God and Slaves

Sparky · July 17, 2001, 12:31

Have we heard anything regarding Civ3 and two of the most important factors in shaping human history: slavery and religion. I suppose religion is part of "culture points," but I'd like to hear that the game supports the growth and conflict between different ideologies.

Also, while CTP (bleck) covered slavery, I have not heard a word about it in Civ3. I'm not even talking about the American Civil War -- slavery was hugely important in Egypt, Greece and Rome as none of those civilizations could have sustained their agriculture without it.

Please tell me civ will address these issues.

Inverse Icarus · July 17, 2001, 13:18

i believe slavery ISNT in civ3.

i think we had a huge debate about it.

civfanatics said that workers could be taken (bribed?) from other civs, but might efect back to the other side, or not defend as well against their home nation.

and i believe religion isn't in cv3 at all, just a piece of culture (temples / cathedrals do the same as universities / libraries )

July 17, 2001, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i believe slavery ISNT in civ3.

I agree. Slavery has never been part of Civilization 1 & 2. The CTP series has slavery.

Quote:

i think we had a huge debate about it.

Yes we did.

Quote:

civfanatics said that workers could be taken (bribed?) from other civs, but might efect back to the other side, or not defend as well against their home nation.

I like the bribery part of the game. However now that your military will be supported by gold, that maybe will change the game somewhat.

Quote:

and i believe religion isn't in cv3 at all, just a piece of culture (temples / cathedrals do the same as universities / libraries )

That is the way I read it also. In Civ 1 & 2 Temples and Cathedrals added happiness. Now they will add culture. Keep in mind that this game will be sold World Wide, so they have to be careful with religion.

TechWins · July 17, 2001, 14:18

Quote:

That is the way I read it also. In Civ 1 & 2 Temples and Cathedrals added happiness. Now they will add culture. Keep in mind that this game will be sold World Wide, so they have to be careful with religion

If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.

July 17, 2001, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins

If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.

Maybe they will do both. We now know that they will increase cultural because Firaxis said they would, however no word on happiness. In fact we only know a small amont of information (Trade & colony) about the game so far. It would be nice to know other information also. We at this point don't even know how fast a city will grow. How many foods per/tile, how many production shields per/tile? We do know that a Wheat Icon will be two additional food.

KrazyHorse · July 17, 2001, 17:47

It's not just cathedrals, etc. that add culture. Libraries, universities, possibly all buildings add culture. Culture seems to be something that you don't build up specifically; it comes with being an advanced nation. I'm almost certain that there won't be any culture-specific buildings.

TechWins · July 17, 2001, 17:56

Quote:

How many foods per/tile, how many production shields per/tile?

I've heard that much of that stuff is going to stay the same as Civ2.

Quote:

It's not just cathedrals, etc. that add culture. Libraries, universities, possibly all buildings add culture. Culture seems to be something that you don't build up specifically; it comes with being an advanced nation. I'm almost certain that there won't be any culture-specific buildings.

Yeah, think this is right. Perhaps certain buildings should add more culture than others. Such as a temple should add maybe 2 culture points per turn and a granary should only add 1 culture point per turn. I think it should be that way because some buildings just add more culture than others.

November Adam · July 17, 2001, 19:58

Joseph1944 you mentioned that units would now be supported by gold. What does everyone else think about this?

Personally I'm not sure I like this idea, due to the fact that I think it makes more sense for production to be affected (this would represent maintenance of weapons, equipment, etc.) Granted in the same light special units... diplomats, and spies could be supported by gold.

Well I guess it's neither here nor there as this won't amount to anything anyways. But I'm still interested in opinions.

TechWins · July 17, 2001, 20:02

I like the idea, Ancient. It will prevent lowly civs from having a huge armies. I hate it in civ when a terrible nation doesn't have any economy at all and can have such a huge army.

July 17, 2001, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by November Adam
Joseph1944 you mentioned that units would now be supported by gold. What does everyone else think about this?

Personally I'm not sure I like this idea, due to the fact that I think it makes more sense for production to be affected (this would represent maintenance of weapons, equipment, etc.) Granted in the same light special units... diplomats, and spies could be supported by gold.

Well I guess it's neither here nor there as this won't amount to anything anyway. But I'm still interested in opinions.

As you know in Civ 1 & 2 the military was supported by the Cities production shields. Small cities could only support 1 or 2 soldiers, where as a big city could support several soldiers.
CTP 1 and 2 started the gold thing, and now it looks like Firaxis is using the same setup. It could help in someway and maybe hurt is other ways. A small city now can have the same amount of soldiers as a large city. Lets use 5 cities for example. You could have maybe 4 soldiers in each city for defense, instead of maybe 1 or 2 in a small city and 4 to 5 in the larger cities. Now it can hurt if you do not have a enough gold to support 20 soldiers (defense for 5 cities) plus another 5 to 10 soldiers (stacks) for conquest. Also is our scouts going to be part of the gold support? If they are than that mean one less soldier for every scout. You know this game is going to be a very difference game than Civ 1 & 2. We are going to have to change the way we used to play. All of these guy are crying about how terrible this game is and they have not even play one turn yet.

