Serfdom vs Slavery

[bardolph]

So how many people here use Serfdom when it becomes available?

In recent games, I've been toying with Serfdom as an alternative to Slavery (and Caste System) through the mid-game. I've found it to be pretty effective under the following conditions:

1) I'm running a cottage-based economy.
2) I have reasonably high health/happiness caps (through resources and Hereditary Rule).
3) I'm pillaging lots of enemy tiles during wartime.

When (1) and (2) are true, I find that Slavery stunts my growth, as cottaged cities tend to grow slowly. When (3) is true, I can happily pillage my enemies to hell and back and rely on my serf gangs to rebuild the landscape after I'm done conquering.

The biggest drawback with this strategy is that it's hard to build infrastructure in settled and conquered cities without having the whip. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that speedy workers can build workshops and chop forests to get these buildings out, but that's certainly not as handy as the "one-button-solution" that slavery provides.

So, I'm curious: do other people often use Serfdom in their games?

 

[Harbourboy]

I have never ever used serfdom.

 

[Jorunkun]

Almost never.

See your point about faster workers coming in handy in the mid-game, where growth accellerates and you need to set up all those cottages in preperation for Democracy.

However, consider the opportunity cost:

1. Warfare without whipping sucks. You can't whip emergency units, or theatres in newly conquered cities. Even if you don't plan on going to war in that period, you might have to defend.

2. Even when your territory is set and your cities and tiles are all well-developed, the whip is still efficient (indispensable?) for getting stuff done in food-rich/prod-poor future commerce cities (libraries, universities, markets and grocers).

3. Unless spiritual, you have two turns of anarchy switching into and out of this civic, and how long are faster workers really of use?

I would say if you want faster terrain improvements, you should build more workers. Having too few workers is perhaps THE most common tactical mistake. Me, I can't remember games where I thought I had too many. And with steam power they get 50% faster anyway.

It's a bit of a missed opportunity that this civic is so underpowered, I'd like to see more variety in government configurations. But even if serfdom gave you 100% faster workers, I wouldn't bother.

An a related note, with slavery being so very dominant, perhaps it would be fun to temper it down a bit. How about if you got unhappiness if you used it combined with emancipation or pacifism?

J.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Serfdom is generally useless. If you're spiritual, you can switch in and out, in order to whip and still get faster workers some of the time. But otherwise, it's much more effective to just build a few more workers, than to give up Slavery (and pay an extra turn to switch, besides).

 

[DaviddesJ]

Having too few workers is perhaps THE most common tactical mistake. Me, I can't remember games where I thought I had too many.

Wow. I can't think of any game where I didn't have too many workers. Eventually, when I stop expanding, I always end up with a bunch of workers and nothing useful to do with them.

 

[KMadCandy]

early on i never remembered to actually use the whip so i used serfdom all the time. i've learned a lot since then and i do whip now. i'm even actually learning about how to use it the right way!

if i'm spiritual and it's a "whack at the jungle, no urgent unit/infrastructure build needs" time period, i'll sometimes go to serfdom for a little bit to help out the poor workers. but i don't remember the last time i used it when i wasn't spiritual.

 

[bardolph]

1. Warfare without whipping sucks. You can't whip emergency units, or theatres in newly conquered cities. Even if you don't plan on going to war in that period, you might have to defend.

I completely agree that whipping is preferable to losing cities, but when I'm the aggressor, whipping "emergency" units will stunt the growth of my core cities. Why not work mines and workshops instead?

Whipping theaters in conquered cities is definitely a plus. Under serfdom, you can build workshops, then replace them with cottages, or you can chop out your theaters if you have forests near by, but I agree that whipping is preferable here.

2. Even when your territory is set and your cities and tiles are all well-developed, the whip is still efficient (indispensable?) for getting stuff done in food-rich/prod-poor future commerce cities (libraries, universities, markets and grocers).

I would argue that workshops are a good alternative to whipping, once you've reached Guilds.

3. Unless spiritual, you have two turns of anarchy switching into and out of this civic, and how long are faster workers really of use?

In my last game (Monarch/Epic with Victoria), I switched into Serfdom soon after Feudalism, and kept it until I switched to Emancipation. My workers were never idle during this period.

I would say if you want faster terrain improvements, you should build more workers. Having too few workers is perhaps THE most common tactical mistake. Me, I can't remember games where I thought I had too many. And with steam power they get 50% faster anyway.

Every worker you build is 1 gold/turn maintenance.

It's a bit of a missed opportunity that this civic is so underpowered, I'd like to see more variety in government configurations. But even if serfdom gave you 100% faster workers, I wouldn't bother.

I'm willing to accept that serfdom is underpowered, but I also think it is underrated.

If it gave 100% bonus to workers, it would definitely be overpowered.

An a related note, with slavery being so very dominant, perhaps it would be fun to temper it down a bit. How about if you got unhappiness if you used it combined with emancipation or pacifism?

Just increase the duration of the unhappiness.

But otherwise, it's much more effective to just build a few more workers, than to give up Slavery (and pay an extra turn to switch, besides).

It takes a more than "a few more workers" to make up the difference that Serfdom gives you. And besides the food/hammers that you spend building them, you also have to spend 1 gpt maintaining them.

 

[Priah]

I sometimes switch to serfdom as it comes right as I conquer my first neighbor. IE need to clear a lot of ground.

 

[DaviddesJ]

It takes a more than "a few more workers" to make up the difference that Serfdom gives you. And besides the food/hammers that you spend building them, you also have to spend 1 gpt maintaining them.

Usually, I find I have about 3*few workers, so it does take me only about few workers to compensate for the loss of Serfdom.

And unit maintenance is only 0.7 per unit, at Monarch level.

And often I'm below my unit maintenance cap, when playing a peaceful game, so extra workers don't cost anything.

 

[bardolph]

Usually, I find I have about 3*few workers, so it does take me only about few workers to compensate for the loss of Serfdom.

Haha, very succinctly put.

And unit maintenance is only 0.7 per unit, at Monarch level.

And often I'm below my unit maintenance cap, when playing a peaceful game, so extra workers don't cost anything.

I didn't know about that 0.7 thing. Is that a setting in one of the XML files?

 

[DaviddesJ]

I didn't know about that 0.7 thing. Is that a setting in one of the XML files?

On the financial advisor, you'll see your unit maintenance cost (1 per unit over the "free" level), and then it is reduced by an amount depending on the difficulty level (30% of the total, at Monarch).

It also goes up, with inflation, but that isn't significant until quite late in the game.

 

[bardolph]

On the financial advisor, you'll see your unit maintenance cost (1 per unit over the "free" level), and then it is reduced by an amount depending on the difficulty level (30% of the total, at Monarch).

It also goes up, with inflation, but that isn't significant until quite late in the game.

Oh, the "Handicap Cost." I always wondered where that number came from.

Here's my basic argument for Serfdom: when my cities aren't at their health/happiness cap, and especially when they don't have a large food surplus, I don't want to whip them, since whipping citizens knocks them off of mines, cottages, and possibly workshops. And if I'm not whipping my citizens, what's the point of sticking with slavery? Why not switch to serfdom and improve my tiles faster without wasting valuable food and hammers on building more workers?

In my latest game, I was playing a financial leader (Victoria) on land with tons of hills and forests, no flood plains, and not very many food resources. Because I was financial, I built mainly cottages, only building enough farms to support the mines and cottages.

Once I reached Guilds, I was able to build reasonably productive workshops for those cities that needed hammers.

In this scenario, I simply couldn't justify using the whip, since FOOD was my biggest concern, and whipped cities didn't grow back very quickly.

Serfdom seems like a natural fit for this scenario. Am I missing something here?

 

[DaviddesJ]

Serfdom seems like a natural fit for this scenario. Am I missing something here?

1. The cost of 1 turn of anarchy may outweigh the benefit of Serfdom, even if you aren't using Slavery at all. It might be 2 turns of anarchy, if you need to switch back to Slavery at some future time.

2. Even if most of your cities don't want to use Slavery, you usually have either (a) some newly founded cities that do want to use Slavery to get their infrastructure in place, or (b) some newly captured cities that do want to use Slavery to replace the infrastructure lost when you captured them, or (c) some high-food cities that can best use their food surplus with Slavery [if you're using Serfdom, then you aren't in Caste System]. At least, I almost always find that (a), (b), or (c) applies.

If I could run Slavery in some cities, and Serfdom in other cities, at no anarchy cost, then I would!

 

[KMadCandy]

Serfdom seems like a natural fit for this scenario. Am I missing something here?

not necessarily. what you're doing seems to work for you

a lot depends on the difficulty level. not just the gold upkeep mentioned above, i'd never even thought of that. for me it was the changes in happy/health caps. your cities are doing fine there, so you sound like you're doing the right thing for your situation. as i go up in difficulty i am definitely feeling the lower happy/health caps changes. there's one jump at prince (monarch is the same) and another at emperor (immortal and deity are the same as emp) and they just feel so different to me than noble. going to prince is when i had to learn to whip to keep my head above water. before that i was like "oh yeah i have that button, i should push it sometimes".

oh, looks like you're already at monarch so you've felt that next-to-last jump already.

 

[Mercenary82]

I use serfdom on medeival and later starts and then only for a short time until I get my first 2 cities improved.

 

[Ecofarm]

I've rarely found serfdom useful when I get railroad. You can railroad your civ very quickly, especially if you need it for defense against a possible invasion. Or as "war roads" for invading.

 

[UncleJJ]

Serfdom is generally useless. If you're spiritual, you can switch in and out, in order to whip and still get faster workers some of the time. But otherwise, it's much more effective to just build a few more workers, than to give up Slavery (and pay an extra turn to switch, besides).

This is my approach as well. I usually play a war based game with a hybrid economy and Slavery is essential to whip out an army after a new military tech has been discovered or to bring a captured city under control. Switching into Serfdom and then out again is too much of an overhead for a non Spiritual leader.

I'm willing to accept that serfdom is underpowered, but I also think it is underrated.

If it gave 100% bonus to workers, it would definitely be overpowered.

I don't think making it 100% would be overpowered. Currently it has a low upkeep cost, the same as Slavery, maybe that could be adjusted.


Anarchy costs far outweigh the cost of a few extra workers. In a typical mid game situation I might have 8 cities and be producing 200 beakers per turn, a total of 60 hammers and +35 food (I have plenty of farms) per turn which is equivalent with Slavery to say 120 hammers. So running maybe 4 extra workers at a build cost of 240 hammers and 3 gold per turn is a very much better deal than switching into Serfdom for enough turns to improve all my tiles and then switching back. The hammers and food lost by the anarchy pays for the workers and the 400 beakers is much better than a notional saving of 3 gold per turn.

All numbers used there are made up but I hope you get the perspective that I'm looking at this from I would only consider switching to Serfdom if it was significantly improved, and that would need to be at least 100% improvement in worker productivity. Even lowering its upkeep cost to zero would not be enough in most mid game situations.

 

[Ecofarm]

In regard to the railroad situation, there may be times when you cannot build enough units in 10 turns to stop a more powerful agressor:

lacking a rediculas stockpile of cash and US
lacking nationhood
lacking enough expendable population + slavery

Besides, do you want to go into emergency troop production when he might not even invade? However, some immeadiate preparations are called for.

You can insure your existence for the low (relative) price of 4 turns of anarchy (maybe the price isnt so low - 4 turns is alot):

Railroad your entire nation almost instantly with serfdom. This allows you to move all of your available units to one location in 1-2 turns, thus thwarting the (potential) invasion without having to produce additional defenders - especially good for a scared pacifist.

I also used it once because my army was ready to launch and no more units were needed (so the anarchy didnt hurt war efforts much); but I could use 'war railroads' that were produced so quickly that the victim didnt suspect anything until after the new "trade route" was built, the workers were gone, and all the troops in my cities (they had appeared to be garrison units) were instantly on his borders. If I had to wait a few turns to get the rails up, or walked units from all over my civ to his border, he would have been alerted and better prepared. Also, my reserves were gaunenteed a quick arival on the front if they were needed. How often are you ready for war but waiting for railroads? Probably not often.

Very rare, but I'm glad that I've got use out of it a couple times!

I agree that whipping should be more detrimental if running US or especially Emancipation.

 

[cabert]

^^at normal speed, you need 2 worker turns for railroading 1 tile.
Using serfdom, you still need 2 worker turns AFAIK.
No gain here.
Maybe at epic or marathon speed, it's better. But at normal or quick, it's useless.

 

[Napalm102]

On Epic I always have my workers in groups of 3, in early age they build road on normal terrain immediatelly, and later railroad too. So I just move build road in the same turn. Tundras, deserts, hills need more time ofcourse.