Slaves in 0AD

[kangz]

Please introduce slaves in 0ad for the purpose of historical accuracy.  1/5 of the roman population were slaves.

[badosu]

I'd guess the better supporting argument would be about Sparta, a society so paranoid about a slave uprising that was fully militarized. Slave population was overwhelmingly higher than citizens. It would make sense, if this were to be introduced, to start with sparta.

[borg-]

Historically it is correct and I agree with you that it should be implemented, however we do not know the real impact on gameplay. My idea was just to implement for athenas, to differentiate it from other civilizations.

[borg-]

3 minutes ago, badosu said:

I'd guess the better supporting argument would be about Sparta, a society so paranoid about a slave uprising that was fully militarized. Slave population was overwhelmingly higher than citizens. It would make sense, if this were to be introduced, to start with sparta.

It is difficult because the cost for slaves must be different. Javelins for example were slaves in Sparta, so we would have to have a different cost for these units, which makes it really difficult to balance.

Edited March 3, 2021 by borg-

[badosu]

14 minutes ago, borg- said:

It is difficult because the cost for slaves must be different. Javelins for example were slaves in Sparta, so we would have to have a different cost for these units, which makes it really difficult to do.

Just replacing women with slaves, perhaps a unit with different pros/cons (better than women in some parts, worse in others) would be a good first step. Would differentiate the faction and be historically accurate: slaves were basically all of the spartan economy, any labor was looked down by citizens.

Also at some point we'd like to get rid of women as economy units, as having them comparable to slaves in-game does not bore well, while being historically inaccurate as men were too (sometimes overwhelmingly so) farmers, woodcutters, miners, etc.

Edited March 3, 2021 by badosu

[badosu]

A second step would be for hellenistic factions to have slaves available (not the same as spartas) as units with superb mining skills as most mining was performed by slaves at that period. This would introduce a second layer of differentiation while allowing for non-hellenistic civs to be buffed in other areas (bringing back some celtic civs economy buffs; introduce something new for persia, maurya; buff even more kush eco structures; etc etc)

[wraitii]

31 minutes ago, badosu said:

Also at some point we'd like to get rid of women as economy units, as having them comparable to slaves in-game does not bore well, while being historically inaccurate as men were too (sometimes overwhelmingly so) farmers, woodcutters, miners, etc.

This is something I think we should do first. It has consequences for citizen soldiers as a concept though.

IMO this is one area where we could differentiate civilisations.

[Genava55]

Furthermore, some civs like the Mauryas and the Han (if they are added) have relied much less on slavery. Serfdom was more important.

Indeed, an interesting topic. It could have a rising price on the market in relation with their numbers in game and any assault on the opposite player could result in a lower price for the current player.

 

 

[thankforpieOfficial]

2 hours ago, badosu said:

Just replacing women with slaves, perhaps a unit with different pros/cons (better than women in some parts, worse in others) would be a good first step. Would differentiate the faction and be historically accurate: slaves were basically all of the spartan economy, any labor was looked down by citizens.

Also at some point we'd like to get rid of women as economy units, as having them comparable to slaves in-game does not bore well, while being historically inaccurate as men were too (sometimes overwhelmingly so) farmers, woodcutters, miners, etc.

while slaves are nice, simply replacing women with slaves would just require effort, maybe introduce bugs, and offer no benefit

slaves as a replacement for women are nothing more than a reskin and a renaming, slaves should be something different and more specific than just women replacement

[badosu]

@thankforpieOfficialComments like these are the reason the balancing subforum is restricted, please read the thread.

Edited March 3, 2021 by badosu

[thankforpieOfficial]

18 hours ago, badosu said:

@thankforpieOfficialComments like these are the reason the balancing subforum is restricted, please read the thread.

whats wrong with my comment? restricted balance forum makes sense anyway. and why do you blame me for it?? LOL

Edited March 4, 2021 by thankforpieOfficial

[Lopess]

I honestly like the Delenda Est mod approach with citizen units and slave units both with male and female variation. With slave units being better at hard work.

[Lion.Kanzen]

19 minutes ago, Lopess said:

I honestly like the Delenda Est mod approach with citizen units and slave units both with male and female variation. With slave units being better at hard work.

Yes, it is the most functional that has been achieved so far.

 

Even better than the concept I had initially come up with.

 

-The slave appears from the second phase.

-That they must have the skill of "forced labor" and that it takes away his life, Especially in mining work.

-and that they are worth less than the workers (cost).

 

[azayrahmad]

Helots in Sparta are different than Athenians slave, IIRC. They are state-owned and also join war as missile units, while Athenian slave were personal property and never enlisted as soldier.

My idea is that slave should be limited to one per citizen

[badosu]

Perhaps each house can train at most 1-3 slaves could be a good way to make it a gradual unit to integrate in the game. At least for athens, for sparta would be nice to be able to mass recruit slaves instead of citizens for eco.

