Please discuss your ideas about Slavery in Game.

1) AI slave rebelions usually attack my workers/units/improvemant. Pretty annoying especialy as Germany. Slaves from Greece, Russia, Rome and France...

2) I eighter have rare slave rebelions(have slavery adopted) like 1 every 20 turns, or every turn... and its 4 units arround 1 city usually. Didnt check if dificulaty affects that.

3) Slavery is weak, costs upkeep, gives you slave rebelions, forcing you to build more units and pay maintanace for them, slave rebels pillage your improvements, capture cities.

And what does captured slaves(workers) do ? Builds improvemants 2 times slower than normal worker, costs upkeep as normal unit, cannot defand, can hurry 30 hammers of building production so that you finish building faster and build more army so the maintanace can kill you.

Whats worse, AI takes that civic instantly after resarching BW and its hard to make AI adopt Caste System.

Slavery should like reduce upkeep cost for cities, and add like +1 hammer for every 3 population. Also, there should be buoldings that lower slavery rebelion chance, stationing army also should do the trick.

Agreed on all points

Slave units should cost half upkeep, as you're only paying to feed them on the lowest quality food possible. You're not paying for decent food or equipment, and you're certainly not paying them wages.

WarKirby

Hi all,

I nearly agree with you.

1) Slavery should cost less money.
2) Slaves maintenance cost is ridiculous. Why do they cost money ?
3) Too many slaves revolt. When you look at Roman history, they were few big revolts.

What i wish:

1) Reduce the number of slaves revolts, but make them bigger when it occurs. Remember Spartacus.
2) Some buildings may add and/or reduce the chance or revolts (Anaztazioch is right)
3) Reduce the chance of revolts when armies are stationing. (Anaztazioch, again, is right)
4) Some religions accept/love slavery, others not. Catholicism, for exemple, don't accept it. So if you are catholic and under slavery civic, you should receive an unhappiness point ( or more) in each city .
5) Some civics should not allow slavery. I think of universal suffrage. This civic is our modern democraty, not the old greek one where salvery existed. How can a modern democraty could accept slavery ?

I wait for comments...

The Frog.

If it's possible, I think rebellious slaves should only be attacking the nation that spawns them. Why would a rebellion from a neighboring nation move into my territory and attack me?

Hi all,
What i wish:

1) Reduce the number of slaves revolts, but make them bigger when it occurs. Remember Spartacus.
4) Some religions accept/love slavery, others not. Catholicism, for exemple, don't accept it. So if you are catholic and under slavery civic, you should receive an unhappiness point ( or more) in each city .
5) Some civics should not allow slavery. I think of universal suffrage. This civic is our modern democraty, not the old greek one where salvery existed. How can a modern democraty could accept slavery ?

I wait for comments...

The Frog.

1)Not all revolts are always big,maybe instead of a static number there should be a probability. Most big slave revolts with a leader aswell/like Spaticus,end soon after the said leader dies.

4)That depends who heads the religion at the time. And it also doesnt consider sects of religions. Heavily Christian leaders have often had slavery in western history.

5)With so many forms of government in history,the civics category some them up into to the most basic forms. "Greek Democracy" was far different from Roman "Representation" for instance.

Greek Democracy was more like Heridary Rule + slavary + philosphy + freedom of speach, as there is no Real philosophy whith no freedom.

How ever small slave rebelios were killed instantly, and never acctually done any harm.

As for the big ones, the famous ones are surelly biblical Moses and Spatacus. You can say William Walles was also a slave rebelion as Brits did cara for Scots like for slaves, only a but better to avoid rebelions.

As for Cristian slavary - Only in Rome, later there was feudal system whith peasants, whom didnt acctually have any right, but had their living and were not forced by strength to work, but by currency. They worked not to sell crop to nobles, but for nobles to take 75% for em selves, 10% for church and rest was left for peasants to eat, or sell. Also masters(owners) of peasants were sometimes financicly helping them to maintain their production.
[Was refering to Poland in 1200ad]. Later "we" gave peasants some rights, witch weakened nobles, but increased food production.
So its more like we had Cristianity slavery 1st, and later we adopted (feudalism civic- cant remember that name).

Also Cristian slavery was also present in Crusades. Cristian hired even pogans to do the work, but pogans didnt care much whom they are fighting against, just riches. So Crusaders pillaged villages, non Cristian temples(including Jewish and Orthox), and monks, priest they took as slaves to sell em.

2) Slaves maintenance cost is ridiculous. Why do they cost money ?
The Frog.

Slaves have to cost some upkeep, because they still need to be fed and supplied with tools to remain operational.

WarKirby

Slaves have to cost some upkeep, because they still need to be fed and supplied with tools to remain operational.

