catch enemies and tranform into slaves

[newcivs]

I have a curious idea:

Catch enemy units and transform into slaves:

* Citizen support into get food and wood

* citizen soldiers into a free without any cost soldiers

[Lion.Kanzen]

Convertion? Is planned feature, but is barely discussed how should work.

[newcivs]

Convertion? Is planned feature, but is barely discussed how should work.

i don't know how program the feature, but i have some ideas to the future "slaves":

* Put a button to transform the units to "forced workers", with this behavior the units build buildings or go to mine or wooding, and get food!

* Put another button the units into "forced soldiers", with the strategy and technology of the birth country of the slaves

* And this units should be garrisonable!

[Lion.Kanzen]

This could dis balance the game severely, I mean idea the soldiers slaves. All convertion can be moderate, most of players fear to convertion because the monk rush tactic.

[Mega Mania]

I have a curious idea:

Catch enemy units and transform into slaves:

* Citizen support into get food and wood

* citizen soldiers into a free without any cost soldiers

I cannot agree with the idea capturing enemy and turning them into slaves, but i agree that you can train slaves in marketplace instead of converting enemy's militiamen into slaves.

[Mega Mania]

Convertion? Is planned feature, but is barely discussed how should work.

I think conversion should look like Rise of Nations where a Hero or Spy have ability to bribe enemy instead of converting an enemy with religious zeal.

Anyway, it's too early to discuss the functions and the principles of unit conversion.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Mega Mania

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I do not see any valid basis for this mechanic. True, there were historical instances of soldiers being captured and sold into slavery, but for real time strategy, many gamers like to see their native units do an epic final stand while their enemies would not care less. With mercenary units though....

[newcivs]

I think conversion should look like Rise of Nations where a Hero or Spy have ability to bribe enemy instead of converting an enemy with religious zeal.

Anyway, it's too early to discuss the functions and the principles of unit conversion.

or other idea, yet implementes on 0AD!, catch the enemy units and garrisson on the marketplace, and this "slaves" represent bonuses on armour, farmind, garther wood or mining, as to catch horses reduces the cost of the horse-mounted units, we can implement "slaves" as this

[DevynCJohnson]

I have an idea about capturing slaves. A new type of soldier can be made and called something like "slave catcher". Such a soldier/unit is trained at the marketplace. Instead of attacking, this unit tries to capture the enemy unit. The slave-catcher must follow the slave for X amount of time before the slave is "trusted" to be a slave that does not require supervision. Code can be added to make the possibility of a slavery rebellion. Some factors can include work load, citizen to slave ratio, etc.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

That sounds somewhat like priests/monks in Age of Empires. As far as I know, we have decided against that. (There may be one exception in our design document, but it's a special case, not a generic, convert all unit.)

[Mega Mania]

I have an idea about capturing slaves. A new type of soldier can be made and called something like "slave catcher". Such a soldier/unit is trained at the marketplace. Instead of attacking, this unit tries to capture the enemy unit. The slave-catcher must follow the slave for X amount of time before the slave is "trusted" to be a slave that does not require supervision. Code can be added to make the possibility of a slavery rebellion. Some factors can include work load, citizen to slave ratio, etc.

Sounds absurd for classical RTS.

[DevynCJohnson]

Sounds absurd for classical RTS.

How can my idea be improved? What part seems odd for an RTS game?

[Mythos_Ruler]

How can my idea be improved? What part seems odd for an RTS game?

Seems rather complex for an RTS like ours. If there were to be slaves, probably best to have something like X% of all killed units goes to a dynamic global pool of slaves (fantastic at gathering, but have finite lifespans) that can be bought at the Market.

Also, when a player resigns, they could be forced to "surrender" to one of their enemies and thus all their units become slave units under their enemy's control.

[DevynCJohnson]

Seems rather complex for an RTS like ours. If there were to be slaves, probably best to have something like X% of all killed units goes to a dynamic global pool of slaves (fantastic at gathering, but have finite lifespans) that can be bought at the Market.

Also, when a player resigns, they could be forced to "surrender" to one of their enemies and thus all their units become slave units under their enemy's control.

