Why must the developers of the Civ-series always be so "politically correct" then it comes to the unvillingness of portraying slave-workers in ancient & pre-modern societys? I would like to see the following slave-unit alternative to the default free worker-unit:
- You cannot build slave-workers. Only captured free foreign workers becomes slaves.
- Slaves can also be traded through the diplomacy-screen.
- Slaves cost only 1/2 the support compared with free workers - and they are not that expensive to buy.
- Slave-workers cannot found colonies, and they cannot merge with your city, however.
- Slaves normally work unguarded within city-areas, but if the city revolts and/or the city is unguarded then they always takes the opportunity to pillage the tile they currently working on - and others, as long as your free citizens are still revolting. Alternatively; move any combat-unit on top - that certainly pacify them.
- All remaining slave-workers becomes upgraded to free workers in modern eras.
-------------------- below has been added:
- Slave-workers only work at half the speed. Forge an slave-army of two and they work as a regular free worker, in terms of efficiency. Add a guard-unit and you can move them outside city-areas without them escaping.
Last edited by Ralf; May 27, 2001 at 16:50.
Ralf, I don´t think that Civ3 should simulate every aspect of human history absolutely accurate. I´m sure it was not your intention, but with the same argument ("don´t be so political correct") one could say they should include other, far more brutal things...
Banana
Slavery is an economic system that should definitely be represented in Civilization III!! I think it's too important to ignore in such a game program.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
True - as I said in another thread:Originally posted by BeBro
Ralf, I don´t think that Civ3 should simulate every aspect of human history absolutely accurate.
"Civilization III is aimed to be a lighthearted turnbased strategy-game with some humor in it.
Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it."
Well, I think the concept of ancient slavery is a special case. Organized slavery was in many ways the very backbone that created what we today call "The Roman Empire", for example. Without organized slavery, there simply wouldnt be any ancient empires at all to talk about. Not in the west, nor in the east.I´m sure it was not your intention, but with the same argument ("don´t be so political correct") one could say they should include other, far more brutal things...
This cynical system, of course, also carried its very own seed to the destruction of these old empires, amongst other things. But, thats another story.
And what about modern slavery of the United States during the 19th century, and also in Latin American countries at the same time?
And what about slavery today in certain African countries and in India?
I think Firaxis and Sid can find some simple way to broadly represent slavery without it being representative of just one historical era.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
I also think that slavery in some form or another should be included in Civ 3 since it is such a large part of history and had such a great impact on almost if not every society.
but I think your slavery concept is too advantageous, there should be more detractions for slavery such as developing a lasting hatred, or rebellion. Slaves should also work less efficiently than free workers since they are far less motivated and will stop when not closely supervised. They should also do shoddier work.
Plus, you should have detractions to the overall efficiency of your empire since you are relying on slave labour and not innovation to boost production. Your slave owning society would not have the motivation to develop technologically as rapidly since labour saving devices exist already as the slaves. So tech should be slowed as well, though your production would be boosted by the slave labour. Also, you would need to expend a certain amount of effort to keep slaves in line.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
indeed, slavery is a vital economic system that should be represented. I like how CTP2 did it -- a slaver unti, that captures population from other cities, thus increasing population of your cities. makes sence.
Hmm! CTP-style "alternative warfare" units implemented in Civ-3?Originally posted by Mokael
I like how CTP2 did it -- a slaver unti, that captures population from other cities, thus increasing population of your cities. makes sence.
Well, that was perhaps not exactly what I had in mind here. I say; let the CTP-series stay CTP-2, and let the Civ-series evolve into Civ-3 on its own premises.
Definitely
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
Eschewing silly games since December 4, 2005
This argument resurrect every now and then. I think slavery was and is a really relevant part of mankind history: a dark side, of course, but a side neverthless.Originally posted by BeBro
Ralf, I don´t think that Civ3 should simulate every aspect of human history absolutely accurate. I´m sure it was not your intention, but with the same argument ("don´t be so political correct") one could say they should include other, far more brutal things...
