Discussion: assimilation of workers into cities

[Zero]

As for B2, if we get to a point of doing it, we should never integrate aztec, american or any other extinct civ captives. They dont hurt attitude toward any civ and are free.

[Spiffor]

Calc : I precisely intend to integrate French, American, or workers from other extinct civs first (I mean, first when I'll begin to integrate slaves)
We shouldn't fear any unhappiness because we'"re at war with their country, and it is almost safe to say they won't cause any cultural reversion problem. Unhappiness and cultural reversion are my priorities, much more than the stance of our neighbours towards us ; I think slaves have a very little effect on the hate foreign nations have towards us.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Calc : I precisely intend to integrate French, American, or workers from other extinct civs first (I mean, first when I'll begin to integrate slaves)
We shouldn't fear any unhappiness because we'"re at war with their country, and it is almost safe to say they won't cause any cultural reversion problem. Unhappiness and cultural reversion are my priorities, much more than the stance of our neighbours towards us ; I think slaves have a very little effect on the hate foreign nations have towards us.

hi ,

, in several PBEM games where one player bought a worker from an other player , inwhere the first player had very good relations with the civilization from the worker the next turn relations became not so good , .... its like the AI knows at all times where its workers are , ......

have a nice day

[Aidun]

Getting tired of the subject now.
I agree with Spiffor . Let us the slaves, doesn't matter how, but let them be of more use then they're now.

Aidun

[WhiteBandit]

Whether we put foreign workers into a city or domestic workers into a city first ultimately doesn't matter in the scheme of things. They will produce the EXACT same amount of shields.

It makes better economic sense to put a domestic worker into a city first. We no longer have to support them (which automatically frees up 1 LPT per domestic worker), they will now PRODUCE gold (depending on tile worked in a city). In theory, each worker will have a gain of at least 1 LPT and possibly more, depending on tile worked. For the sake of argument, we'll say they produce 1 LPT on a tile. This worker now effectively has produced a net profit of 2 LPT.

However, a foreign worker (whom we don't support anyway) will be merged into a city and worked the same tile. Since we don't support them anyway, it will be a net of 0 LPT. However they will make 1 LPT off of the tile. So now the foreign worker is making 1 LPT compared to the 2 LPT that the integrated domestic worker is making.

It is much more economical to integrate our domestic workers into cities FIRST. Also, you do not have to deal with the case of disorder (in regards to civilizations that are still around) or even the possibility of cultural flipping.

The benefits of integrating domestic workers into our cities should be nearly 100% obvious. This is a game, don't let you're real life emotions regarding slavery mix in and become a detriment to the game.

[Spiffor]

White Bandit :
Please listen to my economic arguments in favor of emancipation. My whole point in this debate was about economics, not morals.

1) we have a huge population gap to fill, once hospitals are around

2) We do not want to wait for the natural population growth, because natural growth is slow in metropolises, especially because most of our territory is mined rather than irrigated

3) We want to integrate as many workers in cities as possible, once hospitals are around. Unfortunately, we don't have enough workers to do this as much as we need.

4) We want to keep the lowest possible amount of workers out of cities because of that

5) To do so, we need to let out there the best workers, i.e a few nationals.

If you consider that :
- we have enough workers to fill the population gap
- natural growth of cities is satisfying
you cannot understand these 5 points. However, we do not have enough workers to fill the population gap, and natural growth of cities will be extremely slow. That's why we have to integrate as many workers as possible. Thus we have to first integrate the least efficient workers, once hospitals are around.

[WhiteBandit]

I do see most of your points, and would be willing to shut up and agree with you, however I am confused on why it matters that we integrate the least effecient workers first?

Again, economically, it would be an advantage to actually keep them around at the moment. Or rather, at least integrate them LAST (mainly because they cost nothing at all to support, so it is an economically wise decision to get rid of the units that ARE costing us money to begin with).