WarKirby

Yes, but you have to realize, the *vast* majority of your upkeep is pay to the units. Slaves don't get paid. Otherwise, they'd be workers :P

That's why I suggested paying less upkeep for them, like 1 gold for every two slaves. Maybe even less.

I don't know about that period in history, but today a soldier's equipment costs the equivilant of several year's wages.

WarKirby

That's why I suggested paying less upkeep for them, like 1 gold for every two slaves. Maybe even less.

I don't know about that period in history, but today a soldier's equipment costs the equivilant of several year's wages.

WarKirby

WarKirby,

I'm a retired soldier. I can tell you that it cost awesome amouts of money to have a well equiped soldier. And you can't imagine how high is the cost of a war or the cost of " a peace force" (as the European one in Lebanon today).
The smallest air to air missile cost at least 1 millions euros/dollars...at least... My Tank Ammos (i was Tank Leader) cost from 6,000 to 15,000 euros/dollars (it depends on the ammo type: Smoke, HEAT, Uranium,...).

In the past, it was different. If you speak about the Greek or Republican Roman times, each soldier had to buy his own weapons, sfield, helmet,.... Because he was a free man (so with civilian rights such as owning slaves, being elected to what you want, owning lands, being a priest,...) he must go to war if drafted. This is very important to understand that point. Greeks and Roman were often the strongest because their armies were made of free men.

About Slaves: I really think that their cost is too high. They work twice slower but they cost the same price as a worker, even if they can be destroy for shields. I don't know what is the good solution in fact...

The Frog.

Since they are slaves and our property why not let us be able to sell them to other civs or at least trade them for resources. I currently have 7 slaves and at one time had 15 however they rebelled and I destroyed them when the attacked. I am at 880BC Warlord and it drives me nutty to have to hold some forces back to keep an eye on the slaves. Even if I could gift them to my enemy I would do so in a heart beat to keep from paying 1 hammer and use those 7 hammers to create good fighting units. Let my enemy worry about the slaves rebelling and let them worry about having to pay the cost. I say let us have a way to reduce the cost, be able to sell them or gift them.

By the way I am really enjoying the MOD yet I still get CTD and I am not far into the game at all.

Oddly enough, I like TR's implimentation of slavery, but I will agree the revolts should be tuned down. Why do I like it? I normally play the Americans on Noble. Spread up the coast to Halifax, grab Illinois (renamed Chicago), punt the Cherokee out, found New Orleans 2 squares south... what happens next depends on how the Aztecs are handling the Navajo. 75% of the time, I swap to slavery and beef up my city defenses... turns out all those revolts are a great way to XP up your defenders. I keep 2 archers (later upgraded to longbowmen) in each city with only 2 or 3 offensive units (total) in my outlying cities, and I keep slavery until I get somewhere around macemen (since multiple units of macemen really plow longbowmen at that point). It's not uncommon by the time I drop slavery for 1/2 - 3/4 of my longbowmen to be around 30-35 XP by the end.
Usually, every revolt nets me an extra slave or two, which are sent to new cities I'm founding in Canada or the Montana region, where they drop their 30 hammers. They're too ineffecient to do tile improvements, but you drop 5 slaves onto a developing city and you get a pretty good jumpstart on that town.

Usually, every revolt nets me an extra slave or two, which are sent to new cities I'm founding in Canada or the Montana region, where they drop their 30 hammers. They're too ineffecient to do tile improvements, but you drop 5 slaves onto a developing city and you get a pretty good jumpstart on that town.

Please forgive me as I am still on the learning curve going from CivIII to CivIV and this is the 1st MOD that I have tried. Are you saying you can put a slave in a new city and disband him and that will generate hammers? If this is the case then my problem is solved. Also you are correct that they do help generate XP and my Highlanders are loving it.

Please forgive me as I am still on the learning curve going from CivIII to CivIV and this is the 1st MOD that I have tried. Are you saying you can put a slave in a new city and disband him and that will generate hammers? If this is the case then my problem is solved. Also you are correct that they do help generate XP and my Highlanders are loving it.


Move the slave to the target city, and there should be a option to "Hurry Production", which generates 30 free hammers and consumes the slave.

Funny story: Was talking to a few friends at a Applebees clone (generic steakhouse)... one had played Civ4 before (the other played Civ1 and Freeciv), and I was trying to convince them to try TR out. I was explaining the various changes TR makes to Civ4.
After I said, "Yeah, slavery is great. Every revolt is free experience for my military, and anyone I capture gets put to good use..."
One friend reminded me that I should probably not say that too loud, since it could be taken wrong really easily if anyone listening hadn't heard the whole conversation.

