Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,035
Power versus Ethics of Slavery Civic
- Thread starter Fippy
- Start date
- Status
SombreDolphin
Chieftain
Oooh that sucks
thegreekweegee
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 292
dat food tho, the whip will be very liberal in such a spot
SombreDolphin
Chieftain
Yeah I suppose it would be... I don't usually run slavery though, maybe I'll have to try it sometime.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 25,103
Well, it's the single most powerful mechanic in the game
The7Sins
Hungry Burger
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Nope it is quite obviously Serfdom that is most powerful.
Lol, I would agree on marathon speeds or greater.. Although, Epic is a nice mix of the two.
SombreDolphin
Chieftain
Well usually what I do is; get the pyramids, get universal suffrage, and then secure many sources of gold, then I don't have to deal with the population getting whacked, and the unhappiness for how many ever turns it is. But that's just me; considering I just kinda make it up as I go along.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Gah am I the only one who was confused by SombreDolphin and thegreekweegee having the same avatar? 
Universal Suffrage is really not worth it until the Renaissance because you need towns and some decent gold modifiers for goldrushing to pay off. If you build the Pyramids go Representation for supercharged specialists or maaaaaybeeeeee Police State if you want to conquer someone. Slavery is the most powerful civic in the game, especially in the early game when you have lots of food and a relatively low happy cap.
Universal Suffrage is really not worth it until the Renaissance because you need towns and some decent gold modifiers for goldrushing to pay off. If you build the Pyramids go Representation for supercharged specialists or maaaaaybeeeeee Police State if you want to conquer someone. Slavery is the most powerful civic in the game, especially in the early game when you have lots of food and a relatively low happy cap.
SombreDolphin
Chieftain
Interesting, thanks.
Also about the avatar... I really would like a different one, but I figured I'll just play along until I can use my own, so I found this one cause it's freakin hilarious.
Also about the avatar... I really would like a different one, but I figured I'll just play along until I can use my own, so I found this one cause it's freakin hilarious.
"Slavery the most powerful..."? That's a matter of subjective opinion. It depends on how a player uses civics and other game features.
I don't use slavery. Game or no game, I treat people the way I would prefer them to treat me - so I never use slavery (nor do I declare war on people unless they are warmongers who I am stopping from annihilating a weaker civ).
As for powerful features of the early game, I find chopping forests to be very beneficial to hurrying production. I tend to chop down forests which are right next to my cities (the centre ring of 8 squares), so that invaders have less terrain defence bonuses when they are right next to my cities, and I can wipe them out more easily.
I keep my population happy with luxuries, happiness buildings (e.g. forges and temples), producing workers and settlers, and focusing my cities on using squares which have less food but more gold and hammers.
I don't use slavery. Game or no game, I treat people the way I would prefer them to treat me - so I never use slavery (nor do I declare war on people unless they are warmongers who I am stopping from annihilating a weaker civ).
As for powerful features of the early game, I find chopping forests to be very beneficial to hurrying production. I tend to chop down forests which are right next to my cities (the centre ring of 8 squares), so that invaders have less terrain defence bonuses when they are right next to my cities, and I can wipe them out more easily.
I keep my population happy with luxuries, happiness buildings (e.g. forges and temples), producing workers and settlers, and focusing my cities on using squares which have less food but more gold and hammers.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
No, it is an objective fact, proven again and again and again. No other civic delivers such effective results with such consistency.
Now if you want to avoid Slavery for roleplaying reasons that's your choice, but I am curious as to what you are running instead before you unlock Emancipation. Tribalism? Serfdom? Caste System? None of them strike me as too ethical.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 25,103
Are you sure you are in the right forum?
Anyway, dude, the efficacy of slavery is canon..there is no argument here. If you don't know how to use it then you really haven't experienced this game.
Are you sure you are in the right forum?
...
If you don't know how to use it then you really haven't experienced this game.
Hahahaha, how mean man. But, I must entirely concur.
Nevertheless...
Yes, consistency is the key word here. Bacause It is not an objective fact that slavery should surpass any other choice in any game circumstance. Not getting into lategame, where the effects and consequences of early slavery should/might be already in due effect, given certain maps, low food and/or happiness, you will be better off almost not using slavery, for instance. Or, a phi civ/leader will want to run caste alternatively, if empire situation and strategy favors it (no grand military is needed, etc). And so on...
