No slavery in CIV III

[MidKnight Lament]

It would give the player another choice by which to mould their civ. There are benefits (in a game-playing perspective) and consequences, just like with declaring war.

As for Slavers having too much power in CTP, that's just a matter of game balance which could be rectified by designers.

- MKL

[raingoon]

Iago is absolutely correct -- if slavery would be playing down to the "lowest elements" of "human experience" I am astonished at the blind eye the game currently turns to the horrors of conventional warfare against innocent populations. Further, the idea that slavery somehow offends us while we ask for a game that instead incorporates nuclear genocide is mildly alarming.

I think it is a mistake for anyone to remind anyone that Civ 3 is an "entertainment" as opposed to a "history lesson." When did we start making this strange distinction? There is nothing (I trust) inherently wrong with history. And it goes without saying (I hope) that anything can be a lesson -- be it a game or a traffic citation -- whether the person receiving said information wanted to learn something new about themselves or not. Therefore, let us dispense once and for all with the strange argument that Civ 3 for some reason should be neither a "history," nor a "lesson," but rather an "entertainment."

Entertainment. There's another word about which its easy to make unexamined assumptions. People say "it's supposed to be entertainment" as though to be entertaining a thing must have all the innocence of a plastic game prize in a McDonaldland Happy Meal, and can show nothing of the dark side of human nature. As though something like slavery, while not in the least bit entertaining to those who endured it, does not remain a gripping narrative of our human story, very entertaining to young and old alike. Did you ever here a true history of the slave experience in this or any millenium that did NOT entertain you? Do I forever have to play games that tell me the stories of only the victors, never the vanquished?

But the problem, presumably, is that in Civ 3 I will also be having fun with slavery. Enslaving others, being enslaved. That sort of thing. I guess the real question is can something as... personal as slavery offend some people to the point that its inclusion in a game like Civ 3 would ruin the fun they would otherwise be having with wholesale genocide of entire civilizations? I suspect the answer is yes, on paper. But no in reality.

But, that's just me. I'd like to play a game where I protected the world from slavery and wiped it off the face of the earth -- using only economic might. Again, just my own whimsy, here.

Is slavery a gameplay feature that will, above all, increase the fun in a game about the history of trade, diplomacy, and war over the course of human civilization? Yeah, maybe. I'm not anywhere near convinced. CTP certainly didn't do it. And even though I've suggested one possible model (if anyone cares to see it, it's in this thread, above) that includes trade and diplomacy, I still have to say slavery as a game feature remains an interesting question, not quite yet essential to Civ 3, in my book.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 09, 2000).]

[Charles the Third]

I had a feeling I'd be opening a can of worms...

First off, I should probably apologize for seeming to say that all horrible aspects
of history should be left out. This was not what I had in mind. Nonetheless, Iago and raingoon have put me in my place in this regard. Any game that includes siege and nuclear warfare might as well include slavery.

The question remains to what extent slavery should be included. I still feel the existing government/economic types in Civ automatically include slavery in their abstractions and that it is not necessary to further highlight the issue. If it has to be in, it should be to only a small degree. I went back and re-read raingoon's original post in this forum on the topic. With all respect, I found his suggestion on POWs bulky and unwieldy but he had a great idea in stating slavery should become an atrocity after discovery of certain technologies.

My suggestion is this, then: assume all government/economic models in CivIII practice slavery. A civilization would not actually cease slavery until discovery of Abolition, which might also include the Emancipation Proclamation as a Wonder of the World.

I still feel that slavery is too messy of an issue to be included in CivIII or, as raingoon pointed out, it allows for a player to benefit by practicing slavery in a game (at least in CivII if you drop nukes there are negative consequences).

On a tangential note, I must disagree with raingoon on several points. First, CivII is a game, an informative, enlightening game, but still only a game. It should not try to be all things to all people. Second, by entertainment I did not mean mindlessly banal. Third, isolated stories of combatting slavery, such as Harriet Tubman leading slaves to freedom, can be entertaining. Slavery itself is not nor should be.

[MidKnight Lament]

Slavery shouldn't be included if there are no consequences. But surely there would be. The designers wouldn't glorify slavery.

You'd get advantages early on, but you'd pay for it later. It should be balanced so that you have to weigh up your alternatives from game to game. You shouldn't be forced to use slavery in order to win, but it should be tempting because of the 'bonuses' you'd receive in the short term. I want a realistic game, not one that's been censored for my (or the general playing community's) supposed benefit.

- MKL

[Charles the Third]

Yes, but what advantages? My own understanding of the issue is that slavery never really did anybody any good. Slavery as an economic model was horrible and never produced any real benefits for the slaveholders. No much slave labor you own, they will not be efficient simply because they are slaves. Slavery required more put into it to sustain it than it ever produced.

What specific, short-term bonuses do you have in mind when a civilization first adopts slavery?

[MidKnight Lament]

Well, I don't know heaps about history, but I would have thought there were production bonuses. And if there is, then people can also make money by selling them. Feel free to set me straight if I'm wrong though. I can't imagine that there were no real advantages to it.

