Representation of Slavery

[MidKnight Lament]

This is another off-shoot from the "Unconventional Warfare in Civ III" thread, that was getting too confusing.

We definitely had some wacky Unconventional Warfare units in CTP, but I was pretty happy with how Slavery was handled.

1. Were we happy with the Slavery model? (Does it need an overhaul?)

2. What changes would you like to see made? or
What new system would you propose?

I feel that Slavery was far too important in the history of mankind to be ignored in Civ 3.
How would we like to see it done?

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 19, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

MKL

I agree "Slavery" is the saddest part of human history and it has to be represented by someway.

I was pretty happy with what I could do with "Slaver unit" in CTP. I think Activision wanted to creat a battlefield for the slavers vs abolitionists but I don't think their goal really got into the game.

I reckon we need more bonus from "getting slaves then make them work for my civ" so we will be tempted to have more slaves.

[Adm.Naismith]

As I've already told in the original thread, I never played CTP, so my point of view have some limit.

I agree with you about slavery relevance on history, then on CIV III too.

My idea is: why slaves workers as units?

In short:
Slaves where mainly prisoners of war (also men with debt they can't pay, but that's not relevant to the whole number IMHO), and in a CIV game we can model them by two ways:
a) battle between units don't always end with total destruction of a unit, but with some prisoners too (we can look to other threads, as links between units and conscription methods, to decide how many citizen are included into a unit.
b) attacking a city could end with you gain the city but decide (or are forced) to put some citizen in slavery. You can also decide to destroy all the city and keep the slave only (atrocity or not, it should depend from other factors as age, S.E. choices etc.).

If you agree with this model, now we have some slaves to:
a) put at work into nearest city (some level of unhappiness is needed) as another kind of specialist - more thought later on food needs and work effect.
b) assign them to a slave combat unit, with appropriate limits (ditto, more thought later)

Can we work on this basis to improve the model?

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

[Grumbold]

In general I dislike 'special units' because they represent far more nebulous and diverse effects than the single on-map unit can replicate. Slavery is perhaps the one that works best - individual slaving teams did trek or sail hundreds of miles, raid an area and head back. Even so a menu controlled system would allow more subtle control - and perhaps allow the same system to cater for POW's, forced labour camps etc. Depending on how liberal your government was the criminals, prisoners and slaves would become less productive and more burdensome. Then perhaps the diplomatic and happiness models could be adapted to take this into account. Democracies really aren't too unhappy at the prospect of their armed forces being scattered around the world - as long as only a tiny percentage of them are KIA or interned in the enemy's prison camps.

[Youngsun]

Admiral

quote: a) battle between units don't always end with total destruction of a unit, but with some prisoners too (we can look to other threads, as links between units and conscription methods, to decide how many citizen are included into a unit.

"POW concept" I like it and this is actually batter than having a separate slaver units.

quote: b) attacking a city could end with you gain the city but decide (or are forced) to put some citizen in slavery. You can also decide to destroy all the city and keep the slave only

Interesting point. I think you were able to give us imaginative ideas because you did not play CTP. Hahaha "Capturing citizens as war booties" Good idea I also like it.

But you did not memtion about "slave hunt" done in Africa(shadowy part of human history ) and how it's gonna be implemented. I think "Slaver units" were actually representing this element.

Grumbold

We met again. I first saw you at my corporation thread. How is it going?

quote: Even so a menu controlled system would allow more subtle control - and perhaps allow the same system to cater for POW's, forced labour camps etc.

Hmmm. menu contolled system. sounds nice and do you have more ideas on this or be specific little bit.

quote: Democracies really aren't too unhappy at the prospect of their armed forces being scattered around the world - as long as only a tiny percentage of them are KIA or interned in the enemy's prison camps.

You are right they mind more about casualities taken rather than actually sending troops abroad. But they still mind about sending troops don't they? Anyway good point there because under present games no democracies care about their servicemen dying . I think this element should be reflected into the game so when we take heavy casualities from a war the war would become so unpopular and may cause eventual downfall of the government(if that was democractic one)

[The Joker]

Slaves should definately be included in Civ3. The CtP system worked ok, except that it was way too easy for a slaver to just steal population from foreign cities. A slaver should be visible to other civs on the map, and taking slaves from an enemy city should be an act of war. As the slaver should have little or no defencive capabilities it would often be accompanied by a military unit.

