Slaves, Hostages and Prisoners of War

Dancing Hoskuld said:
1) depends on your civics and your world views. So running slavery adds 10% to your chance of taking a captive. You also have a much better chance if they are running Mercenaries.

2) People were complaining that they were getting too many so the percentages were reduced.
Click to expand...

HUH? I have world view Slavery ON and slave markets, still no captives? I had it for over 200 turns now??)2000ish years) I am still at Civic Banditry, Still none?
 
I too now never seem to get them. What are the percentages right now?
 
strategyonly said:
HUH? I have world view Slavery ON and slave markets, still no captives? I had it for over 200 turns now??)2000ish years) I am still at Civic Banditry, Still none?
Click to expand...

I am going to play around with the # on how often you can get a "captive" so where is the determining number for that ??
 
strategyonly said:
I am going to play around with the # on how often you can get a "captive" so where is the determining number for that ??
Click to expand...

I've got some tags coming to help with modifier tweaks. Should make for some cool stuff!

@DH: These tags are part of what I'm held up on committing until I can debug my code as it is now. I think I've found the problem and it doesn't deal with those but the problem is keeping me from updating the rest at the moment. You'll have a lot of interesting xml controls once you plug in the modifiers into the python there.
 
Currently: Your chance is
If you run Slavery +10%
If you run Banditry +10%

If they are Barbarians +15%
If they run Mercenaries +10%
If they run Banditry +10%

If you are attacking a city + 5%

​
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
Currently: Your chance is
If you run Slavery +10%
If you run Banditry +10%

If they are Barbarians +15%
If they run Mercenaries +10%
If they run Banditry +10%

If you are attacking a city + 5%

​
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you only picked Civic Banditry (10%) and no other civics??

Same if "they" run Banditry or Mercenaries??

Just wondering, is all?
 
I have not updated it to the latest civics. I was looking at units defecting if mercenaries was being run. So instead of the captive you got the unit with a"deserted" promotion which increased their chances of deserting at a later stage. With "deserting" not just to the enemy but running away before being attacked. I decided I did not know how to implement this.
 
I haven't done anything to help with a desertion mechanic... but I've added two tags for civics, one that increases or decreases the civic operator's chances to capture and another that increases or decreases the civic operator's chances for its units to avoid being captured.

Also added the same pair to units and promotions so that units can personally develop capturing or resisting capture capabilities.

And again, for buildings to increase or decrease said chances on all friendly units in the city.
 
Iceman68 said:
Can I ask if the ability to sacrifice population for production is going to be turned back on?

I miss this element.
Click to expand...

Do you mean "whip" as it was also called? If so I think that can only done via civics but it is something we should look at. Also the idea that your settled slaves should be used before population. This will require dll work I think.
 
I don't understand is it possible currently for captive neanderthal and captive military to join city as settled slaves as befofe or has this ability been turned off somewhere or do i need special conditions?
 
Talin2009 said:
I don't understand is it possible currently for captive neanderthal and captive military to join city as settled slaves as befofe or has this ability been turned off somewhere or do i need special conditions?
Click to expand...

They should be able to join as settled slave but only if you have the Slavery World View. It can only be built by a captive. I am currently debating if creating the building should also give the first settled slave, ie the captive is not used up in building it but becomes a settled slave.
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
They should be able to join as settled slave but only if you have the Slavery World View. It can only be built by a captive. I am currently debating if creating the building should also give the first settled slave, ie the captive is not used up in building it but becomes a settled slave.
Click to expand...

I believe its a good idea, just like the gatherer, right? It has to start someplace, might as well be a "jump start."

Dancing Hoskuld said:
I have not updated it to the latest civics.
Click to expand...

What other civics were you looking at? Maybe NOT only Military?? But a National?
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
Do you mean "whip" as it was also called? If so I think that can only done via civics but it is something we should look at. Also the idea that your settled slaves should be used before population. This will require dll work I think.
Click to expand...

