Historically accurate or not I find slavery rather disdainful to have in a game. But if it is to be in any civ games it should have more repercussions. Like a certain percentage of your population needing to be assigned as slavers instead of working themselves. Low growth rate among slave population. (poor living conditions)

Chance of uprising, which increases with close nations that don't have slavery, during times of war (especially against nations that don't have slavery) and also effected by the amount of population assigned as slavers. Decreases cultural growth in slavery cities.

Democracy should not be a option for any slaving nation, the US was not a true democracy till it got ride of slavery.

Chance of the slave population escaping and joining nonslavery nations/increased chance of slavery cities switching sides.

Even without slavery, population migration could be a factor. When ever a city is low on food/water or culture or has too much pollution and is next to a city that is not, the population could migrate to that city. Even if that be another nations city(though migration to other nations cities is less likely then within a nation) This could replace whole cities turning sides. For that to work population growth would need to change though (please see this thread (http://www.eqforge.com/showthread.php?p=2777170&posted=1#post2777170) )

Historically accurate or not I find slavery rather disdainful to have in a game. But if it is to be in any civ games it should have more repercussions. Like a certain percentage of your population needing to be assigned as slavers instead of working themselves. Low growth rate among slave population. (poor living conditions)

Chance of uprising, which increases with close nations that don't have slavery, during times of war (especially against nations that don't have slavery) and also effected by the amount of population assigned as slavers. Decreases cultural growth in slavery cities.

Democracy should not be a option for any slaving nation, the US was not a true democracy till it got ride of slavery.

Chance of the slave population escaping and joining nonslavery nations/increased chance of slavery cities switching sides.

Even without slavery, population migration could be a factor. When ever a city is low on food/water or culture or has too much pollution and is next to a city that is not, the population could migrate to that city. Even if that be another nations city(though migration to other nations cities is less likely then within a nation) This could replace whole cities turning sides. For that to work population growth would need to change though (please see this thread (http://www.eqforge.com/showthread.php?p=2777170&posted=1#post2777170) )

I'm sure Sid was made sure to consider the different considerations that went along with including slavery. Civ has already included controversial topics before, such as human sacriface in C3C.

I'm sure there are balancing factors for slavery, such as, unhappiness and slave revolts.

I disagree about democracy being banned from having slaves. Not all slavery racial. For many periods in history, slavery was a result of a non-payment of debts, which can happen in a democracy or socialism.

I like how the RAR-mod portrays it thoughtfully. At first it might save your bacon by allowing a nation self-defense through production, but eventually it can destroy the nation, the more progressive and advanced the nation becomes (through unhappiness/rioting). By the later in the technology tree, it's a definite disadvantage, even if a nation decides to try it out in the 'Age of Reason'.

Realistically slavery is an ancient economic practice, and something that battling rival nations are likely to do until civility is researched.

I disagree about democracy being banned from having slaves. Not all slavery racial. For many periods in history, slavery was a result of a non-payment of debts, which can happen in a democracy or socialism.
Well socialism isn't represented/isn't a governmental option in civ games. Maybe it will be in civ 4. *shrugs*

Whether its racial or nonpayment of debt. If you own a person, if any persons in a society is considered as chattel. Then its not a real democracy. No nation who practice slavery should be able to choose democracy as a government type and visa versa.

At first it might save your bacon by allowing a nation self-defense through production, but eventually it can destroy the nation, the more progressive and advanced the nation becomes (through unhappiness/rioting). By the later in the technology tree, it's a definite disadvantage, even if a nation decides to try it out in the 'Age of Reason'.

Thats the thing though, slavery is very inefficient. Many a ancient culture got along fine without slavery. Even early games, Risk of riots, escaped migration to non slavery nations, reduction in culture (that goes for sacrifices as well, you shouldn't get culture points from human sacrifice) most importantly. A portion of your population doing nothing but acting as slavers, guards to the slaves. The fewer slavers to slave ratio the more likely many of the negative repercussions of slavery should be.

Slavery is not historically 'accurate' - it is the historical norm. It has existed for as long as there have been 'societies' - and it continues to exist For many, many cultures it has defined the economy.

"Dr. Charles Jacobs, founder and president of the American Anti-Slavery Group. . . presented some astounding statistics: There are 27 million slaves today, more than in any other time of human history."
slavery today (http://www.uua.org/ga/ga03/2051.html)

In every democracy ever conceived, there have been limitations on who could vote. The USA abolished slavery in 1865. They did not recognize women's right to vote until 1920. IN 2005 - being convicted of a felony rescinds your right to vote and it is up to each individual state to determine whether or when you can get that right back. Someone is always exluded.

If you insist on defining democracy as 'one person'='one vote', then there has never been a true democracy (and there never will be). How do you define person, anyway? or do you mean adult? or do you mean 'adult capable of reasoned deliberation'? how do you define adult or reasoned or deliberation?

Slavery was practiced by the Ancient Greeks - who arguably 'invented' democracy.

very good post thyrwyn, totaly agree

Mabe It would be most resonable to have labor as a Commmodity, which it is. Having to always pay for production, sortof the way CTP had it.
Consider slavery to be labor that you needn't pay for, and instead of enslaving people mabe just have Slaves happen as a result of social engineering or selling/buying citizens from selected cities to/from other civs that have compatible social settings. This might also allow you to rent/buy units from other civs in a similar fation.

