Enslaving - Does it need a U-turn?

[aeldrik]

I have been using the enslaving option through the Editor for a lot of units in my mods, and I have to say it is a great option...
However (that had to come...) I think there is one major problem...

The resulting unit should not depend of the unit enslaving, but should depend on the unit beeing enslaved... for exemple, I set ships to enslave and create transporters (most defeated ships are captured, not sunk), the problem with the actual system is that a ship destroying a bombarding plane and destroying it creates a transporter

The whole problem would be solved and would allow for a lot of fine tuning if the option was corrected, make the option for every unit, "if enslaved creates:"

 

[Antrine]

Gee aeldrik are you sure? At first I thought if worked like the way you now think, enslaving comes according to the unit destroyed, however I am certain you are mistaken! As I was.

Though the editor says enslaves, and then enslaves results in it does actually mean that enslaving is dictated by the 'unit' attacking. Check it out.

I have in my Mod over fifty units slated for one long ancient age and 90% enslave something. With that I have clocked many hours and am on build thirty-five. I am certain it works exactly like you want it to, 'if enslaved creates'

Pile of smiles, I do too love this editor feature!

 

[Antrine]

Maybe this is more confusing than I thought, yes you would be correct that a ship destroying a plane might create a transport if that is what that ship was so set to enslave. I guess it is then a matter of what is most likely to occur? Give the plane oars, hoist an sail and presto it is a transport!

However, philosophically I think it pans out much better 'as is', for it goes with the desposition of the attacker not the attacked.

The classic good example is the one I first saw someone else do, that of a Roman Legionary enslaving all to gladiators! Now that make sense, does it not? And again ship to ship, would not pirates just create more pirates no matter what they hit? I think these kind of examples far outweigh the reverse.

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

[aeldrik]

well, I'd say the systems only works as long as you don't go mixing the units...

but here also a Problem: a ship with enslaving ability sinks a subs and creates a transporter!!!

It is sure logical to have a chance of having legionaries creating gladiators, but what about the horses of a cavalry unit, how come these will then always be lost?

 

[Drift]

Current system is perfect for fantasy mods and such - don't change it!

All that is IMO required is that the "enslave results in box" would contain "Target unit" making it possible that enslave result would always be the same as the unit defeated.

It would be very interesting feature for fantas/scifi mods too - mind controlling and such.

 

[Antrine]

Well, I sold the horses off. Actually I have lots of combinations that I think work handy, such as a raider enslaving settlers and host of other units enslaving 'indentured troops'.

I guess what I am saying is as a tool; watch what unit each creates. And when you mix air units with land units and sea units in game play it will always get a little wierd. But all in all I sure love this feature big time, it adds to game play a lot. Remember old Hanibal he lost half his Army crossing the Alps but swiftly made it up except for the elephants by pressing the locals into his army. In other words he picked up troops along the way. Maybe in modern times this is just not realistic. For grabing equipment is one thing, people is another.

Nice subject though, it would useful to hear how other people have used this feature well, it still has great potential as is. Hey why don't we get Firaxis to modify it to work either way? Will put it on the wisshhh lissssttttt....... somewhere.

 

[aeldrik]

@Drift: do you realize what I propose would allow just that??!!!!

@Antrine: Can you find a single negative point about what I am proposing??? a single point in which it would make enslaving work worse than it does now? because as I see it, it only improves it without removing anything...

 

[Drift]

Originally posted by aeldrik
@Drift: do you realize what I propose would allow just that??!!!!

It wouldn't allow coexistance of the two systems.

An example:

Swordsman is set to be enslaved into a new swordsman.

Legionary is set to enslave units into gladiators.

What happens when Legionary enslaves a swordsman? Does it become a swordsman or a gladiator?

 

[aeldrik]

why would you need a coexistance?

First, I would never make an enslaved swordsman become a new swordsman.... or did we see captured GI's going to fight for the German Army in WW2?? but ok, that 's up to everyone to decide.

I don't think there has ever been a situation in history where defeated soldiers were enslaved and fought for the Army that defeated them, that is ridiculous!!!! Gladiators where not soldiers fighting for the Romans in their army....

Think about the following, If I say that the legionary can enslave, it means any unit can be enslaved, and that is my problem... some units should just not be "enslavable"...

