Explain to me why i have slaves - Im missing something.

[rob-a-dogg]

100% of the time I:

-Release prisoners
-Occupy cities (which states it releases prisoners)

What is the source of slaves I am missing? My cities have between 10-25% slave population, and as far as im aware you can only get slaves from taking them in battle or from taking them as part of one of the options when taking a town - and i don't ever take slaves ever. If i sit still and do nothing for enough turns my slave pop drops back to 0% and as far as im concerned should never rise again since im not capturing slaves.

Where are these sneaky buggers coming from? Help me be a less worse human TWC!

[RedGuard]

another one of the completely unexplained annoying features of rome 2. just kill everyone that should fix it.

[rob-a-dogg]

I thought it was because the towns i had were filled with slave pop so this was like diffusing to the rest of my empire thought 'slave-mosis' but after checking back through my saves with spies, most AI faction towns in the areas ive been active in actually have 0% slave pop....

[krisslanza]

I'm imagining the game always makes sure you have a population of slaves, since in this era, they were kind of important for doing all the back-breaking labor no one else wanted to do. Even if you capture none in battles, you would still (realistically) be gaining them from other sources anyway. Slaves from battle are just particularly lucrative and plentiful.

[iWarsaw]

I'm imagining the game always makes sure you have a population of slaves, since in this era, they were kind of important for doing all the back-breaking labor no one else wanted to do. Even if you capture none in battles, you would still (realistically) be gaining them from other sources anyway. Slaves from battle are just particularly lucrative and plentiful.

Isn't the whole part of Total War to remake your own history-like remaking a nation without using slaves?

The game is full of artificial features. If slaves did other things like increased build time it may of actually been interesting but it's just another random number. OR if it actually changed your general or armies stats? It's like having intrigue and the political system. There's no rhyme or reason to it besides just adding more random variables to the game to make it seem like the game has a challenge.

The features in this game are half baked why are we still discussing it and why do people still defend them?

[red_locust]

Isn't the whole part of Total War to remake your own history-like remaking a nation without using slaves?

The game is full of artificial features. If slaves did other things like increased build time it may of actually been interesting but it's just another random number. OR if it actually changed your general or armies stats? It's like having intrigue and the political system. There's no rhyme or reason to it besides just adding more random variables to the game to make it seem like the game has a challenge.

The features in this game are half baked why are we still discussing it and why do people still defend them?

Slaves increase income but cause unrest, so they're not just another random number.

[krisslanza]

Isn't the whole part of Total War to remake your own history-like remaking a nation without using slaves?

The game is full of artificial features. If slaves did other things like increased build time it may of actually been interesting but it's just another random number. OR if it actually changed your general or armies stats? It's like having intrigue and the political system. There's no rhyme or reason to it besides just adding more random variables to the game to make it seem like the game has a challenge.

The features in this game are half baked why are we still discussing it and why do people still defend them?

Not really. I mean, ideally, sure but you can't avoid Slaves in this - not unless you stop conquering anything. I mean, by that thinking, why can't I use female generals and armies? It's my history, right? The game mechanics just don't support it though.

And the slaves are not a random number at all, given they increase your income and sometimes, that can be vital - the problem of course being, they can revolt. And a slave uprising is far, far worse then a rebel army cropping up. It's risk versus reward - you in the long term, get more money from proper commercial buildings, but slaves can give your economy a quick boost at the risk of rebellions and unrest.

[RedGuard]

Not really. I mean, ideally, sure but you can't avoid Slaves in this - not unless you stop conquering anything. I mean, by that thinking, why can't I use female generals and armies? It's my history, right? The game mechanics just don't support it though.

good question, why was there a Cleopatra video if the player was never able to play as a woman leader? would be nice to at least have a Boudicca randomly appear like the other heroes

And the slaves are not a random number at all, given they increase your income and sometimes, that can be vital - the problem of course being, they can revolt. And a slave uprising is far, far worse then a rebel army cropping up. It's risk versus reward - you in the long term, get more money from proper commercial buildings, but slaves can give your economy a quick boost at the risk of rebellions and unrest.

