Are captured workers slaves?

[Cruddy]

Many times I have seen references to captured workers as slaves. I honestly don't think they are - here's why. They count towards unit costs the same as your regular workers do.

Next time you have a captured worker, take a note of your unit costs and then add it to a city. You'll notice the unit cost drop by 1.

This is one reason why I don't keep them as workers anymore. They're only half as efficient as workers - but they're just as efficient as labourers in cities.

And don't tell me "They are slaves because you can buy and sell them". You can do that with your own workers too.

[Arrian]

I've never thought to check, but I do think captured workers (slaves) are free... by and large.

I do recall one game where I was working on adding all of my "native' workers to cities and relying exclusively on slaves (or captured workers). I tracked down all my natives via the F3 screen (hover the mouse arrow over a unit on the list and it will show you where it is on the map). But F3 still listed several (something like 4) "workers." When I tried tracking them down, they turned out to be captured workers. So I was paying gpt for several slaves. But not the rest of them (I had tons of them).

-Arrian

[Cruddy]

Arrian - I could be wrong about this point; I believe it's whether or not the captured worker has a parent Civ.

If the original Civ is destroyed (no more culture, TOTALLY gone) then the captured worker will count as your own.

If not (the parent Civ is alive and well and hating you for capturing it's people) then it won't show on F3 as one of yours.

Please check people! If you've got railroads then it will only take a couple of minutes.

[stonewall]

I just went into a game and disbanded several captured workers - workers that originated with a civ still in the game and workers from civs that have been destroyed.

F3 screen showed no changes in the number of total units or support costs.

So - captured workers are slaves.

[Catt]

Captured workers are slaves and you pay no upkeep costs on them. Can you post an example ('cause I think it is a bug if it exists). Were you looking specifically at unit costs, or were you looking at total income -- income would go up when you add the worker -- but because you know have an additional citizen working a tile and generating gold, not because you were paying upkeep.

Another interesting game feature in support of the moniker "slave": Worker speed can be increased in two ways - through the discovery of Replaceable Parts and by switching to a Democracy. But if you watch closely, a switch to Democracy only increases the worker rate of your own native workers -- your slaves (denied their democratic freedoms ) continue to work at their "normal" pace. They will speed up with the discovery of RP, though.

Catt

[Arrian]

your slaves (denied their democratic freedoms ) continue to work at their "normal" pace. They will speed up with the discovery of RP, though.

Catt, thanks for droppin' some knowledge. I never noticed that.

What do you think about Cruddy's explanation of my past experience with some slaves costing me money?

-Arrian

[Cruddy]

I will recheck my investigations Catt - I suspect you are right but I want to be sure.

I suspect this poll will idicate that I am a silly leper... but I'm still not sure.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian


Catt, thanks for droppin' some knowledge. I never noticed that.

I only noticed it recently in the past few months. I had separate worker groups made of natives only, slaves only, and some mixed groups. When I switched to Democracy, I could split my native groups in half and continue with the same build pace -- the same wasn;t happening for my slaves and I couldn't figure out why . . . and then it actually dawned on me that they were slaves and didn;t enjoy the benefits of democracy! A nice little touch in the design (even though its annoying to reconfigure worker groups )

What do you think about Cruddy's explanation of my past experience with some slaves costing me money?

Can't explain that -- I've never seen it myself. There was a bug awhile back that mixed up worker nationalities -- it was especially apparent, IIRC, when you moved some workers into your capitol to sell them / gift them (egads, who'd do that ) -- even though from the game screen you could see that they were all "Worker (German)," once you got into the trading screens, under Workers you would see some "Worker (German)" and some "Worker." That's one possible explanation at least.

Originally posted by Cruddy

I suspect this poll will indicate that I am a silly leper... but I'm still not sure.

Nah. There may be a bug; you may have a discovery no one else has noticed; you may have been mistaken. In any event, the discussion itself spreads the knowledge to a bunch of posters / lurkers -- even mistaken concepts / ideas advance the collective knowledge (if others weigh in with a full discussion) which means no one becomes a leper for sharing insights or ideas.

Catt

[Arrian]

Hmm,

Well I'll try and keep an eye out for such things in the future.

