Game balance and AI

[Thunderbrd]

Gets back to slavery shouldn't be an economic civic but represented on its own line... I've always felt that was true as well. Is there any motion to make that happen anytime soon?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Gets back to slavery shouldn't be an economic civic but represented on its own line... I've always felt that was true as well. Is there any motion to make that happen anytime soon?

It is on my list but not high up. One issue is machines, currently they are dumb slaves but they are getting more intelligent all the time. When do they get considered the same as human slaves?

Currently I am thinking along the lines
- duty to tribe/family/nation - i.e. no slaves
- captives - the idea that people you capture in war can be lesser people, not quite slaves
- classic slavery (BTW this is where the idea of family comes from)
- industrial slavery (includes slaves, indentured servants and wage slaves)
- slave emancipation (slavery still exists but causes unrest and anger when discovered)
- machine slavery (human slaves are replaced by machines)
.....

 

[Thunderbrd]

interesting... Credit Enslavement should be somewhat included there... the methodically enforced conspiracy to create an environment where all are indebted to some sort of creditor, thereby forcing them to work to keep up with their demands. (Modern)

Also... food for thought: Slavery was introduced, so far as we can record, in Sumeria. The freemen Nobles would attack another city and the defeated survivors of the enemy armies and sometimes even the entire populace of that city would be enslaved to serve. Armies were usually composed entirely of the slaves garnered from previous conflicts, who could earn their freedom in the new society through battle. Alternatively, some societies have been extremely reluctant to use slaves in war at all, sending ONLY the citizens as combatants as only the citizenry could be entrusted to fight with cause.

 

[Cyrusfan]

If you want to make food the constraint, I could see -2 +2 per settled slave. I just think the problem is slaves are currently treated as some kind of production supermen rather than a quicker way to acquire population early on. This way 3 settled slaves are roughly 'worth' two citizens, but you didn't have to churn through food to get them. I would suggest a conversion rate when leaving slavery of 3:1 to represent some of the former slaves choosing to leave their former oppressors.

I'd also like the option I described for building slaves to replace the current system of "yesterday you were a priest, today a slave, tomorrow an engineer." At least once the AI is taught to settle its slaves.

Just a thought on the ratio of slaves to citizens, it occurs to me that the population points are an abstraction, so if a city had 10 regular population and 10 slave equivalent (15 under my suggestion), requiring the same amount of food as a population 20 city with no slaves, you have a 1:1 ratio of population units, but the *imagined* ratio might be 3:57 (considering the city name tooltip for population) either way, or any value inbetween.

 

[AIAndy]

First we need to make a name difference between the slaves that you make from your own population as specialists and the foreign ones you get and settle in your cities.
Their output should be about the same but the specialist ones have the flexibility that you can turn them into normal citizens.

Normal citizens have an inherent cost of -3, 1, 1, 5 crime/turn (used to be 3 crime/turn), some other properties / turn.
So the slave specialists and the settled slaves should differ by exactly that (as the settled slave does not incur the default citizen cost).

As you feed slaves worse than other citizens, they should probably cost 2. That means for the slave specialist to have +1, not -1 and for the settled slave to have -2.
Unhappiness and unhealthiness I'd suggest to leave at 1 and 1 with some added crime, maybe 7 crime/turn. That would mean 2 crime/turn on the slave specialist and 1, 1, 7 crime/turn on the settled slave.
The output of slaves would be around 2/3 of the output of a normal citizen as .

Then I'd suggest to introduce a slave stance in each city that determines how you treat your slaves. If you treat them worse, you get additional production output from all slaves but there is also a chance for each slave to die per turn. So you have the ability to get more production from them when you need it but use them up in the process.

 

[Thunderbrd]

First we need to make a name difference between the slaves that you make from your own population as specialists and the foreign ones you get and settle in your cities.
Their output should be about the same but the specialist ones have the flexibility that you can turn them into normal citizens.

Normal citizens have an inherent cost of -3, 1, 1, 5 crime/turn (used to be 3 crime/turn), some other properties / turn.
So the slave specialists and the settled slaves should differ by exactly that (as the settled slave does not incur the default citizen cost).

As you feed slaves worse than other citizens, they should probably cost 2. That means for the slave specialist to have +1, not -1 and for the settled slave to have -2.
Unhappiness and unhealthiness I'd suggest to leave at 1 and 1 with some added crime, maybe 7 crime/turn. That would mean 2 crime/turn on the slave specialist and 1, 1, 7 crime/turn on the settled slave.
The output of slaves would be around 2/3 of the output of a normal citizen as .