I think all enslaved units should always be turned to non-combat units, usually workers, they can then be returned to cities when they help build new units...

 

[Drift]

I don't know what we are arguing about.

I want to keep the current enslavement model. It's perfect for fantasy/scifi scenarios. Not depending on what they are fighting, Shadow Demons will turn their enemies into Wraiths and so on.

In addition to the basic enslavement model, I would like the option of making slavers that enslave units as they are without turning them into new units. This would be perfect for Privateers that would capture the enemy ships as they are without turning a Galleon into a Corvette.

"Cannot be enslaved" would be useful too.

However, units having "if enslaved, creates:" option would ruin the above system. Also, I can't think of any real use for this that isn't covered in the above system. In my opinion, it should be the slaver, not the enslaved that decides what becomes of the result.

 

[mrtn]

Guys, you do realise you're arguing about who of you is the crown princess of Sweden? None of you are, and there is no chance the proposed change will be made.
Use the features of the game, or don't, but there's no use discussing how the game could have been made. It wasn't, and that's all there is to it.

 

[aeldrik]

well, even if it is noce that CIV can be modded to become a fantasy game, that is not what it is...
Now, you say you don't want coexistance, so how do you imagine what you want, do you want for FIraxis to create a new enslavement system?

If I look at it from a logical point of view, what a unit will turn into depends of what it was before, not of whom defeated it!! a defeated cavalry unit will still have horses, no matter who defeats it.
Ships are a problem of their own, as they should be a probability of capture for ships, not enslavement, but with the actual system, what a captured ship becomes depends on what is was, not on what kind of ship captured it!!

 

[Antrine]

I've been sleeping, however now I am awake again. Aeldrik propose to do what you want to make it better! However, leave this choice intact, I LOVE IT, logic or not, it makes great game play!

Is that not the bottom line?

Hey, can we hear from some clever people who well utilized this feature?

 

[The Last Conformist]

You've already heard from Drift ...

 

[Antrine]

Shadow demons creating wraiths, thanks I like it and 'undead' or 'skeletons'. I was thinking of 'more' suggestions, I have plenty already installed, however I just know there is some more brilliance just lurking around about here!

 

[Zurai]

The most versatile option, although it increases workload a lot, would be to extend the current "enslave results in" box to a pair of linked lists: "Enslave target" and "Enslave result". In other words, you can select which units it's possible to enslave and what that individual unit ends up as. That way you can have your Privateer enslave Galleons as Galleons, War Galleons as Galleons, and Frigates as Frigates (for example), while allowing another ship with enslavement to do (for example) Galleons as War Galleons, War Galleons as War Galleons, and Frigates as Frigates.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Enslaved units can fight for they captors. In WWI Czechs POWs fought on all three (unlike popular misconception) fronts for their captors, though you may say it was due to strange circumstances. But these cannot be repeated in Civ, also do not forget that ideas of loyalty changed significiantly with time.

 

[aeldrik]

Gladi: do you mean Soldiers caputured during fights were given a gun and fought alongside the ones that had captured them? or do you mean people from occupied cities were used?

 

[Pfeffersack]

Originally posted by mrtn
Guys, you do realise you're arguing about who of you is the crown princess of Sweden? None of you are, and there is no chance the proposed change will be made.
Use the features of the game, or don't, but there's no use discussing how the game could have been made. It wasn't, and that's all there is to it.

I'm not sure about this change is utopic-im almost sure it was one thing mentioned from a Firaxian as addition for a further patch.Perhaps it will be part of the next (last?) patch.
I would like to be able to choose beetween the following options:
- X enslaves any unit Y it defeats into Z (as it now)
- X enslaves unit Y in Y
- ability to exclude units for both variants
I don't see in which way this ruins the system if you add something.

 

[Gladi]

Originally posted by aeldrik
Gladi: do you mean Soldiers caputured during fights were given a gun and fought alongside the ones that had captured them? or do you mean people from occupied cities were used?

Soldiers captured were given gun and fought alongside those who captured them. And on Eastern fron they were the best (well I am overstating a bit, but only little bit) of all units! If you want more info look for info on Czechoslovak Legions ( most english sites are Czech legions and speak only about Russia, shows you how invaluable real sources are).