I'm playing a game as Germany now (I finally decided to give them a fair shot) in which I've captured a silly number of slaves early on (IIRC, I've nailed 5 settler teams, and snagged at least 2 unprotected workers. I've been a real bastard). Once I have my continent secure and I'm a nice happy democracy, I'll see if I can get rid of all native workers and check the F3 screen.

-Arrian

[Catt]

I have a game going now as Japan (revisting both religious and the Samurai) and have slaves from both surviving and extinct civs -- I'll try and check too (so long as I don't have to do unnatural acts to track them down and figure the maintenance costs issues.)

Catt

[stonewall]

Catt,

Is this what you are looking for...

Originally posted by stonewall
I just went into a game and disbanded several captured workers - workers that originated with a civ still in the game and workers from civs that have been destroyed.

F3 screen showed no changes in the number of total units or support costs.

So - captured workers are slaves.

[Catt]

Originally posted by stonewall
Catt,

Is this what you are looking for...

Sort of. But we need more info.

Are you in Monarchy or Communism? If so, you may be under your free army support budget, meaning disbanding even a miitary unit wouldn't change upkeep in any way.

Do you know if you captured or bought the slaves? I really doubt there is a difference, but it is possible that they are treated differently.

Since I do remember the weird nationality bug that I described from a while back, and since Arrian located the "Workers" listed in his F3 screen -- in the army screen itself, not the captured worker window at the bottom (meaning, presumably, he was paying maintenance) but on the map they were plainly identified as "Worker (Other Civ)" I think its possible that either there is still a bug in play, or that there is a never-before-noticed quirk in which certain "slaves" cost maintenance -- one can acquire "slaves" in a number of ways, and it is possible that there is differentiation between some "slaves" and others -- based on a factor that either no one has noticed or identified.

Catt

[stonewall]

I am in a Democracy and I captured all of the workers.

I haven't looked at each worker on the army screen compared to the map, so I don't know if there is an issue there in my game.

[Arrian]

Catt,

By the way, my example is old (hence the somewhat fuzzy recollection). Pre-PTW. Probably pre-CivIII 1.29. So if it was a bug, it's possible it has since been fixed.

Mmmm... Japan. Great civ. I have to say, playing Germany has gone better than I expected. The only other time I really tried them was one of the minitourneys, on Emperor, and I had gotten spanked. This time, playing on my usual Monarch, thanks to 2 early leaders (mmm, early archer wars) I have the Pyramids & GL, and am preparing for the continent-cleansing horseman rush. FP is done next to my capitol, so now I just need 1 more leader for a Palace move (York looks about right....). I've never used Panzers. I intend to change that.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian
Catt,

By the way, my example is old (hence the somewhat fuzzy recollection). Pre-PTW. Probably pre-CivIII 1.29. So if it was a bug, it's possible it has since been fixed.

Mmmm... Japan. Great civ. I have to say, playing Germany has gone better than I expected. The only other time I really tried them was one of the minitourneys, on Emperor, and I had gotten spanked. This time, playing on my usual Monarch, thanks to 2 early leaders (mmm, early archer wars) I have the Pyramids & GL, and am preparing for the continent-cleansing horseman rush. FP is done next to my capitol, so now I just need 1 more leader for a Palace move (York looks about right....). I've never used Panzers. I intend to change that.

[Off-Topic]

That German minitourney game was the one where I built a spread empire and then didn't build hospitals out of happiness concerns (discussed in another active thread just now) -- never seen an Industrial Age tech lead simply evaporate completely and find myself multiple techs behind in the Modern Age. Indeed, as I recall not only had I never seen it happen, but I (and others - nbarclay?) had never heard of it happening. I eventually traced my problems to a massively underutilized and underdeveloped empire.

I haven't played Japan in a while and was going to play them after our discussion in the Favorite UU thread -- the RNG cooperated and gave them to me! Got a Pangaea, standard map. Took out the Babs with horsies (generated a leader for the FP. The Mongols got uppity and my newly upgraded Samurai simply made mince meat of the Keshiks -- Sams just rolled over a large empire (with the help of an ally) in less than 15 turns, netting Sun Tzu's & Leo's, and a native supply of 7 luxuries. Just got cavs; used them to erase Persia in 4 turns. Now its one or two wars to domination victory. It's not UP becuase others are still competitive tech-wise (no universities, few libraries), I am missing some key wonders, and now, for all intents and purposes, the game is over. But man, those Samurai do pack a punch when used en masse.