As for others very sad aspect (crime, torture, etc.), removing them from Earth is a relevant effort on the way to become a proper Civilization.
As long as it's described without indulge in sadic and explicit show of violence, I always vote for Firaxis including it in game (but definitelly not as strange units as CTP like, used for unconventional warfare).
I don't like the torture scene in SMAC, if nothing else because if I had a good and fair reputation it is unlikely I act so cruellyl.
I must feel a connection between my game actions and plausible effects. Slavery find its place in history because their advantages fit in economy model some nation used (where forced to use). Then it lost its place (to be true it simply move away to another sad place, with another face).
I vote for slavery inclusion, I vote for military units destroyed reflected in lost of population. I vote for pillaging and razing of cities reproduced as fearful events for civilian involved.
I want to feel the pressure of my population suffering famine, suffering disease, crushed on battlefield, if only I picked the bad choice. Then I want to be double proud when my Civ flourish and growth.
Do you want a lightheart feel? Play at the easy level, then. But if you want to taste the role of King, Emperor or Deity you must accept to take responsability with success
Oh, I know it will never happen, because of marketing hypocrisy: never mind
"We are reducing all the complexity of billions of people over 6000 years into a Civ box. Let me say: That's not only a PkZip effort....it's a real 'picture to Jpeg heavy loss in translation' kind of thing."
- Admiral Naismith
Slavery is important historically, but how one would model it is important as well.
Slavers capturing people? Rather an insignificant percentage of slaves have ever been kidnapped. The majority of slaves sold throughout history have been prisoners of war, and this most assuredly includes the slaves from africa sold to the united states. Hardly any of them were kidnapped, it was much simpler to just purchase them from local yokels.
And while you don't have to pay slaves, they don't work as hard as a free person.
and of course there are varying degrees of slavery, starting with abject broken humanity, moving up through serf and on up to the american tax payer who is slowly being pushed back down . . .. oops, sorry.
i think it would be interesting if when you captured a city you could designate a number of population points (that would have to be even numbers) to be sent to one of your cities. There they would be slave units who work two squares but are only fed one unit.
There would also need to be some sort of happyness modifier, perhaps they could count for one unhappy citizen?
Actually, historians argue to what extent were Africans captured as prisoners of war, since women and children were also kidnapped to be sold as slaves on the coast of Africa.
But for either method in how they were captured, they were certainly captured by other Africans and then sold to Europeans on the coast.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
Um. I don't see your point. Women and children would be taken as prisoners of war more often than men, after all once the guys are dead they're easy meat. Most warfare doesn't recogonize civilians fella. Especially when you're fighting for land rather than conquest.
The Romans certainly didn't bother with just selling the prisoners they took in battle.
What I would also l,ike is a way of obliterating cities without havign to do it manually (settler like) I should have tocapture a city.
Alternativly ther ecould be an abandon city command that would let you just walk away and then the enemey couldn't take any tech or money from you by capturing it.
Why not add an improvement: Work camp.
This should allow you to set slave workers to work in city (They should produce one shield per turn)
But the later in the game you get the more your people will dislike slavery, and maybe become unhappy about it. Slavery should also be bad for your culture rating.
Yes, but in ancient times slavery was the backbone of every major empire. One can hardly say that about every major empire in medieval era and forwards. Slavery instead transformed into the serf-system. Yes, slavery was a reality here and there in pre-modern/modern eras, but I really think that Firaxis, in the name of simplicity, must draw a line somewhere.Originally posted by MrFun
And what about modern slavery of the United States during the 19th century, and also in Latin American countries at the same time?
And what about slavery today in certain African countries and in India?
The idea here is adding the principal concept of slavery to the game - not trying to recreate every aspect of human, often contradictive and unevenly progressive history into the game.
A simple way? Im not so sure. Any concrete suggestions? Remeber that Civ-3 is already is beyond half-finished. Every major concept is already in place. Im hoping here for a simple last minute way to add slavery, without asking for major alterations.I think Firaxis and Sid can find some simple way to broadly represent slavery without it being representative of just one historical era.
