Slaves

ThaddeusAlexander · November 27, 2001, 15:07

Hey everyone

I'll jump right in to my idea by saying that i don't think captured enemy workers (and settlers for that matter) should be called 'workers' anymore ... they should be called Slaves and if you take them then you need to use them guarded by a military unit of there is a chance (say, 1 in 10 or so) that they will disappear and return to their original owner's control (back to that civ's capitol).

Adding slaves to your city should not increase the city size (i don't think slaves were too much of a burnden on daily life, although riots did arise) but that they should turn in to a small

icon under luxury resources and makes people happy. AFter all, weren't slaves making life better for people in cities that had large numbers of them? Be they workers or entertainers or whatever, people liked having slaves.

Capturing enemy workers and making them into your own happy workers is, in my opinion, very ignorant. There is no way another country will swoop down, pick me up and make me work for them without a say ... its just not going to happen!

As the game progresses and more 'intellectual' advances are found, maybe the happiness effects can be turned down or limited - say, at first you can have up to 3 slaves working in a city creating happiness, but after some advances it is decreased to 2 and so on until it just doesn't matter anymore ... just a thought. Heck, maybe you can bring in a new advance - some new idea about modern thought and the emancipation of slaves ... maybe

Well, thats just my opinion. Anybody got a say on my Slave idea?

Let me know!

Either wayl, Good Gaming everyone
Cheers!
~Alex

Lets get real ... captured workers are SLAVES and i think the Civ team should read this and take it in to consideration ...

Frito · November 27, 2001, 15:24

Quote:

Adding slaves to your city should not increase the city size

What about when they are freed?

ThaddeusAlexander · November 27, 2001, 15:41

I say you don't look at the math too hard on this one ... they disperse themselves throughout the city, and the population is just lost.

After all, if you army goes to capture workers, do you think that every citizen will just give up? that the army won't kill a few for sport regardless?? I guess to make it more fair, if you keep slaves as workers then they work at 1/2 rate but cost no upkeep ... just 1/2 rate workers.

Heck, at least its still better than simply killing them off ...

So if they are freed gradually through advances, pop doesn't change, just that people become less happy with the slaves they have - or they just don't want them.. When it comes to units freeing slaves, well if a city's happiness is in the balance but the citizens are happy because of slaves, getting rid of those slaves would throw the city into civil disorder. When you think about it, a unit with the ability to make a war-monger's cities go in to civil disorder is a treasure indeed !

On the other hand, they could add a population if you'd like (both by adding them to a city and freeing them) ... that makes sense as well, but in war there are usually tremendous civilian casualties - maybe not as much in modern times, but in the acient eras especially, which is where much of this slavery will come from anyway. You can also think of the population loss as genocide if you really want to be cruel about it ...

Then again, all is fair in love and war, right?

Cheers!
~Alex

ThaddeusAlexander · November 27, 2001, 17:15

Nobody else has an opinion on this ??? SERIOUSLY ?????

~A.

Wrong_shui · November 27, 2001, 17:34

yup, nobody likes your idea or you

j/k

Venger · November 27, 2001, 17:51

What am I to do with all these Aztec, Egyptian, and Greek slaves? Are they going to abandon me and return to their home civilizations? Oh wait, I conquered those civilizations...

Indeed, captured workers are slaves, but like many slaves, they integrate into their captive society after a while.

You can't use a worker to increase city size now can you?

Venger

Venger · November 27, 2001, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
yup, nobody likes your idea or you

Damn dude!

Venger

Blaupanzer · November 27, 2001, 18:09

You could think of them as refugees, people you "rescued" from their oppressors. Adding them to your cities is "resettlement." They are more efficient as city citizens than they are as workers, since they work at one half the speed of your own national workers, even if they come from an "industrious" civ. Some posters here have been getting awfully morbid lately.

GePap · November 27, 2001, 18:13

ThaddeusAlexander:
Igonore Wrong_shui (name says it all)

I agree with your suggestion on giving the captured workers a chance to revolt (hey, their cities do it) and also that slaves are a better name, at least until modern age. As for turning them into luxuries, this ignores the fact that many slaves may revolt in your city also. MOre slaves in general makes cities more likely to revolt than less. An emancipator unit would be difficult to implement (seems a comcept more out of CtP than Civ).
Venger:
Yes, workers add pop to a city if you reintegrate them.

ThaddeusAlexander · November 27, 2001, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
You could think of them as refugees, people you "rescued" from their oppressors. Adding them to your cities is "resettlement."

Pretty idealistic, isn't it?

And I do agree with GePap's idea .. thanks for your comments. It would be nice to have them as luxuries and give them a chance to revolt, but then again we're now adding a TON of more gameplay to worry about that isn't really all that important.

~A.