If it can only be done via civics, I am assuming that it would work whether or not the WorldViews were active? What I would have hoped for is the ability to "whip" population only with WorldView Slavery and WorldView Sacrifice (when included) active. Oh well.
 
Ok i dont like idea that prisoners are upgradeble to units but i understand that DH like it.

So my proposla is to make it more realistic. Some though:
"If you give man a bow it dosent make a bowman from him"

In reality it takes years of training before someone is good bowman. In current prisoners system you can cach pack of ex swordsmans and make bowmans from them (so so so unrealistic).

I would like to add combat class to prisoners. If you capture archers you can only make archers from them or above. If you capture swordsmans you can only make swordsmans from them or above
 
Nimek said:
Ok i dont like idea that prisoners are upgradeble to units but i understand that DH like it.

So my proposla is to make it more realistic. Some though:
"If you give man a bow it dosent make a bowman from him"

In reality it takes years of training before someone is good bowman. In current prisoners system you can cach pack of ex swordsmans and make bowmans from them (so so so unrealistic).

I would like to add combat class to prisoners. If you capture archers you can only make archers from them or above. If you capture swordsmans you can only make swordsmans from them or above
Click to expand...

I think the way that was being considered was to give them a promotion on conversion that would use the combat mod's affliction system (so they would be 'afflicted' with 'crappy training' or something that would fade after a certain number of turns)
 
Nimek said:
Ok i dont like idea that prisoners are upgradeble to units but i understand that DH like it.

So my proposla is to make it more realistic. Some though:
"If you give man a bow it dosent make a bowman from him"

In reality it takes years of training before someone is good bowman. In current prisoners system you can cach pack of ex swordsmans and make bowmans from them (so so so unrealistic).

I would like to add combat class to prisoners. If you capture archers you can only make archers from them or above. If you capture swordsmans you can only make swordsmans from them or above
Click to expand...

I am specifically using the word captive rather than prisoner because I have plans for prisoners that will occur later in the game so that just as a captive may become a slave they may also become a prisoner.

I to do not like the way the upgrade currently works. We inherited it from the previous Slave module and it is easy to abuse. I want to require that you have the captive in a suitable place before you can upgrade it eg a stable city with the correct training facilities. While I could just go that it would require some AI to make the computer players aware of the need to move there.
 
Nimek said:
"If you give man a bow it dosent make a bowman from him"

In reality it takes years of training before someone is good bowman. In current prisoners system you can cach pack of ex swordsmans and make bowmans from them (so so so unrealistic).
Click to expand...

Actually, in the middle ages in Europe at least, archers were at the bottom of most armies:

During the Middle Ages, archery in warfare was not as prevalent and dominant in Western Europe as popular myth sometimes dictates. Archers were quite often the lowest-paid soldiers in an army or were conscripted from the peasantry. This was due to the cheap nature of the bow and arrow, as compared to the expense needed to equip a professional man-at-arms with good armour and a sword. Professional archers required a lifetime of training and expensive bows to be effective, and were thus generally rare in Europe (see English longbow). The bow was seldom used to decide battles and often viewed as a "lower class weapon" or as a toy, by the nobility.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, in the middle ages in Europe at least, archers were at the bottom of most armies:
Click to expand...

Not in England where longbowmens was trained from child. In effect their reach was even two times longer than others bowmen. They even wins multiple battles because their enemies didn't suppose that arrows can fly such long distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tekamthi
  • Locked
[Complex] (6-33c) War Elephants Use New "Elephant" Strategic Resource
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Strategic Resource: Ivory & Elephant
Replies
4
Views
757
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Z
Escorting workers
Replies
1
Views
416
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
S
Automated workers are HELL now. Or maybe they always were, and I just never paid attention, dunno.
Replies
2
Views
437
Somebody613
S
B
Military Unit Upkeep
Replies
1
Views
501
Joij21
Joij21
Top Bottom