Regarding effeciency, I believe you (I think?) also said there is maybe 3 more turns of real PW left before the workers really have nothing more to do. If that's the case, I agree that we can go ahead and integrate idle workers into cities. But however eneffecient our foreign workers are shouldn't matter since we can technically keep an unlimited amount of them (for free).

I have nothing against freeing the so called slaves. I personally think it would be an economically wise decision to integrate our domestic workers first before integrating foreign workers.

Also, a lot of the hinges on "National/Foreigner" worker ratios based on how many workers we have and what nationalities they are. I guess there would be a "sweet spot" so to speak that would be ideal to integrate workers into cities to maximize our economic profit.

Also we should come up with a proposal entitled:

Operation Screw Rome

Basically we're proposing to gift some of the newly captured roman cities away. Before we do this, we should REALLY milk them for all it is worth. Starve/Produce workers to send back home. Then gift them away. We probably wouldn't want to integrate the Romans into our cities since we will potentially go to war with them again, but this would greatly supplement our work force as well and provide a future "farm" for expanding the population in cities.

[Spiffor]

Whitebandit :
To put it simply, I guesstimate our needs to be 30 natives or 60 slaves. If we integrate slaves first, we'll have +30 pop in our cities than if we integrate natives first.
Johncnunn estimates we'll need 24 natives or 48 slaves. In his estimation, integrating slaves first rather than nationals would mean +24 pop in our cities. Still not too shabby.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by WhiteBandit


Operation Screw Rome

Basically we're proposing to gift some of the newly captured roman cities away. Before we do this, we should REALLY milk them for all it is worth. Starve/Produce workers to send back home. Then gift them away. We probably wouldn't want to integrate the Romans into our cities since we will potentially go to war with them again, but this would greatly supplement our work force as well and provide a future "farm" for expanding the population in cities.

There is something I like about that
Mss

[Kuciwalker]

Do we need that +24 pop to get to max?

[Shiber]

I support Operation: Screw Rome, with three minor adjustments:
1. Let's milk the Roman cities for workers, not settlers. We can delay their assimilation for after the war is over, and we can assimilate them into core cities that don't have overlapping tiles with other civs so that culture flipping won't be an issue, and that have lots of culture built up in the city so that the Roman citizens would assimilate quickly and become Apolytonians.
2. Other than using captured cities for this goal, we can also use cities which we can take from Ceaser in the negotiations table.
3. After we're done milking the cities, we should dispense them to several different other civs such as the Iroquois, the Babylonians or the Persians so that we'd have a buffer zone between us and Rome that is watched by several civs. That way, if Rome decide to attack us from the South, they'll have to sign RoPs with at least two civs to get to our territory.

[Kuciwalker]

Shiber: I like your idea, but I don't think it should be dispersed. We should instead give them away in layers. Layer one could be the cities bordering what's left of Rome, etc. That way the Romans have to sign RoP's with every civ we give the cities away to, not just two or three.

[Shiber]

That is, if we capture enough cities to be able to form more than two layers. If we do, then by all means I support adopting your proposal.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
I support Operation: Screw Rome, with three minor adjustments:
1. Let's milk the Roman cities for workers, not settlers. We can delay their assimilation for after the war is over, and we can assimilate them into core cities that don't have overlapping tiles with other civs so that culture flipping won't be an issue, and that have lots of culture built up in the city so that the Roman citizens would assimilate quickly and become Apolytonians.
2. Other than using captured cities for this goal, we can also use cities which we can take from Ceaser in the negotiations table.
3. After we're done milking the cities, we should dispense them to several different other civs such as the Iroquois, the Babylonians or the Persians so that we'd have a buffer zone between us and Rome that is watched by several civs. That way, if Rome decide to attack us from the South, they'll have to sign RoPs with at least two civs to get to our territory.

hi ,

good , try to cut out as many as you can and divide them all over

have a nice day

[ManicStarSeed]

Yep Shiber, I agree with your plan.

Mss