Suggestions and Requests

[Imperator Knoedel]

Slavery ought to double the number of resources your civilization produces at the cost of removing one food from every resource tile, or something. When slaves were historically (or to this day) used to extract resources, it was always to increase resource output, which especially in colonies didn't serve to boost local industry or trade in the areas where resources were extracted from, as is the case with the current Atlantic slave plantations and slave specialists in this mod. It would be more historical to have either Trade Companies or another industry which consumes slave plantation resources spread to European core cities only and have Slave Plantations double the amount of resources they grant instead of increasing yields, because after all, historical slave plantations in the Americas and the Carribbean were not used to help build a Grocer or a Library or any other infrastructure faster, they were used to extract resources faster and in greater quantities to then send to other parts of the world where they were actually used.

My proposal:
Slave Plantations don't increase production, but commerce, unhappiness and unhealthiness, and grant two resources instead of one. There ought to be a new industry (or maybe the Trade Company is repurposed for this) that only spreads to European cities that consumes such resources, increases commerce and decreases health. (tobacco cause lung cancer yo)

 

[hnrysml]

But a lot of US landmark buildings, such as the White House, courthouses, and churches, were built with slave labour. It seems likely, given that they did for many early Washington buildings, that slaves did provide the bulk of the labour for The Library of Congress. Slaves definitely built infrastructure in Rome. If anything, slavery should offer some kind of infrastructure production bonus.

On the other hand newer research strongly suggests that slavery was not used by the Ancient Egyptians to build the Pyramids, but rather skilled tradesmen (their motivations are thought to have been religious, i.e. the Pharaoh was to them a living god). Maybe in-game Egypt shouldn't start with Slavery, like in Knoedel's Dawn of.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But a lot of US landmark buildings, such as the White House, courthouses, and churches, were built with slave labour. It seems likely, given that they did for many early Washington buildings, that slaves did provide the bulk of the labour for The Library of Congress. Slaves definitely built infrastructure in Rome. If anything, slavery should offer some kind of infrastructure production bonus.

On the other hand newer research strongly suggests that slavery was not used by the Ancient Egyptians to build the Pyramids, but rather skilled tradesmen (their motivations are thought to have been religious, i.e. the Pharaoh was to them a living god). Maybe in-game Egypt shouldn't start with Slavery, like in Knoedel's Dawn of.

Now we have to distinguish between classical slavery (a la Rome) and chattel slavery (a la Confederate scum). Look at all the regions where Atlantic slavery took place, where it was used to harvest resources like sugar, cotton or tobacco. Look at the US south and the Caribbean, and look how little infrastructure they have relatively speaking. If we look at the US in the middle of the 19th century for example, you will find a huge discrepancy in infrastructure development between the industrial north and the agrarian south.

 

[Force44]

That is interesting. Do I understand correctly that you would like to introduce a new civic to distinguish between chattel slavery and classical slavery?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

That is interesting. Do I understand correctly that you would like to introduce a new civic to distinguish between chattel slavery and classical slavery?

No, you misunderstand me. I probably was unclear when I started writing the initial post. The game already distinguishes between these two forms: Classical slavery is using the actual Slavery civic to whip population into production, while chattel slavery is taking slaves from Africa and turning them into Slave Plantations in the Americas. What I am advocating is for the Slave Plantation improvement to double the number of resources it provides (so if you put a slave plantation on a tobacco resource you receive two tobacco, not one) vis a vis a regular plantation, not increase production, and to have an industry exclusive to the imperial centers in Europe which boosts commerce with chattel slavery resources, i.e. tobacco, cotton, sugar and some others I might be forgetting.

My problem is that, for all the changes DoC made to vanilla mechanics, colonial relationships are still not realistically portrayed. Your colonies start with lots and population and infrastructure, the Trading Company industry boosts their yields further, and slave plantations and specialists help them produce things even more quickly, but all of these mechanics only apply to your colonies, not your core cities. They help your colonial cities to become good cities in their own right, easily comparable in commerce or production to your core cities. That is not how it worked in history. In reality, the relationship between European masters and their colonies was a one way road of exploitation and resource extraction. Europeans siphoned wealth and resources and values from their colonies to make things better in Europe, while only constructing the bare minimum of infrastructure necessary to keep the extraction of resources as efficient as possible. They wouldn't care to build an Observatory or a Factory or an Aqueduct or a University on some Caribbean island city. Put in game terms, they only improved tiles with resources on them, constructed only the most basic of buildings, and then set these cities to build Wealth, interrupted by training the odd military unit now and then, until their colonies inevitably declared independence. Atlantic slavery and the Trading Company industry should be mechanics that help boost European core cities at the expanse of colonies, not help colonies become decent cities in their own right as is currently the case.