Since they are slaves and our property why not let us be able to sell them to other civs or at least trade them for resources. I currently have 7 slaves and at one time had 15 however they rebelled and I destroyed them when the attacked. I am at 880BC Warlord and it drives me nutty to have to hold some forces back to keep an eye on the slaves. Even if I could gift them to my enemy I would do so in a heart beat to keep from paying 1 hammer and use those 7 hammers to create good fighting units. Let my enemy worry about the slaves rebelling and let them worry about having to pay the cost. I say let us have a way to reduce the cost, be able to sell them or gift them.

By the way I am really enjoying the MOD yet I still get CTD and I am not far into the game at all.

Check the diplomacy threat me friend.

I don’t know if this is a bug or if this is the way the game is designed. I am currently in 640BC and have the English Civ. I have been fighting the barbarians left and right when a slave revolts. I got tired of that so I started to use the slaves to hurry production and when ever I was attacked again and got a slave I used him up for production. I have not kept any slaves for over 60 turns but yet I still get the slaves revolting and spawning Barbarians. I had a worker move to the square adjacent to the Japan border and parked a Cataphtract on top of him to keep the Barbarians from attacking him (previous they killed my last unprotected worker). He built a road and then went to work on a cottage. He was down to 2 turns to complete the cottage and then a revolt sprang up and I had 2 barbarian parties outside the square (can’t remember what they were). My worker was moved off the tile he was working to complete the cottage and my Cataphtract was in the same place and under him was a freaking slave and I lost all of my cottage production. I killed the Barbarians but man oh man to lose all of that production on a cottage when it was just about to be completed does not seem right. It would seem to me that if a military unit is on a tile the worker should be protected.

Is this a bug or is this the way the game is designed? If this is the way it is designed then how is one to counter barbarian attacks. If having no slaves still spawns slave rebellions then I might as well use them for production.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, wether or not you have actual slave units doesn't figure into the revolts... figure that you have slaves in the cities in a unorganized fashion... those are the types doing the revolt. Which is also a reason to keep 2 defensive units and maybe an offensive one in easy reach nearby (roads are great for this) ... honestly the only part that sucks is when you upgrade tech to something significantly better (offensively) than what you have defensively... like getting access to macemen and watching them plow your 35 XP longbowmen.

The slave workers are only a small part of slavery. You also have unseen slaves inside cities, usually kept as property by a free citizen.

Not having slave workers will not make any difference. To stop the revoilts, you have to abolish slavery altogether.

WarKirby

The slave workers are only a small part of slavery. You also have unseen slaves inside cities, usually kept as property by a free citizen.

Not having slave workers will not make any difference. To stop the revoilts, you have to abolish slavery altogether.

WarKirby

I agree with unseen slaves inside cities causing the revolts. What I do not understand is that you have a worker that you built working a tile and have a military unit on top of him and he gets bumped off the tile and replaced with a slave and the production on that tile has been lost. I can understand if the worker was not protected he would be fair game. Same thing as having a Warrior on the same tile as a Highlander and the tile being attacked. The Highland would be first to defend and then the Warrior. With a worker on the tile and a military unit on the tile the military unit should defend before the worker gets bumped. Does this make sense?

It must be a bug. Slaves are not supposed to spawn on occupied tiles. Go post in the bug reports section about it and it is sure to be fixed.

WarKirby

Oh, something you might've overlooked:

If your worker was controlled by the AI, I've seen the AI interrupt a build to move away from hostile units... if your worker was automated, that's probably what happened. I'm not sure if building places them under AI control while they're building, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I'm pretty sure that's the case.

The barbs spawned, the worker under AI control goes 'OMGZ!' and tries to move away... moves it's square to "get away" and thus leaves it's protection. If this case is true, then it sounds to me like the worker is not checking to see if it has protection or not before it moves.

Oh, something you might've overlooked:

If your worker was controlled by the AI, I've seen the AI interrupt a build to move away from hostile units... if your worker was automated, that's probably what happened. I'm not sure if building places them under AI control while they're building, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I'm pretty sure that's the case.

The barbs spawned, the worker under AI control goes 'OMGZ!' and tries to move away... moves it's square to "get away" and thus leaves it's protection. If this case is true, then it sounds to me like the worker is not checking to see if it has protection or not before it moves.

By the way I did submit a bug report and sent auto save file.

I moved the Cataphract to the square then moved the worker there and built a road. When finished 2 circle tiles lite up and I automated the worker thinking he would go there however he stayed in the tile and started a cottage. Mt to the north, Japan to the west and SW and South. My land to the East and SE. Water to the NE and unoccupied land to the NW.