Giving growth penalties is not reasonable as slavery 1. does not cause the rest of the population to have less children and 2. poor populations/slaves seem to have higher growth rates than richer populations (I know it seems odd).
Consider having Happyness penalties and higher revolt probalbilities.

Oh and If you feel offended because you think of slaves as Africans enslaved in America, consider the Romans enslaving other Europeans and North Africans, Africans other Africans, Japaneese the Koreans, Serfdom althroughout Europe, Workcamps, and last but not least Wage Slavery.

I for one am looking forward to any intigration of Slavery into Civ4.

Slavery .... is the historical norm. By norm you mean that throughout history (from recent time down) there has been more slave holding societies then not? Thats what you imply when you call it a "norm". Can you back up your vague and sweeping claim?

It has existed for as long as there have been 'societies'
Another vague and sweeping claim. Ok, what was the first society? If you know this and can prove you know it(and that it was slave holding), that would be quite impressive.

In every democracy ever conceived, there have been limitations on who could vote.. (paraphrasing) 'where do you draw the line'
Your answer...
Whether its racial or nonpayment of debt. If you own a person, if any persons in a society is considered as chattel. Then its not a real democracy. No nation who practice slavery should be able to choose democracy as a government type and visa versa.
I never said anything about one person one vote, nor did I mention I say racial slavery was worse then any other slavery or had different repercussions to that society. You guys have this habit of putting words in my mouth and then arguing against the very words you put in my mouth. (basically arguing against yourself, a futile gesture if you ask me)

Slavery was practiced by the Ancient Greeks - who arguably 'invented' democracy.
Democracy is a system where the government represents the general interests of the people, people being all those within the society, not a select few (which is more a republic) Government that sponsors a system of slavery is not completely representing the people and is not a democracy. Thus ancient greeks did not manage to accomplish a democracy. Who votes or not is not the heart of the issue. By focusing on voting you completely miss the point.

Giving growth penalties is not reasonable as slavery 1. does not cause the rest of the population to have less children
I didn't say it did, I said the slave population should grow slowly.(compared to the rest of the population)

2. poor populations/slaves
Excuse me? why are you lumping together poor populations and slaves? Very well, up to modern times in the US where you could be poor yet have plenty of food. Being poor has meant starvation which means slower population growth.

With slaves the issue of poor treatment leading to high mortality/more death= slower population growth. Plus general starvation.


Consider having Happyness penalties and higher revolt probabilities.
What about population migration(via escaping) to close free nations? You don't think that should be a possibility?

You don't think a portion of the free population would have to guard (and thus be unproductive) the slave population?

Historically accurate or not I find slavery rather disdainful to have in a game.

then stick to your principles and simply dont buy or play the game.

seriously. its not an argument or an invitation for a flame war. if you find it truly disdainful then do not play it. EVER. to play it is to compromise your principles, IMO and if it bothered you enough to say it is disdainful and bothered you enough to create a post about it then please do not play it.

Why do people whine about issues such as this being in a GAME, as much as you think it is bad it is just a GAME so dont worry life will go on wether this is in the GAME or not. So have fun slaughtering, murdering, pillageing, and all the other wonderful things to the people of you Civ and others. Notice no one seems to complain about starving or killing of thousands in the other Civ games, so why should slavery be excluded as it is just as bad as the rest if not less.
to prove a point it has been here forever
Link to a site about slavery (http://franklaughter.tripod.com/cgi-bin/histprof/misc/slavery1.html)

Seriously, TruePurple, get a GRIP. Man, its people like you who caused so-called 'terrorist-style' espionage missions to be removed from the game-both in civ3 and civ4 :mad: !!! Take a look at history: its nasty, brutish and often downright grubby-punctuated with periods of beauty and excellence. Slavery, Terrorism, Religious Persecution, Human Sacrifice, Despotism and Tyranny, Greed, Genocide, Global Warfare, Environmental Destruction-no matter what era of history we find ourselves in, there is ALWAYS a really twisted element of human nature on display-and a game which truly claims to represent history MUST deal with ALL of these darker impulses, as well as our more noble passions and pursuits. It is then up to the individual player to decide whether he is going to make USE of these darker elements, or try and rewrite history by 'taking the high road'-or a mix of the two.
For my part, so long as all of these concepts-slavery included-are properly BALANCED from both a gameplay and realism basis, then I will be happy!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

aussie relax for a minute.

if you look at the entire game its disdainful for so many reasons. attacking other civs? thats horrible! all those units "dying". the horror and cold bloodedness involved there. it enocourages people to take over other countries.

and starving the native inhabitants of the cities you take over? (by force no less! dear god wont someone think of the children?) thats repugnant on so many levels. starving them so the city wont turn on you, thats just brutal and wrong.

creating a stockpile of nuclear weapons. are you power mad? those could destroy whole cities!

and just like in real life the UN has no practical use in the game.

the game is about conquering and become the strongest civilization. of course its also a game and why anything takes it this seriously is beyond me. some know when and where to make an issue out of something. some do not and will make an issue out of anything that strikes their fancy.

i still contend however if it offends him enough to create a thread about it then he shouldnt play the game as the thought of destroying/killing other units and conquering others civ's cities probably turns his stomach.

