Why is there one tech that gives all of these things?

1) Slavery
2) Chopping
3) Axes

I mean, everyone knows the tech is a no-brainer, but wouldn't it still be plenty good if it just gave two of those benefits? If you had to pick three things to be able to do in the early game, you'd pick those three, wouldn't you? Why are they all enabled by the same tech!?

I feel like all the other early techs (other than mining, obviously) are much more balanced strategically, and not always necessary. Bronze Working stands out like a sore thumb. This is after they have semi-nerfed ALL THREE of those features since the original CIV release (chariots beat axes, chops give fewer hammers, and slavery has medium upkeep). It's not even a dead-end tech. It's a necessary prerequisite for a large swath of the tech tree.

Does anyone think this is worth changing? If so, how would you do it? Alternately, why do you think this is good for the game?

It is just common sense that bronze allowed axes... and axes means chopping, etc. So how else would you do it?

BTW, technically there were stone-axes, how usable/reliable they were, is a good question. So I suppose you could have chopping before bronzeworking.

Sure, but for example, you don't have to enable slavery at the same time.

Also, to argue that axes necessarily imply chopping: what is called chopping in the game looks awfully like clearcutting, which was as far as I know not very common back then. You could justifiably claim that cutting down a tree or two is simulated by the +1 production from forests. So I think it's not as thematically restricted as you say.

Agreed with the OP.

you know.... the game might be more interesting with slavery and chopping pushed back in the tech tree, well the idea seems more interesting to me anyway. Early build choice would become far more important possibly encouraging micro management. Just a thought...

If you push those techs up the tree too far, you will end up having people just do more re-rolls on the terrain generation. People would be restricted from mining a hill early, etc. other wise. So you'd just cause a lot of more hassles. If people can't mine, and have no early mans of production, and can't even chop for christ-sakes, what is it they are expected to do when the game is immortal/diety? lol

You'd also be making initial starts more luck-based than fun-based.

Another way they have mitigated Bronze Working: they've given us the forest preserve. A late-game reason to not chop.

I agree with your comment, though. They could have divided the 3 BW benefits among different techs. It is true, though, that the use of metal (and later, better metals) was a key military tech edge. It really was vital, and I don't mind it being vital in the game for that reason.

I suppose my beef with it is that I feel that I have to work in BW early in every game. I have had fun, though, putting it off as Sitting Bull and just keeping my trees and using Protective archers for my military needs for a few thousand years.

The national park seems to be another over-hyped gimmick, just like Holy shrines are.

The preserved forests really need to be doing something more productive to make this whole thing worth it.

People would be restricted from mining a hill early, etc. other wise.

You have a good point about chopping being necessary early. But how about moving slavery a bit? It doesn't have to go far; for example you could put it with masonry.

I actually didn't suggest these things need to happen later in the game at all; I just think it's kind of ridiculous they're all in the same tech.

It would not make any sense, realistically that slavery only came about through masonary.

The game is supposed to make at least some rough educationary/historicaly based facts.

I'm all for enabling slavery with masonry.
Makes sense too, since masonry is allowing you to build the mids.
And who built the mids most likely? === Hundreds and hundreds of slaves. :whipped:

Slaves were not just used for building things. They were used for everything from 'cooks' to even axe-wielding soldiers.

And what is the point of this topic? To say something just for the sake of saying?

Slaves were not just used for building things. They were used for everything from 'cooks' to even axe-wielding soldiers.
Sure. But for the mids, they were used "big style". That's why imho this could be a justification for moving it to masonry. So BW makes sense, too. As much as masonry would.
'Nuff said.

It would not make any sense, realistically that slavery only came about through masonary.

The game is supposed to make at least some rough educationary/historicaly based facts.

Well, I think it's just as debatable that bronze is somehow required for slaves. Really, slavery doesn't require any technology at all.

Given the game's representation of slavery, which is "overworking slaves to the point of death in order to produce things", I think that putting it with masonry (Pyramids) makes as much sense as anything.

And what is the point of this topic? To say something just for the sake of saying?
I guess so. :rolleyes:

However, my original intent was that it would be a discussion about whether it is too strategically overpowering to have three essential abilities in one tech.

Yeah I agree. Slavery is the one that can most logically be moved. It's also probably the most powerful so it makes sense to divorce it from the other two.

If anything I'd be tempted to move it to a religious tech (maybe Priesthood). Seems to me that ancient civs employing slaves (in the way the game depicts slavery) often did so ultimately for religious/spirtitual reasons. That tech branch is also one I tend to not bother with too often so a good reason to go there would present more early game choices. Of course the most logical option would be to make slavery the default labour civic... almost everyone goes for it early anyway, and you can't use the whip immediately anyway so I doubt it would unbalance things.

Actually, i wouldn't be against Slavery being the default, starting Civic, and being replaced by a new Civic.

The Chinese Unification scenario from Warlords did move Slavery to Masonry.

It looks like it's an easy enough modification to put into your custom assets folder (CIV4CivicInfos.xml gets copied over - find CIVIC_SLAVERY, and change the TechPrrereq value from TECH_BRONZE_WORKING to TECH_MASONRY).

Yeah I agree. Slavery is the one that can most logically be moved. It's also probably the most powerful so it makes sense to divorce it from the other two.