they aren't random no, but there is no way to gauge how many slaves you have, nor is there a way to not take slaves unless one stops playing the game. There should be buildings that decrease slaves perhaps akin to the Roma resurrect 2 buildings, maybe a "Freedman assembly building"

or perhaps make one of the edicts free slaves option

[krisslanza]

good question, why was there a Cleopatra video if the player was never able to play as a woman leader? would be nice to at least have a Boudicca randomly appear like the other heroes

Boudicca's rebellion happens after the game's timeline though. It'd be nice if she did, yeah, but her rebellion is some centuries later, as I recall. The game's timeline only goes up to about 30ADish or something. You can play forever, of course, but it's only scripted to go that long it seems.

they aren't random no, but there is no way to gauge how many slaves you have, nor is there a way to not take slaves unless one stops playing the game. There should be buildings that decrease slaves perhaps akin to the Roma resurrect 2 buildings, maybe a "Freedman assembly building"

or perhaps make one of the edicts free slaves option

I think if you don't conquer any settlements, you don't gain slaves. It's capturing them that still makes them pop up. Although, honestly, a low amount of slaves causes a negligible amount of unrest, and shouldn't really disrupt too much. I guess it can interfere with some people's immersion though, but... I don't think there's a lot that can be done about it. Then again, CA did add in those new buildings for minor settlements (mines and quarry), so it's not impossible to think they might add in something that isn't tied to the City Center chain about slaves. Not impossible, but not overly likely unless it gets really asked.

[AgentGB]

they aren't random no, but there is no way to gauge how many slaves you have, nor is there a way to not take slaves unless one stops playing the game. There should be buildings that decrease slaves perhaps akin to the Roma resurrect 2 buildings, maybe a "Freedman assembly building"

or perhaps make one of the edicts free slaves option

The commercial edict for Rome, works slaves to death reducing the populaton, while the slave trader does the same while giving a income boost. Although there no actual option to free slaves. From what ive seen anyway. But i liked being able to see the population properly, instead of it just being a percentage. Population count as always be a favourite of mine, although in NW the AI had an habit of burning through there population with high taxes and constant recruitment.

[iWarsaw]

Not really. I mean, ideally, sure but you can't avoid Slaves in this - not unless you stop conquering anything. I mean, by that thinking, why can't I use female generals and armies? It's my history, right? The game mechanics just don't support it though.

And the slaves are not a random number at all, given they increase your income and sometimes, that can be vital - the problem of course being, they can revolt. And a slave uprising is far, far worse then a rebel army cropping up. It's risk versus reward - you in the long term, get more money from proper commercial buildings, but slaves can give your economy a quick boost at the risk of rebellions and unrest.

So why not add a game mechanic to have female generals? Why not have a family tree where the spouse can take over but I guess they didn't but what about Cleopatra. I really don't know my history on how much she controlled but hey they twist History within reason so why not? They could of gone as far as letting Egypt do it and then modders being able to add it to other factions. The game doesn't support female generals, it doesn't support females at all and that sucks.

I get slaves at random when I'm choosing not to take slaves. Maybe it's a bug.

[RedGuard]

most civilizations in the era actually didn't have slaves, or they had them in low numbers. It was only really in Hellenistic and Roman societies that slaves were so commonplace that they could threaten the established government. most people like the Gauls used defeated enemies to swear loyalty to them rather than take them as slaves (unless they were foreign)

however I'm not debating the feature, i think it should make a little more sense and be explained better

[rob-a-dogg]

Yeah slavery wasnt too common outside of generic 'western' culture as far as im aware, and as I said it is possible to have 0% if you sit around doing nothing long enough and plenty of AI factions have 0% themselves.

[Man o' War]

It's a nonsense used as a smokescreen to make a shallow game appear to have depth.

Exactly the same as the culture system is nonsense and the now exposed politics system is nonsense.

[chris10]

It's a nonsense used as a smokescreen to make a shallow game appear to have depth.