Hey, you don't need to tell me to relax, PrankMonkey-I am arguing FOR having Slavery, genocide, nuclear weapons, terrorism etc etc in the game. My dissertation on the brutal nature of human history was merely my way of emphasising WHY these elements must be in the game-and why I hate it so much when the PC crowd place pressure on game designers to take these things out!!!! As I said above, my key concern with these elements is more gameplay balance issues than about hurting 'delicate sensibilities' ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

i just dont get how a person can find slavery of pixels disdainful but not the entire idea and concept of the game itself...surely a person who finds slavery in a game disdainful would find destruction and death and opression of other civs morally repugnant.

truepurple:

The short form is this: slavery is a factual reality - it has formed the economic foundation of civilizations from ancient Egypt through the Roman Empire through the feudal societies of Europe and the Orient.

Democracy, as you envision it has never existed.

So which should we exclude, again.

for those interested in the attempt at contesting truepurple's stance on a point by point basis - read on.

by historical norm I meant that far from being unusual or wierd or infrequent slavery appears to be the 'more often than not' option human societies (especially 'successful' ones) seem to take. Can I back this up? Sure: name an ethnic or cultural group of people that has no history of enslaving others.

I'll be waiting.

Did you follow the link I posted? In terms of individual rights and freedom this is arguably the most enlightened period in history - and yet more human beings exist in a state of slavery today than at any other time in human history.

Originally Posted by truepurple
Democracy is a system where the government represents the general interests of the people, people being all those within the society, not a select few (which is more a republic) Government that sponsors a system of slavery is not completely representing the people and is not a democracy. Government which exludes members of the society (women, for example) from having a say in that governemnt is not representing the people and is not a democracy.

Who votes or not is not the heart of the issue. By focusing on voting you completely miss the point. Sorry - that is exactly the point. It is the only point - without a voice in defining their interests democracy is impossible.

and the first part of this quote is ludicrous - A benevolent dictatorship can represent the 'general interests of the people'. Commmunism - by definition - represents the 'general interests of the people'. Every government represents the general interests of the people - the only thing that changes is the definition of which people.

criteria for a democracy (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm#democracy)
CRITERIA FOR A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Effective Participation:
All the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known and an equal influence on what the policy should be.

Voting Equality:
Every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote and all votes must be counted as equal.

Enlightened Understanding:
Each person must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant policies and their likely consequences.

Control of the Agenda:
All members must have the exclusive opportunity to decide how and if each matter is to be placed on the agenda.

Inclusion:
All members retain the full rights that are implied by the four criteria listed above.

Nice post Thyrwyn.

And from a state college in PA to boot ;)

....yet more human beings exist in a state of slavery today than at any other time in human history.

While I agree the whole of your comments are on the mark, I disagree w/ the above statement.

While there may be more people "enslaved" in the present, the number you gave is a lump sum. So, for your point to really have meaning, it would have to be a per capita figure since there are about 6-7 billion people in the world today. So, the 27 million of 6 billion = .0045, or less than half of 1 percent of the world population.

So, from a realistic standpoint, I'd say there are less people enslaved today, then, say 1700 or 1000, etc.... Put another way, your chance, being born into todays world randomly is less likely to result in your existance as a slave than any other time in history.

Regardless, as I said, I think your arguments and points are valid.

I am curious how you all would define slavery.

truepurple:
Democracy, as you envision it has never existed.

It exists now, in the united states and many many nations (most of which are europian) elsewhere in the world. Is it perfect? No, united stats isn't a "perfect" capitalist nation, it has a welfare system and government business regulations (safety, environmental etc) not enough mind you. Not that those things are bad things, but its capitalist enough to be referred to as such.

Government which exludes members of the society (women, for example) from having a say in that governemnt is not representing the people and is not a democracy.

Agreed, so?

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm#democracy


Effective Participation:
All the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known and an equal influence on what the policy should be.

Its possible (though somewhat unlikely) to have that yet not have perfect voting equality, "effective participation" is the heart of democracy. Equal voting is just a likely means to that end.

Anyways, your link only further proves my point. Slave nations should not be able to choose democracy as a government.(and visa versa) These systems are antithesis of each other.

more human beings exist in a state of slavery today than at any other time in human history.
Slavery of today primarily exists in either "failed states" where anarchy mostly rules or as a underground illegal thing.(ie sex slaves in the US and elsewhere) Outside of those two sources its very rare in modern times. Well unless you count the oppression of women in arab nations. Suppose in a number of those, they could be considered unofficial slaves.

@thePrankingMonkey
I have every right to voice my opinions and make my suggestions for civ 4. If all your going to do is post the equivalent of "STFU" and "don't play because you have opinions and requests of your own". You might as well not post at all and not waste thread length.

@aussie lurker
Once against, I have a right to post my own view points, opinions, and requests for civ 4. Do you have any idea how hypocritical it is of you to demand I "get a gripe" in such a hyper "oh no hes questioning my religion!" sort of way? My view point is from a calm reasonable stand point. Which is more then can be said of your posts.

@all the replies since last I posted
Noones replied to most of my suggestions for slavery if it must be in civ 4. Too busy being absurdly outraged over nothing I suppose.

Like, what do you guys think of a portion of the free population having to be assigned to guard the slave population.(thus not be productive) The fewer guards.. the more likely slave population would escape to nonslaving nations or rebel and put the city in unrest for many a turn, maybe killing some of their captors as well. Such issues have existed since slavery first reared its ugly head.

What about, slave population growing much slower then the general population?

I think slavery should be like this...

When you conquer enemy city you could get slaves by raiding the city.

There would be debt-slavery, war-prisoner slavery or something, and feudal peasantry.