Again, generally speaking, because of it´s consistency, we can agree slavery is the most powerfull. In fact it is pretty historically accurate: any prominent nation needs to undergo certain period of slavery in it's game history to get along.
Sorry Guerilla, it´s true, given the above.
My main concern is, why being in between heaven and hell would you want not to give upon our most primal urges playing a game, fantasy is what gaming is all about. Be for once (within the game) a megalomaniac bastard, or a rampant world enslaver just for fun (tried this with Ethiopia in an ICS attempt once. Slavery upon the entire "known" world till the end.. jeje).
I said NOTHING about "ethics", only treating people how I want to be treated, since I want to be happy, and I am aware that self/other is an illusion which causes unhappiness: we are all interconnected, all influence each other, we are all ONE.
Life in tribal systems, e.g. the tribes of the Kalahari Bushpeople, was much happier for everyone than any slave systems.
Even life in serfdom and a caste system was and is happier than life under slavery.
Are you sure you are in the right forum?
Anyway, dude, the efficacy of slavery is canon..there is no argument here. If you don't know how to use it then you really haven't experienced this game.
Apparently you imagine this is a fascist Stormfront forum. It's not. It's a forum intended to be friendly, but you are promoting human rights abuses and cyberbullying instead, as well as ignoring the points I made.
In REALITY, there are arguments for not using slavery. I made some and you IGNORED THEM.
There is no "best" way to do anything, nor does your concept of "really experiencing" something prove such a claim. "Best", like "good", "bad", "right", "wrong", etc., is a SUBJECTIVE MORAL claim, not an absolute, objective fact.
I never said anything about "not knowing how to use it". That was you using the "straw man" logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I know how to use slavery, and I know how to use forest chopping, and I have found forest chopping to be more useful. By the same logic as you used, I can equally say that you don't know how to use forest chopping, nor do you know how a player can play even more effectively by not using slavery than by using it.
However, I will simply repeat what I said before:
THERE IS NO "RIGHT" WAY TO PLAY A GAME. "Right", "wrong", etc., is a SUBJECTIVE MORAL claim, not an absolute, objective fact. Can you accept that other people play differently to you, without making a conflict about it?
I am aware that self/other is an illusion which causes unhappiness: we are all interconnected, all influence each other, we are all ONE.
I want to be happy, so I treat others as I want them to treat me. I have no desire to harm innocent people. It's not like "I have the desire, but I fear repercussions, so I don't do it in real life but only in games". No, I don't have such internal contradictions. I don't have the desire to harm innocent people ANYWHERE, and I don't want to nurture such thoughts - doing it feels disgusting - as it does to very psychologically healthy people who I try to emulate:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1518412.Life_and_How_To_Survive_It
And this compassion, based on awareness of reality, enables more happiness.
It's Buddhism. It amazes me that you've never heard of this. BUDDHISM IS IN THE GAME, and the Buddhism quote DIRECTLY RELATES TO THIS. "Meditation", which is mentioned in the Buddhism technology quote, is awareness practice, compassion-nurturing.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
But that is ethics.
Yes. In real life. In this game slavery is a very good way of managing happiness.
You seem to be confusing a discussion of game mechanics with a discussion about real life political theory.
The reason for that might be that everybody but you thought this was a discussion of game mechanics, not political philosophy.
There is a best way to play a game if you want to maximize your chances of winning. If after five minutes of playing chess you take the gameboard and throw it off the table, disregarding morality, you will hopefully not argue that doing this is somehow equally as likely to lead to the enemy king landing in check mate as moving your queen to A5.
Useful for what and under which conditions? Again, it is your good right to experience a game in whichever way you choose, just as you are free to play chess without ever moving your bishops, but if you are trying to argue that your specific way of playing is equally as likely to lead to victory as a strategy employed by literally all the pros, in a more or less deterministic strategy game, then you really shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people disagree with you.
There are however ways to play a game that make it more likely you will win.
This I can`t relate to. Self is subjacent to all for me, as self is the only way I came to know/be aware of all.
Different philosophy, right. I don`t consider myself a Buddhist, clearly.
Anyhow, as the other forist here mentioned, discussions here revolve around just a game. Moreover, anything beyond the game is tolerated only to an extent before moderators decide to intercede.
Moderator Action: This discussion was derailing the Funny Screen Shots thread, so moved it to its own thread.
- Status