If anything I'd be tempted to move it to a religious tech (maybe Priesthood). Seems to me that ancient civs employing slaves (in the way the game depicts slavery) often did so ultimately for religious/spirtitual reasons. *snip*

Ah, but linking slavery inexorably to religion is beyond non-P.C., which, as we've seen time and time again, is a deal-breaker in the universe of Sid Meier.

Maybe have Slavery require Masonry AND Bronze Working?

Just FWIW...

National Geographic (nerd alert) recently had a show on which indicated that the Pyramids were -not- built by slaves. I am certainly not an expert in the field, but you may also wish to read http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070391.html

National Geographic (nerd alert) recently had a show on which indicated that the Pyramids were -not- built by slaves. I am certainly not an expert in the field, but you may also wish to read http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070391.html


Indeed. There have been discussions on the forums earlier about this (try looking for threads with slavery in the title). The egyptian system of procuring workers for the pyramids was more like the european feudal system than like slavery (in the sense the word was used in e.g. Rome or Greece).

BTW. You are surfing a forum devoted to the Civilization game, and you feel obliged to issue a nerd alert when referring to National Geographic?? :confused:

Just FWIW...

National Geographic (nerd alert) recently had a show on which indicated that the Pyramids were -not- built by slaves. I am certainly not an expert in the field, but you may also wish to read http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070391.html
Thank you. That's interesting. Another "common sense" prejudice removed. ;) OK, so much for my "the slaves" theory.

:blush: Did I say: "'Nuff said." ??? Sorry.

Sure. But for the mids, they were used "big style". That's why imho this could be a justification for moving it to masonry. So BW makes sense, too. As much as masonry would.
'Nuff said.

The mids were built by hired craftsman, not by slaves.... :p

But putting slavery in another tech would not be so bad at all: I'm not surely the only one that thinks that slavery comes too early in the game....

No way slavery should be tied to religious tech, particularly a religious tech associated with a particular religion. Imagine the hate emails that would follow...

Slavery could be a worthwhile stand-alone tech (like Fascism, Communism, etc.), say with BW and/or Masonry as prerequisites.

Another way to nerf Slavery would be to give it a negative diplomacy modifier vis a vis non-Slavery-using civs.

Dear rolo, see post #24. :p

Sorry, nevermind that :blush: ...

Maybe the chopping rate could improve with technology:
Stone - 12 chops/forest
Bronze - 6 chops/forest
Iron - 3 chops/forest

Interesting discussion. Throwing another idea out there. Instead of tying slavery to a tech why not tie it to city or empire size. For example requires a city of size 3, or an empire of size 4.

If you push those techs up the tree too far, you will end up having people just do more re-rolls on the terrain generation. People would be restricted from mining a hill early, etc. other wise. So you'd just cause a lot of more hassles. If people can't mine, and have no early mans of production, and can't even chop for christ-sakes, what is it they are expected to do when the game is immortal/diety? lol

You'd also be making initial starts more luck-based than fun-based.

If you bothered to read my post properly you woul have noticed I never even said anything about not being able to build mines, and sorry to pop your over inflated bubble Obselete but Bronze Working and Mining are different techs.

I was infering that Slavery and Chopping be moved back a bit, so next time prehaps consider what other people are saying before you run your mouth.

If you bothered to read my post properly you woul have noticed I never even said anything about not being able to build mines, and sorry to pop your over inflated bubble Obselete but Bronze Working and Mining are different techs.
I think he was pointing out that hills are often forested. If you can't chop early, you can't mine those hills. I think that's a valid concern with eliminating early chopping.

I think he was pointing out that hills are often forested. If you can't chop early, you can't mine those hills. I think that's a valid concern with eliminating early chopping.

A forested hill and a mined hill have the same yield unless the mine has a metal ... I'm not seeing the problem :confused:

A forested hill and a mined hill have the same yield unless the mine has a metal ... I'm not seeing the problem :confused:
Actually, a forest adds +1:hammers:, and a mine adds +2:hammers:. So there is a difference.

Ok, I stand corrected. I do agree that chopping should be avaliable early (BW is fine, but even Masonry would do ( maybe even BW or Masonry ) ) but Slavery could go elsewhere easily ( maybe even as a new and separate tech ). BW = Cooper + Axes + Chopping + Slavery makes BW a bit stronger than necessary IMHO

Indeed. There have been discussions on the forums earlier about this (try looking for threads with slavery in the title). The egyptian system of procuring workers for the pyramids was more like the european feudal system than like slavery (in the sense the word was used in e.g. Rome or Greece).

Not only were the work gangs very specialized, they only worked part of the year, i.e. when the Nile was flooding and no farming could take place. Interesting stuff.

BTW. You are surfing a forum devoted to the Civilization game, and you feel obliged to issue a nerd alert when referring to National Geographic?? :confused:

Good point... OK, double-nerd alert. :)

Great "horde of axemen" sig, btw!

...

Slavery could be a worthwhile stand-alone tech (like Fascism, Communism, etc.), say with BW and/or Masonry as prerequisites.

...Best suggestion so far.

The most under used civic in the game in my opinion is Serfdom. I'd like all civics to be worth while.

I'd like to see Slavery and Serfdom switch places

BW opens up Serfdom and Feudalism opens up Slavery.

It makes Serfdom useful now because it becomes a transition civic.

Although this change may lead to the Feudalism Slingshot to occur more often lol.