Wait a minute! (Bronze Working)

[SevenSpirits]

Why is there one tech that gives all of these things?

1) Slavery
2) Chopping
3) Axes

I mean, everyone knows the tech is a no-brainer, but wouldn't it still be plenty good if it just gave two of those benefits? If you had to pick three things to be able to do in the early game, you'd pick those three, wouldn't you? Why are they all enabled by the same tech!?

I feel like all the other early techs (other than mining, obviously) are much more balanced strategically, and not always necessary. Bronze Working stands out like a sore thumb. This is after they have semi-nerfed ALL THREE of those features since the original CIV release (chariots beat axes, chops give fewer hammers, and slavery has medium upkeep). It's not even a dead-end tech. It's a necessary prerequisite for a large swath of the tech tree.

Does anyone think this is worth changing? If so, how would you do it? Alternately, why do you think this is good for the game?

 

[obsolete]

It is just common sense that bronze allowed axes... and axes means chopping, etc. So how else would you do it?

BTW, technically there were stone-axes, how usable/reliable they were, is a good question. So I suppose you could have chopping before bronzeworking.

 

[SevenSpirits]

Sure, but for example, you don't have to enable slavery at the same time.

Also, to argue that axes necessarily imply chopping: what is called chopping in the game looks awfully like clearcutting, which was as far as I know not very common back then. You could justifiably claim that cutting down a tree or two is simulated by the +1 production from forests. So I think it's not as thematically restricted as you say.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Agreed with the OP.

 

[viinno]

you know.... the game might be more interesting with slavery and chopping pushed back in the tech tree, well the idea seems more interesting to me anyway. Early build choice would become far more important possibly encouraging micro management. Just a thought...

 

[obsolete]

If you push those techs up the tree too far, you will end up having people just do more re-rolls on the terrain generation. People would be restricted from mining a hill early, etc. other wise. So you'd just cause a lot of more hassles. If people can't mine, and have no early mans of production, and can't even chop for christ-sakes, what is it they are expected to do when the game is immortal/diety? lol

You'd also be making initial starts more luck-based than fun-based.

 

[slobberinbear]

Another way they have mitigated Bronze Working: they've given us the forest preserve. A late-game reason to not chop.

I agree with your comment, though. They could have divided the 3 BW benefits among different techs. It is true, though, that the use of metal (and later, better metals) was a key military tech edge. It really was vital, and I don't mind it being vital in the game for that reason.

I suppose my beef with it is that I feel that I have to work in BW early in every game. I have had fun, though, putting it off as Sitting Bull and just keeping my trees and using Protective archers for my military needs for a few thousand years.

 

[obsolete]

The national park seems to be another over-hyped gimmick, just like Holy shrines are.

The preserved forests really need to be doing something more productive to make this whole thing worth it.

 

[SevenSpirits]

People would be restricted from mining a hill early, etc. other wise.

You have a good point about chopping being necessary early. But how about moving slavery a bit? It doesn't have to go far; for example you could put it with masonry.

I actually didn't suggest these things need to happen later in the game at all; I just think it's kind of ridiculous they're all in the same tech.

 

[obsolete]

It would not make any sense, realistically that slavery only came about through masonary.

The game is supposed to make at least some rough educationary/historicaly based facts.

 

[dot]

I'm all for enabling slavery with masonry.
Makes sense too, since masonry is allowing you to build the mids.
And who built the mids most likely? === Hundreds and hundreds of slaves. ​

 

[obsolete]

Slaves were not just used for building things. They were used for everything from 'cooks' to even axe-wielding soldiers.

 

[Handel]

And what is the point of this topic? To say something just for the sake of saying?

 

[dot]

Slaves were not just used for building things. They were used for everything from 'cooks' to even axe-wielding soldiers.

Sure. But for the mids, they were used "big style". That's why imho this could be a justification for moving it to masonry. So BW makes sense, too. As much as masonry would.
'Nuff said.

 

[SevenSpirits]

It would not make any sense, realistically that slavery only came about through masonary.

The game is supposed to make at least some rough educationary/historicaly based facts.

Well, I think it's just as debatable that bronze is somehow required for slaves. Really, slavery doesn't require any technology at all.

Given the game's representation of slavery, which is "overworking slaves to the point of death in order to produce things", I think that putting it with masonry (Pyramids) makes as much sense as anything.

 

[SevenSpirits]

And what is the point of this topic? To say something just for the sake of saying?

I guess so.

However, my original intent was that it would be a discussion about whether it is too strategically overpowering to have three essential abilities in one tech.

 

[Fold]

Yeah I agree. Slavery is the one that can most logically be moved. It's also probably the most powerful so it makes sense to divorce it from the other two.

If anything I'd be tempted to move it to a religious tech (maybe Priesthood). Seems to me that ancient civs employing slaves (in the way the game depicts slavery) often did so ultimately for religious/spirtitual reasons. That tech branch is also one I tend to not bother with too often so a good reason to go there would present more early game choices. Of course the most logical option would be to make slavery the default labour civic... almost everyone goes for it early anyway, and you can't use the whip immediately anyway so I doubt it would unbalance things.

 

[Percy]

Actually, i wouldn't be against Slavery being the default, starting Civic, and being replaced by a new Civic.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

The Chinese Unification scenario from Warlords did move Slavery to Masonry.

It looks like it's an easy enough modification to put into your custom assets folder (CIV4CivicInfos.xml gets copied over - find CIVIC_SLAVERY, and change the TechPrrereq value from TECH_BRONZE_WORKING to TECH_MASONRY).

 

[Norbert]

Yeah I agree. Slavery is the one that can most logically be moved. It's also probably the most powerful so it makes sense to divorce it from the other two.

If anything I'd be tempted to move it to a religious tech (maybe Priesthood). Seems to me that ancient civs employing slaves (in the way the game depicts slavery) often did so ultimately for religious/spirtitual reasons. *snip*

Ah, but linking slavery inexorably to religion is beyond non-P.C., which, as we've seen time and time again, is a deal-breaker in the universe of Sid Meier.