Stealing Workers Early

[Cobra522]

Most times when I go for the worker there's a warrior in the city, could we have the AI prioritize defending the worker? It would stop most cases of easily poaching a worker without having to add or remove anything to noticeable. Even from a players stand point I rarely keep melee units stationed in a city before walls. I feel like barbs typically go for units before attacking a city.

 

[Rekk]

But just on the initial, free settler/worker, right? a 34% chance to run during a normal warfare situation would be incredibly annoying.

I'd be fine with this promotion applying for the whole game.

 

[randomnub]

Whatever sounds fine to y'all, I'm ambivalent on this one.

Keep things as they're now also works? Percentages only esacerbate the early game rng, also considering the time it takes to bring the worker home and those first turns it works at half speed I think people overstimate the impact of such action.

 

[pineappledan]

Not a fan of the permanent RNG. I'm in favor of the "Slavery" tech idea, as suggested by @Stalker0. Maybe unlocking at Construction or Military Theory.

 

[TranceBlossom]

Early game doesn’t need more RNG. The current system is fine, maybe would be better if the captured worker malus scaled with game speed.

 

[tu_79]

Question. Were there slaves in Ancient Age? Yeah, I think there were. So it should be posible to enslave those units very early.

Slaves were nerfed already. They are still better than spending hammers on producing own workers, but it also requires a successful capture and to risk a war. Overall, I think risk/reward is pretty balanced for major civs. Maybe not that much for city state workers, who can be enslaved without greater consequences. Maybe city state workers should be only allowed to be gifted to another city state upon capture, except by barbarians.

 

[TheBigFundamental]

Honestly I'd be ok with things staying the way they are. If someone wants to game the game by grabbing an early AI worker, let him do it, and for those who don't want to will simply refrain from doing it.

 

[pineappledan]

Question. Were there slaves in Ancient Age? Yeah, I think there were. So it should be posible to enslave those units very early.

Yeah, they did. That's why people are talking about an ancient era unlock. If you're suggesting that the institution of slavery predates agriculture, then yeah, it probably does. So does archery, and we've got that unlocking at a tech AFTER it, because of the requirements of this being a video game, and not a neolithic simulator. What on earth are you even trying to prove here?

If you put the tech on a 1st-line ancient tech then people would simply research it in the time it takes to locate a major civ to steal from. There would be 0 game effect unless it was placed on a 2nd-line tech.

Slaves were nerfed already. They are still better than spending hammers on producing own workers, but it also requires a successful capture and to risk a war.

Once again, what are you even talking about? A tech unlock isn't a nerf to capturing workers, just a delay. It would function exactly the same as it already does, except it would lock the ability to steal workers for basically the amount of time that it takes to get your own worker up in a normal build order.

People are citing how the existing system can be abused; your defense of the current system boils down to misconstruing what a proposed changes would even do.

 

[tu_79]

Yeah, they did. That's why people are talking about an ancient era unlock. If you're suggesting that the institution of slavery predates agriculture, then yeah, it probably does. So does archery though, and we've got that unlocking at a tech AFTER it, because of the requirements of this being a video game, and not a neolithic simulator. What on earth are you even trying to prove here?

If you put the tech on a 1st-line ancient tech then people would simply research it in the time it takes to locate a major civ to steal from. There would be 0 game effect unless it was placed on a 2nd-line tech.

Once again, what are you even talking about? A tech unlock isn't a nerf to capturing workers, just a delay. It would function exactly the same as it already does, except it would lock the ability to steal workers for basically the amount of time that it takes to get your own worker up in a normal build order.

People are citing how the existing system can be abused; your defense of the current system boils down to misconstruing what a proposed changes would even do.

I'm not in favor of such a delay. I don't think the system is so abusable as you put it. If you go against a major, you better have a good army, which means that you are delaying other important stuff. If you go against a major, crippling your immediate neighbour is the real effect, since you'll have a better time after that, the enslaved worker is just icing.
The only way I think this is abusable is by stealing CS workers, since getting angry with one city state is very minor, the risk is low, their units easy to destroy and the worker almost free.

The real life case is just another point in favor. Of course, gameplay beats reality, but when they are even, it's nice to have some plausibility.

 

[civplayer33]

I'm not in favor of such a delay. I don't think the system is so abusable as you put it. If you go against a major, you better have a good army, which means that you are delaying other important stuff.

This. I had a game a while back where I stole a major civ's worker thinking "eh, they won't come after me, they're 20 tiles away anyway" and then I suddenly had to switch production to warriors and archers because they actually bothered to send all their units to me to try and get that worker back (or exact revenge or whatever).

 

[pineappledan]

I'm also pretty lukewarm on the idea. I generally don't find it's worth the trouble to escort workers back from another civ's start location, just so I can have a 50% effective worker. However, not a fan of your specious arguments.

The proposed tech unlock change would have minimal game effect for most people and absolutely zero game effect on people who aren't inclined to use worker sniping as a tactic. By your own attestation, such a change would not impact your playstyle in any way, and I am the same as you in that respect. However, I find your reasoning to be shoddy, and your criticism of this change comes off as an attempt to stifle discussion more than anything. I take issue with that.

 

[tu_79]

nd your criticism of this change comes off as an attempt to stifle discussion more than anything.

 

[Gazebo]

Not every balance discussion has to become about personal politics, y'all. Just stick to the merits and deficits of ancient human slavery, please.

I just barfed on my keyboard.

G

 

[Omen of Peace]

No need for a mechanics change IMO.

If it's possible on the AI side to prioritize worker defense a bit more, especially early on in the game and especially on higher difficulties since they have a bunch of units, that would be a nice tweak.
I believe this is how a human would handle it if they started with 2 Pathfinders and a worker.

 

[dylansan]

Just make the AI steal steal workers too. It'll balance out.

On a serious note, how often do barbarians steal AI workers? That might be a clue to potential improvements.

 

[civplayer33]

On a serious note, how often do barbarians steal AI workers? That might be a clue to potential improvements.

Barbies can't enter a major civs borders for x turns, where x decreases with difficulty level.
After that, or when the major civ moves the unit outside its borders, they steal them whenever they can and I've seen it happen pretty much every game with AI workers / settlers.

 

[crdvis16]

I'd be in favor of workers (and ALL civilian units for that matter, so missionaries as well) just being automatically killed when captured personally. I think it's just too easy to do, especially to CSs. Though I self impose the no worker steal rule in the early game anyway so it doesn't much affect me.

Making civilians auto-killed on capture would have the side effect of also solving the military exploit where people dangle their civilians as bait in order to get easy kills on ai units. If you can't recapture the civilian then that exploit is no longer viable.

 

[Rekk]

I'd be in favor of workers (and ALL civilian units for that matter, so missionaries as well) just being automatically killed when captured personally. I think it's just too easy to do, especially to CSs. Though I self impose the no worker steal rule in the early game anyway so it doesn't much affect me.

Making civilians auto-killed on capture would have the side effect of also solving the military exploit where people dangle their civilians as bait in order to get easy kills on ai units. If you can't recapture the civilian then that exploit is no longer viable.

To me, the only interesting part about worker capture is taking them back from barbarians, and gifting workers back to its original civ when you capture one.