Noob thread

[ColdPhoenix]

I kinda feel they might have wanted to exchange the "representation" and "universal suffrage" caracteristics, for realism's sake : I always prefer +3 beakers per specialist and +3 happy faces in the 6 biggest cities (representation effect) over +1 hammer for cities and the ability to rush production with money (I seldom have excess money anyway, the treasury doesn't pay interest ...). So one cheap idea would have the two reversed : representation could bring + 1 hammer and possibility to rush and universal suffrage would have all specialist boost research. That way, I suppose most people would be in "universal suffrage" in the end game, which is more realistic.

I often change to universal suffrage towards the end game. It's +1 hammer per town, as I build a lot of cottages that can be a decent boost in a lot of cities. Happiness isn't such an issue in the late game either. I do like the additional science per specialist but that helps more in the early game when you're not getting as much science. That said, if I've got the statue of liberty I'll probably stay with representation.

[sorinache]

I often change to universal suffrage towards the end game. It's +1 hammer per town, as I build a lot of cottages that can be a decent boost in a lot of cities. Happiness isn't such an issue in the late game either. I do like the additional science per specialist but that helps more in the early game when you're not getting as much science. That said, if I've got the statue of liberty I'll probably stay with representation.

I agree with the happiness part. Less so for the extra science.
Not only Statue of Liberty comes into play but also the specific of the games geography. For instance in both my games (the previous english game and this one with Darius) I happened to be based in a jungle-covered area : deforest the jungle and it's grassland. Irrigate and you have a farm that produces 4 food late in the game. With a lot of food, my cities have 4 - 5 specialists each on average. I always preferred the SBE over CBE. That is not to say I don't have towns, I actually also have an average of 2 -3 towns per city, but I find the psychological effect of switching to "universal suffrage" difficult to stand : the total number of beakers produced is easily apparent and a big drop consequent to going from rep to univ.suffr sores my eye. On the other hand, the extra hammers are not immediatly apparent, I have to go from city to city and appreciate the impact they make

[Krill]

Easy way to deal with that: build more cottages instead of farms, and then go into emancipation to grow them quickly...

[Theben]

Near endgame you basically need 2-3 farms/city and cottages on just about everything else. Once the city utilizes all its BFC you can go down to 1 farm (assuming all is grassland).

Bear in mind you're trading 1 and around 8 for 1 specialist (if you have biology, and compared to free speech/uni suff)). Overall the town will grant you a better return late game.

[duke o' york]

Can I use slavery or universal suffrage to rush my order of Civ IV Complete?

2-3 days delivery my foot!

[BeBMan]

Had my first serious attempt at a BtS game - got owned by the AI

[rah]

What level where you playing at?

[BeBMan]

Noble (I guess that's it in English, I have the German language selected). I didn't prepare enough for war, was too busy to build up my realm so I didn't pay enough attention to defense - then suddely one AI attacked me, another joined in shortly after that. Managed to defeat the first, but couldn't hold back the second (Vikings). Well, taught me a lesson I guess

[wodan11]

I don't like whipping - it seems there are a lot of fans out there, but to me it's not only offensive, it also smells like bad strategy : population is, eventually, THE main resource in the game

IMO the advocates of Slavery tend to underestimate the negatives of removing population. Basically, you can consider the cottages not worked or the specialists not run. Yes, you get hammers. But there is a cost; don't kid yourself.

But early in the game, you have low happiness caps. It is very easy to exceed those caps quickly, and excess population isn't doing anything because happiness limits. Whipping is a good way to keep that under control and use that excess population. Granted, you have to be careful how you do it so you don't create more unhappiness than you can deal with, but it is an excellent strategy for dealing with two big early problems... Building things quickly at a key point in the game, and finding a use for population that isn't doing anything anyway.

Causing unhappy (through whipping) to cure unhappy is somewhat self-defeating. Yes, you can whip 2 to cause 1. But consider that almost invariably what you're really doing is allowing the city to keep working higher food tiles in preference to higher hammer tiles, higher commerce tiles, or specialists, which results in that extra food.

[Theben]

It depends on your food/hammer output of your cities and what your whipping up. You have to have a purpose in what you're whipping, don't just whip everything. Whipping things like granaries and lighthouses will get you a positive return in the long run, as can early whipping of an army if you're early rushing. Also say you have 2 unhappy, you whip a temple that costs 2 pop and next turn the extra unhappy will be content long enough to grow into it. Getting caught off-guard by an invasion, you'll need to whip. Lastly whipping in a slow growth city to a point where growth becomes quick can minimize the loss of pop.
Early on there tends to be no other option except tribalism, so slavery has value. By the time CoL and Caste System are available you should no longer need slavery.

[Ming]

IMO the advocates of Slavery tend to underestimate the negatives of removing population. Basically, you can consider the cottages not worked or the specialists not run. Yes, you get hammers. But there is a cost; don't kid yourself.

If you have reached your unhappiness cap, those "pop" aren't working cottages, or being specialists... they are doing nothing and causing you food problems.

Causing unhappy (through whipping) to cure unhappy is somewhat self-defeating. Yes, you can whip 2 to cause 1. But consider that almost invariably what you're really doing is allowing the city to keep working higher food tiles in preference to higher hammer tiles, higher commerce tiles, or specialists, which results in that extra food.

If done properly, you get the best of all worlds. Again, you seem to be forgetting that unhappy pop due to population size are doing NOTHING
except taking up food.

If you do two for one, and let the 10 turn limit expire before doing so again, you maximize the "wasted" population. You give up nothing, but gain hammers and can build either units or buildings quicker in the key early part of the game.

[wodan11]

If you allow your city to grow past the unhappy cap, then yes of course they keep eating that same food. The choice was yours. You chose to waste the food. In fact, you were wasting it before you even grew past the cap.

Instead, you could have switched to less food tiles (like a forest, mine, or plains cottage) or run a specialist. Instead of wasting food you are making hammers and commerce etc.

[Unimatrix11]

I dont whip, because i find it too much micro.

Combining Ming´s and wodan´s points though, it seem to be a good idea, when you dont have proper tiles avaiable, that would make your pop-growth stagnate, but yields reasonable hammers/commerce (like you have to use unimproved tiles instead of a 5F-tile in order to make food stagnate) and if you cant run specialists yet, because you lack the buildings. In such a situation, it seems to make quite some sense, to whip exactly to that purpose: To gain a building that allows you to run specialists, so you gain a vaiable alternative to producing food from a very productive tile.

(Unhappy citizens should produce negative culture, when culture >0, and (slave-)revolts´ probabilities should be dependent on culture - if it would go negative due to unhappyness, the probabiltiy of a revolt should be close to 100% - no need to bind it to the slavery-civic anymore: whipping -> unhappy people -> unhappy people -> culture loss, too little culture for too many people -> revolt; works with or without the first step - e.g. by unhappyness because of war weariness, ordinary overpopulation etc.)

[sorinache]

"Negative culture" sounds like an interesting idea - and pretty realistic too, it could be the basic engine for implementing the historic phenomenon of civilization decline. What about, for instance, being able to build brothels / lupanars / casinos which would allow a city to "burn" culture and maybe also espionnage points in order to obtain money or maybe food ? That would mimick the trade-off in RL that cities such as Monaco and Las Vegas face and would offer interesting strategic options

[wodan11]

What's the difference between brothels and lupanares?