No slavery in CIV III

[Slingshot]

How about the voluntary slavery we all have, serving the masters of Apolyton!

They are hard masters, too. They demand the best of our ideas and resources.

[vanishpoint]

First time to the board, let alone in posting here, so please grant me some leeway.


As many already have pointed out, slavery was integral in many a civilization. Morally, almost everyone alive agrees it is wrong. Economically, it had it benefits at the times -- else it wouldn't have been used. After all, why employ a practice that is counterproductive? So, for slavery to accurately be represented in the game, a civilization should reach a point where it is no longer beneficial to practice slavery. After all, once the industrial revolution came and passed, was there really that much demand for manual labor in the fields? Once a society reaches that level of advancement, it would have a lower level of productivity if it continued to use slaves -- after all, they would be valuable as free citizens who could generate wealth/scientific advancements through their brains, not muscles. So, by continuing to practice slavery would be penalty enough for the civilization that continues to employ it long after it’s been rendered obsolete.


Morally and socially, though, slavery has a much more profound impact. We in the United States are still dealing with its legacy today. So how do we program those social ramifications it into the game?


Considering that almost all societies used slaves at one point or another in their past, it would be stupid for the designers to program the game to punish every civilization that used slaves. That said, slavery should be an option for every form of government in the game -- at least initially. And it should be an aspect of government that does carry outrageous penalties. After all, some of the cultures that practiced slavery have done pretty well for themselves in the real world.


But societies that abandon slavery relatively late in the game would be penalized by lingering population discount for X number of years for every year that slavery is used after the 50 percent mark. Say for every year after the breakthrough point, a civilization would suffer negative happiness rates of 3 for 25 years. I’d also recommend that only cities that were founded (or conquered) prior to the date in which the penalized civilization enacted abolition.


For this to work, Emancipation Proclamation would have to be scrapped as a wonder and instead, civilizations could research amendments to governments (i.e. women's right to vote, abolition, etc.) as scientific advances. Granted, they aren't true scientific advances, but they are philosophical and moral advances and, thought of in that vein, would fit in the category as social science advancements.

[MidKnight Lament]

Welcome to Apolyton, and well spoken. You did a pretty good job of summarising the thread actually. The only thing you missed, imho, is that civilizations shouldn't be forced to use slavery to keep up with the rest of the bunch. It should be an inviting option, but you should be able to do without it.

- MKL

[Par4]

Ok here's my POV on subject

Slavery was an intregal part of many societies and was all the way to the industrial revolution when slaves importance to industry fell dramamtically. Slaves didn't go away some just turned into POWs who happened to be captured and were forced to do things slaves would do anyway. Japan had slaves out of POWs just like Rome. I think slavery is morally wrong as do most people but you have to think of this, the times, something taboo today doesn't mean it was taboo then also. American and European standards of divorce, adultery, greed would disgust many of the previous American and European societies but it society doesn't enforce such dogmas as harshly now. The whole hating your slaves incident seems to be very isolated to the United States and shouldn't be taken as the view of slavery as a whole. Many slaves in ancient societies were respected and close friends to the masters family most specifically slaves from Greece in Rome who taught the children. Slavery was mainly POWs and populations who just pissed the conquerors off, ie Jerusalem. I would hate such wounds and taboos about slavery in the United States to affect the feeling and historic view of the game. CTP slavery was abstract and IMHO if reworked a little could prove very viable. Heres how I think the game should work.

Non slave states
Slavery would be economic and after someone creates Emancipation Proclomation would hurt societies that don't lower the number of slaves in their empire before and the unhappy citizens(the exslaves) could be more prone to riot.
1. Trade
Trade needs to be fixed and with this I think it will be realistic, non slave countries should be manufactures, slave countries raw producers. Raw materials need to be the main bulk of a slave states trade because
1. Citizens that have slaves should be less inclined to work themselves I mean think of this, instead of going to school yourself and learning to be an artisan get some slaves and plant corn and ship it off to Fiji for them to eat. While you might say well most people will want to work I think most average people would rather be the lazy master of an estate.
2. Raw materials are hard to gather, mining is hard, picking cotton, corn, wheat is hard. Most people don't want to do this. Bottom line if you have slaves and a farm your gonna put your slaves to work.

1. The non slave state isn't going to mine alot of raw materials and should consentrate on manufacturing and mining of precious things, oysters, gold, gems. Manufacturing could be buy wood, create funiture, sell furniture and buy food. If anyone has played Pharaoh there is 1 mission with very very very few resources but you can succeed very well(its the only way to succeed) by importing raw materials and selling finished goods. Think cotton trade early 1800s United States still slave state produced alot of cotton sold it to England and France who in turn sold it to everyone else willing to buy and bought other things like extra wood and food.
2. say a city on like the Strait of Gibraltor(sp) should be able to tax traders coming through to gain money(this would cost no money to the empire who the ships belong, its a game lets say the money comes from the traders) example of game
England needs lots of wheat and egypt has it, but italy is at war with england and controls all land routes from england to egypt unless you want to go all the way around asia minor and up through russia and over. The one way out is ocean and the small nation of monoco protected by carthage who controls spain lets monoco be on the strait. Monoco has no resources and there is enough manufacturing so is the city gonna starve(its on a straight not fertile pasture) well they can tax the traders coming through to pass so they make lots of money off the war feed their people and when the war is over trade is still lucrative because england can't sustain its population at the end of the 19th century and needs to trade with egypt again but with large ocean liners its more efficent to trade by water. Just so you know Egypt was slave, England was not this is early 1800s before industrial revolution.

