Civics
- Thread starter dutchfire
- Start date
It won't cost us anything to switch to slavery, and it's better than the generic standard civic.
It's better to be safe than sorry IMO.
730195
Warlord
Well, it does a bit more than that. If you suddenly find yourself in a war, some large and previously happy cities can start getting grumpy. A few unhappy people can be turned into a Theater or Temple and folks are generally a lot happier.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
I have to consult the party about this...
Hyronymus
Troop leader
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,872
That holds true if you haven't got luxuries or a state religion (which I want badly). But we have gold and silver and with some luck wine to appease people.
I'm not a big fan of slavery and I never find it useful in any of my single player games, however since I support the switch to bureaucracy and adding slavery to the switch won't hurt us, why not, if some elder decides they want to rush production it's better to have that civic in place.
ordinaryguy
Back to Civ!
Switching to Bureaucracy will cost 1 turn. The same goes for Slavery. Why not? It has the same upkeep cost and gives an additional benefit of whipping.
@grant2004, I agree that it would give the DP and the elders another way of building units and buildings.
@grant2004, I agree that it would give the DP and the elders another way of building units and buildings.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Bureacracy yes Slavery, only if it can only be used in emergencys
I'm ok with switching both. Nothing says we're going to actually 
but my preference is to be prepared.
BTW that makes the count 10 in favor of Bureaucracy+Slavery, 1 in favor of Bureaucracy only, and none opposed.
but my preference is to be prepared.BTW that makes the count 10 in favor of Bureaucracy+Slavery, 1 in favor of Bureaucracy only, and none opposed.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Bur - yes.
Slavery - NO. (Mostly RP reasons, but far too many people here play this as an SG, not a DG. Disappointing.)
-- Ravensfire
Slavery - NO. (Mostly RP reasons, but far too many people here play this as an SG, not a DG. Disappointing.)
-- Ravensfire
730195
Warlord
And then there are those who don't know what this means.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Not speaking for the LDP, I'd rather not see Slavery. We may or may not reap its benefits.
I personally advocate Caste System; we can reap some benefits without an emergency.
I personally advocate Caste System; we can reap some benefits without an emergency.
SG is short for Succession Game, which can be explained here. DG is short for the Demogame.
I believe what ravensfire is trying to say is that the Demogame should, or is expected, to be played as if we were actual citizens within the game and were running our nation as such, instead of playing it like you would a succession game.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
We should consider the Caste system.
I don't see much use for the caste system with our current cities, they don't have a large enough food supply to support specialists. I would say that we should change one of our civics to take advantage of the single turn of anarchy we'll have for switching two civics at once.
Looking at the next city we'll found I see there may be an opportunity to create a GP farm, which caste system would aide in, if we decide on a GP farm city location, I would support caste system, otherwise slavery has less upkeep, and would be more useful with our food starved cities.
Looking at the next city we'll found I see there may be an opportunity to create a GP farm, which caste system would aide in, if we decide on a GP farm city location, I would support caste system, otherwise slavery has less upkeep, and would be more useful with our food starved cities.
Similar threads
