Slavery: A valid tactic?
- Thread starter Ryozo
- Start date
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
Hi Ryozo,
i never have tried, but i read the condition, that goes in hand
with the increased production...
I think you never should use. And if there is an emergency for
you to do, its in the beginning, and you shoeld start a new game...
i never have tried, but i read the condition, that goes in hand
with the increased production...
I think you never should use. And if there is an emergency for
you to do, its in the beginning, and you shoeld start a new game...
For that, you'd want Nationhood. Then you'll get draft, three instant-built units a turn for one pop point each and some unhappiness.
Slavery is situational, but consider: early game, your population may get so large it becomes unhappy. You can stop it growing, but why not instead burn the excess pop point on a building you really want to complete?
Slavery is situational, but consider: early game, your population may get so large it becomes unhappy. You can stop it growing, but why not instead burn the excess pop point on a building you really want to complete?
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
You could be right,
i just thought, that the unhappy face in manual means
that there is a situation like when there is a unhappy face to much in the city,
not that the city-happy-faces a decreased by 1.
But i think i was wrong, its just a reduction with 1 happy face
i just thought, that the unhappy face in manual means
that there is a situation like when there is a unhappy face to much in the city,
not that the city-happy-faces a decreased by 1.
But i think i was wrong, its just a reduction with 1 happy face
MRM
Prince
IMO boosting production with slavery is sometimes very useful.
Conditions
- you have larger city ( 6 - 10 ) in the early game
Foodproduction is much better than hammer production ( for example because of food bonus tiles )
Your population is unhappy and/or unhealthy because of overpopulation.
In this case it is very useful to boost production of temples or aqueducts
Conditions
- you have larger city ( 6 - 10 ) in the early game
Foodproduction is much better than hammer production ( for example because of food bonus tiles )
Your population is unhappy and/or unhealthy because of overpopulation.
In this case it is very useful to boost production of temples or aqueducts
Dog of Justice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2002
- Messages
- 40
Slavery works best with a very heavy Floodplain city that keeps bumping against its health soft cap. It's not so strong at dealing with the more common situation of a city's growth being happiness-limited...
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
for latin-non-readers i try:
populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
the populace demand the deception, so it will be deceived
For Mujadaddy: are the time-forms correct?
populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
the populace demand the deception, so it will be deceived
For Mujadaddy: are the time-forms correct?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I find it's more helpful at the higher difficulties, where your growth is limited. Rather than sit there with a stagnant city, may as well use the population heads to keep things moving.
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
MSTK said:
If you have the time for playing with no chances - ok...
But there is a random factor in civ - for AI and for you
so if you play to win, and this is the intention of a game, its more helpful to increase your abilities by playing to the end,
and not loose in the year 10 BC.
If you would have written this with regard to chess, you would have right,
but civ is a partly gamo-of-chance.
The intention of Civ is never to win. If it is, you would just find yourself playing the exact same way every time just so you can win. You may get a degree of satisfaction out of just winning the game. But if you want to do that, go play an RTS.
Civ's true value is the process of playing. Trying out new things, and most of all, the struggle. Struggling to get from the very bottom to the very top. If you're winning throughout the whole game, then sure, you will iwn. But would you have fun in the process? You're just mindlessly playing through another game, same as the last.
Civ's true value is the process of playing. Trying out new things, and most of all, the struggle. Struggling to get from the very bottom to the very top. If you're winning throughout the whole game, then sure, you will iwn. But would you have fun in the process? You're just mindlessly playing through another game, same as the last.
) The translation I'm familiar with is simpler-- "The people want to be deceived; therefore, let them be deceived."
MSTK said:
Who says you have to play against the AI? You can play against yourself or other people. Try to beat the score you got in your last game. Or try to launch your spaceship 50 turns sooner. Or try to win by a different victory condition. It's a lot more fun that way. I have just as much fun playing on Noble and going for a fast conquest victory as I do playing on monarch or emperor where it's a struggle just to win the game.
