View Full Version : Enslavement
I hope you can still enslave the populace in M:TW
Random Dude
02-11-2006, 19:35
Well, in the Middle Ages, there was still slave labor, even though the serfs and peasants still did much of the labor.
As an added thing to that, you should be able to have some form of control over the serfs in any particular settlement. Like, you could tell them how much of everything to give you, and where they go, etc.
Dutch_guy
02-12-2006, 12:30
Further more I hope they add the MTW options of killing all the prisoners, ringleaders or freeing all the POW's. And also keep all the options they have in Rome total war - only make pillaging a little less rewarding.
:balloon2:
ZombieFriedNuts
02-12-2006, 13:17
Pillaging a little less rewarding are you mad.
:dizzy2:
I think he mean after battle. They didn't alway execute POW.
Yes, that’s what I mean
Dutch_guy
02-12-2006, 16:01
Pillaging a little less rewarding are you mad.
:dizzy2:
last time I checked I wasn't.
Pillaging aka exterminating is far to rewarding in Rome one notices this when you force yourself not to exterminate - ever.
You'll find the game to be much harder.
:balloon2:
ZombieFriedNuts
02-12-2006, 17:58
Actually I think you might be right Dutch_guy
:surrender:
Wasn't it only the Arabic/Muslim factions that had the option of enslaving?
As a Christian faction you had ransoms....and for rebels there was kill all, kill ringleaders, or release all.
I hope they keep it this way. Actually I would like total freedom to choose what to do with them whether I am Christian or Muslim but if it's the same as before I will be happy.
Serfs were near-slaves. They were treated as slaves and could be called slaves. They worked thee farms. This game should definetely add slaves- but not as much as RTW. Building huge projects needs huge masses of peaseants or slaves.
Orda Khan
02-13-2006, 18:11
last time I checked I wasn't.
ROFL
Pillaging aka exterminating is far to rewarding in Rome one notices this when you force yourself not to exterminate - ever.
You'll find the game to be much harder.
Very true, so much easier to swell your coffers by exterminating. I hope that the option to press into service is added
.......Orda
ROFL
Very true, so much easier to swell your coffers by exterminating. I hope that the option to press into service is added
.......Orda
Consricption?
Craterus
02-16-2006, 22:32
Enemy hostages, instead of being killed or released, would be forced to fight for your army.
King Yngvar
02-17-2006, 00:49
only make pillaging a little less rewarding.
Or they could make it more rewarding, by adding pillageable unwalled villages in every province. If you for example were too raid one of these villages the owner of the province would loose tax income for a certain amount of turns while you would gain some cash from looting. This would make raiding more realistic as a raiding party would no longer need to lay siege to a city and conquer a province just to do some raiding, nor would a raiding power need the manpower to perform an assault.
Trithemius
02-17-2006, 04:25
Wasn't it only the Arabic/Muslim factions that had the option of enslaving?
As a Christian faction you had ransoms....and for rebels there was kill all, kill ringleaders, or release all.
I hope they keep it this way. Actually I would like total freedom to choose what to do with them whether I am Christian or Muslim but if it's the same as before I will be happy.
The Venetians were involved in slavery - the prohibition was mostly against enslaving fellow Christians. Foreigners, heretics, and infidels were fair game - according to a lot of peple.
Furious Mental
02-17-2006, 08:59
Perhaps you should have the option of enslaving Christians but with the risk that it will earn the ire of other Christian factions.
Galley slaves were very very common.
Im going to start a diffrent thread about raiding. I got some ideas I want to put up.
Gaiseric
02-18-2006, 00:21
Very true, so much easier to swell your coffers by exterminating. I hope that the option to press into service is added
.......Orda
That would be awesome!!!
Or they could make it more rewarding, by adding pillageable unwalled villages in every province. If you for example were too raid one of these villages the owner of the province would loose tax income for a certain amount of turns while you would gain some cash from looting. This would make raiding more realistic as a raiding party would no longer need to lay siege to a city and conquer a province just to do some raiding, nor would a raiding power need the manpower to perform an assault.
This is another great idea. It would make the rebels seem less of an anoyance and more of an urgency to get rid of. It would make the game more rewarding too for the smaller factions like the Welsh and the Irish because they could gain income by raiding without having to build a huge unsupportable army to take a castle.