Long time since I played an old favorite civ . . . the early horsemen wars, followed by large Samurai upgrades and a GA-fired Samurai horde, does indeed pack quite a punch. Defintiely a fun civ!

[/Off Topic]

Catt

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Arrian
Catt,

By the way, my example is old (hence the somewhat fuzzy recollection). Pre-PTW. Probably pre-CivIII 1.29. So if it was a bug, it's possible it has since been fixed.
...

I've quickly skimmed the 1.29f readme, and the only reference is to an AI loop bug for workers... So maybe they did. I'll look into this fully and post again when I've got a definite answer on my saves.

[inca911]

Originally posted by Arrian
FP is done next to my capitol, so now I just need 1 more leader for a Palace move (York looks about right....). --Arrian

Not critical, just curious:
I'm not understanding why you'd invest shields into the FP only to burn a leader later to effectively do the same thing with a Palace move. Your FP must not be very close to your capital then. So how far away from your capital is the FP and what size map is this?

[Arrian]

Standard map, continents. 4 civs total on my continent (Me, France to my NE, Russia to my S, and England SW of Russia).

Typically I would build the FP further away from my original capitol than I did in this game. But I didn't end up taking a bite out of the French (just whacked their settler teams and loose units) so I didn't have much room. My FP was built right next to my original capitol (5 tiles away, in fact).

A lot of times, the original capitol location is off-center (too close to the coast, basically), so that building the FP 1-2 cities away and then moving the palace results in a better corruption situation. In this case, Berlin was pretty much ok, but having the FP 1 city to its NE will help make the French cities I'm about to capture somewhat productive.

I did not have a leader handy, having blown the two I got early on the Pyramids and the GL. Further, I didn't own the city I wanted the Palace (or FP) in, nor did I own the ring of cities around it. I was building up the forces I needed to take that, and knew it was going to take a little while.

Building the FP still helped my empire's corruption a bit, even though it was right next to my capitol. The capitol cannot flip. I wasn't sure if I was going to wipe out the English or not. Thus, I wanted to move my Palace to England.

As it turned out, I did wipe the English out. I got the leader I needed for the Palace move, and then 2 more.

In this particular game, just rushing the FP in England would have worked fine. But the setup I have now is in fact slightly better, and I've really gotten used to building the FP manually near the original "core" and then moving my Palace via leader(s). It gives me the chance to position each perfectly.

-Arrian

p.s. Current status - approaching the end of the middle ages. England & Russia wiped out. I just upgraded 31 knights to Cavalry. The French are at the very beginning of the middle ages, and thus do not have musketeers. They never will. I've met the rest of the world via suicide caravel (3rd try). Egypt, Rome, Greece & Carthage have their own continent. Egypt is the big dog, currently in their GA and nearly even with me in tech. Rome is down to 2 cities and will most likely get wiped out by Cleo. Greece & Egypt just made peace. Greece & Carthage appear about equal, trailing the Egyptians. Navigation has not yet been discovered, so I have a legit shot at the Deception (which is good, since I was really a bastard in ancient times).

[Aeson]

When you capture a city and build a Settler from it, it has the nationality tag of the population that it uses. I'm not sure, but I think the same holds true for Workers. Perhaps it's these types of Workers that get listed as 'captured' even though they were hand built?

[Arrian]

Yes, it's the same for workers, Aeson. That I remember. Hmm, perhaps they are paid, though... is that what you're saying? That could be the answer!

-Arrian

[inca911]

Originally posted by Arrian
A lot of times, the original capitol location is off-center (too close to the coast, basically), so that building the FP 1-2 cities away and then moving the palace results in a better corruption situation.

That makes sense. I hate those peninsular starting points but typically I only move my capital later once my first capital is built up nicely. I've always felt that early short distance capital moves were cost-prohibitive. I'll have to try an early move some time. Of course, early move vs. getting Pyramids is how I've considered this in the past.

[Arrian]

inca911,

It's not an early palace move. It's an early FP build, leaving the palace where it is to begin with while building up the (now enlarged) core and the military. THEN, during the fight for control of the continent, the hope is to get a leader and move the Palace.