Then I'd suggest to introduce a slave stance in each city that determines how you treat your slaves. If you treat them worse, you get additional production output from all slaves but there is also a chance for each slave to die per turn. So you have the ability to get more production from them when you need it but use them up in the process.

Perfect solution.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@AIAndy

Sounds cool. I like your idea.

 

[Cyrusfan]

Generally agree. Would the usual temporary unhappiness penalty for oppression (I think it applies to ship building which I haven't done in ages, I mostly see it after the new medicinal herb event) apply when slaves (of either type, which is I guess another question) are worked to death?

Also, I wonder if maybe slaves shouldn't cost one more unhealthiness, so that the 'bonus' food is offset unless you're generating enough health to account for them.

 

[AIAndy]

Generally agree. Would the usual temporary unhappiness penalty for oppression (I think it applies to ship building which I haven't done in ages, I mostly see it after the new medicinal herb event) apply when slaves (of either type, which is I guess another question) are worked to death?

Hmm, maybe there should be an Oppression property that is increased from slaves, some other things and get an additional increase when you work slaves to death. Depending on the Oppression value some different pseudo buildings could spawn like Anti Oppression Movements and similar and probably also depend on the civics/tech what you get/don't get.

Also, I wonder if maybe slaves shouldn't cost one more unhealthiness, so that the 'bonus' food is offset unless you're generating enough health to account for them.

I considered that but then the balance of producing 2/3 of a normal citizen would be off again.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

First we need to make a name difference between the slaves that you make from your own population as specialists and the foreign ones you get and settle in your cities.
Their output should be about the same but the specialist ones have the flexibility that you can turn them into normal citizens.

Normal citizens have an inherent cost of -3, 1, 1, 5 crime/turn (used to be 3 crime/turn), some other properties / turn.
So the slave specialists and the settled slaves should differ by exactly that (as the settled slave does not incur the default citizen cost).

As you feed slaves worse than other citizens, they should probably cost 2. That means for the slave specialist to have +1, not -1 and for the settled slave to have -2.
Unhappiness and unhealthiness I'd suggest to leave at 1 and 1 with some added crime, maybe 7 crime/turn. That would mean 2 crime/turn on the slave specialist and 1, 1, 7 crime/turn on the settled slave.
The output of slaves would be around 2/3 of the output of a normal citizen as .

Then I'd suggest to introduce a slave stance in each city that determines how you treat your slaves. If you treat them worse, you get additional production output from all slaves but there is also a chance for each slave to die per turn. So you have the ability to get more production from them when you need it but use them up in the process.

I have had a look at implementing this for v26. There are no tags for and the only tag is iHealthPercent. There are also no property tags on any of the specialists so I am not sure if they have been added or not. As to how many do a "normal" citizen produce? Those on a mine produce lots, those on a farm very few and those set to specialists varyring amounts.

I have not been able to get Ksohing's onCivivChange to work yet but I think that was because I was doing three things at once and broke everything when I tried to save data from Python.

When you leave a civic that allows slaves what do we convert the settled slaves to? The normal slave specialist become almost anything. The Settled Citizen specialist is just a place holder really, as it has just the same stats as the unassigned citizen.

 

[JosEPh_II]

MoO3 used a slider setting for it's FLUs (Forced Labor Units) the Higher the setting the more Production but the faster they died off. Lower setting = longer life span but at a significantly reduced production rate. Or you could turn it off.

JosEPh

 

[AIAndy]

I have had a look at implementing this for v26. There are no tags for and the only tag is iHealthPercent. There are also no property tags on any of the specialists so I am not sure if they have been added or not.

They have not been added there yet but they should not be too hard to add.

As to how many do a "normal" citizen produce? Those on a mine produce lots, those on a farm very few and those set to specialists varyring amounts.

Maybe sum up the number of yields/commerces that an average specialist produces.

I have not been able to get Ksohing's onCivivChange to work yet but I think that was because I was doing three things at once and broke everything when I tried to save data from Python.

When you leave a civic that allows slaves what do we convert the settled slaves to? The normal slave specialist become almost anything. The Settled Citizen specialist is just a place holder really, as it has just the same stats as the unassigned citizen.

Take a percentage of them (the rest moves away) and add them as population. Then the assignment algorithm will take over.

 

[BlueGenie]

Purely adding even a percentage of settled slaves as population would make going out of slavery too strong, which would be a derivative of Slavery being too strong again. After all it takes forever and an aeon for a city to grow even 1 pop, especially on Eternity where it's not uncommon to need in excess of 2-3000 food to grow with a growth of 30-40 food per turn or anything from 25 turns and way up to grow. Having enough settled slaves to even with a percentage grow 2 or more pop in rapid succession would be OP.

