Im not 100% sure how slavery scales when you use it multiple times but would it be a valid strategy in war times to have a high food producing city sacrifice its fast replenishing population to help speed up unit production? :confused:

Hi Ryozo,
i never have tried, but i read the condition, that goes in hand
with the increased production...
I think you never should use. And if there is an emergency for
you to do, its in the beginning, and you shoeld start a new game...

For that, you'd want Nationhood. Then you'll get draft, three instant-built units a turn for one pop point each and some unhappiness.
Slavery is situational, but consider: early game, your population may get so large it becomes unhappy. You can stop it growing, but why not instead burn the excess pop point on a building you really want to complete?

You could be right,
i just thought, that the unhappy face in manual means
that there is a situation like when there is a unhappy face to much in the city,
not that the city-happy-faces a decreased by 1.
But i think i was wrong, its just a reduction with 1 happy face

IMO boosting production with slavery is sometimes very useful.

Conditions

- you have larger city ( 6 - 10 ) in the early game

Foodproduction is much better than hammer production ( for example because of food bonus tiles )

Your population is unhappy and/or unhealthy because of overpopulation.

In this case it is very useful to boost production of temples or aqueducts

Yeah, if I've got a big, growing city with four unhappy faces...

Well...

:mad::whipped::egypt::lol:

Slavery works best with a very heavy Floodplain city that keeps bumping against its health soft cap. It's not so strong at dealing with the more common situation of a city's growth being happiness-limited...

Slavery works best with a very heavy Floodplain city that keeps bumping against its health soft cap. It's not so strong at dealing with the more common situation of a city's growth being happiness-limited...
I find that both these conditions occur together.

for latin-non-readers i try:
populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
the populace demand the deception, so it will be deceived

For Mujadaddy: are the time-forms correct?

I find it's more helpful at the higher difficulties, where your growth is limited. Rather than sit there with a stagnant city, may as well use the population heads to keep things moving.

Hi Ryozo,
i never have tried, but i read the condition, that goes in hand
with the increased production...
I think you never should use. And if there is an emergency for
you to do, its in the beginning, and you shoeld start a new game...

I disagree strongly. You should never start a new game if a game gets off to a bad start. It ruins the spirit of Civ. You play with what you get.

I disagree strongly. You should never start a new game if a game gets off to a bad start. It ruins the spirit of Civ. You play with what you get.

If you have the time for playing with no chances - ok...
But there is a random factor in civ - for AI and for you
so if you play to win, and this is the intention of a game, its more helpful to increase your abilities by playing to the end,
and not loose in the year 10 BC.
If you would have written this with regard to chess, you would have right,
but civ is a partly gamo-of-chance.

The intention of Civ is never to win. If it is, you would just find yourself playing the exact same way every time just so you can win. You may get a degree of satisfaction out of just winning the game. But if you want to do that, go play an RTS.

Civ's true value is the process of playing. Trying out new things, and most of all, the struggle. Struggling to get from the very bottom to the very top. If you're winning throughout the whole game, then sure, you will iwn. But would you have fun in the process? You're just mindlessly playing through another game, same as the last.

for latin-non-readers i try:
populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
the populace demand the deception, so it will be deceived

For Mujadaddy: are the time-forms correct?
VERY close! (You might actually be more "proper" than me :D) The translation I'm familiar with is simpler-- "The people want to be deceived; therefore, let them be deceived."

/wave Pius Hermit :goodjob:

The intention of Civ is never to win. If it is, you would just find yourself playing the exact same way every time just so you can win. You may get a degree of satisfaction out of just winning the game. But if you want to do that, go play an RTS.

Civ's true value is the process of playing. Trying out new things, and most of all, the struggle. Struggling to get from the very bottom to the very top. If you're winning throughout the whole game, then sure, you will iwn. But would you have fun in the process? You're just mindlessly playing through another game, same as the last.

Who says you have to play against the AI? You can play against yourself or other people. Try to beat the score you got in your last game. Or try to launch your spaceship 50 turns sooner. Or try to win by a different victory condition. It's a lot more fun that way. I have just as much fun playing on Noble and going for a fast conquest victory as I do playing on monarch or emperor where it's a struggle just to win the game.

The intention of Civ is never to win. If it is, you would just find yourself playing the exact same way every time just so you can win. You may get a degree of satisfaction out of just winning the game. But if you want to do that, go play an RTS.

Civ's true value is the process of playing. Trying out new things, and most of all, the struggle. Struggling to get from the very bottom to the very top. If you're winning throughout the whole game, then sure, you will iwn. But would you have fun in the process? You're just mindlessly playing through another game, same as the last.

1. Civ can not have an intention, because it is a game.
2. The authors of civ can have an intention
3. The people that are playing civ can have very different intentions
4. If you aim to win, you can try many ways too
5. If i look for values, i do it just in life
6. No game could figure life
7. There is rarely more sense in games then entertainment
8. Exception: You use Strategie in life
9. If i need Knowledge about Strategie i study or read books about

1. Civ can not have an intention, because it is a game.
2. The authors of civ can have an intention
3. The people that are playing civ can have very different intentions
4. If you aim to win, you can try many ways too
5. If i look for values, i do it just in life
6. No game could figure life
7. There is rarely more sense in games then entertainment
8. Exception: You use Strategie in life
9. If i need Knowledge about Strategie i study or read books about

1. Games have an intention. They are created for fun. What good is a game of Chess if you win every time but have no fun doing it?

