Brainstorming slavery

[Creslin49]

So playing a game as Rome I have a ton of fun but I am left with the feeling that slavery is a major deficiency. I get like 3 rebellions ever turn end by mid game because slavery at its max gives -30 order, but as I am sure everyone knows the units the rebellion gets are terrible, they can often not even beat a garrison in a minor settlement, if the incredibly passive AI even attacks anything which is pretty rare it seems. One major issue is the penalty is a flat -30 no matter what, so a territory where you own one province gets the same -30 as one where you own 4, its pretty much impossible to manage the public order with one province.

I know the DEI team has made it better than vanilla already since atleast its worthwhile to use slaves given the increased cash but I really feel like there should be some way to make the system so that the rebellions are less frequent but more severe if you let them happen.

Historically the public order penalty was kind of two fold, one was the chance of a slave rebellion and the other and prolly more common/severe problem for Rome was the unemployment and economic crunch causing disorder among the poor but non-slave population. I don't know if its possible to move some of the penalty over to normal public order so it creates rebellions instead of uprisings but that might be one avenue to consider.

[Khassaki]

Public order is one of the simplest things to control in the game. Spend some time getting an idea of how to control it and you will be down to a rebellion once every few turns across your empirte at worst, and only in newly taken areas.

[m_1512]

It is very simple actually. Here's one tip - ensure you control full provinces, and whenever a province is reaching 0 public order, use the edict to buff it to 80-100 and cycle to the next one.

[Creslin49]

The problem I really have with it is that its such a mild rebellion with really passive seeming AI, its almost a good thing sometimes, AI rebelling every 4th turn in some provinces, just feeding generals and admirals free xp. Making it a rarer occurrence but a much stronger rebellion would be really cool and more realistic I think. Not really sure what the options are there, I know its been sad the slavery system is pretty locked down by the engine but I wonder how it would play out if say the slave trader gave a -slave unrest bonus but a much higher public order penalty.

Essentially that would shift the slave unrest to normal unrest and generate normal rebellions from it, which if those stacks got beefed up a bit might be more fun and more realistic. Since slave revolts that militarized and turned dangerous were pretty rare I think, but normal revolts or unrest among the normal citizens caused by the slave economy model was much more common and more dangerous.

[ThatWhichThinks]

I have found that, if you have an army in the province, it is good to let the rebels amass. While the rebels are mustering you get an automatic +20 to public order per turn. Let the rebels muster for a few turns and then go smash them with your army. Your army and generals get XP, and your cities get public order. It's really a win-win as long as they don't rebel where you have no armies.

[rjacko10]

The rebels shouldn't leave the city. They should take the city. That's a real rebellion. And one which would be taken seriously by the player.

[KetsaKunta]

The rebels shouldn't leave the city. They should take the city. That's a real rebellion. And one which would be taken seriously by the player.

In my opinion, there should be different kinds of rebellions.
One would be a small uprising of farmers
Another would be that your garrison has turned against you (and takes over the city)

[m_1512]

In my opinion, there should be different kinds of rebellions.
One would be a small uprising of farmers
Another would be that your garrison has turned against you (and takes over the city)

As in in my opinion too, but I am afraid that is beyond the capacity of the game engine.

[Summary]

If you are going for realism, the rebels shouldn't really rise due to low public order alone. There are a lot of other variables such as access to weaponry. A province with farms and less military buildings cannot equip themselves adequate and will be more servile that a province with an armory that can be raided. Also a province that has just been razed despite the low public order shouldn't be able to riot because everyone who would riot has been slaughtered during the ransacking and razing. So riots should also depend on the size of the population in that province.

Take Sparta for example. Spartan society consisted of three levels:

1. The Spartan Homoioi (10,000 men): Meaning the equals. They were full citizens that were taken at the age of 7 to train and serve in the army.
2. The Perioikoi (60,000 men): Not given full citizen status but were free men, that were given the choice to side with Sparta and serve as auxiliary troops and weapon-smiths, amour-smiths.
3. The Helots (100,000 men): Slaves. Had no rights or access to weaponry.

So consider 10,000 men controlling 100,000 slaves. Because they didn't have access to any quality weaponry they just accepted slavery.

This Spartan society is the main reason why Sparta could never sustain expansions, because to restrict the army to 10,000 citizens and not award citizenships to the vanquished meant they were always regarded as oppressors, and never had the chance to grow their army.

Rome on the other hand did the exact opposite. Offered citizenship and land to farm, in exchange for military service. People from all over Europe and Africa were desperate to get Roman citizenship and willingly offered their services. This is why Rome prospered. Any country or empire will prosper if they are tolerant and offer the vanquished populace a chance to be a citizen.

[Ballpoint202]

If you are going for realism, the rebels shouldn't really rise due to low public order alone. There are a lot of other variables such as access to weaponry. A province with farms and less military buildings cannot equip themselves adequate and will be more servile that a province with an armory that can be raided. Also a province that has just been razed despite the low public order shouldn't be able to riot because everyone who would riot has been slaughtered during the ransacking and razing. So riots should also depend on the size of the population in that province.

Take Sparta for example. Spartan society consisted of three levels:

1. The Spartan Homoioi (10,000 men): Meaning the equals. They were full citizens that were taken at the age of 7 to train and serve in the army.
2. The Perioikoi (60,000 men): Not given full citizen status but were free men, that were given the choice to side with Sparta and serve as auxiliary troops and weapon-smiths, amour-smiths.
3. The Helots (100,000 men): Slaves. Had no rights or access to weaponry.

So consider 10,000 men controlling 100,000 slaves. Because they didn't have access to any quality weaponry they just accepted slavery.

This Spartan society is the main reason why Sparta could never sustain expansions, because to restrict the army to 10,000 citizens and not award citizenships to the vanquished meant they were always regarded as oppressors, and never had the chance to grow their army.

Rome on the other hand did the exact opposite. Offered citizenship and land to farm, in exchange for military service. People from all over Europe and Africa were desperate to get Roman citizenship and willingly offered their services. This is why Rome prospered. Any country or empire will prosper if they are tolerant and offer the vanquished populace a chance to be a citizen.

I believe that the term "public order" encompasses all that in the abstract. After all, any revolt or rioting is by definition a public order failure.