God and Slaves

[JMarks]

Going back...

Hey, who says Civ3 won't have slavery? It does! Although evidently not like CTP (never played, don't know how it works). Remember, military units can capture workers, and then, bam, they work for you (ei they are your slaves, just like everyother unit you own). Albeit, you can't enslave a vanquished swordsman and make him a worker, but it twill suffice.

Ioanes

[Dida]

when you capture an enemy city, you should have the option to burn down the whole city, rob every valuable thing, and take its citizen as slaves.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by TechWins
If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.

I have no idea how things are shaping now, but I suspect Firaxis tried to manage happines mostly by special resources (luxuries) exploiting/trade.

They mentioned that every Civ will have unique Culture traits, so may be they are considering separate line of culture: religion oriented (temple, church, cathedral, religion related Wonders...)
science oriented (library, laboratory)
trade/merchant oriented (marketplace, bank)

The more you develop one of three, the more your culture will be oriented in religion, science or business.
It can drive to a political model with a Scientific Monarchy, a Religious Nationalism, a Capitalist Democracy... not a bad change from SMAC social engineer.

Don't forget we'll have Great People too, probably not only Great military Leaders, but also artist, philosopher, scientist, as Shakespear, Plato, Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Newton...

They can add lot of cultural effect, so at this point I hope Firaxis will kill my critics with an amazing game feature.

[November Adam]

That's a good idea Dida.

It would be nice if you could transport the slaves from one city to the next, to help avoid raids by abolitionists on your front lines.

[death_head]

Sack, loot, and burn! That's what Civ3 should be all about!

I was just wondering if the other factions would get after you like in SMAC (never played Civ so this could be covered)

[Dida]

for civilized civ, burning a captured city is not adviced. Because the international community will be very disgusted by your action, and they might declare war or economic sanction against you.

[tniem]

TechWins,

Like I said if unit support is paid for by the national treasury than I have no worries. But has that been said yet? If it has, I am sorry. But if there is a chance that unit support will be paid by the cities themselves, I have some worries.

[TechWins]

Don't forget we'll have Great People too

That was mentioned a long time ago that they might be in but since then we haven't heard any other information about them. So it's not positive that they will be in the game. I guess we can only hope that they will be in the game.

Like I said if unit support is paid for by the national treasury than I have no worries. But has that been said yet?

I'm not 100% sure that it has been confirmed by Firaxis but I still recall hearing something about it being that way. I don't know where I heard it but I did hear it somewhere. I could be wrong but I strongly believe Firaxis has stated that units will be paid for by the national treasury. If somebody else may have heard this could you speak up?

But if there is a chance that unit support will be paid by the cities themselves, I have some worries.

If this were to be the case would each city just lose one tax? If it were to be this way it would decrease the chance of civ being able to get rid of that city-state feel instead of a more of a nation as one feel. If you understand what I mean. I still do think that units will be supported by the national treasury.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Father Beast


I can't say for CTP2, but in CTP (which I got recently) the military support is still with production. The BIG difference (which I'm wondering if it will make it into civ3) is that it was done on a global basis, more like the original MOO. all the cities were lumped together and added up, then the gears subtracted.
In civ and civ2, it ALWAYS calculated gold and shield support city by city, and I'm wondering if that will still happen. the global version added a lot to making it feel like one empire.

As Tech pointed out, city shields builds the Unit and then Gold support takes over (Civ 3 and CTP 2) after the Unit is built.

I have not played CTP 1 since Nov. 2000. Do a cheat for a min. Build one city and then (cheat) build several (10 to 20) units, hit end of turn and then count how many unit are left (after they died) and that will be the number of units that is supported by one city. You might also (cheat) build a size 21 city and do the same to see how many units a large city will support. You will than know how many units you can build time number of cities. Also if you have not try WesW mod for CTP 1, please do, I think you will really like it.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Dida
for civilized civ, burning a captured city is not adviced. Because the international community will be very disgusted by your action, and they might declare war or economic sanction against you.

I don't disagree with you, though I think there should be an option to raze cities. I don't know how many times I've captured a city that I didn't want to keep, simply to take it out of enemy hands. I would much prefer the option to raze the city to the ground rather than starve the population down to 1 pop, then create a settler.

Sure, make it a genocidal-type act that angers the other civs, but leave the option in. If you want to play a loot & pillage conqueror, you should be able to do it and suffer the consequences.

If we're going to include slaves, why not make them "worker"-type units? So if you have a 4 pop city and you raze it to the ground you could enslave the population, maybe on a 1 for 2 basis, and get 2 workers.

[Urban Ranger]

Having unit support payable in $$$ is a good way to fight ICS. Now an underdeveloped nation can no longer support a huge raging army, because they just don't have the money to do so.

[November Adam]

Urban Ranger, you mention that now an underdeveloped nation won't be able to support a huge army. (haven't figured out how to use quotes yet).

An underdeveloped nation wouldn't be able to support a huge army anyways.

This is just taking the emphasis off of industry, and putting it on economy.

I still like the old production method (granted more like CTP where the nation supports the city as opposed to CIV where it's each individual city).

If you look at communism, it has a piss poor economy, but a raging industry, thus it could support a large army. Meanwhile a democracy has an great economy, and a good industry. Thus a democracy would be able to support a larger army. (Of course this is only one aspect of army size).

[death_head]

It seems to me that Communists would be able to build a larger army during peacetime, while capatalists would be able to build a larger army during wartime (look at the U.S. in WW2) Thus, the communist governments should start the wars, and lose them if they aren't finished quickly enough (like in Axis & Allies)

[November Adam]

But the U.S. wasn't having all of their production facilities blown up. So I'm not sure that is a good example. Democracies, are not good war governments, for quantity. Quality of troops sure, but not size.

[death_head]

I guess I was referring to the way that businesses and civilians jumped into the war effort with a will (in the interest of $$$), whereas in Germany or Russia or wherever, people were forced.