable. The Civilopida is rudimenteraly done.

And I have integrated it with Wolfshanze mod (He hasnt used any of the XML Files it needs). Only downside is the buttons are redundant with old civics buttons. If anyone likes this and has graphics for the new butons please feel free to add them and post them somewhere I can get them.

Tlalynet, I like your name for the beginning civic (yoink!).

Polygyny is certainly practised in societies with family structures that we have broadly grouped under polygamy. A more appropriate name for what we are referring to with the term "Polygamy" would indeed be your choice of "Harsh Oppression." Personally, though, I prefer the resonnance of "Polygamy" to the absolute precision of "Harsh Oppression."

"Arranged Marriage" has a similar problem with the one you point out for "Polygamy," being practiced under a variety of family structures that we have previously called "Patriarchy" and "Polygamy." This time, though, my "resonnance test" goes the other way - "Patriarchy" is simply (IMNSHO) more flavorful.

As for "Monogyny," I like your idea here. It emphasizes that, at this point, one man - one woman marriages are valued (and, by extension, marriage for love, a disconnect from the arranged marriage system under Patriarchy and Polygamy. I would simply change the emphasis by referring to it as "Monogamy." This should have been an obvious move a long time ago, given that Polygamy was already on the list in the op.

As for "Woman's Suffrage," this is a little too politically-oriented, IMNSHO, for a gender civic. Clearly, woman's suffrage doesn't exist in a monarchy, but monarchy has nothing to do with the rights of women relative to men. "Sexual Freedom" is a better choice of name here.

The type of people that hack into game code to improve their experience (us) tend to be overly-analytical. Firaxis's original civics choices often sacrifice precision for flavor ("Police State," in the strictest sense, overlaps broadly with Hereditary Rule, for example), and we should try to immitate them. I am not criticizing you specifically, Tlalynet, I committed the same sin with my "Nuclear Family" name.

I've got to credit optimizer himself for the original civic, tribal family, the name was already in the code when I mod modded, and it was one of the few things that survived (The others being the python screen, thank you very much, and the catagory name, which I plan to change next update)

While to a lot of modern westerers polygyny is associated with the worst of the ideas of Islam and Mormons, it is a way of doing things that does not presupposes any oppression. I myself originally married a Bi girl, and felt it was the only gracefull option. The problem lies in the fact that the two modren versions westerners (including europeans) are most familar with are versions where the marring of more wives is directly tied to the religion, especially in the Mormon case where it is some form of mesure of how good someone is. The problem lies in the mandate, which objectifies women just by existing. It can and has been practiced where at times where the genders are almost balanced almost every man has one wife, and when things get imbalanced women can still marry if they want to. This form isn't naturally oppressive, and is fully compatible with equal rights.

I agree that Patriarchy is very flavorfull, but I could'nt make it as usefull from a gameplay prespective. Arranged Marridge is broad, but only in the sense that all the civics in my set are broad (except monogyny), it can be whatever you imagine it to be. I added Womans to the list, in game it just shows up as Suffrage (should add Equal to that in the revision though) so if they player likes they can renamy Monty Amazonia and imagine oppression of men or arranged marriges as such, to be equilized only at that civic. I feel like most civic catagories already in civ are broad like that so the player can imagine thier alternate reality as they wish.

The main problem I had with puting Patriarchy in is I felt it would have to obsolete earlier than I wanted it too, unitll (and a little bit after) suffrage I wanted all options to be vaiable depending on strategy. I guess I just cant picutre patriarcy in 1900. That and it feels more like a Government civic, actually I was considering replacing Despotism with Patriarchy (and changing heireditary rule to all out monarchy) as the most basic form of government.

I agree that Monogamy is a deffinate step, but I won't comment in which way. Anyway, polotics aside, I named it Monogyny (actually could be even more specific) because it's a heavy religious civic, one man one woman no more no changes. The idea of a one to one for life same sex couple didnt arise untill after suffrage, and suffrage is intentionally broad so it can be whatever one wants it to be and encompass that.

I'm curious, did you re-code the tags so you could add to after growth storage for you're polygamy? That's pretty good if you did, I wouldnt mind grabbing that schema in case I want it for something.

England is a Monarchy (and a republic, but still). Anyway, now that you say it I think both Suffrage and Sexual freedom might be too political for what I want, I will rename it equal rights and leave it at that.

Yeah, I set out what I wanted gameplay wise before I started working on what feilds I wanted. I intended to have a polygamy, but it felt too specific and I feel that there would be a natural tennancy allowing it if there was no interferance. Overly anylitical yes, but it's fun to talk about and fun to do. And you're definately right that firaxis sacrifised precition for gameplay, give me one good reason why I cant run a enviromentalistic free market where the state offitially owns the property (Most nations do, USA and Canada at least)

Good talkin.

Alright this is a semifinal Relese of my modmod pending comments. Segregation was nerfed so it provides less units than Vassalage, and is pretty much obseleted by nationalism (I wanted it like that) while Arranged Marridges and Monogyny survive untill equal rights. Monogyny is still a cultural boon after free religion, but it makes no one extra happy. Suffrage was renamed Equal rights.

The big change, and the reason that the Original moder and other modders might want to grab this, is that Equal Rights is now a UN Vote Option. The Text Tag is at the end of the gender text file, and it would be a two minute job to rip that code out and rename the tags. You will of course have to mod the text file and the Civ4Voteinfo.xml, just search suffrage, it appears after Free Religion in the vote window.

The Civilopedia is generally cleaned up.

The Big problem, and one I hope someone knows how to circumvent, is that default civics are defined by nation. Tribal Family is technically not selected at the beggining of the game, and a popup telling you to review you're civics options always pops up.

Now, one could include the civilization defines file, but then it would be incompatible with most other mods (any mod with new or different civ's, every mod I play) If anyone knows how to make Tribal Family default within the civicsinfo file I would much appriciate it.

I'm thinking making this modular would be good, I may look into that.

Xenomorph was added to the credits for updating to BTS, and debrooks was added for his suggestions.

I'm glad they archive stuff, I got a new computer and was wondering if this was still here. Thanks CivFanatics.

I chose not to include matriarchy because there are no known matriarchal societies in world history, and I want all elements of Civilization to represent authentic elements in world history (though combinations of elements is allowed to be fictional). However, I played with the thought of introducing a "Radical Feminist Bureaucracy".

Right now I am trying to balance out these civics, so that each would be the most useful at some occasion. Suggestions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
>>no known
incorrect, there are plenty, they just never evolve beyond simple civilization,

Well put Chiyochan