Edited March 4, 2021 by badosu

[Dragonoar]

6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Yes, it is the most functional that has been achieved so far.

 

Even better than the concept I had initially come up with.

 

-The slave appears from the second phase.

-That they must have the skill of "forced labor" and that it takes away his life, Especially in mining work.

-and that they are worth less than the workers (cost).

 

So like the chaos in Dawn of War?

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 hours ago, Dragonoar said:

So like the chaos in Dawn of War?

 

I never tried it.

I was referring a little more to the mod DE by @wowgetoffyourcellphone.

[av93]

My concept for slaves:

• Every unit have a bounty of X slave resource: let's say 10. Civil units could have a greater bounty.
• Slaves cost X slave resource: if they cost 40, that means that you would be able to train a slave per each 4 units killed. If you kill civil units, the ratio should be lower.
• Slaves are just plain better on working, but more vulnerable to damage. No life lost to avoid micro. Could had a train limit/ Could be free to train except the "slave resources".
• The "slave resource" could be exchanged for other resources

Aim of the concept

• A representation of slavery without tedious conversions
• Raiding and war allows you to improve economy
• Open diferent strategies: if you choose to stick to citiziens, you are better defended against raids. If you transition to slaves, you're more vulnerable. And you could choose if you train slaves or you sell them.
• Open space for civ bonus: some civs could have unlimited slave training, some other slaves could have hp bonus/ work rate, some could train special units with the "slave resource", some could train serfs (same cost from slaves, but with citizien stats)
• No need for extra coding, I think

[azayrahmad]

7 hours ago, av93 said:

My concept for slaves:

• Every unit have a bounty of X slave resource: let's say 10. Civil units could have a greater bounty.
• Slaves cost X slave resource: if they cost 40, that means that you would be able to train a slave per each 4 units killed. If you kill civil units, the ratio should be lower.
• Slaves are just plain better on working, but more vulnerable to damage. No life lost to avoid micro. Could had a train limit/ Could be free to train except the "slave resources".
• The "slave resource" could be exchanged for other resources

Aim of the concept

• A representation of slavery without tedious conversions
• Raiding and war allows you to improve economy
• Open diferent strategies: if you choose to stick to citiziens, you are better defended against raids. If you transition to slaves, you're more vulnerable. And you could choose if you train slaves or you sell them.
• Open space for civ bonus: some civs could have unlimited slave training, some other slaves could have hp bonus/ work rate, some could train special units with the "slave resource", some could train serfs (same cost from slaves, but with citizien stats)
• No need for extra coding, I think

So slave as resource and lootable from enemies? I think this is great. So you can tribute slaves to allies as well. You can even rename this to Manpower/Workforce resource if you want to be PC.

My addition probably would be that slaves have XP and can be promoted to serf, freedmen, or even citizenship in some civs. And also perhaps some dangerous work locations (like mines or quarries) should have health draining aura, so in some cases slaves are better option than sacrificing citizens to mine silver or something.

Although I still want slaves to be capturable though. It just makes raiding resource spots more exciting in DE.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Limiting slaves based on a resource might be a bit problematic; slaves were a fairly naturally occurring aspect of all societies and tended to come from one of three sources: debt, crime, or warfare.  I would definitely like to see warfare play an active role in the acquiring of slaves, but again, limiting them sounds arbitrary.

[av93]

15 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Limiting slaves based on a resource might be a bit problematic; slaves were a fairly naturally occurring aspect of all societies and tended to come from one of three sources: debt, crime, or warfare.  I would definitely like to see warfare play an active role in the acquiring of slaves, but again, limiting them sounds arbitrary.

Well, crime and debt would fit more into a city simulator not an RTS.

"Slave resource" could be bought also with other resources

Edited March 5, 2021 by av93

[thankforpieOfficial]

On 03/03/2021 at 3:08 PM, badosu said:

I'd guess the better supporting argument would be about Sparta, a society so paranoid about a slave uprising that was fully militarized. Slave population was overwhelmingly higher than citizens. It would make sense, if this were to be introduced, to start with sparta.

this is kinda funny, slaves everywhere

[Freagarach]

On 05/03/2021 at 3:53 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Limiting slaves based on a resource might be a bit problematic

A trickle of slaves from a CC and/or market? And then one can slay enemies to "capture" more of them?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

53 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

A trickle of slaves from a CC and/or market? And then one can slay enemies to "capture" more of them?

I was thinking that there could be a "global pool" of slaves that can be trained by the players, kind of like the global population feature.

Or just make enemy civilians capturable, swapping their actor to a slave variant once captured.

Or both.  

 

Or just copy DE's system.  

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:42 AM, Freagarach said:

A trickle of slaves from a CC and/or market? And then one can slay enemies to "capture" more of them?

I think that introducing a completely different slave mechanic simply seems to be an arbitrary way to put in more complexity than necessary.  Citizens are trained in game rather than naturally spawning.  Why should slaves be too different in that respect?