If adding them as anything I'd suggest each settled slave gives a percentage of food added to the city, say 2.5%, with it being capped to getting to 100% stored and growing one pop the next turn, but only then and not more than that one pop. ((2.5% would be 20 slaves if having near 50% stored food on growth to grow one pop from just having grown))

Either way, or how it's solved, I'm very much in opposition of having been in Slavery granting more than that possible +1pop in all cities that have enough slaves in them. Even that is a lot but at least something I can live with.

About how much an average "normal" citizen can bring in: I'm not sure the comparison should be made that way as any "free specialist" is not counted towards the population as in eating food, creating crime, adding and , and so on, and I see any settled unit; great person or slave or hero or whatnots, as just that, a "free specialist". Granted that slaves are a special case but not so special as being equal or even equivalent to a real pop, a "normal" citizen.

Besides which adding that much "bad effects" to a settled slave specialist means they won't be worth having for those that want to try their hand at some early slavery so instead of making it an option and nerfing it a little it'll be completely broken and not really an option. Players are already being apprehensive of crime and crime levels and having 7 crime/turn per settled slave (when it's easy to get 10+ in every city when at war? if they eat food that would be 20 food less, but could be less due to wastage and how it counts that food lost) will wreak havoc on that part of the game.
As for the and , later in the game, early Classical and forward, there might be enough and to sustain settled slaves but when Slavery arrives, and a loooong while after in Eternity play, there isn't as much extra of either, especially . That basically means that the player has to chose between settling a slave or letting the city grow one population on it's own. Not really a choice in my opinion as you can, and should, do so much more with that "normal" citizen.

Please reduce the power of slavery a little, "nerf it" as it's so fondly called, but don't go overboard and break it completely. Then you'll only end up needing to fix it again anyway. *wink*

Adding an extra food cost, so to -2, is good. Production could be either 2 or even left at the original 3. Add +2crime/turn (not 7!!!!), or even just 1 (they are kept confined and restricted after all). Have the settled slaves die or running off by random events, for instance a lesser form of slave riot/rebellion. Have whipping take settled slaves and not population (which in C2C is totally whacked considering the city growth times). No settled slaves, sorry, can't whip...
On leaving Slavery the slaves can together maybe make up an additional population, not a potential "I'm saving 50 slave units in my capitol and the turn I change civics from Slavery I'll first pop them in as settled slaves and gain 5 pop instantly".

But, again, please do not overdo any attempt to balance Slavery as it will end up in the other direction instead.

Cheers

PS: I am not pro-slavery. It's a game and I look at it objectively. Slavery should have some power, be worth having, as that's how it was historically. I abhor the concept myself and even think a lot of today's work environments can be considered slavery in disguise and that freaks me out.

PCheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

Purely adding even a percentage of settled slaves as population would make going out of slavery too strong, which would be a derivative of Slavery being too strong again. After all it takes forever and an aeon for a city to grow even 1 pop, especially on Eternity where it's not uncommon to need in excess of 2-3000 food to grow with a growth of 30-40 food per turn or anything from 25 turns and way up to grow. Having enough settled slaves to even with a percentage grow 2 or more pop in rapid succession would be OP.

I disagree with this assertion. Under the current proposal, slaves would basically already BE population, perhaps even better than the normal population because it would not count in adding excess food buildup to build to the next levels of population. When the slaves are liberated and become population, they will suddenly cause the next pop level to take a LOT more food to get to PLUS they will be consuming a lot more food than they were as slaves. And consider how many citizens in the US alone are here because their ancestors were slaves. Just what % of the population would that be? Could this be one of the reasons that the US had such a meteoric rise in power for such a young nation?

I'm going to suggest that slaves be given 5 and I'll attempt to justify this.

A mined hill will produce a lot more hammers than that and those are basically citizens devoted to little more than mining to produce materials which others would then need to utilize to build buildings. Who are those others but basic laborers (slaves)? Slaves, classically, have been demanded to work harder than any citizen in history, often up to four times as many work hours put in as our own common workweek standard.

I don't think it would be necessary to have differing settings for how hard you want them to work... not that its a bad idea (I really like it actually) but it's pretty extensive adjustments in code to make happen when I think the slaving to complete a build is pretty much the answer in place already, provided that we make the population cost take from 'free slave specialists' first (therefore may not cut into population at all but would certainly derive the city of a lot of stored power.)

I do, however, think that slaves should probably be given +2 unhappiness to ensure that they are not overused, and to give good solid cause to emancipate them. Most cities would never be able to handle too many slaves if they were like this and that would keep the system in balance.