OK, I am with you so far.Originally posted by Captain
but I think your slavery concept is too advantageous, there should be more detractions for slavery such as developing a lasting hatred, or rebellion.
Hmm! Closely supervised? Above added to my own suggestions would make the concept of slave-labour increasingly more of the burden, then a benefit. I dont think there would be enough incentive to even bother with it anymore.Slaves should also work less efficiently than free workers since they are far less motivated and will stop when not closely supervised.
-------------------- edited:
I changed ny mind about "slower work-speed". Read my reply further down.
-----------------------------
Now, how should Firaxis portray that? I really dont think that shoddy tile-improvements is a good idea. Either the tile in question is fully improved, or it isnt.They should also do shoddier work.
This definitely would be the final nails in the coffin. Its just make it all far, far too disadvantegous.Plus, you should have detractions to the overall efficiency of your empire since you are relying on slave labour and not innovation to boost production. Your slave owning society would not have the motivation to develop technologically as rapidly since labour saving devices exist already as the slaves. So tech should be slowed as well, though your production would be boosted by the slave labour. Also, you would need to expend a certain amount of effort to keep slaves in line.
The original idea was about capture foreign worker-units working in the fields. The problem with conquered cities is that, these citizens already is "your own people" - at least formally. Turning them into slaves wont exactly help the integration-process.Originally posted by Kc7mxo
i think it would be interesting if when you captured a city you could designate a number of population points (that would have to be even numbers) to be sent to one of your cities.Still, historically it should be an viable option, I guess.
But, since you cannot build slave-unit directly in any of your own founded cities, there perhaps should be a special conquered-cities-only slave-recruiting alternative added, for the cruel Civ-gamers out there:
You can rush-build dedicated slave-workers (for the same prize as free workers), but you can only do this in conquered cities.
To prevent this strategy being too powerful, some progressively increasing riot-modifyer must be added. You can counteract this by building evermore military-guards, but that only going to help you so far. Also, remember; Slave-workers cannot found colonies nor merge with cities - at least not the way I look at it.
Theres nothing wrong with the idea. However, my the original simplified idea starts to grow more and more. Perhaps it becomes too complicated to add all this. As I said earlier; Remeber that Civ-3 is already is beyond half-finished. Every major concept is already in place. Im hoping here for a simple last minute way to add the slavery-concept, without asking for any major disruptive alterations - which Firaxis probably are very reluctant to make at this stage.Originally posted by vgriph
Why not add an improvement: Work camp.
This should allow you to set slave workers to work in city (They should produce one shield per turn)
Last edited by Ralf; May 27, 2001 at 12:45.
I think the game should simulate real life. Otherwise, things wouldn't make sense. And I think reality works far better than any synthetic system that the developers could think of. Why not have slavery? Or a holocaust? Or maybe a real Crusade, not just some Wonder (it was a slaughter, one just as bad as the Holocaust, but because it was for "God" it's portrayed as a Wonder of the World). These things should be included to add not only more realism, but better stimulants for diplomacy, atrocities such as holocausts could unite other nations. The emancipation of slavery should actually affect your economy and population depending on how dependent you are on slavery as part of your economy. For instance, if your entire industry relied on slaves as their main source of labor, an emancipation would ruin your industry. These things considered, it would bring much more economic concerns to the game.
I think you are right, and I've read somewhere that workers can be captured. This might be slavery as you suggested it.Originally posted by Ralf
Theres nothing wrong with the idea. However, my the original simplified idea starts to grow more and more. Perhaps it becomes too complicated to add all this. As I said earlier; Remeber that Civ-3 is already is beyond half-finished. Every major concept is already in place. Im hoping here for a simple last minute way to add the slavery-concept, without asking for any major disruptive alterations - which Firaxis probably are very reluctant to make at this stage.
Ha! You are all for slavery! (joke)
My main argument is still that it is to difficult to implement all these details. If they include that, they should also include significant details of later economic systems (e.g. 5 year plans in communistic countries, or the influence of stock markets today), but I personally like the abstract model known from civ2. Sure, that doesn´t mean that it can´t be improved...