Slaves should be pop heads in cities, and would propably be cheaper (only need 1 food per turn and furthermore not need luxuries), but also require military units to stop an uprising. The chance of an uprising should be smaller with military units in the city, but could never be removed.

I think you should be able to turn your own pop into slaves (this would cause unhappyness for a few turns), and also - this is a must - be able to turn slaves into normal population.

I really like the ideas about captured enemy cities that could be destoryed and the people returned home as slaves. This should be pretty good in ancient times as it should be very hard to hold a city without the support of the local pop. Spreading this pop to a number of cities should assimilate the conquored pop faster and furthermore reduce the chance of uprising.

[Stefu]

I think that CTP model is good too, except those pesky slavers are a bugger when going to cities - they need to be held back in some way! Then, some more issues:

When slaves go to cities, their ethnicity and religion could follow. I'm not sure about religion tho - Christians tended to convert their slvaes to some kind of christianity while in Moslem lands, you couldn't keep Moslems as slaves - if one converted then he had to be freed! This needs handling. But ethnicity, definitely.

Slave trading must be included. This could be handled by slavers going to foreign cities and buying slaves. Hmm - maybe if you try to take slaver to enemy city it commits a slave raid, but to friendly city it attempts to buy slaves? In any way, I think that after succesful strike slaver unit should change so that you can see chained slaves behind him, and then you could take them to any city you wanted, or sell them on. Since this would slower slavery considerably, maybe slaver could catch many population units at same time? Also there could be "slave treaty" which specifies that all slaves one nation catches are auto-sold at one nation - this would be good for more peaceful civ, since it leaves all the murky work for another civ.

Also, the abolition should be better than in CTP. Instead of abolitioner units and Emancipation wonder, have "Abolition" button or something - abolition would result to all slaves being freed, but there'd be period of unhappiness in general population of slaveholding cities and chance of revolution. Maybe there could be "gradual emancipation" option as well? Anyway, towards the end of game abolition could become more and mroe pressing option, since abolitioned nations could use slaves against non-abolitioned nations, when industrialism hits in slaves get production penalties - and there's Reputation falling option as well, like this (assuming 7 civs):

All nations slaveholding - 4 nations slaveholding: No reputation hit:
3 nations slaveholding: slaveholding nations have reputation 1 level lower
2 nations slaveholding: -"- 2 levels lower
1 nation slaveholding: -"- 4 levels lower
All nations emancipated : No reputation hit.

[Grumbold]

I see {in only vague terms, admittedly} the principle of slavery being one of additional productivity at the expense of unhappiness that can be reduced to approaching zero by military supervision. As civilisations evolve similar ideas apply with POW's, criminals and political dissidents being forced to work.

An ancient civilisation that embraced slavery usually did not have specialists - the troops captured and enslaved directly. Because the culture existed they all carried the tools of the trade with them and shared in the collective act of taking captives. These were then put to work, sacrificed, absorbed into the culture or sold as custom dictated. The standard independant slaver operation with one boat and a few dozen thugs raiding isolated villages came later and is too small scale to be represented and they are hardly likely to be targeting the capital city of another great civilisation.

Perhaps the player should sign up to a code upon starting. The more advantageous in the short term (enslave everyone and put them to work, military and civilian alike) would carry the biggest long-term diplomatic penalty. Buildings could be constructed to assist in enhancing the productivity, speeding the absorbtion or reducing the rebelliousness of slaves. Over time construction of certain buildings and/or shifting to more enlightened forms of government could allow the player to shift their slave ethic.

A Democracy with a bloody past to atone for could be worse thought of (by other liberal governments) than another who still practiced the death penalty but had less of a violent past. A militant regime might respect a country with a no-nosense attitude as long as it is enslaving their enemies, not their allies! The abolition of slavery by one country should not instantly eliminate it worldwide but slowly tilt the economic scales away from it being profitable.

As slavery dwindles how you handle POW's and your own criminals becomes more important. Under communism a higher percentage of your own internal growth would automatically be incarcerated than unde a democracy. However they would work them hard and feed them less instead of costing the taxpayer. The most liberal societies might find an unwelcome tide of poor immigrants trying to sneak into the country and putting a drain on the economy. Diplomatic options would need to expand to cater for POW ransom and arguements over border controls.