I don't move my palace by actually building the Palace. Takes too long. Nope, I admit it: I bank on getting a leader for that. Most of the time, I manage to get one (or more ).

-Arrian

[inca911]

Originally posted by Arrian
I admit it: I bank on getting a leader for that. Most of the time, I manage to get one (or more ).

-Arrian

Warmonger!

[Arrian]

Guilty as charged.

-Arrian

[Aramis]

This thread is really fascinating. I haven't kept captured workers in a long, long time. I turn them into outposts, airfields, radar, or send them off to the capital, where I sell or give them away. Sometimes I just kill them. I do these things because even with replaceable parts and democracy they are much too slow. I need 2 of them to do something 1 of mine can do. And it is a lot easier to build more of my own.
Curiosity now will lead me to experiment a bit with them. I eagerly await someone posting the answer to the upkeep question. If I have to pay for them I don't want them.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Rob_S
I eagerly await someone posting the answer to the upkeep question. If I have to pay for them I don't want them.

You definitely do not have to pay for them in the vast majority of circumstances -- that's what makes slaves so valuable.

I think the only facts at issue in the thread are: Are there any circumstances in which foreign workers require upkeep, and if so, what are the circumstances? Any answer of "yes, there is upkeep in some circumstances" would probably be applicable to very limited circumstances, since it's pretty clear that slaves "normally" (never?) require upkeep.

In fact, I do the opposite of what you do -- if I want to build a radar tower or build a city's population by adding workers, I'll almost always use my own workers -- I get the desired effect, and I lose the 1 gpt upkeep cost at the same time. By the end of a game in which I have captured lots of slaves I will have only slaves left -- all my own workers would have been added back to cities or otherwise used. Only if I have already "used" all my native workers will slaves take on that role, and if I can't spare a worker to accomplish my goal, it's time to build a few more workers.

Catt

[Aramis]

Catt--
I see your point, but remain (somewhat) in opposition. I do not mind paying upkeep for my own workers due to the speed at which they work. If in any circumstance I must pay for a captured worker, then, from a pragmatic point of view, they are an unnecessary expense. I have long assumed that expense was there. If I am wrong and I am not paying for them, then how you use them is a model I should try.
One thing I have never done is add them to a city's population. Again I made an assumption--that I'd have cranky immigrants.
I'm going to play around with some saved games and find the answer to the upkeep question. If I've been wrong, then it means a major shift in my strategy. Thanks for your info. --R

[kring]

Originally posted by Catt


I think the only facts at issue in the thread are: Are there any circumstances in which foreign workers require upkeep, and if so, what are the circumstances? Any answer of "yes, there is upkeep in some circumstances" would probably be applicable to very limited circumstances, since it's pretty clear that slaves "normally" (never?) require upkeep.

Catt

One additional possible explanation would be any Workers that you created from a city that you captured or culture flipped to you. Any Workers that you create from a city in those instances may be foreign. They wouldn't have been purchased from another civ or captured from another civ, but their nationality would show as foreign, wouldn't it? I am not near my Civ 3 computer so I can't check it out right now.

[Jaybe]

Rob_S,
After Repl Parts, but if not in democracy, 1 worker + 1 slave builds a road in one turn and a mine/rail in 2 turns. Your method would require 2 workers (or democracy).

IF you micromanage your worker force, then the combo is the way to go.

[Aramis]

Originally posted by Jaybe

After Repl Parts, but if not in democracy, 1 worker + 1 slave builds a road in one turn and a mine/rail in 2 turns. Your method would require 2 workers (or democracy).
IF you micromanage your worker force, then the combo is the way to go.

Jaybe--
Yes, I guess (I'll take your word), but I've never played a game where I haven't been a democracy by the time I get Repl parts. So I'm used to 1 worker, 1 tile, 1 rail, 1 turn. Dem+repl parts with captured workers=2 turns. Not cost effective IF i'm paying for the upkeep of the captured workers. VERY cost effective if I'm not, as Catt has pointed out. Which is why I've got to suspend my current game a bit and start checking out these captured workers (through messing around with previous saves).

I do micro-manage my workers, except occasionally I'll automate some to clean up pollution. Sometimes I micro-manage my cities, too--makes for very long games.