Banana
Yes, your right!Originally posted by vgriph
I think you are right, and I've read somewhere that workers can be captured. This might be slavery as you suggested it.
"Workers are increasingly becoming mobile "population points", and building colonies is one of their more spectacular abilities. Unlike terrain improvements, colonies consume the worker, much like a city consumes the settler. You don't get the worker back if your territory merges with the colony (the editors will probably allow this to be customized). Workers can also be merged with cities, captured if unattended, and even traded with your neighbors. In this game you need to defend your TERRITORY, not just your cities, or you will be swiftly punished. I find myself building hillside fortresses more in this game than Civ2/SMAC et al. One advanage of this terrain improvement is the zone of control it gives units normally without one (read: most ancient and middle ages units). But it's their ability to protect vital trade roads, colonies, and goods that makes them invaluable.
Jeff"
Well, I for one dont want ALL details suggested in this thread.Originally posted by BeBro
My main argument is still that it is to difficult to implement all these details.
I just wondered if there was a simple way to tweak the now confirmed fact that workers can be captured if unattended. An action considered as an act of war, I bet.
- You cannot build slave-workers. Only captured free foreign workers becomes slaves.
- Slaves can also be traded through the diplomacy-screen.
OK, they can take the existing graphics for the worker-unit, then just switch the colours of the clothes to something slave-unique. Its confirmed that captured workers can be traded.
- Slaves cost only 1/2 the support compared with free workers - and they are not that expensive to buy.
- Slave-workers cannot found colonies, and they cannot merge with your city, however.
- Slaves normally work unguarded within city-areas, but the city revolts and/or the city is unguarded then they always takes the opportunity to pillage the tile they currently working on - and others, as long as your free citizens are still revolting. Alternatively; move any combat-unit on top - that certainly pacify them.
The team takes the existing worker-unit, and add some modifiers whenever worker-unit is captured. Is that so difficult? Below is an response to Captains objection, I changed my mind somewhat:
- Slave-workers only work at half the speed. Forge an slave-army of two and they work as a regular free worker, in terms of efficiency. Add a guard-unit and you can move them outside city-areas without them escaping.
I think above tweaks would be fun extension to an already confirmed concept (capture-able foreign workers). I not sure the AI can handle it that well, though. The whole thing evolves how good the AI can work with this, I guess. On the other hand; neither the human player, nor the AI-civs is forced to exploit slaves. One can choose too completely bypass it - the free worker is (of course) always available (and needed).
This feature must also be tweaked so that it only work really well ancient times - then increasingly worse, until unavailable under moder civilized government types. Yes, I know about 1900-century US south-states, but in the name of game-balance and simplicity.
Last edited by Ralf; May 27, 2001 at 17:05.
As important a historical concept as slavery is, I don't think that its going to make it into Civ3. I say this only because its inclusion would be obvious to any of the previewers who have seen the game, yet none have made mention of it. Also its inclusion would be a major addition to a Sid Civ game, yet previews still don't mention it. I could easily be mistaken and Firaxis just hasn't said anything about slavery yet because the game is so far away, but I'd give it even odds that its not in Civ3. I think its too bad. Slavery is an enormous concept in ancient through early industrial times, it would be very interesting to see how Firaxis included and balanced the idea in a Civ game
If Civ III were to have a S.E. model or distinctions between ancient and modern governments like republics then the use of slaves could be subtly worked into the government model. There need not necessarily be slavers or slaves visibly moving on the map. Increased work rates, lower food costs, increased unhappiness or additional effects during a revolt can do it all without needing to involve the player in actively persuing slavery.
A monarchical, religious or repubican government should have the ability to evolve somewhat over the centuries without having to cease being a monarchy, theocracy or republic. In a thread a while back the concept of a simcity-like set of edicts that (once researched) could be activated to make small distinctions between fundamentally similar governments (like all the current modern democracies that all have their clear differences from the others.)
Last edited by Grumbold; May 27, 2001 at 18:06.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks