A slave-alternative to the free worker?

[Ralf]

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.

[BeBMan]

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...

[MrFun]

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.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by BeBro
Ralf, I don´t think that Civ3 should simulate every aspect of human history absolutely accurate.

True - as I said in another thread:

"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."

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...

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.

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.

[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?

I think Firaxis and Sid can find some simple way to broadly represent slavery without it being representative of just one historical era.

[Captain]

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.

[Mokael]

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.

[Ralf]

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.

Hmm! CTP-style "alternative warfare" units implemented in Civ-3?

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.

[Jaguar]

Definitely

[Adm.Naismith]

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...

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.

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

[Kc7mxo]

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?

[MrFun]

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.

[Kc7mxo]

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.

[Gramphos]

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.

[Ralf]

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?

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.

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.

I think Firaxis and Sid can find some simple way to broadly represent slavery without it being representative of just one historical era.

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.

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.

OK, I am with you so far.

Slaves should also work less efficiently than free workers since they are far less motivated and will stop when not closely supervised.

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.
-------------------- edited:
I changed ny mind about "slower work-speed". Read my reply further down.
-----------------------------

They should also do shoddier work.

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.

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.

This definitely would be the final nails in the coffin. Its just make it all far, far too disadvantegous.

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.

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. 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.

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)

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.