- MKL

[Charles the Third]

Well, before I dive into the deep end here, I had better do a little bit of research tomorrow to make sure I'm right. Like I said, my understanding is that any production bonus was negated by cost to acquire, hold, "motivate," and get new slaves. The only real reason for slavery was to subjugate your enemies.

[raingoon]

A few points regarding comments re my comments...

quote: I must disagree with raingoon on several points. First, CivII is a game, an informative, enlightening game, but still only a game.

This is not in disagreement with anything I said. It's not in agreement either. My point was that the very effort to draw a distinction between a game and whatever else is being implied here -- history? reality? -- is ineffective. There is no need. Again, there is an unexamined assumption in the very act of making the distinction, and in the statement "only a game." What does it mean when we say "only a game"? Whose criteria are we using? Put it this way, I start by assuming everyone knows Civ 3 is a game. I try not to impose my own criteria for that onto them by "reminding" them of the obvious.

quote: It should not try to be all things to all people.

I don't understand what this means in this context. I can't find where I said that.

quote: Second, by entertainment I did not mean mindlessly banal.

Ah. I understand now. You see where I thought you did.

quote: Third, isolated stories of combatting slavery, such as Harriet Tubman leading slaves to freedom, can be entertaining. Slavery itself is not nor should be.

I disagree. I disagree with the word "isolated" -- Isolated from what? -- I disagree with the implication that stories of people who promoted slavery rather than combatted it should NOT be entertaining, and I disagree with the use, in this context, of the word "should" -- Stories of the Romans and the American Southern slave holders "should" not entertain me? Why? Or else what? Far too morally challenging and important and fascinating are such stories, and isn't it great fun to read about such things? And why shouldn't the game Civilization be fascinating, morally challenging -- it already is, to me anyway -- and important?

But I think I do understand what your objection is, and with respect I suggest your fears are unfounded. Nobody on this thread, as far my reading goes, is suggesting that slavery qua slavery is entertainment. However, I believe that books, films, music, poetry, performing arts such as dance, abract expressionism, impressionistic works, etc., and yes -- games like Civ 3, relating to and dealing with the reality of slavery are appropriate and can be -- at least one would hope -- entertaining.

P.S. -- Re the "concentration camp" argument early on. Yes, I would accept prison camps in Civ. No I would not like a game about gas chambers. Yes I would accept slavery in civ, no I would not like a game about putting people into the hold of a slave ship. You see my point...

[lago]

CWM was right to voice his concern. Slavery in the past few centuries was concentrated among a few groups, while war is more generalized and has affected everyone.

That said, I still think it's something important enough that it has a place in the game. But I also think that there should be a price to pay for having it.

So if you do have a slave society, you face a greater probability of revolts in your cities, you will need stronger garrisons to control them, a revolt in one city should increase the likelihood of revolts in nearby cities, etc.

Also, free civs should advance more rapidly, both scientifically and economically.

Maybe slavery should be a given at the beginning of the game, and only as you advance can you work your way out of it.

[tniem]

Charles the Third,

I may not be right, but I learned that the South did reap huge benefits from slavery. They were not bringing slaves over as enemies, Africa had nothing to do with the Americans. Instead they bought slaves because they were very cheap labor for plantation owners.

Yes, they had to feed slaves and keep them working, but it was much cheaper than hiring a workforce. The problem with slavery in the South is it was not highly profitable until the cotton gin. At this point slavery was essential to keep the economy going. That is why in the Constitution it provides for the end of the slave trade in 25 years (I think that is the right time), because the founding fathers wanted to end slavery. But by the time of the cotton gin and the Civil War slavery was a key element provided huge benefits for the economy. The South could not get rid of slavery they would have lost everything anyways.

As I said before that was my understanding. I cannot make any claims about the slavery in Rome and whether that was benefitial. To summarize slavery is production beneficial especially in easy tasks that require many people like picking cotton.

[Adm.Naismith]

I already wrote a lot about slavery model on CIV III into the previus thread:
"Representation of slavery" on http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001242.html

I have some different ideas from Raingoon about the model, but now I want to come back to the topic of Slavery model into the game.

Q:Is Civ III an entertainment game or a history book?
A: It depends, if you want it more like a "CIV simulator" where you can play with different concept and social model or you prefer the "Western model succesful way of life edutainment".

Sorry, may be I'm a little rude here, but I know very often the only right model in a game is our "American plus West Europe" one.

Democracy (how modelled into the game) is the only acceptable way to win. Fight a war to crush any potential enemy in sight, is socially acceptable. Nuke'em as Hiroshima (that's good enough?), but don't touch slavery because some people can upset (I suppose Japanese will "LOVE" to see use of nuclear weapon, won't them).

In SMAC we can gas and kill thousand of people, as on France and Italian front during WWI (but I suppose there isn't lot of survived soldier who bother to play SMAC anyway >:-> )

In my humble opinion the problem is not to shadow atrocities. Yes, maybe Monarchy government hide this inside, as Roman and Greek Republic with early slavery, but who cares?

The problem is to let the more scrupolus players to understand the world government had or still have the ability to make LOT of atrocities, still they must understand and cope with the consequence.

