Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,410
I think 25 is a good amount of hammers. I played a game in which they provided 50, which is way too much. I lowered it down to 25
. I think that's enough.
Playing a game with the slave mechanics, I thought the following. I think you should only be able to enslave units when you attack. It seems strange to me for an army to capitulate and become a slave, when you're the one who's attacking.
Instead, when you attack the other and win, it's more likely to enslave the enemy units who capitulated because of your attack.
In addition, the chance of enslaving barbarians could be higher then enslaving vanilla civs units.
We only disagree about 5 petty hammers


There are many instances in the battles when attacking army gets encircled and capitulates, with attackers being sold into slavery. Example: Siege of Syracuse by Athenians in 415-413 BC. After the failed siege and failed relief attempt 7,000 Athenians surrendered -- their generals were executed and the rest sent to die as slave workers in the stone quarries of Sicily... Basically, enslavement represents captives after the defeat. One can be defeated both in attack and in defense.
And I do agree about barbarians big time!
RFCE does without whipping too and it forced many new strategic decisions. I suggest make whipping Qin's UP only-- the first emperor was using his workers like slaves. Serfdom was supposed to be a more humane form of government. And in general how can you whip the "training" of a military unit?