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
MSTK said:
1. Civ can not have an intention, because it is a game.
2. The authors of civ can have an intention
3. The people that are playing civ can have very different intentions
4. If you aim to win, you can try many ways too
5. If i look for values, i do it just in life
6. No game could figure life
7. There is rarely more sense in games then entertainment
8. Exception: You use Strategie in life
9. If i need Knowledge about Strategie i study or read books about
Pius Hermit said:
1. Games have an intention. They are created for fun. What good is a game of Chess if you win every time but have no fun doing it?
2. During the creation process of the game, the game designers had very specific intentions, including re-creating the One-More-Turn syndrome, expanding on the game, making their fans happy, and various other things that the developers made very clear to the public many times within the months that Civ 4 went public.
All of which contribute to the same thing: greater enjoyment in the game.
3. Yes, I agree. It is all subjective. But it's like saying that people using brooms have different intentions. Some people use them to fly around. Some people use them to dig holes in the ground. Some people use them to poke people from a distance. It's all subjective. But the creators of the broom had one intention in mind: to sweep dirt.
4. I agree with this whole-heartedly. The original post I had replied to stated that if he could not win a game, there was no point trying. This means that he did not want to try different ways to win a game. If he couldn't win the way that he was aiming to win, he quit the game right away, which goes against the philosophy that you and I both share.
5. Values in life and values in game are two different things. Values in life matter in life. Values in games matter in games.
6. No game could imitate life values. Which is why they don't.
7. Entertainment = playing a game for fun. NOT playing a game to win it.
8 & 9. Game values & strategies and Life values & strategies should not be mixed up. They are completely different.
Dairuka
Prince
I use slavery only when I have a city with flood plains. When I do use it; I use it extensively in that city to rush-build units in the early game. I usually stop when I can get enough happiness and healthiness resource tiles to keep my cities content at large populations though. Protection is hard to make in the early game, especially when you're trying to rapidly expand to keep other civilizations from expanding at your expense. So Pop-Rushing certainly helps to alleviate that, without much of a painful cost.
It's usually 1 population per 25 hammers.
It's usually 1 population per 25 hammers.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Back on topic, slavery is very useful if you have a city that has high growth. It is often better to siphon off the population to rush things than to have the slackers drag your city down. I often keep it into the late game.
Pius Hermit
Chieftain
Sorry for let you waiting,
but i have first to translate in my language,
then drink much coffee (its 4:20 in the morning)
smoke a cigarette,
an then after thinking
translate back...
Its an interesting question: What makes a game giving fun?
In the first four or five games i want to try the game.
Its the time i simultaniously read the manual (learning by doing).
If know the most of the game (or i believe i know), i begin to
fight against the ai.
That are two absolutly different kinds of fun:
First inquisitivness, later strugglespirit
But i think it is an other philosophy than yours, because
i try to test different ways absolut consequently till i dominate the game.
Then i save the game, if i have the impression, its perfect.
After that i play some variations to test different strategies and analyze
the success.
What is your philisophie?
Every game an other strategie aim at the situation of geographie, nations,
missed actions (wonders, offensives, ...)?
But then you have to play very often.
I have not so much patience....
but i have first to translate in my language,
then drink much coffee (its 4:20 in the morning)
smoke a cigarette,
an then after thinking
translate back...
MSTK said:
Its an interesting question: What makes a game giving fun?
In the first four or five games i want to try the game.
Its the time i simultaniously read the manual (learning by doing).
If know the most of the game (or i believe i know), i begin to
fight against the ai.
That are two absolutly different kinds of fun:
First inquisitivness, later strugglespirit
But i think it is an other philosophy than yours, because
i try to test different ways absolut consequently till i dominate the game.
Then i save the game, if i have the impression, its perfect.
After that i play some variations to test different strategies and analyze
the success.
What is your philisophie?
Every game an other strategie aim at the situation of geographie, nations,
missed actions (wonders, offensives, ...)?
But then you have to play very often.
I have not so much patience....
Similar threads