Slaves would be ''citizen'' faces that would eat little food, and they would be forced to work in the mines, farms etc... So they would create extra-income and happiness (if your society welcomes slavery).

Also there should be a ''slavery on/off'' switch in the domestic advisor screen, or something...

Personally I have nothing against having slavery in Civ.

So your suggestion bandit is all positive and no negative to slavery? Neither realistic or game balancing.

why is a mountain being made out of a molehill?

im still trying to understand why the slavery of pixels on a screen is disdainful but war fare in the game is not.

Slavery as such is primarily practiced today in the Sudan, although there are cases (women in Arab worlds have been mentioned, some forms of child labour in other parts of the Third World as well, etc.) that might be similar in some ways. And it has been a persistent part of societies all over the world.

It makes sense to me that slavery, like other unpleasant things, is part of the game. So long as we aren't forced to use slavery when we feel like being benign rulers of virtual people.

You guys have this habit of putting words in my mouth and then arguing against the very words you put in my mouth.
I read everything and thyrwyn didn't put words in your mounth. He's only putting new arguments. Read all posts again carefully, without hate in your eyes. People have differents points of view. You have yours and you're posting them here. We have ours and we are posting here too. That's "democratic" :D. You can say your suggestions and we can say "nice" or "bad". You can also say the same for anyone suggestions.

Democracy is a system where the government represents the general interests of the people, people being all those within the society, not a select few (which is more a republic)
Democracy in its definition doesn't really exist. Most politicians call themselves as "democratics" when they are in elections, but when they reach their goal (government), they will privilege a few people, the higher class. No matter if everyone is voting, they won't really represent general interests of the people. Possibly something is made to say "I think in people", we call it here as "populism", a different sense for this word. Example: some politician found new schools in poor areas of his city and says he's working for those people, but in the same day he can sign a law to add more beneficts to politicians.

True democracies began to exist only after universal suffrage, not before. While there's any distiction between some members in society it's not a true democracy.

Be happy, because in Civ4 democracy and slavery won't walk together. When one nation ban slavery, all other nations will desire to ban slavery too. And it will likely happen before "democracy research" - even Ancient Greece created democracy in reality.

Also, democracy don't really combine with a government without "free speech". But in Bush government (so-called "defender of democracy") sometimes look that there isn't really "free speech". Several informations may be manipulated, but people don't know. There's also a lot of censorship there - is it really "free speech"? Another example? Terrorist-like espionage missions won't be in Civ4, because "the government won't like it", so Firaxis won't put it in the game. But nukes are "ok" :roll: - does this make sense?

In my opinion, democracy, at its full definition, is an utopia, as well communism was. There never was any "real" communist government, accordingly to Marx definitions.

I said the slave population should grow slowly.
&
why are you lumping together poor populations and slaves? Very well, up to modern times in the US where you could be poor yet have plenty of food. Being poor has meant starvation which means slower population growth.
Poor people and slaves have the same principle: lack of fun = more children. Nothing related to avaiability of food. If you study carefully, slaves had greater procreations, it was excelent for their owners, who could sell "extra slaves" and earn more money.

With slaves the issue of poor treatment leading to high mortality/more death= slower population growth. Plus general starvation.
Wrong. Slaves would have lower life expectance and higher mortality rate, but also a higher growth too, as I mentioned above.

What about population migration(via escaping) to close free nations? You don't think that should be a possibility?
There's another thread with this idea. It's better discussed there.

Slavery of today primarily exists in either "failed states"
If someone discover some slavery in USA, will you call it as "failed states"?

Sure: name an ethnic or cultural group of people that has no history of enslaving others.
Is there one :D? It's the best argument for having slavery in Civ4.

I'm with Aussie_Lurker and I want to see slavery, terrorism and sacrifices in the game, because those things happened in some time of history. Nuclear weapons and genocide are already there. Genocide is "hidden": when you hurry production or starve a conquered city you're doing a genocide; when you eliminate a civilization and all its people, you're doing a complete genocide.

So your suggestion bandit is all positive and no negative to slavery? Neither realistic or game balancing.

Well, of course there should be something negative about it...

Like slavery dependency, or something. When your state is very imperialistic the slaves would become too great factor in agriculture, so you would need more and more of them, but when you can't get slaves anymore (because of lack expansion, trade Etc) your economy could suffer very badly.

And after a long time your society could became more humane, so there would be unhappiness caused by the slavery and it would grow. Also, slavery could sometimes be unprofitable.

After industrial revolution slavery would become rapidly useless.

Edit: Feudal peasantry slavery would start to diminish after the middle class would become larger

Good points, naziassbandit. But I think that slaves will be less productive that "normal" workers. Maybe the game began using slaves instead of workers and you'll be able to use serfs in Middle Age, that may be more productive. Then in Industrial Age you can have paid workers, being even more productives.

It's just a thought, the game can be as I wrote above or may be totally different.

Historically accurate or not I find slavery rather disdainful to have in a game.
And what about rase a city?
Or starve it to death?
Or to build a polecistation to decrease peace claims?
And fascism government?
And my personal favourite: kill to finish things?

Bah, we NEED that kind of stuff.

Something thats been with man for longer then then theres been societies, something that historians don't often speak of, a squishy putrid vile underbelly (or should I say underbutt) of society.