I guess one could say so...

[red_locust]

You also get slaves from conquering the final city of an enemy and releasing them as client states, plus some buildings give you slaves. Don't see how it's nonsense, although there seem to be quite a few slave uprisings happening in my games.

[EdwardReynolds]

You also get slaves from conquering the final city of an enemy and releasing them as client states, plus some buildings give you slaves. Don't see how it's nonsense, although there seem to be quite a few slave uprisings happening in my games.

Wait what? Which buildings exactly increase slave numbers? I have seen effects that speed up or slow down the rate that slaves dissapear but none that simply add slaves i.e. increase/decrease slave pop decline which is indicative of a % modifier rather then a discrete number addition to the population, resulting in an effect that can only change the rate of decline which would have to stop at 0% change.

I had no idea you got slaves from Client States and Satrapys either, the game doesnt mention that at all from memory.

"Once you capture a city, you will automatically capture the slaves without any option to decline. Your slaves most likely comes from there, i have found myself with crazy slave population just from conquering cities. It is so common in fact that as a general average i always free slaves because i will get more then enough from conquering cities alone."

But the Occupy option explicitly states slaves are released! How does that make sense? GAAAAH!

As for the argument about existing slave pop transfering around, as mentioned most towns taken have 0% slave pop anyway. 0 slaves = none to go anywhere. Oh well.

[PointOfViewGun]

100% of the time I:

-Release prisoners
-Occupy cities (which states it releases prisoners)

What is the source of slaves I am missing? My cities have between 10-25% slave population, and as far as im aware you can only get slaves from taking them in battle or from taking them as part of one of the options when taking a town - and i don't ever take slaves ever. If i sit still and do nothing for enough turns my slave pop drops back to 0% and as far as im concerned should never rise again since im not capturing slaves.

Where are these sneaky buggers coming from? Help me be a less worse human TWC!

Two sources, field battles and looting after sieges. Some buildings also augment some of the attributes as well. Must be a bug if you don't loot or take slaves after field battles.

Or maybe you get them when you occupy too.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Once you capture a city, you will automatically capture the slaves without any option to decline. Your slaves most likely comes from there, i have found myself with crazy slave population just from conquering cities. It is so common in fact that as a general average i always free slaves because i will get more then enough from conquering cities alone.

[AgentGB]

Tbh i hardly ever take slaves apart from when im playing a campaign on legendary while going for the "this is total war" achievement, its the only way you can support more full armies, while your expansion is being hampered from everywhere, in those games my slave population is usually 100% which i just counter with edicts & agents increasing public order, plus armys putting down slave revolts which increases public order and a couple of extra temples or gladiator arena's in each province. In a normal game, ive had no trouble with even having to use slaves, the mechanic is pretty useless then, i basically just kill everything, since im painting the world one colour to quickly, and having slaves means public order problems. I can't say ive actually encoutered the same problem as yourself of there being a flow of unkown slaves slipping into your towns. Its usually sitting at 0% once all the intial campaign start up slaves have gone. But the money reaped from the extra slaves can pretty much double your income at 100% if you can handle the public order.

Money making buildings are better long term, since the trouble is, small provinces need to rely slave trader buildings and editcs running aswell, which means alot of your food is going into maintaining these buildings along with the public order effect buildings needed to control it. So for an easier life money making buildings are better in the long run if your expanding quickly. Unfortuantely the mechanics just give an alternative style of play, like power housing is under attack all the time, but you eventually stagnate or things being finely more balanced. Basically its better when the game seems harder like playing for the achievement. Also once you reach 100% you can just keep taking slaves, it doesn't appear to increase your public order anymore or your income one you reach 100%, if i remember correctly, instead excess slaves just get shifted to other towns until there full i think? Taking slaves in a tough game for the achievement is a good way to powerhouse up, income wise, and keep afloat from sabotage from agent spam from x amount of factions.

Still it doesn't beat a good old population mechanic like the older games.

Edit: when i last observed this, it was before patch 9 also