The sort of ethical dilemmas this would introduce could add a new element to the game. Everyone with a hint of skill could win as a slave-taking hard line society that went on to treat POW's and its own prisoners roughly. A globe spanning empire of peace lovers who never enslaved anyone and freed prisoners would be a feat to boast about!
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited March 20, 2000).]

[The Mad Viking]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 03-20-2000 11:29 AM Under communism a higher percentage of your own internal growth would automatically be incarcerated than under a democracy.

Little known fact: USA is the country with the highest percentage of its population encarcerated. (Harpers) This includes Russia, China, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq and every other despotic little banana republic you care to think about. Sorry to nit-pick, but I think its a common misconception.

I agree with your point about the military serving as slavers in ancient / early medieval times. I think we need some ability to trade in slaves in later times like the raiding of Africa. But I don't see the need for slave units. As someone suggested, they should be tradable pop head, with no unhappiness, less food and no lux..

For many decades, slavery and democracy co-existed in the US,(without any real military suppression.) This did not cause unhappiness for the cities until emancipation became an option. Obviously it caused misery for the slaves, but this did not adversely effect the functioning of the economy or government.

European ridicule of the US, pointing out the obvioud hyprocrisy between the Constitution and slavery helped motivate the abolitionists. The model suggested would nicely refect the difficulty of being a minority slaver civ for very long.

[supremus]

CTP slavery model is very good. I think it should just be copied by CIV 3. It is simple and works very well.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 03-20-2000 11:29 AM The abolition of slavery by one country should not instantly eliminate it worldwide but slowly tilt the economic scales away from it being profitable.

Yeah, I like this idea. And the farther the world evolves away from slavery as an option, the more likely countries continuing to practice it will be labelled as committing atrocities (as per previously debated models).

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 03-20-2000 11:29 AM The most liberal societies might find an unwelcome tide of poor immigrants trying to sneak into the country and putting a drain on the economy.

Has anyone explored this idea before? I'm certainly no historian, but I get the impression that country's populations have swelled dramatically due to refugee immigration at various times in history. Certainly enough so to warrant representation in Civ3. Am I off the mark here?

- MKL

[Urban Ranger]

I don't like the CtP implementation. Slaver units are too powerful. I agree that enslaving should be carried out by military units, so any act of that sort is an act of war. Furthermore, enslaved population cannot be "teleported" back to friendly cities. They must be moved back, escorted by friendly military units. If they are not escorted they will vanish: scatter into the countryside to filter back home after a certain number of turns. This will give interesting possibilities. The original country could attempt to defeat the escorts to free the slaves, or a third country could attempt to defeat the escorts to steal the slaves.

Slaves are always drones (unhappy). Mechanisms should be available to free the slaves, i.e., to intergrate them into your society as citizens, perhaps after certain civ advances allows you to do so, and other civ advances could force you to free all the slaves.

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

as with about everything the ctp representation of slavery was horrible

I would have heavily defended cities and higher technology then the other nation and they would come up and use there indivudual slavers on my cities, not only is this unrealistic it is not ballanced either

no slaves were ever taken of people who could defend themselves unless the slaves were military captives

the simple act of allowing the citizens to be armed and being at least close to technical par would alliminate any slaving another nation would be trying to do towards you

also slavers as a whole were an independent unit for a relatively small time and for the politically important nations did not affect them at all

slavers, as well as corporations and religion (and probably intelligence and trade) should be not unit represented

perhaps for the time when state sponsered merchants explored the seas (and lesser extant land) for trade, there would be a unit that could engage in trade

actually most the slaves were bought by traders from slavers who were not actually part of the group that ended up with the slaves, in otherwords let slaves be traded to (and let captured cities peoples and armies be made slaves)

Jon miller

[Grumbold]

CTP's model of slavery was, to give it its due, better than any that preceded it. If its biggest claim to fame becomes that it inspires a far better approach to be adopted in Civ3 (or CTP2) then I will be happy.

[MidKnight Lament]

Agreed. It had its faults, but it was a noble attempt to include something which hadn't really been givern consideration before.