Thats right, diarrhea! Diarrhea can be killer too, causes severe dehydration that can be deadly if there isn't a good source of clean drinking water. But I don't want diarrhea in civ4 any more the I want slavery in civ 4. I have a right to my opinions, don't I? Do I tell you not to play civ if you don't want diarrhea in it, do I? A number of you speak as though I don't have a right to not want slavery in civ 4 or to ask to have it the way I suggested if it is to be in there.

Likewise I don't want the raping of women to be in the game, even if it is historically common place.

@prankmonkey, That first post of yours was way too overstrung.

@bandit and ramal, both of those approaches would make slavery mandatory in early game (if you want to have a chance at winning I mean) Nor are they very realistic or balanced approaches.

I read everything and thyrwyn didn't put words in your mounth. He's only putting new arguments. Read all posts again carefully, without hate in your eyes. .

Hate in my eyes? *chuckles* How very dramatic and utterly off base.

You want examples of words being put in my mouth? Here as some examples where words were put in my mouth then argued against as though I had said it.

If you insist on defining democracy as 'one person'='one vote'
I never said it short of insisting on it.

Not all slavery racial. For many periods in history, slavery was a result of a non-payment of debts, which can happen in a democracy or socialism.Oh and If you feel offended because you think of slaves as Africans enslaved in America, consider the Romans enslaving other Europeans and North Africans, Africans other Africans, Japaneese the Koreans, Serfdom althroughout Europe, Workcamps, and last but not least Wage Slavery.

Never said anything about racial aspects of slavery, I just said I'd prefer not to have it in the game but if its to be in the game this is how I'd like it to work.

then stick to your principles and simply dont buy or play the game.
Never said it was a matter of principle, I just said I'd prefer not to have it in the game but if its to be in the game this is how I'd like it to work.

My suggestions for slavery if it is to be in civ 4, point by point. Most of which I've already said but most didn't get much response if any.

1. A portion of the free population would need to guard the slave population.
These slavers would not contribute to work. You can set population units to being slavers. The ratio of slavers to slaves changes the odds of unpleasant slavery events happening. a 1 to 1 ratio could mean a very low odd of negative event. A ratio of more then 1 slaver to 4 slaves could mean a very high chance of negative events happening.

2. Close proximity to a nonslaving nation, especially one hostile to the slave nation makes negative slave events more likely.


List of possible negative events.

3. Escaped migration.
A portion of your slave population escapes, possible putting the city in a riot for a turn or two. If a nonslaving nations city is close enough escaped slaves join that population. Otherwise they become hostile barbarian encampments. These encampments would contain no gold (unless the slaves stole some in their escape)

Nonslave civilians may be killed in escape attempts. Production or city improvements may be destroyed in escape attempts.

4. The slaves revolt
And make the city theirs, if they succeed they use this city to make units to attack your other cities. The presence of troops in the city help decrease the likelihood of revolt success and damage caused by revolts. Civilians, troops, and city improvements may be killed and destroyed in a revolt otherwise.

5. Discontent.
Slaves have two statuses, discontent or controlled. Each slaver controls X amount of slaves. Just like with other civilians, discontent slaves increase the chance of general revolt.

6. Source of slaves
Enslaving your own population would never be productive (since they do the work either way) But you can enslave civilians from captured rival nations or barbarian villages. If you choose to enslave them (you have to decide before hand) you don't get the other potential benefits of villages.

7. The slave population would grow much slower then the free population.
Plenty of reason for this. As far as the suggestion of slaves reproducing because they are bored. I think they would have too little time for "entertainment" with day after day of forced labor. But they would die more (both at birth and much earlier in life) History does show this.

8. slave holding nations should not be able to choose democracy as a government type and visa versa.

TruePurple, first I'll explain what I undestood about those senteces you quoted:

If you insist on defining democracy as 'one person'='one vote'
Do you know the meaning of if word? Let me write what thyrwyn meant in other words: Before you post down defining democracy as 'one person'='one vote'. He's putting a new argument, thinking that you could use that argument. When you're trying to explain an argument, you have to think in "counter-arguments" that can be used and tell new arguments against those "counter-arguments", before they were used. That's what thyrwyn made. Hope that understand :).

Not all slavery racial. For many periods in history, slavery was a result of a non-payment of debts, which can happen in a democracy or socialism.
&
Oh and If you feel offended because you think of slaves as Africans enslaved in America, consider the Romans enslaving other Europeans and North Africans, Africans other Africans, Japaneese the Koreans, Serfdom althroughout Europe, Workcamps, and last but not least Wage Slavery.
Generally, people who lives in America hear something about "slaves", they tend to think about those African men that were sold as slaves and sent to this continent. That's because this type of slavery was largely used in all continent. They may be thinking you're "a black guy who is offended to remember your ancestors suffering" (no offense here, please, it's just a thought), so they are remembering that slavery were largelly used before getting African people as slaves in America.

Jews were used as slaves in several places, as Egypt. But when you see a jew, do you remember the slavery they suffered in old eras? Possibly not, because it is not too recent as African slavery. You'll remember them as "a people persecuted by Hitler". It's something like hearing about Scandinavia and Vikings: people always remember about "barbarians who uses a hat with horns", even they never used hat with horns. This was only a trial to "demonize" those people, because horns is linked to demons. Also, those horrible images used in front of their ships were used to frighten away "bad spirits".

Try to undestand what I explained. Try to see and understand the other side of discussion. No one is persecuting you and these are just arguments to "why Firaxis should keep slavery in the game", while you put arguments to remove it. Simple :).