 

[BlueGenie]

I disagree with this assertion. Under the current proposal, slaves would basically already BE population,

This is what I feel will make Slavery even more overpowered. Slave units come from a built unit that has taken x amount of turns less time to get out than a city would need to grow one population. Thus a lot more units that can potentially become slaves are built than all cities total population put together.
Using these captures units to add population to a city, in any way or form, would not only unbalance the game but be so totally overpowered to the extent that in any Multi-player game if anyone went the slavery way and got a bunch of slaves anyone else not doing the same would be helplessly behind in city population and thus in the long run also in production power and science. Going Slavery would basically be the way to get a winning game.
((barring that someone or several some ones went after the Slavery guy to try to take him out before he could exit Slavery and gain the potential massive increase in population.))

Cheers

 

[AIAndy]

This is what I feel will make Slavery even more overpowered. Slave units come from a built unit that has taken x amount of turns less time to get out than a city would need to grow one population. Thus a lot more units that can potentially become slaves are built than all cities total population put together.
Using these captures units to add population to a city, in any way or form, would not only unbalance the game but be so totally overpowered to the extent that in any Multi-player game if anyone went the slavery way and got a bunch of slaves anyone else not doing the same would be helplessly behind in city population and thus in the long run also in production power and science. Going Slavery would basically be the way to get a winning game.
((barring that someone or several some ones went after the Slavery guy to try to take him out before he could exit Slavery and gain the potential massive increase in population.))

Cheers

I don't quite get why on the one hand you argue against giving slaves , and crime because the city can't sustain it but on the other hand you think the population gain from going out of slavery would be overpowered?
That population would incur the same , and crime (minus 2/turn) but cost more food. So yes, of course you have to decide between settling that slave or letting your city grow once more on its own but that is also why you do get a chance for a real population at the end.
Nonetheless if there are too many slaves from war, then the chance to get slaves could be reduced.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

One other thing is that the other settled specialists are not population but individuals (and like you they are basically immortal). Settled Slave/Citizen specialists are not individuals but a group of people. The slave unit is currently the remnant of the population you killed when taking the city or what we would call "prisoners of war" from the unit you killed. remembering that a unit is also a number of people. So do we need two types of slaves each representing population in food terms based on the amount of food needed to get to population 2? Remembering that it takes more food to get from population 2 to population 3 than it does from 1 to 2.

Edit I think I am asking Should we have"Slave - civilians" worth half the food to get to population 2 and "Slaves - military" which are worth a lot less in food? However both provide the same boost to production and only the militry ones can be drafted.

 

[AIAndy]

Edit I think I am asking Should we have"Slave - civilians" worth half the food to get to population 2 and "Slaves - military" which are worth a lot less in food? However both provide the same boost to production and only the militry ones can be drafted.

Hmm, if we go that way, maybe we should require 5 or so "Slaves - military" to convert them to a "Slaves - civilians" and only "Slaves - civilians" can be settled.

 

[BlueGenie]

I don't quite get why on the one hand you argue against giving slaves , and crime because the city can't sustain it but on the other hand you think the population gain from going out of slavery would be overpowered?
That population would incur the same , and crime (minus 2/turn) but cost more food. So yes, of course you have to decide between settling that slave or letting your city grow once more on its own but that is also why you do get a chance for a real population at the end.
Nonetheless if there are too many slaves from war, then the chance to get slaves could be reduced.

Simple; exploitation, sort of anyway, (un)balance, and also history.

Sort of Exploitation:
[Scenario]
I'm going to war, or at least going out on a big raid, against an opponent, maybe more, with my units. I enter Slavery before the first battle. I take as many slaves as I possibly can while fighting, preferably enough for say a total of minimum 10 populations worth. I only move the slaves to my cities, I don't actually spend them on settling or hurrying or anything, just let them stand around in my cities.
After Anarchy and waiting time to be allowed to change civics again and with all the slaves stationed at their assigned cities I take a turn to:
1. Settle all slaves in their designated cities.
2. Switch Civics away from Slavery to one that changes them into population (by percent or however it's done).
3. End turn.
[/Scenario]
Which would let me gain a bunch of pop in just a few turns (compared to growing that is). It's not even really exploitation as it's just as simple to keep your slave units around even when planning to stay in Slavery, using them finally in the manner described above when it's time to pick another Civic.
After all, it someone is running Slavery and gets a bunch of slaves and don't want to settle in any cities, or spend gold to upgrade into on-shot units, or feel the need to hurry any buildings, then what should be done with the slave units? Disbanded? Or saved until needed, for instance right before exiting Slavery?

Balance:
All the things I've posted already about making Slavery too strong.

