Is it *possible* to play a strong game without slavery?

[lordrune]

When I started playing Civ 4, I didn't like whipping, because it felt kinda cruel - and I'm unable to *totally* disassociate myself from that, like most people (its a flaw I have when I game, I tend to involve myself).

But after reading some strategy articles about it, and playing a few games with heavy whipping, I worked out just how absolutely immense the power of slavery actually is. Especially when you combine it with a granary. I don't think most of you will need any convincing about this. With a little bit of management (i.e. whip on the turn that the city would otherwise grow) you actually don't lose any population when you do it... so in the early age of the game, you can rapidly whip up big armies of axemen, chariots, swordsmen, without even cutting your productive capacity (assuming you watch the happy cap)... if this is combined with charistmatic, religion, the effect is even more powerful because the happy cap isn't so restrictive.

My only really gripe is that the technique is so powerful, that playing *without* it really handicaps your game. In fact, you're basically forced into it for the early game at least, as its very hard to build the necsessary infrastructure and military otherwise.

My question is does anyone play successful games without using the cruel whip? Especially at Prince or higher...

 

[kazapp]

I think Civ depicts slavery as the very powerful way of getting things done it is (moral issues aside).

 

[MrCynical]

At Prince and indeed probably up to Emperor I'm fairly sure I could win without using Slavery. At that level a slow start can be compensated by the ease of getting to Rifling and into the Industrial age ahead of the AI. At levels higher than that I've always made extensive use of slavery.

 

[madscientist]

I often will play games without ever using slavery. Not an ethical reason, but a strategic one. I decreases population and has some more serious consequences in BTS expansion pack. On the other hand, I will not heistate to use it if the situation calls for it.

I play Monarch at marathon speed (which is an issue with slavery).

 

[macedon]

Yes it is posible i can win at emperor and imortal level without whiping at all

 

[lordrune]

I often will play games without ever using slavery. Not an ethical reason, but a strategic one. I decreases population and has some more serious consequences in BTS expansion pack. On the other hand, I will not heistate to use it if the situation calls for it.

The thing is though, that if you've got granaries in all your cities, and wait until the turn your city would otherwise grow, you actually won't lose population (except on the turn you actually whip) because your food will pull your city's population right back up again.

I do agree the event in BTS is a nuisance - but its little more than that.

I'm not one of these people who will slave after the early-game, though (sometimes in the early mid-game). When your infrastructure/tech/resources can support larger populations, then you will get more value out of the commerce/production being worked by your citizens - and the cities don't grow fast enough to sustain regular whipping.

But in the early game, when your cities can't be large anyway, the sheer number of bonus, effectively free, hammers being produced when you methodically whip a fast-growing city, well, its impossible to ignore.

 

[Florian]

What are you whipping all those soldiers to do? Conquer your neighbor in a war of aggression? Do you have qualms about slavery, but none about starting wars in order to take territory that isn't yours? I suggest you deal with one in the same way you deal with the other.

My suggestions:

1) Justify the act

War version: "He was going to attack me. I just beat him to the punch (note: doesn't work with all civs)."

Slavery version: "I'm just whipping away a bunch of malcontents who refuse to work. This way they'll be useful to their neighbors instead of a burden on them."

2) Distance yourself historically

War and Slavery both: "These are the historical facts. We aren't proud of them, but this is how every empire was built. Once we're secure and advanced, we'll get civilized and fight only defensive wars and emancipate everybody. (This probably won't work if you're still warmongering and backstabbing friendly neighbors all the way up to your domination win).

3) Remember that it's just a game.

War version: Civ isn't just a war game, but it is a war game. If you really have problems with simulated conquest, you shouldn't be playing it. (And if you want the moral thrill of fighting only when you need to defend yourself, and conquering cities only as a punitive measure, Civ IV has enough variety that you can probably do that successfully most of the time as long as you restrict yourself to certain leaders, and maybe certain difficulty levels).

Slavery version: "Slavery" is just a game mechanic that allows you to translate food into hammers.

 

[lordrune]

What are you whipping all those soldiers to do? Conquer your neighbor in a war of aggression? Do you have qualms about slavery, but none about starting wars in order to take territory that isn't yours? I suggest you deal with one in the same way you deal with the other.

Well, generally, I'm whipping those soldiers to generate a power graph big enough that my psycho friends won't see me as a juicy target

But good advice in your post, thanks

 

[madscientist]

The thing is though, that if you've got granaries in all your cities, and wait until the turn your city would otherwise grow, you actually won't lose population (except on the turn you actually whip) because your food will pull your city's population right back up again.

But you still have the unhappiness for 30 turns (marathon speed).