I'm a "white guy" (not that its really relevant to the discussion) who would enjoy civ 4 more without diarrhea, slavery, or the raping of women in it. Thats all. If certain peoples assumptions make a ass out of anyone.. its certainly not me :p

BTW please scroll up to the post before yours to see my suggestions for slavery if it is to be in the game.

Well, just a few things are sure in Civ4, there's no much info yet. But everyone is free to speculate or suggest ideas, as I made in some threads here :D. I'll comment your ideas:

1: I think that slaves will be used in place of those people who works in terrain (mines and farms), while specialists won't be slaves. Also, in the begining of the game we may build slaves instead of workers, while workers (and possibly serves) may require a tech to "upgrade" them.
2: It looks as certain. It's said that, when someone research one tech and ban slavery, all other civs using slaves will have problems while they insist using slaves.
3 & 4: I'm not sure, but it seems that riots won't exist in Civ4. On the other side, nothing is said about migrations and flees. As I wrote above, there's a thread with a good discussion about migration.
5: I agree with their status, but with a difference: controlled and uncontrolled. I don't think that one slave could be happy in his situation.
6: It's very hard to get slaves soon in game if they have to be hunted. Possibly, in the city window instead of seeing "Roman" (or any other civ), you'll see "slave". I think the game will start with slaves and they will increase in number as this city increase.
7: Civilizations got slaves in several forms. Some of them got them winning battle and turning survivors as slaves. Some of them bought slaves in markets, a very common practice in old eras. So, a civilization will try to get as many slaves necessary as city needs to grow. So, I think the old system of city growth will be used.
8: There are several aspects in civic choices that can't combine. First let's see how it works and if there is "exceptions". These civics are a very complex concept, there are already too much speculation about "things that don't combine". You can see several of them in this forum.

But it's all speculation. Just a few things are certain, the rest is unknown. When the full list of chances for Civ4 appear, people will create a thread saying claiming to change anything (even before playing the game). And there will be also a thread with "ideas for an expansion pack" and another "ideas for Civ5" :D.

"Build slaves"
Hate the idea, not fond of military units coming out of nowhere (instead of out of the population) either. thread about a different population system (http://www.eqforge.com/showthread.php?t=119169)

It's very hard to get slaves soon in game if they have to be hunted.
So? What slaving civilization started out with slavery? I see no problem with slaves coming from barbarian camps or rival nations. Tribes and rival nations historically was the source of most slaves.


Possibly, in the city window instead of seeing "Roman" (or any other civ), you'll see "slave".
You mean if you take over a enemy city? You could have a choice, you migrate slavers to the city and enslave the population, or not. But if not then the enemy population may refuse to do much work for awhile.


It looks as certain. It's said that, when someone research one tech and ban slavery, all other civs using slaves will have problems while they insist using slaves.
I hate the idea of no slavery being something you "research" you should be able to choose no slavery from the get go without researching any tech. My suggestion is close proximity to nonslaving nations, especially enemy ones would increase negative slave events. (not a world wide thing)

1: I think that slaves will be used in place of those people who works in terrain (mines and farms), while specialists won't be slaves.
Of course specialists can't be slaves, you never did respond to my suggestion about having to have a portion of the free population act as slavers to keep the slave population in line.

Also, in the begining of the game we may build slaves instead of workers, while workers (and possibly serves) may require a tech to "upgrade" them.
Why would anyone want to build a slave instead of a worker? That makes no sense. Unless your suggesting you could only "build" slaves instead of workers at first, in which case I hate it with a passion. That would make slavery manditory for everyone.

Slavery and slave status shouldn't be something you "upgrade" from. With the exception of, maybe you can "research" a social concept that allows you to free existing slaves which would make them part of the general population. With some conflict at first.(X slaves would become unhappy citizens for a good number of turns. This would decrease general city happiness as well)

Plus workers shouldn't be something you "build" either. Please see my thread about a different population system (http://www.eqforge.com/showthread.php?t=119169)

P.S. I added a item in my suggestion list that threw off the numbers. Ill put it at the end so it doesn't

Hate the idea, not fond of military units coming out of nowhere.
I understand what you mean in that thread. You're correct, but adding this to the game and keeping it playable has a huge distance. As said in the other thread, there are some mods who emulate "your idea" (it's a very old idea, those mods exist because some people thought it before :)).

So? what slaving civilization started out with slavery? I see no problem with slaves coming from barbarian camps or rival nations. Tribes and rival nations historically was the source of most slaves.
In all known history (when men began to write their own history), there were reports of slavery. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt etc, all these ancient civilizations had slaves and these are the most ancient civilizations known.

Of course specialists can't be slaves, you never did respond to my suggestion about having to have a portion of the free population act as slavers to keep the slave population in line.
Keeping the same line of thoughts above, having slavery from the begining (an idea you refused), a civilization will have slaves working in mines and farms. These people will be called "slaves" instead of "workers". All other people (specialists) will be people with nationality of this civilization, not slaves.

This way, when I conquer a city, all people will be slave and will do the hard job (mines & farms). I will have specialists only when this city grows and people are "born" with my nationality. Of course, this system won't work when my civilization banish slavery. In this case, it will use the "old system".

Why would anyone want to build a slave instead of a worker? That makes no sense. Unless your suggesting you could only "build" slaves instead of workers at first, in which case I hate it with a passion. That would make slavery manditory for everyone.
What I mean is: instead of building a unit called "worker", you'll create called "slave", no need to capture anyone to have slaves. Maybe you can still have a chance to get slaves when combating enemies, as in C3C. As your civilization evolute and change civic choices, these units may be renamed to "serves" or "workers", accordingly to your choices.