The barbarians spawned between the Worker/Cataphract and Warwick tile East of them and to the West of Warwick. In the AI turn Warwick grew and the worker then stepped in the South tile that was Japan but was now mine and was still next to the Barbarian. So in fact the worker was in a much worse position than if he stayed with the protection.

Sorry for the ramble but this really has me puzzled. In Civ2 and 3 I could alway protect them and with the little time playing CivIV vanilla I could protect them.

Yeah, that's kinda weird. I've had a worker building a mine with 3 turns left, barbs spawn, and I moved the worker into the city... when I splatted the barbs, I moved the worker back to the mine and still had 3 turns left. *shrug*

I've noticed other little things that didn't look right, like being able to build buildings that require 4/8 or 8/8 other buildings (like Cathedrals requiring a ton of temples) when I only had 3 temples already built. *shrug* Figured there was something going on that I didn't know.

Just a little idea to add to Slavery:
It is possible that perhaps, instead of instant production be given, slave units could be made into conscripts of sorts (thinking of Auxiliary soldiers slightly) who, being given poorer training or weapons, would suffer a strength penalty perhaps or they could be added to cities as labourers of sorts; being able to work the land or, alternatively, being able to become the 'Citizen' specialist. Their treatment would cause a point or two (even more once other civs have Emancipation) of unhappiness and unhealthiness but, otherwise, they could act like a normal citizen of sorts; though only being given one food instead of two. Cities with slaves in like this would be more prone to nearby Slave Revolts and Riots (if the city goes into unrest, they'd disappear; being freed by abolitionist/freedom fighters or being able to escape during the commotion - unless the riot is caused by goverment change where Slavery is still enforced). This 'slave labourer' would not count towards population in the Domination victory, would add a percentage of foreign influence to a town (and potentially the 'yearn to join the motherland' unhappiness) and may just be a temporary thing; lasting a set number of turns. In the Warlords version, perhaps some Slave Revolts could come with Great Generals to lead them.

WarKirby,

I'm a retired soldier. I can tell you that it cost awesome amouts of money to have a well equiped soldier. And you can't imagine how high is the cost of a war or the cost of " a peace force" (as the European one in Lebanon today).
The smallest air to air missile cost at least 1 millions euros/dollars...at least... My Tank Ammos (i was Tank Leader) cost from 6,000 to 15,000 euros/dollars (it depends on the ammo type: Smoke, HEAT, Uranium,...).

In the past, it was different. If you speak about the Greek or Republican Roman times, each soldier had to buy his own weapons, sfield, helmet,.... Because he was a free man (so with civilian rights such as owning slaves, being elected to what you want, owning lands, being a priest,...) he must go to war if drafted. This is very important to understand that point. Greeks and Roman were often the strongest because their armies were made of free men.

About Slaves: I really think that their cost is too high. They work twice slower but they cost the same price as a worker, even if they can be destroy for shields. I don't know what is the good solution in fact...

The Frog.
Hey Froggie my old man was also a tank commander riding with Patton's army group ( I think I told you). I always imagined myself, if there was a general war like in the old days following in the old man's footsteps (tank treads). Just imagine what at M1A2 Abrahms or a LeClerc could have done during WWII. One of them could have taken out a whole battalion of Tigers/Panthers. :lol: Well enough of the science fiction. You are right concerning Roman infantry having to buy own equipment during Republican times. But after the Marian Reforms I think the Roman State paid for equipping its Legions. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Yes a modern Army is one of the biggest money holes that you will find on the planet. That is why the Soviets to a certain extent often emphasized quantity over quality.

How about a way to free the slaves and make them give some kind of population or troops in bonus?
After emancipation (which I think was a wonder or a tech in Civilization: Call to Power, and would fit nicely as a national wonder), there should be some kind of bonus to your civ and also a penalty to civs without (-happiness, higher chance of slave revolts, chance of slaves defecting to civs with emancipation, ect.)
Hmm... should probably submit this in slavery, tech and wonder section...:)

I like the idea for possible conscripts out of slaves-
along with theidea of slaves going to another civ because of emancipation- how about lessoning the chance of revolts-but you also make a chance for a worker slave to escape! and appear in another civs territitory as their new 'free' worker.

It is a good idea, to be able to conscript slaves. Perhaps a simple turn into warrior ability (cost 1 gold). Then the civ can choose whether to upgrade them to real units or not.

It is a good idea, to be able to conscript slaves. Perhaps a simple turn into warrior ability (cost 1 gold). Then the civ can choose whether to upgrade them to real units or not.
Excellent idea! Many runaway slaves and free men joined the Union Army during the American Civil War and gave an excellent account of themselves. Nothing motivates like being able to blow away your former "masters". :lol:

I just realised something. If we make slave conscription possible. Then in the new warlords version with the Turks, if you get up to jannissaries, go on a slave run, bring the slaves back, conscript them, and upgrade them to janissaries we will be perfectly copying history and how the jannissaries were created, from christian slaves. wow.

