Strategy: drafting&forced labor

[joer]

With the most recent news we've been hearing, especially the one about forced labor and drafting citizens, I've been considering the strategic implications of those features. Here's what I came up with:

1. Previously, an additional citizen with an empty square to work on did not really add anything to your civilization. It just ate up your money and caused unhappyness. In Civ III, each additional citizen can be turned into militairy units and production at point of need. That makes him valuable in any case. Which means that gathering lots of citizens in order to turn them into something else later *could* be a viable strategy. The 'price' of citizens is food...which is lower in smaller cities. So producing lots of small cities where the food box isn't as big as in the big ones could gain once again an additional advantage. Does that smell of ICS? I'd chalk it up as point for ICS.

2. Drafting citizens is every builder's dream come true. A good builder is IMO somebody who concentrates on infrastructure and other stuff non related to pumping out attacking units, to bid his time. However, he has to keep up a dynamic defense in order to keep the warmongers at bay. Dynamic defense simply means that he has to be ready to be a pain in the butt to invade, so people don't want to take the effort and pay the price of launching an invasion against him.

The possibility of drafting is just that: It allows a builder to fully concentrate on building big cities with minimum of defensive units, backed up by a good road network. Once the enemy comes, he can always turn his citizens into militairy units at need, without really having to spend all the production and support ahead of time. Bad deal you say, because it will kill his cities? That's not the point. The point is that he has the possibility to do it.That alone, and the knowledge that he can do it and let the invaders run their heads against masses of the most modern defense unit can make warmongers think twice about attacking. And as long as the builder doesn't get attacked, he can concentrate on his infrastructure and science, make his cities bigger and be a much bigger pain to be invaded later.
Furthermore, drafting has the additional side effect of leaving the invador with what he actually came for: Grabbing big cities. Unless he's very swift, the builder will have drafted all his citizens, so there's no city to take once the invader has slaughtered all defenders.

This tactic of building up defense militias under pressure while leaving only scorched earth to the enemy seems so powerful to me that I imagine only very swiftly executed blitzkriegs be worthwhile.

3. With these additional defensive abilities, defense bonuses for cities and metropoli, Firaxis saying that war will be much harder and much less frequent, as well as an emphasis on peaceful aspects such as culture, diplomacy and trading, I suddenly wonder if war will still play a major role in the game. Sure, I enjoy building myself, but I want to have both options, either winning by building up an empire under the pressure and through hard-pressed attacks of my jealous neighbours, or by conquering them. I wouldn't like to see a game where the best option is to just sit around, build bigger and bigger cities to produce more and more culture, be happy with every other civilization, trade what I need, and suddenly I just vote myself leader of the world.

[Lorizael]

Interesting stuff here. I don't think drafting and Forced Labor is a point for ICS at all though. One or more citizens lost has a much larger impact on smaller cities than on bigger ones.

I don't think war is made too difficult though. The point of having defenders is to make sure that your city is not taken or destroyed. If you simply draft everyone away (which takes a lot of time depending upon your government) then you've lost the city anyways, with no chance of taking it back.

And warmongers have the advantage that they can draft people and build military units, unlike the builder. This way he can launch an effective siege against a city.

Besides, taking cities should be difficult, but once you do, oh the things you can do. Suddenly you have road and rail access to the enemy civilization and a fallback point if the attack fails. Or, if you're evil, once you take a city you can simply annihilate it.

The other thing is, while your civilization may survive the war because of forced labor or drafting, they're gonna hate you for a long time afterwards and more of your resources will be directed towards simply keeping people happy.

I wonder, when a war is over, can you turn draftees back into population points?

[SteveJH]

It should also be noted that drafting and forced labor causes unhappyness for 20 turns for each pop point, this can turn into a rather hefty price IMHO. I will only use drafting/forced labor if I find it absolutely nessesary. Riots just aren't worth it.

[joer]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Interesting stuff here. I don't think drafting and Forced Labor is a point for ICS at all though. One or more citizens lost has a much larger impact on smaller cities than on bigger ones.

Getting the lost citizens back is a tad easier, though, since the foodbox is smaller.

I don't think war is made too difficult though. The point of having defenders is to make sure that your city is not taken or destroyed. If you simply draft everyone away (which takes a lot of time depending upon your government) then you've lost the city anyways, with no chance of taking it back.