2. During the creation process of the game, the game designers had very specific intentions, including re-creating the One-More-Turn syndrome, expanding on the game, making their fans happy, and various other things that the developers made very clear to the public many times within the months that Civ 4 went public.
All of which contribute to the same thing: greater enjoyment in the game.

3. Yes, I agree. It is all subjective. But it's like saying that people using brooms have different intentions. Some people use them to fly around. Some people use them to dig holes in the ground. Some people use them to poke people from a distance. It's all subjective. But the creators of the broom had one intention in mind: to sweep dirt.

4. I agree with this whole-heartedly. The original post I had replied to stated that if he could not win a game, there was no point trying. This means that he did not want to try different ways to win a game. If he couldn't win the way that he was aiming to win, he quit the game right away, which goes against the philosophy that you and I both share.

5. Values in life and values in game are two different things. Values in life matter in life. Values in games matter in games.

6. No game could imitate life values. Which is why they don't.

7. Entertainment = playing a game for fun. NOT playing a game to win it.

8 & 9. Game values & strategies and Life values & strategies should not be mixed up. They are completely different.

I use slavery only when I have a city with flood plains. When I do use it; I use it extensively in that city to rush-build units in the early game. I usually stop when I can get enough happiness and healthiness resource tiles to keep my cities content at large populations though. Protection is hard to make in the early game, especially when you're trying to rapidly expand to keep other civilizations from expanding at your expense. So Pop-Rushing certainly helps to alleviate that, without much of a painful cost.

It's usually 1 population per 25 hammers.

Back on topic, slavery is very useful if you have a city that has high growth. It is often better to siphon off the population to rush things than to have the slackers drag your city down. I often keep it into the late game.

Sorry for let you waiting,
but i have first to translate in my language,
then drink much coffee (its 4:20 in the morning)
smoke a cigarette,
an then after thinking
translate back...


4. I agree with this whole-heartedly. The original post I had replied to stated that if he could not win a game, there was no point trying. This means that he did not want to try different ways to win a game. If he couldn't win the way that he was aiming to win, he quit the game right away, which goes against the philosophy that you and I both share.

Its an interesting question: What makes a game giving fun?

In the first four or five games i want to try the game.
Its the time i simultaniously read the manual (learning by doing).
If know the most of the game (or i believe i know), i begin to
fight against the ai.
That are two absolutly different kinds of fun:
First inquisitivness, later strugglespirit
But i think it is an other philosophy than yours, because
i try to test different ways absolut consequently till i dominate the game.
Then i save the game, if i have the impression, its perfect.
After that i play some variations to test different strategies and analyze
the success.

What is your philisophie?
Every game an other strategie aim at the situation of geographie, nations,
missed actions (wonders, offensives, ...)?
But then you have to play very often.

I have not so much patience....

Add-On
If you adapt your strategy to the given situation in game,
you first have to analyze many strategies or situations,
because game is not so computable as life first,
but then after analyzing it could be computable in contrast to life,
because its a programm and it terminates and is computable.

I use slavery through out most of the game until I can pay for rushing...

Most of the time I find it crucial to build military units because the AI will always try to out do you... (yet they're the research leader?!?!?!)

The time spent to build buildings is time better spent doing something else with your city... Not to mention anything you wish to have built won't do you any good sitting in the que...

I don't rush if the city can still grow without issues, but once you see a red face, then it's time to kill off (the more the better) a few heads to get that building built...

On noble epic, it works good, maybe even better on the later levels because they really cap your growth early on...

They say you get a :( for 15 turns, but I still see the same # of :) and :( after I rush... Maybe I'm just not looking close enough... Nor does the :( for slavery show up when you hover your mouse over the :( count at the top of your city view...

They stack though, and since it don't show you how many turns before you can safely kill off another worker it really hurts sometimes when you go over limit...

floodplains are usually not very productive, so slavery helps to get that city the vital buildings it needs without wasting too much time in between units building...

3 more turns / unit is a lot better than 30 more turns / building...

The great thing about Civ 4 is you can win with many different strategies. So you can play to win and still find a lot of gameplay variety.

It's only at the highest levels that you're really forced into a more narrow set of strategies -- and even then, there's some variety available to the clever player.

The highest levels of gameplay will not forced you into a set strategy.

In fact, it feels as if the AI knows how to counter my strategies around the third or fourth time that I use it on them...

It feels as if the AI has the ability to learn...

The only strategies that remain the same for me these days are the ways that I research technology in the Ancient Era...

Once I hit Classical, and borders are clashing, all gloves are off and I usually get attacked by a neighbour; so every technology I choose has to be in relation to the resources I have; and the type of army I'm up against.

Happiness is a lot easier to come by than health, so if i have a city bumping up against the health limit, I'll pop rush a building or two knock the numbers down and take the hit against the happiness, which is generally higher anyways and won't affect anything in th ecity.

I usually take Slavery when the option comes up and stick with it for at least the early game. I'd rather take a round of anarchy early and have the pop rush option available, rather than need it when there's an army coming at my city.

If you have a city with four sea-resources, slavery can really pump out the units.

I use it like I used it in Civ3. Conquer and slave build defensive unit, barracks, courthouse. "Cleanses" population of unclean bloodlines too.