I just realised something. If we make slave conscription possible. Then in the new warlords version with the Turks, if you get up to jannissaries, go on a slave run, bring the slaves back, conscript them, and upgrade them to janissaries we will be perfectly copying history and how the jannissaries were created, from christian slaves. wow.
Yes you are right. Can anyone say Bosnia. :rolleyes: Yet another piece of fallout from the break up of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

I just realised something. If we make slave conscription possible. Then in the new warlords version with the Turks, if you get up to jannissaries, go on a slave run, bring the slaves back, conscript them, and upgrade them to janissaries we will be perfectly copying history and how the jannissaries were created, from christian slaves. wow.

Yes. Right. But how do to this ?

Leave it to Houman and Mexico :D

Or when having slavary you will recove "draft" command in cities.

Hi everyone, im sick and tired of slave revolts, how do i remove them from the game? they happen to much to be realistic and im tired of my cities being taken by barbs and then taken by the other civs because i expand before i build my army. it is unrealistic for slaves from another civ to come and take my cities, please help! :sad:

Build more army...
Build Great Wall...
Do go slavery...
Start playing on emperor/diety levels. Maintanace will kick your behind so kuch you will learn not to expand too fast.

Dont know how to remove it exept using No Barbarians setting in custom game menu. But necer checked it it affects slavery.

And building army is best solution. You can get loads of generals this way + xp +slaves.

BookRev']Hi everyone, im sick and tired of slave revolts, how do i remove them from the game? they happen to much to be realistic and im tired of my cities being taken by barbs and then taken by the other civs because i expand before i build my army. it is unrealistic for slaves from another civ to come and take my cities, please help! :sad:

Anaztazioch gave already some good tips. Stop going slavery Civic if you cannot handle Slave revolts. Its easy. :)

ah sorry didnt explain properly, the slaves r coming from other civs i never use slaves because its unethical.. thing about this is i usualy go the diplomacy route early in the game till i have all my land improved, i guess i have to be more aggressive now. thanks for the tips tho.

BookRev']ah sorry didnt explain properly, the slaves r coming from other civs i never use slaves because its unethical.. thing about this is i usualy go the diplomacy route early in the game till i have all my land improved, i guess i have to be more aggressive now. thanks for the tips tho.


You need a stronger Army in this mod, and only if its there to defend. The reason is that the science is a bit slower, so that you have more time to build properly the units for defense or attack.

i will try these tips next game, for now i am cheating when i need to take my city back from the evil slaves from another civ, keep up the good work on this mod, havn't played vanilla civ for a long time now :) my only complaint is slave revolt happen to much and they r always swordsman when i only have warriors :mad:

:o swordsman vs warriors.

I allways rush archery and put 3 archers in each city. Perfect defance vs barbs/slave revolts. Also i have one or 2 shortswordsmans with attack to stop barbarians from pillaging improvements.

:agree: That is the same strategy I use in fighting all the slave revolts and never have any problems with them.

:agree: That is the same strategy I use in fighting all the slave revolts and never have any problems with them.

Hi man,

As the tester of the Team, i also use this strategy and i had no problems. I must say that it is also a good way to earn some GGs.

Hian the Frog.

I have a problem with slavary lately.

All my slave revolts, leave my cultural borders (!)
And even if i manage to kill them i dont get slaves (like i have 10% of capturing them)

I have a problem with slavary lately.

All my slave revolts, leave my cultural borders (!)
And even if i manage to kill them i dont get slaves (like i have 10% of capturing them)
did you have great wall? this is known problem - great wall prevent barbarian to enter your culture border
and slaves: capturing slaves is no 100% - so this look like you was always unlucky

i said they leave my culture borders not spawn outside didnt i ?

They just leave and go outside, couse i got strong defances in cities and no improvements.

Funny thing is what enemy civs attack me in war :) just camp outside my cities, not attacking.

i said they leave my culture borders not spawn outside didnt i ?

They just leave and go outside, couse i got strong defances in cities and no improvements.

Funny thing is what enemy civs attack me in war :) just camp outside my cities, not attacking.


Hi man,

Usually barbarians troops are either looking for garrisoning their cities, then easy looting and then attacking easy preys. I had to add that it also depends on the type of units. Barb archers usually go back to their cities to garrison them or on the top of the hill to "trench" themselves. In fact, AI try to use his troops at best of their positives.
You also wrote that you had no improvements. Why would they stay in a country with nothing to loot ? ;)

Hian the Frog.