I like your idea better than mine. The developers should implement your idea.

[Zeta1127]

Mythos_Ruler is one of the developers...

[sanderd17]

Seems rather complex for an RTS like ours. If there were to be slaves, probably best to have something like X% of all killed units goes to a dynamic global pool of slaves (fantastic at gathering, but have finite lifespans) that can be bought at the Market.

Also, when a player resigns, they could be forced to "surrender" to one of their enemies and thus all their units become slave units under their enemy's control.

So you can save for the pool until you think you need it? But when you used your slaves, and they die, your pool stays empty until you kill new units?

Sounds nice and feasible to implement (if a trac ticket for it is made, someone might just implement it).

[Mythos_Ruler]

So you can save for the pool until you think you need it? But when you used your slaves, and they die, your pool stays empty until you kill new units?

Sounds nice and feasible to implement (if a trac ticket for it is made, someone might just implement it).

Basically, yeah. Similar to bartering resources, maybe the pool of available slaves could slowly trickle in, but once someone starts buying them the cost could go up. They could replenish faster the more combat that occurs, and the cost goes back down (supply and demand dynamic). I just picked % of killed units because it seems like an easy and logical number to base the pool on. It could be a team-specific pool, instead of global. What do you think?

If we could get some new unit models into the game, we could have a standard "slave" unit mesh that's skinny and wearing a simple tunic. Maybe even a slightly hunched back with their faces cast downward. Just some new meshes and animations that give a standard "slave" silhouette for easy recognition.

[Andrettin]

Seems rather complex for an RTS like ours. If there were to be slaves, probably best to have something like X% of all killed units goes to a dynamic global pool of slaves (fantastic at gathering, but have finite lifespans) that can be bought at the Market.

Also, when a player resigns, they could be forced to "surrender" to one of their enemies and thus all their units become slave units under their enemy's control.

That sounds interesting, but I'm afraid it would harm immersion if killed units "reappeared" (even in such an indirect form), since the player would have seen the units dying, with animations and all. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate for immersion to give certain military units the following ability: when an attack of theirs made an enemy unit's HP reach zero, there would be a % chance that the enemy unit would become a slave unit (its death animation wouldn't play, of course, instead it would change its unit type to that of the slave unit, which would work as you described - it would be like a villager, but better at gathering, and have a finite lifespan or some other disadvantage of the sort).

[Mythos_Ruler]

That sounds interesting, but I'm afraid it would harm immersion if killed units "reappeared" (even in such an indirect form), since the player would have seen the units dying, with animations and all. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate for immersion to give certain military units the following ability: when an attack of theirs made an enemy unit's HP reach zero, there would be a % chance that the enemy unit would become a slave unit (its death animation wouldn't play, of course, instead it would change its unit type to that of the slave unit, which would work as you described - it would be like a villager, but better at gathering, and have a finite lifespan or some other disadvantage of the sort).

This would look bad in-game, since in the middle of a battle enemy soldiers are changing into slaves. Do the enemy soldiers attack these new slaves in the middle of the battle or no? You have to manually move them out of the battlefield before they themselves are killed by the enemy?

My ideas at least give some abstraction to it all and remove all these icky edge cases and intense micro.

[DevynCJohnson]

This would look bad in-game, since in the middle of a battle enemy soldiers are changing into slaves. Do the enemy soldiers attack these new slaves in the middle of the battle or no? You have to manually move them out of the battlefield before they themselves are killed by the enemy?

My ideas at least give some abstraction to it all and remove all these icky edge cases and intense micro.

In my opinion, if the slaves are of the same nationality as the enemy, then our enemy would save their own people. Otherwise, the enemy would kill the slaves. For example, the slaves were from Greece and the Britains are attacking me (the Celts).

[Mega Mania]

Instead of capturing enemy soldiers and turn them into slaves, why don't implement it on other ways?

My concept of slavery and its consequences:

1. All houses, civic center, temple, barracks, marketplace and fortress have a certain amount of slave value, if a player destroy an enemy's house, civic center, marketplace, temple, barracks and fortress the player's marketplace will have an increase of slave and if the enemy have done the same thing on the player's territory and the enemy's market will have an increase of slave.

