Forum Lobby

System of casualties and consequences:

Continuing the discussion from Gender Roles - Female Warriors/Defenders:

Well, it still remains a fact of life. On the other hand, this also means, that men have LOW reproductive value. They are expendable. But so what?" – @Lavner

“This is an important question that you have quoted.” If you want women to fight, you can not. Right, yes. This is the correct gameplay. And as you said, an important consequence, the death of women in combat or not (murdered and slaughtered). He once reads that the action of a single terrorist in Europe impacts on the reduction of at least five other people who would be born as a result of the one who was killed. This has a great demographic impact today, even more in a scenario of native - European population reduction. Now if we apply these logics as guiding; women killed in combat, women murdered by one of the tribe or immigrate, this has a great cost in development. What cost: 1 ° immediate population decrease, if the tribe is still in the same population rate, 2nd decrease in resources due to lack of service. 3 ° Impact on the dependents of the service of those women-dead victims. For example she takes care of children, suppose of middle age, is more in the place of habitat of the tribe; collective house or cave, children’s care. Another woman will have to take care of these same children. Then the dilemma; overburden that other existing caretaker … or … withdraw a productive woman to reset … or appoint a new woman of much lesser age to function … depriving her of certain skills she should apprehend as horticulture for example. Women who are warlike and dead would have the emotional impact. And if the avatars of the game have emotions and memories as in “The Sims”, even better it will be a trauma or a motivation in the head of the avatar that he revives from time to time. Imagine this son seeking revenge or reaching to be leader of either warriors or the tribe as a whole the emotions and speeches against that tribe, making tribal people remember the clash and thus motivate for a war or peace agreements, trade.

“On a second thought, I imagine there could be a situation where a majority of women would take up arms.” I see it, the male dominant societies probably come from the fact, that, from the point of view of the community, evils However, in the end, it was not the case that the risk of being a victim of a crime would be a threat. would happen, if for some reason a high percentage of the male population would be wiped out (warfare, disease, etc.)? " @Lavner

A very direct consequence if society is patriarchal and agrarian, will be polygamy. This is due to many reasons: maintenance of the male control system, this does not destroy the current order. Although the change to polygamy is already in itself, a great cultural change for the tribe. Sociological reasons more; to avoid the female helplessness of the remaining women. But I do agree that in extreme but deathly masculine situations, societies can migrate to the model of a 100% female society as the “Amazons” were. But anyway the player (sibgular player) or players (multiplayer) would have to have a colossal work of destruction of the opposite tribe. Diseases could also eliminate, but war and hunting accidents to men, are sociologically dangerous because they can lead to such a scenario. So if we think about it, everything is dangerous, but if you want to survive you have to take the risk. Defend the “borders”, make a response attack assassination of a member of the tribe, hunting, can evoke male low. And one of the factors that may have gradually pushed agriculture. Lower male risk of this demographic disaster. But surely there was the point of generating the “Amazons.” Probably the people of the Amazons went through this process of great and massive population loss of men to the point of becoming matriarchal or matriarchal, but experienced a great loss of original men of the people, opting for kidnapping and slavery of men to society.
Tribal societies of hunters in a scenario of great peerda of men and admitting to being monogamicos, would realize changes the polygamy or the strategy of the solidarity of amparo. This is the strategy of solidarity amparo has to do with the “gens / clans” and we can see with the Greeks in terms of historical record. Members of the same ancestral lineage helped each other. So in a monogamous society, the extended family supplied these needs in the absence of men who die on a large scale from wars or other actions. The family also supplies these extra women with resources, without changing the patriarchal order. The alternative strategies to this question are many and it would be good to appear as an option to the player; “change to polygamy” “change to amazons” “change to gens and clans”