You can't throw million of man to death as in WWI and II, because your country can be a winner, still end on its own knees. In CIV and SMAC you can lose units ad fast as you build them from nothing, so who cares to fight a forever war?

In SMAC you can use nerve gas, crush your populace under a Police State, still you can suffer little or no consequence.

In WWII the nation mutually decide to avoid the use of same or worst gas that was used in WWI because of fear of escalating consequence, but Nazi killed million people in concentration camps because they don't faced consequenced early enough. They make an orrible bet, hoping to hidden that horror on a world that, sometimes, preferred to ignore the early hints, but no one stop that "game" fast enough.

I once played "Wings", a Cinemaware game on WWI Camel's Fighters pilots. They put, on a very simple and playable flight simulator of dogfight, ballon busting, strafing and bombing run,
a credible diary that, linking the missions, show how funny and orrible was the war from inside.
You really understood the tears when some buddy was killed, and looked to the earned medal with another perspective, when the other end scene was showing your burden on war cemetery. But if you where killed, another "rookie" take the place, (war "show" must go on) and you end the war reading the list of dead pilots you played.

So, you can see a movie about war, enjoy it, understand the reason of the war but not like the war at all. IMHO we can cope with a reasonable slavery model in CIV III, as we already do with nuke, famine, pollution, war, etc.

I personally will like a more deep show of negative, horrible, effects of that kind of decisions, still I will enjoy to find my way to a "clean" or a "dirty" victory.

Then I can learn something about the good and the evil, without too much hypocrisy.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Steve Clark]

I don't understand how Civ can be or should be an educational tool. There is a whole segment of the market called 'edutainment', education games mainly geared towards school-age kids. Civ (and all of its variations) is not edutainment nor should it be. Everything designed in Civ is abstracted. For me, as a miltary and popular historian, I draw no parallels whatsoever to history and in the rise of my particular civ in a game. No more than when I play Outlaws and shoot bad guys or play JN6 golf and shoot a 71, does they have anything to do with my real life. Civ is a game that abstractlely models historical developments but more than anything else, it is a game of fun, which is Sid's #1 criteria.

[Gord McLeod]

Civilization is educational in the very fact that it *is* an abstraction of historical events and forces. You can learn some specifics by reading the civilopedia of course, but that's about as far as it goes with the 'names and dates' approach to history. You learn more about concepts than about the rise of a particular empire. There's no way you're going to learn the extent of world history by playing Civilization... at least I hope not. Anyone who's world view included the rise of the Celts as the major global superpower against all 6 other global nations needs to read a few more newspapers. But that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that there's nothing to be learned from the game.

[Charles the Third]

Well, we've gone round the bush a few times on this topic, haven't we?

raingoon and Iago, you both make powerful arguments. I would still be happy to see slavery left out of CivIII but I now see why it might be important to include it to some degree.

I've done a little bit of research on this issue as I told MidKnight Lament I would. I apologize for taking a while; I've been busy the last day or two As such, my research has only been very basic but I've already learned a few important points for this debate.

Apparently slavery was employed at one point or another by practically every civilization in history. At the least, all cultures in what we term Western Civivilization did. Use of slaves predates 2000 BC and slaves were accorded legal rights in the Hammurabic Code. In 4th century BC there may have been as many as 100,000 slaves in Athens or about half the population. Most slaves in the ancient world were prisoners of war though a few were sold or sold themselves into slavery. For instance, the Romans used slavery to free the local population for its wars. Also, in most cases slaves did have a few rights and could even buy their way out of slavery. The primary purpose of slavery was in agriculture and in city building.

Prior to the 18th Century, all organized religions and cultures viewed slavery as a simple part of life. During the Enlightenment, however, scholars first began to speak out against the practice and the idea of abolition began to slowly spread.

The case of slavery in the United States is somewhat unique. It did not result from military conquest but out of a need for a large labor pool, as tniem pointed out in his post. By the middle of the 19th century, this need no longer existed and in fact was to the South's advantage to abandon slavery, but it still continued. Part of the reason was the modern idea of race based on skin color, which slave holders cited to continue the practice. Also, many Whites in the South held an irrational fear that they in turn would be "enslaved" or become inferior to the North if they gave up their slaves.

The prevalence of slavery in history implies two things. First, it reinforces calls for slavery to be included, even in a small degree, in CivIII. Anything that central to the history of civilization should probably be included. Second, that same prevalence reinforces Iago's suggestion that maybe slavery should be a given in the beginning of a game. For most of human history, a civilization that did not accept let alone practice slavery would be a massive anachronism. For instance, if a settler unit is 50% or more slave, does this actually change its performance any in game terms?

I think slavery should be a given of all economic/government types in the beginning of CivIII until the discovery of certain technologies (maybe Democracy or Capitalism or a new one like Abolition). This would include slavery in CivIII and allow the human player to fight against slavery without necessarily having to be in a position to choose to practice it.

[MidKnight Lament]

Good researching there. So many devoted people on this forum!

I'm not sure which way I'd prefer it to be implemented now...

- MKL