I do agree the event in BTS is a nuisance - but its little more than that.

losing population or having your capital useless for several turns is not exctly nuisance. It's worse than anarchy because the remainder of you civilization cities still have maintenance costs, especially if your banking on shrine income or a wonderspammed capital.

I'm not one of these people who will slave after the early-game, though (sometimes in the early mid-game). When your infrastructure/tech/resources can support larger populations, then you will get more value out of the commerce/production being worked by your citizens - and the cities don't grow fast enough to sustain regular whipping.

I agree pretty much.

But in the early game, when your cities can't be large anyway, the sheer number of bonus, effectively free, hammers being produced when you methodically whip a fast-growing city, well, its impossible to ignore.

Yeah sometimes it's hard to ignore, then again living with unhappy faces are tough to ignore also.

The OP was whether it was needed to win, and I say no, at least up to Monarch IMO. Is it valuable, yes. I will frequently whip a monument in new cities at pop 2. Ditto for low production cities. Very situational, but if I can reasonably build something without whipping I generally do.

Whipping military depends on the opposition. If Shaka, MONTY, Ragnar ar enet door neighbors, I'm whipping down all cities to take them out early if I can.

 

[Bleys]

I dont think you can win above Monarch without both whipping and chopping. I think below that, you can get away with one or the other (be a Slave Master and Save the Forests, or a Lumberjack Land Clearer and a nice, Serfdom work ethic, maybe). I dont think you can win Noble without SOME use of one or the other.

Mastering whipping and chopping, so both are maximized for biggest impact, is the ticket to Diety, though, I think. I noticed it very quickly once I read up on these two massive production "features".

 

[obsolete]

I've won Immortal fine without slavery. But... I've nuked the world over many times. So please don't string me up and hang me, it's just a game....

 

[DaveMcW]

I dont think you can win Noble without SOME use of one or the other.

Do not underestimate the power of cottage spam.

 

[mike p]

Personally, Monarch is quite beatable without Slavery. Since the recent changes to the upkeep cost and Slave Revolt events sometimes I don't even bother revolting to it.

I don't chop much either, unless I'm building a mine, farm, cottage, or plantation on the same tile. That's probably a lot more sub optimal than not using the whip much though.

The argument that Slavery doesn't have a population cost if properly timed is pretty flawed, btw. Assume you have a size 4 city that will grow next turn. If you whip, you end up with a size four city at the end of the next turn. If you don't, you'll have a size 5 city with the same unhappiness level. How is that not hurting your population?

 

[lordrune]

The argument that Slavery doesn't have a population cost if properly timed is pretty flawed, btw. Assume you have a size 4 city that will grow next turn. If you whip, you end up with a size four city at the end of the next turn. If you don't, you'll have a size 5 city with the same unhappiness level. How is that not hurting your population?

That's a valid point of course, but the medium-long term growth potential isn't dampened by use of the whip. As soon as you stop slaving, you will catch up to health/happy caps rapidly, because growth is so fast at low population levels, assuming the city is decently fed.
The actual numbers do vary for different situations, of course - there is probably no one size fits all rule - and if we talk about optimum management, then what works for one city may not be preferable for another.

 

[Bleys]

If you don't, you'll have a size 5 city with the same unhappiness level. How is that not hurting your population?

Wont your city will have an unhappiness of 5 as well? Thats the problem, with nothing bringing in extra happiness early, you will generally outgrow your happy max pretty quickly.

 

[nbcman]

I would doubt that an archipeligo (sp) map would be winnable without slavery since those maps are so hammer poor but seafood rich.

But I rarely use slavery in my Prince level games-I typically go for Caste System in BtS because of the Slave Revolt Random Event.

 

[Dan Quale]

Caste system is really overlooked, Better production from workshops, as well as a far stronger SE setup. I tend to not use slavery for single player games, and rely more on chop rushing. Playing immortal difficulty for most of my successful games, slavery has been necessary only on a few occasions. Anarchy is simply not productive, even that 2 turn gap in my capital's production, and the possibility of random revolts, would eventually outweigh any gain I would achieve from sacrificing population. Slavery is more an emergency countermeasure, such as entering a strike, pre alphabet and needing fast libraries or courthouses, to continue outteching the AI.

 

[Verge]

In a lot of my games, I manage to hook up enough resources to increase my happiness cap substantially very early in the game; in those instances, I rarely whip if ever, instead opting to maximize my population for additional worked cottages.

 

[obsolete]

People keep saying slavery costs more now, but according to the F3 screen, there is no new text indicating this. Does anyone know the mathematics of why/how the cost is more expensive now?

Anyhow, I try not to run slavery now only because that slave revolt random event is an absolute killer! It never fails to hit me at the worst timing possible.

 

[Wodan]

Whipping is less cottages or less specialists. It hurts your research quite a bit.

Wodan