The Gender Mod

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.

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?

JohnSearle said:

How does Polygamy translate into +20% food?

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

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.

ghen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ogredpowell said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

Spearthrower said:

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!

Click to expand...

Can you please provide some source?

Spearthrower said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Dennis_Moore said:

...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.

Click to expand...

Good point. So considering that uneducated people provide birth rate, there should be great people decrease, not increase.

JohnSearle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Optimizer said:

I chose not to include matriarchy because there are no known matriarchal societies in world history[/url]

Click to expand...

In my world history, the Indian in North america were Matriachal.