To your question. In CTP 1 and 2 the gold thing is OK for the most part. You could have 12 stacks in each city and still have between 4 to 7 stacks for conquest (12 each). After WesW Mods maybe a 12 stack in each city, however only 2 or 3, 12 stack outside for conquest. He made gold a lot harder to get.

We will have to wait until Firaxis tell us about gold production.

TechWins · July 17, 2001, 21:07

You still have to produce the units with shields it's just that they now will be supported by gold, just to let people know who aren't informed about the situation.

Joseph, you brought up a point "Now it can hurt if you do not have a enough gold to support" that I had mentioned in one of my threads, Money. I think it's going to more difficult to support a huge army. Which is something I'm all for if it's not impossible to support a large army.

Inverse Icarus · July 17, 2001, 21:10

hey tech, that wasn't ancient, ancient hasn't touched this thread

.

the icon musta got ya

anyway, i like the idea of the central coffer supporting the military, its another anti ICS measure.

a sleezer with 5 size 2 cities can have 15 unsupported units in a monarchy, and 5 (not unhappy) citizens in a republic, whereas a guy with one size 10 city can only have 3 and 1, respectively.

now, the sleezer cities have little or no trade, and cannot support a large army, whereas the larger city can

always thinkin

Father Beast · July 17, 2001, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944

As you know in Civ 1 & 2 the military was supported by the Cities production shields. Small cities could only support 1 or 2 soldiers, where as a big city could support several soldiers.
CTP 1 and 2 started the gold thing, and now it looks like Firaxis is using the same setup. It could help in someway and maybe hurt is other ways.

I can't say for CTP2, but in CTP (which I got recently) the military support is still with production. The BIG difference (which I'm wondering if it will make it into civ3) is that it was done on a global basis, more like the original MOO. all the cities were lumped together and added up, then the gears subtracted.
In civ and civ2, it ALWAYS calculated gold and shield support city by city, and I'm wondering if that will still happen. the global version added a lot to making it feel like one empire.

tniem · July 18, 2001, 01:58

I think that the biggest thing to allowing gold to be used to pay for soldiers, is whether it is going to be a thing where we get the entire empire paying for it or only the city with control of the unit.

If it is the first, the armies certainly begin to belong to the entire nation. Large cities are going to be necessary to pay for the protection of the empire. Trade throughout the empire and world is going to become essential to waging effective war.

If instead it is the second, the same things are going to be necessary. It is just going to be a lot harder to protect your smaller cities and the colonies you are building. Defense and attack is going to only happen between your largest couple of cities.

In any rate, for all extensive purposes ICSing becomes much much harder and trade is going to become even more important that it has been or how it has been said to be. That said and done, I like the idea.

TechWins · July 18, 2001, 03:46

Quote:

the icon musta got ya

Dang, you're right. I usually only look at the avatars of people to know who it is. I hate when people have a double of somebodies icon. It's the same thing when War4ever posts, I always think Krazyhorse went back to his old avatar but of course he didn't.

Father Beast and tniem, I don't understand your concerns. This is how it's going to be you still have to produce the untis with shields it's just that they now will be supported by gold. You will be producing the units from a single city and the support (gold) will be taken away from the national income. Possibly, units might still have to be supported by shields (city built in) and by gold (national income). I really think that is how it's going to be. If it is this way it should take away all your fears of how units will be produced and supported.

JMarks · July 18, 2001, 09:32

Hey, who says Civ3 won't have slavery? It does! Although evidently not like CTP (never played, don't know how it works). Remember, military units can capture workers, and then, bam, they work for you (ei they are your slaves, just like everyother unit you own). Albeit, you can't enslave a vanquished swordsman and make him a worker, but it twill suffice.

Ioanes

Dida · July 18, 2001, 10:34

when you capture an enemy city, you should have the option to burn down the whole city, rob every valuable thing, and take its citizen as slaves.

Adm.Naismith · July 18, 2001, 10:40

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.

I have no idea how things are shaping now, but I suspect Firaxis tried to manage happines mostly by special resources (luxuries) exploiting/trade.

They mentioned that every Civ will have unique Culture traits, so may be they are considering separate line of culture: religion oriented (temple, church, cathedral, religion related Wonders...)
science oriented (library, laboratory)
trade/merchant oriented (marketplace, bank)

The more you develop one of three, the more your culture will be oriented in religion, science or business.
It can drive to a political model with a Scientific Monarchy, a Religious Nationalism, a Capitalist Democracy... not a bad change from SMAC social engineer.

Don't forget we'll have Great People too, probably not only Great military Leaders, but also artist, philosopher, scientist, as Shakespear, Plato, Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Newton...

They can add lot of cultural effect, so at this point I hope Firaxis will kill my critics with an amazing game feature.