 

[need my speed]

What if, in addition to your idea, each slave plantation - when worked by a city - increases that city's 'Wealth' process by 50% or what have you? But would such minimum-effort cities ever generate a nice amount of wealth, and would money ever be so necessary, so as to make it a better option than building infrastructure?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

What if, in addition to your idea, each slave plantation - when worked by a city - increases that city's 'Wealth' process by 50% or what have you? But would such minimum-effort cities ever generate a nice amount of wealth, and would money ever be so necessary, so as to make it a better option than building infrastructure?

A Bank costs 200 Production and boosts Gold by 50%. Assuming the commerce slider is 50% Gold (a very optimistic assumption, it will likely be lower as most commerce usually goes to research) and the city has a commerce output of 40 (15 from trade routes, 25 from tiles) that makes an additional 40/2×1.5=30GPT. It would then take less than 10 turns before the Bank starts turning a profit compared to just building Wealth the entire time. However, you also have to take into consideration how much production the city has in the first place. If it only has one production per turn it would take 200 turns to construct the Bank, which will be after the game ends and thus pointless. If it has 10 production per turn it would take 20 turns.

Hrmpf, never mind, I wanted to proove a point but instead I refuted it. Stupid math not conforming to my expectations.

 

[ezzlar]

So Mercantilism would be a modern slave/plantation civic? Should make sense. International Trade penalty but bonus plantation commerce?

And add that Little extra "-2 your closed Trade borders annoy us"

 

[Force44]

@ Imp. Knoedel

I think I grasped your general idea.

The game offers you too few opportunities to express your intention of improving your core cities at the cost of peripheral cities.

I think a solution like all excess food above one gets transformed into gold would go a long way to keep the colonies underdeveloped.

But I also think civics would be an excellent way to emphasive the idea of developing your core at the expense of your periphery, especial for the colonial exploitation period (as opposed to periods before that kind of exploitation eg. the classical era).

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But I also think civics would be an excellent way to emphasive the idea of developing your core at the expense of your periphery, especial for the colonial exploitation period (as opposed to periods before that kind of exploitation eg. the classical era).

Something like "happiness and health resources have doubled effects in core cities and no effect outside of it" for Mercantilism? Or maybe "any production beyond X is automatically turned into Gold in non core cities". Eh, someone will figure something out.

 

[Force44]

Something like "happiness and health resources have doubled effects in core cities and no effect outside of it" for Mercantilism? Or maybe "any production beyond X is automatically turned into Gold in non core cities". Eh, someone will figure something out.

I like that idea. I think it will work really well if around the time you (ought to) change civics (to post colonial civics) new happiness and health buildings become available.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I like that idea. I think it will work really well if around the time you (ought to) change civics (to post colonial civics) new happiness and health buildings become available.

Then again this might have the opposite effect of what's intended: If resources only have an effect in the core, that encourages you to build health and happy infrastructure in colonies and not in your core cities.

 

[Force44]

I don't see why. Your core is already better developed so it benefits more from additional growth and any investment you make in your core will give you a better return (than in your undeveloped periphery). A bank is just plain better in a city with more commerce.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I don't see why. Your core is already better developed so it benefits more from additional growth and any investment you make in your core will give you a better return (than in your undeveloped periphery). A bank is just plain better in a city with more commerce.

Since when does a bank give happiness and health?

 

[ezzlar]

What about a food penalty for farms and plantations but instead a commerce bonus under Mercantilism? Colonies would then be small but giving wealth to core.

 

[Force44]

What about a food penalty for farms and plantations but instead a commerce bonus under Mercantilism? Colonies would then be small but giving wealth to core.

If linked to an exclusion of the core to the penalty that looks like a nice way to express the colonial robbery of resources. If the bonus commerce could be transferred to the core at a rate that exceeds exploiting it in the colonies I think the solution would fulfill all the desired requirements.

 

[Force44]

Since when does a bank give happiness and health?

A bank (indirectly) increases commerce. Happiness and health also (potentially) increase commerce.

(acquired) Commerce is what all of civ4 boils down to eventually.

 

[merijn_v1]

What about a food penalty for farms and plantations but instead a commerce bonus under Mercantilism? Colonies would then be small but giving wealth to core.

Food is much more valuable than commerce. It would make mercantilism less attractive.

 

[ezzlar]

"Overseas farms and plantations give -1 food but +2 commerce"? Or -1 on yields of 3 or greater? A la Civ1!

Add mines to that?

 

[ezzlar]

On another topic: Towns are too good too early. Cant we tie the town improvement to a late game tech?