To give me slaves, so they can take my slaves, or wait for me to build improvemenst to have something to pillage ;)

I find it annoying that, if you don't have Slavery, and you capture Slaves, they die.

Example:

Montezuma has just defeated and enslaved a unit of my advance/pillaging warriors, and enslaved them. The main force following right behind counterattacks... and then proceeds to slaughter their former comrades.

Am I the only one who has a problem with this?

I'd imagine that non-slavery civs would respond differently to captured slaves... I'd imagine that tribal civs would simply use them as normal... being too primitive to care. Serfdom/Caste System civs would integrate them into local populations (captured as a slave, but can't improve... can still rush production, though, representing the gain in resources from new personell and blah blah blah). Emancipation civs would immediately free the slaves and convert them to Workers.

Thoughts?

Emancypation is for something else than slaves.

But take a rewiew in history back to to the persian empire and its leader Cyrus The Great. He not knowing Emencipation nor Free Speech nor Free Religion nor even having Pyramids giving him Universal Sufrage (lol) has free all conquered slaves (dont know if all slaves actually, but after conquering Babylon he free babylonian slaves).

And also, each city has trade routes right ? So what if some of your people will leave to other country on trade routes. Get imrisoned in foreign country and forced into slavary. Than your "mercifull" army captures enemy slaves and uses them as their own having that people that left on trade routes.

Slaves eighther get freed or escape and the army doesnt even care becouse they dont go after slaves.

Idea For New Feature for Aztec Slavary (IFNFAS :lol:)

Can Aztec gain ability to sacrafice slaves for 1 :happiness: for lets say 20 turns ? Istead for production, or both production.

Can also be used for Incas (Idea After Watching Apocalipto)

Thats a good idea. Problems of balance though, if they are the only ones that can do it. Perhaps a penalty to diplomacy with the civ who originally commanded the seized slaves?

Or make Aztec slaves have 1 movement point ? Becouse its harder to keep slaves, when they know that they will be sacrificed, not kept alive as talking tools.

Still i dont think it will make game unballanced, becouse with sacrificing slaves, you will not have many slaves to build improvements, this will slower cities growth, as well as production, but allow good positioned cities to take advantage, even with not improved :food: bonuses.

And if that dont satisfy you, maybe Aztec slaves will produce imprevents even slower, and its hurry improvement will add 20-25:hammers: instead for 30 as normal slave has.

Slowing slaves down isnt realistic. Unlike a regular force slaves can be force marched without worrying about damaging the units morale or combat effectiveness. So yeah, they should have two movement.

But i like the idea of sacrificing slaves for happiness. If those old rumours are corect it could also work for the Carthaginians in addition to the Aztecs.

Has anyone seen the introduction of Mehmeh II where he offers the women and boys of the first city you conquer together. :eek:

Has anyone seen the introduction of Mehmeh II where he offers the women and boys of the first city you conquer together.

Yes, but he lied...

Maybe aztec and incan slaves should only be sacrificed for happiness, but won't be able to hurry production at all?

Mehmed lied did he? Well it certainly was amusing when after saying that i then enslaved HIS women and boys. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :king: :lol: :lol: :lol:

though as a locked in team mate he has proven his worth to me. providing the human shields and cannon fodder for my invasions. right before i snatch the cities away once they are weakened. ah i love this game.

One new idea about slaves. Slaves as slaves:

1. worked less efficient - it is simulated already
2. died much more often than paid workers (who cared about them)

To simulate point two, I suggest to make slaves disappearing after creating an improvement (just like workboats)

That would also fix that currently AI loves slavery and so they always have at least 20-30 slaves, sometimes Ive even seen real gigantic slave stacks.

One more problem with slaves/peasants is that whenever you research... iron working(?) they switch to be 6 strength instead of 3. And that can hit hard when you still only have your shortswordsmen/axemen army. So maybe some delay would be nice. Or maybe its just my problem not updating my army fast enough...

(and i mostly dont change civic till castle system as i dont like my countryside being pillaged, however I must admit that they are good for target practice if you dont mind upkeeping all the army for it)

@ Inverted

Slavary was used by Civs with military power. You cant go super scientific civbuilder with slavary. 1 Your army will be low (building buildings, not army), not much upgraded (money spent on resarch not upgrades), and improvements constantyl pillaged by slaves.

@ Inverted

I assume that change from revolting slaves(str3) to revolting peasants(str6) comes with adoption of serfdom, for it you need feudalism, which is quite late tech, so it cannot be problem to have troops with enough power to clear out your revolts.