2. Slave value for houses, civic center and fortress are fixed, while a marketplace have the ability to generate slave value but with a very slow rate which means player have to conduct slave raid to increase its slave value.

3. There are different slaves for all building who have slave value, for example: houses have only female slaves, civic center have a certain amount of male and female slaves. While the fortress, temple and barracks have male slaves only or a large portion of male slaves.

4. Male slaves was able to build military and civilian structure and with a good gathering rate but a bit expensive, female slave have a cheap value but only able to build civilian structure and they have an average gathering rate on wood, metal and stone.

5. Slaves are property but still it was treated like population, 1 slave requires half of an average population regardless if they are male or female.

6. Slaves are prone to rumor, bribe and sedition which makes them very dangerous to human player and computer, player or computer player could exploit such weakness to win a war.

7. A rebellious slave have the ability to persuade his or her own kind to join the rebellion.

8. The ability to persuade could turn a group of enemy slaves into player's unit instantaneously this able a rebellion to spread like wildfire.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Mega Mania

[stuman92]

I think this idea is bright in all but dont make the game to complicated because if you keep adding features its soon going to end up like command and conquer where no one know wtf their doing

[Mega Mania]

I agree, stuman92.

It would be better for armed conflict remained as armed conflict while slave raid as slave raid.

[DevynCJohnson]

Instead of capturing enemy soldiers and turn them into slaves, why don't implement it on other ways?

My concept of slavery and its consequences:

1. All houses, civic center, temple, barracks, marketplace and fortress have a certain amount of slave value, if a player destroy an enemy's house, civic center, marketplace, temple, barracks and fortress the player's marketplace will have an increase of slave and if the enemy have done the same thing on the player's territory and the enemy's market will have an increase of slave.

2. Slave value for houses, civic center and fortress are fixed, while a marketplace have the ability to generate slave value but with a very slow rate which means player have to conduct slave raid to increase its slave value.

3. There are different slaves for all building who have slave value, for example: houses have only female slaves, civic center have a certain amount of male and female slaves. While the fortress, temple and barracks have male slaves only or a large portion of male slaves.

4. Male slaves was able to build military and civilian structure and with a good gathering rate but a bit expensive, female slave have a cheap value but only able to build civilian structure and they have an average gathering rate on wood, metal and stone.

5. Slaves are property but still it was treated like population, 1 slave requires half of an average population regardless if they are male or female.

6. Slaves are prone to rumor, bribe and sedition which makes them very dangerous to human player and computer, player or computer player could exploit such weakness to win a war.

7. A rebellious slave have the ability to persuade his or her own kind to join the rebellion.

8. The ability to persuade could turn a group of enemy slaves into player's unit instantaneously this able a rebellion to spread like wildfire.

I really like your idea for implementing slavery. I think adding slavery would make the game more interesting. Right now, 0AD is fun, but it seems too simple. It needs more detail and more that can be done/executed. 0AD is a Real-time strategy game, so I think the game would benefit from having more details that allow the players to have more to plan and manage. The developers work hard (and very well) to make the game realistic (culture, architecture, history, etc.), so slavery should be added in my opinion.

Before we develop any more brilliant ideas, I think we first need to hear from the developers themselves if they are interested in adding such a feature.

[Prodigal Son]

Up to this it sounds great:

Instead of capturing enemy soldiers and turn them into slaves, why don't implement it on other ways?

My concept of slavery and its consequences:

1. All houses, civic center, temple, barracks, marketplace and fortress have a certain amount of slave value, if a player destroy an enemy's house, civic center, marketplace, temple, barracks and fortress the player's marketplace will have an increase of slave and if the enemy have done the same thing on the player's territory and the enemy's market will have an increase of slave.

2. Slave value for houses, civic center and fortress are fixed, while a marketplace have the ability to generate slave value but with a very slow rate which means player have to conduct slave raid to increase its slave value.

I like the idea of fixed value per building appearing at the market and the market also slowly generating them. It could also work combined with a percentage of fallen enemies as captive slaves. However the rest sounds overcomplicated for an RTS.