Both these options would make the game more fun and realistic.
Stoneface
02-21-2006, 15:00
Galley slaves were very very common.
No, galley slaves were extrmely uncommon if they existed at all. It has never been a good idea to have a lot of strong man row you into battle if they could stop anytime and hope their ship would be boarded and they would be set free. The practise to use prisoners as rowers dates back to at least 1532 and POW might have been used earlier. A simply lookup at wikipedia gave no information. Galleys of the greek or roman era were always manned by free man or at least slaves, who would be set free when their term was over.
The Venetians were involved in slavery - the prohibition was mostly against enslaving fellow Christians. Foreigners, heretics, and infidels were fair game - according to a lot of peple.
In MTW, I meant.
Trithemius
02-21-2006, 23:40
In MTW, I meant.
Yes, I got that; I was just saying that the idea that Christians didn't enslave other people was a bit off - some Christians seemed quite happy to enslave non-Christians (or to sell Christians to non-Christians, if they were especially unscrupulous...). The implication that Muslims kept slaves and that Christians did not was a simplification on the game's part.
Zenicetus
02-21-2006, 23:47
What would the status of Aztecs be, once you capture their settlements? I don't know if the Spanish considered them actual slaves, but they were definitely 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Maybe they were closer to the "vassal" concept, since I don't think they could own land (at least not any land or other possessions the Spanish were interested in).
BelgradeWar
02-21-2006, 23:58
Enemy hostages, instead of being killed or released, would be forced to fight for your army.
I can already see their wonderous "backstabbing-mutiny-rout at the slightest mention of enemy" morale:skull:
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 02:19
What would the status of Aztecs be, once you capture their settlements? I don't know if the Spanish considered them actual slaves, but they were definitely 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Maybe they were closer to the "vassal" concept, since I don't think they could own land (at least not any land or other possessions the Spanish were interested in).
Maybe they will be scripted so that a few years after conquest they will all just die from smallpox, thus sparing the developers any problems of this nature?
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 02:22
I can already see their wonderous "backstabbing-mutiny-rout at the slightest mention of enemy" morale:skull:
I recall a great anecdote from the Swedish campaigns in Polish Prussia where they just stole a column of troops marching to reinforce the other side. I suppose this is the advantage of mostly mercenary troops?
We should not exaggerate the "nationalism" of medieval soldiers - if their patrons and lords switch sides, most of them are happy to switch sides as well (I expect pressing people into service would probably represent persuading their leaders, rather than driving them on in hordes, Mongol-style?).
BelgradeWar
02-22-2006, 11:53
I recall a great anecdote from the Swedish campaigns in Polish Prussia where they just stole a column of troops marching to reinforce the other side. I suppose this is the advantage of mostly mercenary troops?
We should not exaggerate the "nationalism" of medieval soldiers - if their patrons and lords switch sides, most of them are happy to switch sides as well (I expect pressing people into service would probably represent persuading their leaders, rather than driving them on in hordes, Mongol-style?).
Yes, for the mercs it is realisticaly possible.
As for nationalism, serf army would for sure switch sides along with their lords. I was more reffering to that it would be VERY unrealistical to be able to force enemy troops levied from the serfs to join your side, because they left their homes, estates and families in the old region, and they would surely not fight for you willingly, or they would fight in the manner I mentioned above.
Also I cannot see the royal knights switching sides. So I think they should restrict the switching side rule to mercs only, if they implement the rule at all.
Enslaving cities helped me a lot in RTW/RTR, but it should really be enhanced in MTW2, for realism sake. It seems somewhat logical to be able to relocate serfs and maybe some city population, but with a certain cost - financial, or if you do it without it - increased revolt in cities where relocated people arrive (simulating their unhappines because of their transfer) which would gradually decrease over time.
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 12:47
As for nationalism, serf army would for sure switch sides along with their lords. I was more reffering to that it would be VERY unrealistical to be able to force enemy troops levied from the serfs to join your side, because they left their homes, estates and families in the old region, and they would surely not fight for you willingly, or they would fight in the manner I mentioned above.