Slaves would be brought home from won battles on land. Slave routes could be seen by emancipaters and intercepted once by manually sending a unit there then it would be on a screen for that route. After say 2 years the slavers would realize some slaves are being stolen and freed so they could
a. Use slave hunters to capture emancipators on routes(Im into routes manually moving is a pain)
b. Add slave hunter escorts which would make it harder for them to emancipated.
Emancipators could be cheap to build and have say a 50% chance of escape to return in 1 year to the route and free slaves.

A trade screen could make trade easier, no more camels running all over the place and I want supply and demand.

Slavery needs to be tied in heavily with POWs not razing a city and taking home 50000 slaves because of new trade, we need polarized resources people!

I know this post turned into trade but I don't care.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited May 08, 2000).]

[vanishpoint]

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 05-08-2000 08:52 PM Welcome to Apolyton, and well spoken. You did a pretty good job of summarising the thread actually. The only thing you missed, imho, is that civilizations shouldn't be forced to use slavery to keep up with the rest of the bunch. It should be an inviting option, but you should be able to do without it. - MKL

Thanks for the welcome, MKL.

You're right, societies shouldn't be forced to use slavery, but I think it early civilizations should be able to use it. Personally, I never used slaves in my CPT games (partly for moral reasons but also I didn't need them when they would have been most useful), but I certainly had the opporunity to capture them if I wanted. Every civilization should (this is a gameplay statement, not a moral one, folks) be capable of slavery. If it chooses to pursue it or not is the leader's choice.

[vanishpoint]

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 05-09-2000 12:14 PM Slavery ? a norm of a middle-class civilan all over the civilized Old World during the ancient times...[snip, snip] ...but still I dont c how can a slaver(tm) enter a city with a garrison inside , and not being stopped during a slave raid !

Very good point. I could see the slaver sneak a person or two out of the city, but not enough to either hurt the city or help his own.


Still, I like having slavery as an element of gameplay. It makes me feel a little more righetous when I slaughter all the innocent people living next door.


Perhaps the slaver should be dropped from the game. Instead, certain military units could be given the ability to capture barbarians or another society's units (outside of cities) and enslave them.

[Az]

Sirotnikov: I m from there too . I came to Israel at the age of 5 .

Now about the thread topic : I think that slavery was a part of human history all over the time . And so was genocide . I don't think that making both of them part of gameplay should lessen the effect of the horror in these deeds . but I must admit , I wouldn't like to see Death Camps in civ 3 . many of the people that survived the horror are still alive . but Genocide ? that must be . coz ... that existed almost always .

Slavery ? a norm of a middle-class civilan all over the civilized Old World during the ancient times . btw : did anybody notice :
Roman's leader behavior : peaceful , or something like that . that didn't stop the Romans of owning slaves . but still I dont c how can a slaver(tm) enter a city with a garrison inside , and not being stopped during a slave raid ! .... but that only my opinion again.

P.S.Author's signature is a way-of-gameplay description only . No Harming No ones feelings is not intended in any way . the Author doesn't see Slavery as a legitimate action . The Slaver(tm) is a registed trademark of Activision ..........


So is the Lawyer(tm).......

P.P.S. does any1 c my point ?

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[Az]

no . even better : include a slaver in a stack gives the whole stack an option to make a slave raid . neither the slaver , neither the army can take slaves by it own .
how about that ?

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[Urban Ranger]

Civ is not meant to be historically accurate.

If it were, then there wouldn't be an American Civ until very near the end. There wouldn't be an English Civ until a bit later. In the beginning, all you can have are the Chinese, Indians, Greeks, and some others.

In Civ, you learn to be a warmonger. Build a huge army and crush your neighbor. I don't think this is what you are supposed to learn.

So whether any feature should go in the game depends on whether it adds to the gameplay.

[Par4]

I wouldn't mind seeing it in the game, if it's not I'm not going to whine. I think it would add to gameplay because of it's importantness in history. Any route you take in history, with an American civ or not you will have slavery because of its economic importance for hundreds of years. I have Chinese ancestors who were slaves to other Chinese and have been put through evil things but I don't really take it to heart. To leave it out because of political correctness would be a mistake but that is up to Firaxis.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Malignantx]

oops sorry for double post

------------------
Angel left wing right wing broken wing
[This message has been edited by Malignantx (edited May 20, 2000).]

[Malignantx]

I think as much history as they can include in the game is a good thing. You can't include some things and exclude others. It's like telling part of the truth and not the whole truth.

"Yes i did pay the man....(with money i stole)."

------------------
Angel left wing right wing broken wing