As you can see, I'm putting a totally new concept for slavery, very different from C3C. I already know that you'll hate the system I'm putting here :D, but it's just ideas I had when reading those previews made recently. Maybe some of them are true, maybe everything is wrong (your wishes :D). Some people may think like me, some people will think another system.

Reading your ideas again, maybe there could be a "slaver" specialist, who will control a quantity of slaves. Just another thought.

Remember: it's just speculation, that's what we can do while more info about Civ4 don't arrive. What would the world be if people didn't think/imagine? Let your mind go and feel free to imagine another system with slavery :).

I'm sure none of those civilizations started out with slavery. Nothing wrong with making players get their slaves the same way most civilizations got their slaves. Nothing wrong with civilizations not starting out with slavery. Nothing wrong with giving players a option on whether they are going to take that route.

I understand what you mean in that thread. You're correct, but adding this to the game and keeping it playable has a huge distance.
*scuffs* I see nothing in those ideas that would make the game any harder to play. You should comment on those suggestions in that thread.

What I mean is: instead of building a unit called "worker", you'll create called "slave"
I know what you meant, sheesh. My point is that would make slavery manditory. Also it would make slavery nothing more then a unit name change. Like I said, IMO its a bad idea. For specific reasons as well.

Anyways, most nations who have used slavery don't enslave their own people. Generally if you enslave your own people the nation as a whole is less productive.

When you conqure a city you should have a choice of enslaving the population. With pros and cons of either choice.

Slavery being optional and players being able to choose to never resort to it yet have a equal chance of winning the game as a slave using player is a important needed aspect of any civ game that might contain slavery. Something that is not present in any of your suggestions.

Also I notice how often you haven't replied to most of my ideas as much as just continue to put foreward your own ideas. Even when you used my idea numbers as though you were replying. The only aspect you really did reply to is when you objected to having to actually capture your slaves instead of creating them like you would a table or a soldier.

Anyways, most nations who have used slavery don't enslave their own people.


What do you think Feudalism was all about? :king:

While not providing great levels of freedom, feudalism isn't technically slavery :p Anyways, feudlism is already in the game.

I'm sure none of those civilizations started out with slavery.
As I wrote above, all civilizations made use of slaves, even in Ancient Ages. So, it's very possible that every city will began with slavery. Maybe you'll have an alternative option, at start or soon.

I see nothing in those ideas that would make the game any harder to play. You should comment on those suggestions in that thread.
I'll comment later, after viewing again everything that is already wrote about Civ4. You should do the same :). There's a thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=108315) where Civrules keeps updating. Worth reading :goodjob:.

Anyways, most nations who have used slavery don't enslave their own people. Generally if you enslave your own people the nation as a whole is less productive.
I didn't said that you'll slave your own people. Slaves were got everywhere. In small battles, while exploring and finding nomadic people etc. I just "emulated" a system where you already get your slaves without going to hunt them.

When you conqure a city you should have a choice of enslaving the population. With pros and cons of either choice.
Good point here. But all slavery system is yet unknown. Who knows if it is already in the game or if a slaver civilization won't have this option?

Also I notice how often you haven't replied to most of my ideas as much as just continue to put foreward your own ideas. Even when you used my idea numbers as though you were replying. The only aspect you really did reply to is when you objected to having to actually capture your slaves instead of creating them like you would a table or a soldier.
Let's see: 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 8th I answered accordingly to known features, nothing related to what I think. 5th I answered as you wish. 5 in 8 is majority, so I didn't relate my ideas to majority of your ideas.

The other 3 were not totally related to my ideas. Several concepts of the game are rewritten. Slavery will surely be one, as it is one of civic options. It won't be only enemies workers being caught or enemy soldiers (in Mayan case). I'll try to explain 1, 6 and 7 again, using other words and you'll see that they aren't fully related to my ideas:

1: Who will pay for workers when you can have slaves for free? That's why I think that only specialists will have civ nationality, the hard job will be for slaves. Possibly slaves will be less productive. Serfdom will be in the game, that's certain. Serves will possibly be an "evolution" of slaves, as they were in feudalism, even having several slavers nations at same era. Serves would be more productive. And paid workers may be used later in the game, being fully productive. Who knows? I think Civ4 won't differ much from these concepts. Maybe paid workers and serves cost maintence, maybe not. There are several possibilities.

6: As you wrote, slaving your own people isn't a good idea. And as I wrote, using the same C3C concept about slaves, it will be very hard to get them. If 50% of barbarians fought become slaves, ok, you'll have a lot of slaves quickly if build some warriors and going for hunt (if there is so many barbarians in the begining, but in C3C there's a few of them). If only 10~20% become slaves, hmm, not so many slaves, you must build a lot of workers to work tiles near your capital in begining. Enemy soldiers may also become slaves, as well all people in a conquered city. Maybe when you invade a barbarian hut (good or evil, no distiction) you could get some slaves. It could already happen in C3C - too bad it isn't there :(.