If their lords pledge fealty to you, then they might? That being said the impact of actual feudal practices on the TW games seems pretty minor - you can get more than forty days (give or take) out of most of your knights in TW! :D
Also I cannot see the royal knights switching sides. So I think they should restrict the switching side rule to mercs only, if they implement the rule at all.
My royal knights had better all die valiantly defending my banner, dammit. ;)
Enslaving cities helped me a lot in RTW/RTR, but it should really be enhanced in MTW2, for realism sake. It seems somewhat logical to be able to relocate serfs and maybe some city population, but with a certain cost - financial, or if you do it without it - increased revolt in cities where relocated people arrive (simulating their unhappines because of their transfer) which would gradually decrease over time.
I'm not sure how much relocation was done in the medieval period? I know that after the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman rulers moved a lot of population around in order to concentrate industries in certain towns and to repopulate areas that had been left unpopulated by decades of warfare - so perhaps its not too much of a stretch to imagine the rulers of other kingdoms encouraging/compelling people to do the same sort of thing?
BelgradeWar
02-22-2006, 14:15
If their lords pledge fealty to you, then they might? That being said the impact of actual feudal practices on the TW games seems pretty minor - you can get more than forty days (give or take) out of most of your knights in TW! :D
My royal knights had better all die valiantly defending my banner, dammit. ;)
I'm not sure how much relocation was done in the medieval period? I know that after the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman rulers moved a lot of population around in order to concentrate industries in certain towns and to repopulate areas that had been left unpopulated by decades of warfare - so perhaps its not too much of a stretch to imagine the rulers of other kingdoms encouraging/compelling people to do the same sort of thing?
Hmm, it's a complicated issue, don't think the CA would get too deep into it. Ransoms seem to be destined for a new appearance.
True, the knights should, but it's just hypoteticaly speaking:)
There were relocations in medieval period, and they were most common after military campaigns. Now, there are other issues - most of the people actually ran away from the coming army and new conquerors, and didn't quite wait for them to give them tickets for their new living destinations (probably fearing that these new destinations would be heaven or hell:)). In order to capture the population, the battle would have to be swift. Now this is not true for all of Europe, but it all makes it harder to implement in the game. And then you add the religion factor - most Christians would surely run from the invading muslims (and vice versa), but the number would be incomparably lower it it was just a neighbouring ruler, of the same faith and similar culture. And for the end - reputation. What you did in previous provinces you conquered should surely be an element that would determine what the people would do.
So, it would mean that there is quite a number of options:
A) You conquer same faith/culture province - most of the population is still there - options: 1) looting and killing - big income, lower population, but with higher revolt risk (they wouyld be rather angry, wouldn't they?)
2) just occupy - standard - same population, no immediate income, but only somewhat increased revolt risk (some people are angry, but not most - it's all the same give 1/3 grain here and 1/3 grain there drill for them)
3) Occupy and tranfer voluntarily (with financial stimulation for the moved population)- population decrease there, but non-revolting increase elsewhere, no looting incomes, no revolt risk increase in the occupied province
4) Occupy and tranfer by force - population decrease there but increase elswhere, with increased revolt risks both in provinces where they are moved and in the occupied one.
It pretty much applies for the other situations (faith/culture), just that population waiting for the conquerors would be smaller in case they lay long sieges (population has time to migrate - provinces where they migrate get some population bonuses) or higher if they capture the city quickly. And revolt risks and unhappines levels would have to be changed accordingly.
That's prety much my view of the issue:)
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 23:24
We'll have to wait and see how complex they are going to make it - we might have to wait for clever people to mod in more sophisticated feudalism. :)
I just hope that CA have been listening to us, and not the people who want LESS economics.
BelgradeWar
02-22-2006, 23:52
Keeping my fingers crossed. No credit wanted from CA, just hope they listen to advice:)
Hmm...this just crossed my mind. Why they don't make two complexity levels for interaction - the simplified one and the full one. This way no one would have to be intimidated in any manner.
This was partly done by allowing arcade style battles in RTW. Why don't allow "arcade" style management?
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 23:57
This was partly done by allowing arcade style battles in RTW. Why don't allow "arcade" style management?
I agree totally! I even said so in the "No economics" thread in this sub-forum. I think such an approach would make the people who just want to fight fight fight all the time happy, and also preserve the economic and strategic element for those of us who really want it in the game.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.