Actually, one side effect of drafting defenders is to actually destroy the city, so the enemy doesn't get it. Just draft until only one citizen is left, then leave it to the the attacker and withdraw your units to a strategic position...while building up a counter-force in the back. Whee.
Once the enemy enters a size-1-city, it's gone. Much better than losing a big city to him.

And warmongers have the advantage that they can draft people and build military units, unlike the builder. This way he can launch an effective siege against a city.

Nobody hinders the builder to crunch out attack units to beat on the units making a siege in times of need. The term Builder just refers to what he does when nobody is bothering him...too much.

Also, most defensive units are slow.
Next point in Civ III for builders: Roads/RR won't work for the enemy. Nee-nee.

Besides, taking cities should be difficult, but once you do, oh the things you can do. Suddenly you have road and rail access to the enemy civilization and a fallback point if the attack fails. Or, if you're evil, once you take a city you can simply annihilate it.

See above. You shouldn't be able to get more than a pile of rubble. And once more, you can only creep on towards the next city...with more defenders, who are ready now, probably having just rushed their city walls.

The other thing is, while your civilization may survive the war because of forced labor or drafting, they're gonna hate you for a long time afterwards and more of your resources will be directed towards simply keeping people happy.

It should be used as an emergency. Having the emergency-option is still invaluable.

I wonder, when a war is over, can you turn draftees back into population points?

Eeek. No. I REALLYREALLYREALLY hope not, and can't imagine Firaxis making such a botch. That'd be way too powerful. There has to be a price to pay.

[SteveJH]

Actually, one side effect of drafting defenders is to actually destroy the city, so the enemy doesn't get it. Just draft until only one citizen is left, then leave it to the the attacker and withdraw your units to a strategic position...while building up a counter-force in the back. Whee.
Once the enemy enters a size-1-city, it's gone. Much better than losing a big city to him.

This could take many turns for larger cities though, there is a limit to how many citizens you may draft per turn. This limit is even lower if your using a democracy or republic, the preferred goverment of builders.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by joer
Actually, one side effect of drafting defenders is to actually destroy the city, so the enemy doesn't get it. Just draft until only one citizen is left, then leave it to the the attacker and withdraw your units to a strategic position...while building up a counter-force in the back. Whee.
Once the enemy enters a size-1-city, it's gone. Much better than losing a big city to him.

Still, if you simply draft away all of your cities, what do you have left to build with. If you let the enemy let you destroy your cities, then you have lost. You've lost was could have been very good cities.

And, I don't think size 1 cities are automatically destroyed now. I think you can keep or destroy any cities. So the enemy does get his forward position, and you lose your cities.

Nobody hinders the builder to crunch out attack units to beat on the units making a siege in times of need. The term Builder just refers to what he does when nobody is bothering him...too much.

But if the enemy is crunching out attackers and draftees, and the builder just has draftees, the attack has the advantage.

Also, most defensive units are slow.
Next point in Civ III for builders: Roads/RR won't work for the enemy. Nee-nee.

Slow defensive units are bad for the defender. The attacker can you use planes and boats to attack when rails and roads cannot be used. Plus, once you've taken a city you get those rails and roads.

See above. You shouldn't be able to get more than a pile of rubble. And once more, you can only creep on towards the next city...with more defenders, who are ready now, probably having just rushed their city walls.

Yah, the enemy gets a pile of rubble, and you lose a city. The city walls can be taken out by spies, boats, planes, and artillery.

It should be used as an emergency. Having the emergency-option is still invaluable.

Yes, it can definetely been done. But I don't think it completely eliminates agressive warfare as you think.

Eeek. No. I REALLYREALLYREALLY hope not, and can't imagine Firaxis making such a botch. That'd be way too powerful. There has to be a price to pay.

Powerful, yes, but also realistic. The price is in all those unhappy people that will be angry for years and years afterwards, and the loss of your cities to the enemy. I'm betting a lot of draftees will die defending the rubble before them and will not be able to build up cities once more.

[Akron]

Nah... don't destroy your own city. If you are a true builder, your culture should be far higher than the warmonger. So you'll have a good chance of getting it back later, if you can give some resistence.

I feel that the draft function will be incredibly useful for small nations that have just lost key resources to an aggressive rival and can't build important defensive units.

