Suggestion: Slavery Not Good Enough

[PJNagrom]

I realize this is a rather nasty view of history but the fact remains that all the major early civs depended very heavily on Slavery to get where they were. Almost all of the major public works of history were built on the backs of slaves.

I'm thinking slavery needs to be made stronger in Ancient times only to gradually weaken over time. By the time you get modern times you would have severe penalties for attempting slavery.

Say a big hammer boost in ancient times probably coupled with an offsetting health penalty. With each new age the benefits decrease and the penalties increase along with unhappiness.

Finally modern times would add a major diplomatic penalty as other civs saw the barbarity of the practice.

[mantari]

Slavery is so weak, I always pass it up because not having 1 turn of anarchy seems more valuable.

[MattPilot]

1 pop for 30 shields?

No thanks.

[Jim0322]

I never use slavery either. It does not seem useful.

BY the way, how do you force production either with the slave option or with money?

[duodecimal]

I'm not sure if the health penalty would do much, since you're already taking out chunks of the city's population.

Scaling benefits to age is something I haven't seen used by anything in the game, so I'm not sure how easily a +hammer boost that decays as you go through the ages can be added.

Maybe a reduction in the cost of worker units instead? Not only does it naturally become less useful the more advanced you become, but it also seems somewhat reasonable.

[duodecimal]

Originally posted by Jim0322
BY the way, how do you force production either with the slave option or with money?

If you look real closely in the bottom part of the City screen, squeezed in to the right of the units/buildings/wonders choices, there are a series of tiny icons. The two near the top are for forced labor and cash for hurrying production.

[PJNagrom]

Pop rush may be useful in an emergency but I'm thinking a full time +10% or +15% hammers to any city with 3 pop. or bigger.

Something to show that slavery gives an advantage of some kind- bacause in reality, it did.

[uberloz]

A late game return to slavery ( or even dwelling in that civic for a long period of time ) should spinoff a 'Spartacus' type slave rebellion embodied by a four or 5 unit strong army of yours civs most advanced unit types; created at the weakest part of your empire that immediately starts sacking cities!

That would be poetic!

[Andrew1999]

Does the Slavery civic have anything to do with captured workers? That was the definition of slavery in Civ 3, and I thought it was odd that you still kept them even under democracy. If you can only use captured workers under the Slavery civic, that would be a big advantage. After all, you usually don't enslave your own populace--you go get somebody else and enslave them.

[spy14]

Slavery should count for a lot in ancient times (Rome and Egypt are 2 good examples of empires built with vast help by slavery)... but whats to say it should have to weaken in modern times? In Civ you are trying to create YOUR world, and if you decide a little slavery could be useful along the way...

[Fosse]

I also never use slavery due to the anarchy cost to switch and the fact that Pop for Shields seldom feels worth it.

I agree that a small production bonus - either to cities or tiles - would make it sometimes tempting without being too powerful. Maybe +1 or +2 hammer for each resource improvement. So a civ with tons of pastures or lots of wheat farms gets a lot of mileage out of it, but others are less likely to use it, thus making it nice and situational.

As for modeling it over time... have each Emancipated Civ cause twice the unhappiness for a Civ in slavery as it does for civs in other Labor civics.

[Martinus]

I use slavery sparringly, but it is a valid option for me until the Caste System, especially when I need to rush a wonder. It could be a bit more powerful, but I disagree it is useless presently.

[ktbutts]

A pop rush in the early game can get you a worker in half the time (assuming a size 2 city). In terms of turn advantage, that's pretty useful.

But you are correct that after the first stage of the game, it is not useful. Which sort of parralels the use of slavery through out history.

By the way, recent evidence supports th Pyramids being made by a paid labor force, not slaves. So I wouldn't necessarily agree that slavery was a driving force in primitive cultures.

Also, isn't it interesting that Firaxis made such a big deal about being sensitive about Religion, but then throws in slavery?

[Ansaga]

I miss the slavers from Call to Power. A slaver was a invisible unit going to other civ's cities and you capture their population and they become your slave in the nearest city. Basically it was a free pop, always a bonus, and they also ate HALF food. Now THAT is awesome. Of course the downside is that if you have too many slaves they will of course riot. Not to mention the fact that there was the Emancipation wonder, if you didn't build it and you have tons of slaves prepare to be royally shafted.

Anywho I think I went off topic... moral of the story is I want slavers to come back to the game.

[MattPilot]

how about a +1 hammer in the city square (for a total of 2 hammers & 2 food) for the civic slavery?

That 'ought to make it more appealing.

Since slavery comes rather early, most everyone will switch to it, even if its just pinned on another revolution. As someone else pointed out, this would reflect the fact that nearly all civilizations built their empire on the backs of slaves.

+1 hammer is significant, but IMO not a game breaker, early in the game. As the game goes on and hammers become more abundant, the +1 hammer from slavery will be less and less significant.


Thoughts?