History:
I don't think there has ever been an instance in history where slaves under supervision have incurred higher crime rates, nor when slaves have not been under supervision.
In the first case I can imagine more guards needed in some cases, or a slave riot happening, but not crime. (imagines a bunch of slaves embezzling, mmm, can't imagine that, or illegal brainwashing...) I can imagine more money costs due to increased security, but not increased crime per se.
In the second case those slaves either found a way to escape or kept a very low profile so they would not be noticed. They were after all trusted slaves but that trust could be revoked any time for anything untoward. Doing crime would most assuredly not be among the things those slaves were engaged in.

Slaves were kept separate from the general populace in most cases, household slaves being an exception but they were usually treated better and live in the same conditions (mostly) as the ones they lived with. The work slaves (that seems to be mainly discussed here, ) were housed in their own areas and did not really have any significant impact on health issues for the rest of the population. (Possibly STD's if the women were being regularly raped.)

As for creating unhappiness there were more than likely a few among the general population that did not like how the slaves were being treated, or even opposed slavery (though probably in silence). All others, especially the people benefiting from having slaves, were rather more happy (in game terms that, not literally happy though some probably were that too) as they could avoid the chores they didn't want to do, having slaves to do it for them, or got a lot more work done for a greater profit for themselves. The slave masters got more time to spend philosophising, doing arts, spending time with their families and otherwise socializing. I doubt they were unhappier due to having slaves.

Cheers

 

[AIAndy]

Simple; exploitation, sort of anyway, (un)balance, and also history.

Sort of Exploitation:
[Scenario]
I'm going to war, or at least going out on a big raid, against an opponent, maybe more, with my units. I enter Slavery before the first battle. I take as many slaves as I possibly can while fighting, preferably enough for say a total of minimum 10 populations worth. I only move the slaves to my cities, I don't actually spend them on settling or hurrying or anything, just let them stand around in my cities.
After Anarchy and waiting time to be allowed to change civics again and with all the slaves stationed at their assigned cities I take a turn to:
1. Settle all slaves in their designated cities.
2. Switch Civics away from Slavery to one that changes them into population (by percent or however it's done).
3. End turn.
[/Scenario]
Which would let me gain a bunch of pop in just a few turns (compared to growing that is). It's not even really exploitation as it's just as simple to keep your slave units around even when planning to stay in Slavery, using them finally in the manner described above when it's time to pick another Civic.
After all, it someone is running Slavery and gets a bunch of slaves and don't want to settle in any cities, or spend gold to upgrade into on-shot units, or feel the need to hurry any buildings, then what should be done with the slave units? Disbanded? Or saved until needed, for instance right before exiting Slavery?

That exploit would be avoidable by making the conversion percentage dependent on the number of turns a slave has been settled in that city. If the slave population has not been in there a long time, it is very likely to run back home.

Balance:
All the things I've posted already about making Slavery too strong.

History:
I don't think there has ever been an instance in history where slaves under supervision have incurred higher crime rates, nor when slaves have not been under supervision.
In the first case I can imagine more guards needed in some cases, or a slave riot happening, but not crime. (imagines a bunch of slaves embezzling, mmm, can't imagine that, or illegal brainwashing...) I can imagine more money costs due to increased security, but not increased crime per se.
In the second case those slaves either found a way to escape or kept a very low profile so they would not be noticed. They were after all trusted slaves but that trust could be revoked any time for anything untoward. Doing crime would most assuredly not be among the things those slaves were engaged in.

Slaves were kept separate from the general populace in most cases, household slaves being an exception but they were usually treated better and live in the same conditions (mostly) as the ones they lived with. The work slaves (that seems to be mainly discussed here, ) were housed in their own areas and did not really have any significant impact on health issues for the rest of the population. (Possibly STD's if the women were being regularly raped.)

As for creating unhappiness there were more than likely a few among the general population that did not like how the slaves were being treated, or even opposed slavery (though probably in silence). All others, especially the people benefiting from having slaves, were rather more happy (in game terms that, not literally happy though some probably were that too) as they could avoid the chores they didn't want to do, having slaves to do it for them, or got a lot more work done for a greater profit for themselves. The slave masters got more time to spend philosophising, doing arts, spending time with their families and otherwise socializing. I doubt they were unhappier due to having slaves.

Cheers

It might not be fully realisitic, but then the Civ model that every population point gets you 1 and 1 is neither.
The problem with the current slaves is that you can settle as many as you want and every single one is a strict gain for the city. So there needs to be a downside to slaves or a limit. With a limit it is still a no brainer to fill slave pop up to its maximum.
I think at least the should be there as it is mainly from having a large population.