[Comrade Tribune]

Don´t know if I like this draft thing.

1. Drafting costs population. Weird. Rarely are soldiers drafted for life.

2. Drafting not possible before nationalism. Never mind that ancient Greeks and Romans used the draft, of course.

3. Drafting doesn´t cost resources and shields. So how do these units get equipped? Magic?

[The diplomat]

I think the "draft" feature could allow for some really intense world war 1 type situations. Imagine there are 2 superpower civs fighting each other. You could have a situation where both superpowers are forced to use the draft to try to overcome the other civ. You draft a bunch of units to throw them to the front line as quickly as possible. The other civ is very strong, so it is able to do the same, producing a long stalemate. Of course there is also the unhappiness and the "war weariness" factor which might force you to sue for peace. Like the real ww1, both sides might sue for peace out of shear exhaustion.

If this situation could happen in civ3, it would be very interesting indeed!

[joer]

My idea was not so much to use drafting as a common way to get soldiers -- it's way to expensive. Instead, it can be a great emergency fallback solution to get the enemy into fighting a war of attrition and buy time when you are caught ill-prepared.

Think about the following situation: I have neglected my border city defenses in favor of infrastructure, leaving only one spearman/phalanx in each city. Now a bunch of knights hop up to one city. In Civ2, I was helpless to save it. I would have lost the city to the enemy, giving him a strong base bordering to my empire.

Now, with drafting, I can quickly churn out a few musketeers from that city (and perhaps even surrounding cities). Sure, that may very well kill that one city. But it can slow the enemy approach down, retreat with the left-over defenders to the next save haven, while giving the enemy a crappy city, if at all. And I would guess (that's a guess, all right, based on all Civ-type games) that all cities still lose a pop-point when taken, so size-1-cities get destroyed.

The difference between not drafting and drafting is a decent city in the hands of your enemy (including surrounding infrastructure), a quicker invasion and less defensive units.
The city itself may be lost to me in both cases. A neccessary sacrifice.

Having the option itself may keep others from attacking me (because they invest so much and gain so little). Which means I don't have to even use it.

And of course I wouldn't draft away my important cities.

Akron: Very interesting point. Are citizen sacrifice are actually a way of circumventing the need for ressources?

Diplomat: I don't think that drafting will be the method of choice for superpowers geared for long-term wars. Much too expensive if you have the time to produce them on a regular basis. And most likely you will have the time...considering it takes quite a while to get the forces to the battlefields.

[Sarxis]

Very interesting features. I must say, even though we don't know exactly how it will all work, drafting and forced labor has really added new reality to the game, as well as a bit of depth.


I do agree that drafting and forced labor can be a dangerous gambit- it would be a shame to get just a handful of new units and then lose a good amount of production from rioting cities. But can anyone say Vietnam War?

[Executor]

Well if drafting is going to prevent me from capturing large cities intact, then I guess I will have no qualms about using nuclear weapons. What difference does it make? Especially since I'll probably have Rocketry before the AI has made it to Flight.

Btw, since Firaxis has said that war will be far more difficult to wage, and that you don't want to spend a lot of time mobilized for war, I'm going to try, as a personal challenge, to go through an entire game without a single year of peace (except for the first couple turns) and constantly moblized.

[Mars]

Originally posted by Executor
Well if drafting is going to prevent me from capturing large cities intact, then I guess I will have no qualms about using nuclear weapons. What difference does it make? Especially since I'll probably have Rocketry before the AI has made it to Flight.

Btw, since Firaxis has said that war will be far more difficult to wage, and that you don't want to spend a lot of time mobilized for war, I'm going to try, as a personal challenge, to go through an entire game without a single year of peace (except for the first couple turns) and constantly moblized.

Good luck to you, although i doubt you'll win unless you play on an easy level.

[Executor]

Originally posted by Mars

Good luck to you, although i doubt you'll win unless you play on an easy level.

I plan to start on Deity and never look back.

[Lorizael]

I definetely think drafting will be good in emergency situations, but it will be used in other times, too.

I have a feeling that warmongers will draft units and not care about infrastructure and unhappiness so that they can fight their wars. If this happens then you will be forced to draft soldiers to keep up with them. That way war will have a devastating effect on your population and wouldn't last very long. No more thousand year wars...

You're gonna start on Deity eh Executor? Why???? Do you like losing in the game???