November Adam · July 18, 2001, 10:41

That's a good idea Dida.

It would be nice if you could transport the slaves from one city to the next, to help avoid raids by abolitionists on your front lines.

death_head · July 18, 2001, 12:08

Sack, loot, and burn! That's what Civ3 should be all about!

I was just wondering if the other factions would get after you like in SMAC (never played Civ so this could be covered)

Dida · July 18, 2001, 12:47

for civilized civ, burning a captured city is not adviced. Because the international community will be very disgusted by your action, and they might declare war or economic sanction against you.

tniem · July 18, 2001, 13:45

TechWins,

Like I said if unit support is paid for by the national treasury than I have no worries. But has that been said yet? If it has, I am sorry. But if there is a chance that unit support will be paid by the cities themselves, I have some worries.

TechWins · July 18, 2001, 14:33

Quote:

Don't forget we'll have Great People too

That was mentioned a long time ago that they might be in but since then we haven't heard any other information about them. So it's not positive that they will be in the game. I guess we can only hope that they will be in the game.

Quote:

Like I said if unit support is paid for by the national treasury than I have no worries. But has that been said yet?

I'm not 100% sure that it has been confirmed by Firaxis but I still recall hearing something about it being that way. I don't know where I heard it but I did hear it somewhere. I could be wrong but I strongly believe Firaxis has stated that units will be paid for by the national treasury. If somebody else may have heard this could you speak up?

Quote:

But if there is a chance that unit support will be paid by the cities themselves, I have some worries.

If this were to be the case would each city just lose one tax? If it were to be this way it would decrease the chance of civ being able to get rid of that city-state feel instead of a more of a nation as one feel. If you understand what I mean. I still do think that units will be supported by the national treasury.

July 18, 2001, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast

I can't say for CTP2, but in CTP (which I got recently) the military support is still with production. The BIG difference (which I'm wondering if it will make it into civ3) is that it was done on a global basis, more like the original MOO. all the cities were lumped together and added up, then the gears subtracted.
In civ and civ2, it ALWAYS calculated gold and shield support city by city, and I'm wondering if that will still happen. the global version added a lot to making it feel like one empire.

As Tech pointed out, city shields builds the Unit and then Gold support takes over (Civ 3 and CTP 2) after the Unit is built.

I have not played CTP 1 since Nov. 2000. Do a cheat for a min. Build one city and then (cheat) build several (10 to 20) units, hit end of turn and then count how many unit are left (after they died) and that will be the number of units that is supported by one city. You might also (cheat) build a size 21 city and do the same to see how many units a large city will support. You will than know how many units you can build time number of cities. Also if you have not try WesW mod for CTP 1, please do, I think you will really like it.

Kenobi · July 19, 2001, 03:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
for civilized civ, burning a captured city is not adviced. Because the international community will be very disgusted by your action, and they might declare war or economic sanction against you.

I don't disagree with you, though I think there should be an option to raze cities. I don't know how many times I've captured a city that I didn't want to keep, simply to take it out of enemy hands. I would much prefer the option to raze the city to the ground rather than starve the population down to 1 pop, then create a settler.

Sure, make it a genocidal-type act that angers the other civs, but leave the option in. If you want to play a loot & pillage conqueror, you should be able to do it and suffer the consequences.

If we're going to include slaves, why not make them "worker"-type units? So if you have a 4 pop city and you raze it to the ground you could enslave the population, maybe on a 1 for 2 basis, and get 2 workers.

Urban Ranger · July 19, 2001, 04:21

Having unit support payable in $$$ is a good way to fight ICS. Now an underdeveloped nation can no longer support a huge raging army, because they just don't have the money to do so.

November Adam · July 19, 2001, 10:39

Urban Ranger, you mention that now an underdeveloped nation won't be able to support a huge army. (haven't figured out how to use quotes yet).

An underdeveloped nation wouldn't be able to support a huge army anyways.

This is just taking the emphasis off of industry, and putting it on economy.

I still like the old production method (granted more like CTP where the nation supports the city as opposed to CIV where it's each individual city).

If you look at communism, it has a piss poor economy, but a raging industry, thus it could support a large army. Meanwhile a democracy has an great economy, and a good industry. Thus a democracy would be able to support a larger army. (Of course this is only one aspect of army size).

death_head · July 19, 2001, 11:54

It seems to me that Communists would be able to build a larger army during peacetime, while capatalists would be able to build a larger army during wartime (look at the U.S. in WW2) Thus, the communist governments should start the wars, and lose them if they aren't finished quickly enough (like in Axis & Allies)

November Adam · July 19, 2001, 12:02

But the U.S. wasn't having all of their production facilities blown up. So I'm not sure that is a good example. Democracies, are not good war governments, for quantity. Quality of troops sure, but not size.

death_head · July 19, 2001, 12:18

I guess I was referring to the way that businesses and civilians jumped into the war effort with a will (in the interest of $$$), whereas in Germany or Russia or wherever, people were forced.