Just to let you know, i never revolt to slavery or serfdom.
Especially in TR i can't see benefits, or not benefits good enough to lost some key resource (not only strategic, also luxuries), even for few turns.
And my inner cites are often "defended" by 1 warrior.

In addiction to the anarchy needed to revolt... no thanks, i revolt to CS ASAP, and remain there until the end of the game.

When one of my workers is improving a border tile i protect him, to avoid surprises of revolting people from other civs, wich seem ignoring the GW.

@ Inverted

I assume that change from revolting slaves(str3) to revolting peasants(str6) comes with adoption of serfdom, for it you need feudalism, which is quite late tech, so it cannot be problem to have troops with enough power to clear out your revolts.

Not quite, strength increase is linked to era transitions. So it might be a good idea to advance your eras with a military tech when under slavery/serfdom.

Slavary/serfdom civs were quite good in military. If you want to have slavary with no stational army - thats what you get.

Thats what you get no matter what, since revolting slaves/peasant move in the turn they appear, so you have no chance to prevent them to pillage your improvements.

and this is realistic!

You never know where and when will a revolt take place.

I was only reflecting to this post:
Slavary/serfdom civs were quite good in military. If you want to have slavary with no stational army - thats what you get.

Theres no military that could save your country from being continuously pillaged, and thats why I never use those civics.

Play as Japan. Do an early conquest of Ishikari and go for slavary. With forest everywhere, slaves will attach cities or just wonder arround. Easy xp and slaves are workers for free that cop down forsts (dont bother iwth improvements exept going for resources, and just man them with defensive units).

I often play games where i dont build workers, only units and buildings. In such games slavary comes to rescue in improving terrain.

Capturing others slave hordes, or the barbarian workers are even better. As those yield you workers. ;)

One idea.
Forced workers were nothing but modern slaves and regimes that used them didn't use slavery in the classic meaning. So... to be more accurate to history, slaves should be available also with totalitarianism civic.

One idea.
Forced workers were nothing but modern slaves and regimes that used them didn't use slavery in the classic meaning. So... to be more accurate to history, slaves should be available also with totalitarianism civic.

Hm... It is interesting to think which one of the "labor" group civics better represents, for example, Soviet Union. Well might be that "slavery" is the best answer, with slave-holder being the state. Still, what you're suggesting sounds reasonable.

forced labor =/= slaves
They were still civilians (by Totalitar standards), its just that they were paid little for work. Still paid, not only "upkeept".

forced labor =/= slaves
They were still civilians (by Totalitar standards), its just that they were paid little for work. Still paid, not only "upkeept".

Not everywhere - Stalinist USSR used lots of real slave labor, where people were forced to work and provided only with food. I think Hitler's Germany had such stuff too.

Are you talking about civilian slaves or prisioners or occupied inhabitants ?

I know Jewls were forced to work for mere food (actually ability to buy food) during Hitlers ocupation in Poland.
Communist movement in Poland was that you recived cards to get things not money. So you could not choose what good you want to aquire, the goiverment decided what you need and he provided you cards to obtain those things.

But in those 2 points only Jewls were forced to work. Normal inhabitants could do nothing, but their "social unempleyed paychechs" were near fly to a dog size and unavailable in many cities.

I think Slavery is good. It does need to modify.

Ok I will tell that in another words.
Playing as an aggressive civ in modern times, I should be able to use forced labourers, not using slavery civic. I hope everyone agree that slavery is quite obsolete in modern times, I would rather chose nationalism
Soviet Union or Nazi Germany didn't get back to slavery to use forced labourers, didn't created slave markets, didn't export them to another countries and use them to fight on stadiums. In the other hand forced people were not paid and fed only to not starve (I have a grandpa, who was forced to work in German plane factory, so I know what I'm talking about). So de facto forced labourers act exactly as slaves (slaves was fed too) but in different social and economy situation.
To solve this issue, I think in a best way, is to make slaves available also in totalitarianism civic.

But the problem is that totalitarian countries usually used part of their own or conquered population for forced labor but mostly not POWs. (except the SU)

So maybe it would be better to add a "Forced Labor Camp" building for totalitarianism, much like slave market.

Now, this gave me two ideas, slightly off-topic, sorry:
(1) In industrial/modern era (or having certain top civics) you could be able to capture POWs from battles, much like slave capturing just not so common (5-10% chance). A POW unit turns to slave if you have slavery, otherwise you could use them to build improvements under totalitarianism (maybe other civics too) or choose to execute/release them. This gives a +/-1 diplomatic relation capped at +/-3 but you could only release POWs of civs you have peace with. Could be a nice way to somehow improve your terribly ruined relations after a war.
Problem is that Im not sure its possible to track the origin, like "Prisoners of War (English)".