7: For a population grows, it must be inside a city, because built workers don't procreate :D. To make a population grow slower, you should set slaves to consume more food (3 per turn, for example). But they were exactly the opposite, they eat less food! So, this way cannot be done. Maybe you make slaves to produce 50% less. So, a terrain that could produce 2 food per turn will produce only 1. Bingo? It's exactly what I pointed in 1: slaves are less productive than serves that are less productive than paid workers. When you'll get ride of slavery? When you have a possibility to set your civics another option than slavery - possibly needing to be researched. I think using it since start will emulate the same effect of Despotism penalty. It's known that old government concept is totally reworked, it became "civics" and possibly you won't start with Despotism in Civ4, so there must be a way to avoid cities growing large early in the game. Using slaves (less productive) from the start is one idea.

all civilizations made use of slaves, even in Ancient Ages.

Not all, maybe a majority of the major ones. I'm not a historian. But I doubt any of those, even in "ancient times" started out with slavery. Most tribes outside of war that I've heard of did not have slaves. You start out as a tribe in civ.

I didn't said that you'll slave your own people. Slaves were got everywhere. In small battles, while exploring and finding nomadic people etc.
Fine, then let players get them from war and enslaving tribes they find. No reason to blur over how they got the slaves. No reason not to make them work to get them.

If 10% of foes fought become slaves
Along as from villages and encampents? If we use your idea of a percentage of foes defeated becoming slave. The chance of success should be based on the difference of strengths of the two units (bigger difference, smaller chance due to less survivors)

OK, TruePurple, you are actually starting to make some sense-by putting forward how you WANT slavery to work in the game. Now I feel I can discuss this matter with you on a more rational level. Though you may recall from the get-go that I said I felt slavery should be balanced-in the game-with an eye to both realism AND gameplay (often difficult to do both, though).

For me, the keys factors are these:

1) It should be possible to raid foreign cities for their populace, who then get turned into slaves.

2) It should also be possible to generate slaves from the capture of enemy cities and defeat of enemy armies-at least until you have emancipation.

3) It might also be possible to 'enslave' parts of your own population-though this will more rapidly have a negative effect for you nation.

4) So, what are the BENEFITS of slaves? Well, if they are left to build terrain improvements, then you can WORK them harder and they require less food support (and no gold maintainance). However, you always need at least 1 unit (military or non-military) with a slave unit at all times. They are also more likely to die than normal workers-especially in harsh terrain.

5) Slaves can also be joined to your cities, here they generate extra 'hammers' and 'gold' for that city, in addition to what you get for them working a tile. They can also be 'disbanded' to generate shields (forced labour). However, you can only have 1 slave for every 2 normal population.

6) So, what are the disadvantages of slaves? Well, first they need frequent supervision, both 'in the field' and within cities. Within a city, you would need to convert at least one of your citizens to some kind of 'slaver' specialist.

7) If not properly supervised, then there is a chance of slaves either escaping or revolting. In the field, a revolting slave will become a barbarian unit which will attack your cities until destroyed. Inside your cities, a slave revolt will cause damage to your improvements and possibly even kill parts of your population until you either 'disband' them or 'free' them. Disbanding a slave in revolt, though, increases the chance of another slave revolt occuring elsewhere.

8) Even WITH proper supervision, there is a chance of slaves escaping or revolting. How likely it is to happen depends on the ratio of slaves to 'slavers', how long you have had those particular slave units, and how well or poorly you treat them. This means that to maintain slavery requires you to invest a reasonable proportion of your own labour force into watching over the slaves.

9) Another problem is that slaves within your cities can lead to an 'indolent' population (i.e. a part of the population who don't NEED to work) This may sound good, but as with too many luxuries, this can lead to increased decadance. Decadance in the game would mean a reduction in the city's health-based on the number of slaves it has as a proportion of the population (i.e. having 1 slave in a city of size 12 will have few debilitating effects on the population, but having 3 slaves in a size 6 city-the maximum allowed-will cause large drops in that city's health).

10) Of course, the other problem with slavery is when other nations begin to abandon it. We know that when a nation first enacts emancipation, non-emancipated nations will become increasingly unhappy and restive. By the same token, your reputation in the eyes of emancipated nations should also drop.

Anyway, TruePurple, I hope that explains how I would like to see slavery done in Civ4. i.e. that it has its 'benefits' for the society which does it, but also has its considerable downsides-especially in the long-term.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Intersting suggestions, got to do something so I don't have time to reply to everything at the moment.


3) It might also be possible to 'enslave' parts of your own population-though this will more rapidly have a negative effect for you nation.
Well I invision slavery as being population units that work the terrain. Since they do work either way and do it for free, no player would have reason to enslave their own population. Well i guess less food useage, but if food doesn't directly turn into population then thats not even much of a reason.

4) So, what are the BENEFITS of slaves? Well, if they are left to build terrain improvements, then you can WORK them harder and they require less food support (and no gold maintainance). However, you always need at least 1 unit (military or non-military) with a slave unit at all times. They are also more likely to die than normal workers-especially in harsh terrain.

As I said, I see them as population units. I suppose they could be workers as well. With your suggestion of guards. Otherwise they would just be units who you join to a city to work the squares. Slavers would be population units assigned to guard the slaves. You wouldn't need a 1 to 1 ratio but the worse the ratio, the more likely negative events. Slavers would not produce anything. Their job is sole to guard the slaves. Since slavers can only be generated out of your own population, this would be a inherent limit to how many slaves you can have (based on your population size of course)

@7. You don't think there should be a chance of slaves joining nearby slave free rival nations?

@10 That one implies everyone starts out as slave nations. One should be able to choose from the getgo whether they want to be slave nations or not. With advantages and disadvantages of both choices, IMO.