(2) In later eras you could get partisan uprisings near cities you captured. If city has less that 50% your pop. Could work the same way as slave/peasant uprisings, except that if partisans capture the city it is returned to its previous owner (preferably to the civ that has highest pop% there ) including barbarians. Partisan units spawned could be something (city size)/3*(foreign pop%)

* Please dont use the BtS way of deciding whos the "rightful" owner, it even wants to give my own founded cities with 100% my pop. to my neighbors who are not even close - and never were - to that city. :)

Maybe instead of costing less unkeep, slaves should be more productive than workers (as while low quality, they are many more people) while keeping their chance of dying.

I have thought of a couple of approaches to slavery, don't know how implementable they are, though:

Slaves as GP: slavery enables the build of the slave market "wonder",that spawns slaves every now and then (would be good if it depended on you being at war with other nations, fighting barbs, etc). That slave unit is sent to a city where whether it can be tooled to work on the fields like a worker, join the city (i.e. in the form of a little slave market/house with income modifiers) or rush a building.

Slaves as resources: captured cities, or cities with several culture types can build a slave market that provides slaves, which could be used to build buildings like slave markets and colloseums, traded with other nations, etc.

Slaves as specialists: slaves are fixed specialists that only cost 1 food and provide hammers. Many of these rise the chance of a slave revolt. Several turns of slave revolts and they'll destroy something in the city or get weapons and destroy what they find in their way to freedom.

Slaves as a mixture of all the previous implementations: slave resources that enable the slave market wonder that spawns slaves GPs that join cities as slave specialists.


Some other ramdom ideas:

Revolting slaves probably aren't military units and have no way to supply themselves, so they should probably be unable to attack (effectively) a city, nor (most likely) be able to survive after destroying an improvement. Then add slave leaders: Slaves with military training that are stronger and can supply themselves. They can gather slaves (somehow) and turn them into warriors for your nasty Spartacus style uprising.

Would be nice if (legal) ways to free slaves (like Rome's freedmen) could make the slaves a bit happier and keep them from revolting too much. Slaves should revolt because they are strong enough and are unhappy, not just because they exist.

With a couple of changes, most of this could be used in forced labour and detention/forced labor camps

Some of my ideas about slavery:
- Generate slaves from pillaging cottages
- After some "Gladiators" technology, slave unit should be able to create "Gladiator school" building in city with colosseum
- "Gladiator school" should:

generate happiness
add experience to units created in city
lower possibility of slave revolt (unrulling slave? sell him for gladiator fight),
but when revolt actually happens, instead of "revolting slaves", there will be stronger "revolting gladiators"
enable drafting of "gladiators", unit slightly stronger than default draftee


- Slave unit should be able to create "jannisary" unit, unit with promotion of advantage against units of nation slave cames from ("turkenizee worse than turk")

I think that this gladiator school is refering only to classical Rome, not entire world.
Janissary has its origins more in Ghulam and Mamluk rather than Gladiator or Slave.

It was idea based only on my very limited knowledge of history, but little reading of Wiki and technology/process can be called "Devshirmeh" and units can have "Kapikulu" promotion, if we want to stay in Turk terms.
Yes, in history it was Roman and Turks, but i was thinking about it more like something to do with slaves.
Many civilizations/nations where slave-heavy, but use for slaves is dictated by needs of civilization, so if civ needed labor/population or army or entertainment it used slaves in such roles and game should reflex it.
And adding Slaves to city population? If not like specialists (like someone wrote), than like normal citizen but with Slave/Barbarian culture (for checkings for unhappiness, revolts, diplomacy drawbacks and so on).

And adding Slaves to city population? If not like specialists (like someone wrote), than like normal citizen but with Slave/Barbarian culture (for checkings for unhappiness, revolts, diplomacy drawbacks and so on).

I'dd like that idea.
Maby this person would look like this
2:hammers: -1:gold: -1:yuck:
Numbers limited to one, and two whit slave-market.
Avalible whit barbarian and slave-civ. Barbarian civ can only have one, because they can't build slave-market.

You are writing about Xenofungus idea. I like it too, but if team finds it difficult to implement, i was writing about something like:
You have city with size 3 and fully yours (100% Zulu). You will take slave unit and add it into population, making it size 4, but culture will be: 75% Zulu (and 25% Slave)

You are writing about Xenofungus idea. I like it too, but if team finds it difficult to implement, i was writing about something like:
You have city with size 3 and fully yours (100% Zulu). You will take slave unit and add it into population, making it size 4, but culture will be: 75% Zulu (and 25% Slave)


That idea sounds good too :goodjob: :goodjob: