To make the game both historically accurate and instructive, it should be possible to purchase slaves in Europe or the West Indies.

Civ has always been an educational game, hence, rather than avoiding the subject altogether, it would be educational to include this mechanism within the game. In this manner we could experience the stark reality of this issue, and perhaps take time to consider similar occurrences in our current modern times.

I am not a modder, but I'd like to already request someone to create the "Slavery and Civil War" mod. It would entail simply creating a single unit called the slave, which would be obtained in similar fashion to how the player purchases horses, muskets or even free colonists.

Perhaps even a "wormhole" to a small coastline of part of northwestern Africa could be included, where a colony could directly sail a ship and purchase, from other African tribes (at a discounted price), a large number of slaves to then be shipped back across the ocean to the new world. Perhaps there should also be the option to send over dragoons who be enabled to attack African settlements (in similar fashion to how one could invade Native American settlements in order to encourage "converts") and obtain slaves directly (at no charge, but with the possibility of losing soldiers). Now, to truly simulate the historical accuracy of slavery, there would need to be a random modifier that would determine a certain % of slaves to die (between 25 and 75 %) in the ships en-route to the new world. This would simulate the terrible shipping conditions slaves were subjected to.

In addition, to fully flesh out this scenario, it should be enabled that when one of the colonizers goes about conquering Native American settlements, that they can then obtain Native slaves that would be used in identical fashion to the African slaves. This was an issue in the Southern American colonies and should be simulated here.

As to the usage of slaves within a colony, in order to make slaves desirable for use within a colony, slaves would not count towards to the population, nor toward the "rebel sentiment" meter, nor draw food requirements. Slave units would only permitted to work in outdoor environments (not within buildings). Additionally, slave units would be permitted to "double-up" with another regular colonist on a square (think double usage of a tile in civ). Hence, through the usage of slavery, a colony would gain a dramatic production bonus.

The slave unit would be available for use only within a certain geographical boundary. For example, in a random map game, slaves might only be used within colonies to the west (or north, south, east; randomly rotating the direction of the demarcation line for each map) of a certain line.

The catch to the usage of slavery, would be that immediately following the conclusion of the normal victory method (that is, by defeating the mother country), that your civ would be thrown into a civil war, with all of the colonies on the "wrong" side of the demarcation line joining the side of the slavery faction, and the other colonies, obviously, joining the anti-slavery faction. In this war, the other European and Native civs would be permitted to take sides.

Now, in order to prevent the glorification of slavery, the human player would be required to continue play as the anti-slavery faction; forced to either put-down the revolt, or give in and grant the succeeding colonies their independence.

Note: even though I suggest and request this mod, personally, I am adamantly opposed to slavery and indentured servanthood.

I have written articles concerning America's continued use of disguised and virtual "banana republics" in our modern age. Which, incidentally, comprises the roots of the current "banananization" of Iraq.

I simply believe that such a mod is instructive for understanding the period of the time, and can stimulate reflective thought and debate concerning the actual historical mechanism and morality.

It should at least, even in a medium as passive as a game, serve as a rather terrifying object lesson of our morally depraved our world history has been.

I'll say it first: just too much for a game. This is not the way to educate people about the history or cruelty of slavery.

I'll say it first: just too much for a game. This is not the way to educate people about the history or cruelty of slavery.How would you go about it then?

Anyway he is only asking for a Mod, so if one such as he request is ever made, all you have to do avoid getting this level of historical realism in your game is to ... not download and use it yourself. :p

As to the usage of slaves within a colony, in order to make slaves desirable for use within a colony, slaves would not count towards to the population, nor toward the "rebel sentiment" meter, nor draw food requirements. Slave units would only permitted to work in outdoor environments (not within buildings). Additionally, slave units would be permitted to "double-up" with another regular colonist on a square (think double usage of a tile in civ). Hence, through the usage of slavery, a colony would gain a dramatic production bonus.
...

The catch to the usage of slavery, would be that immediately following the conclusion of the normal victory method (that is, by defeating the mother country), that your civ would be thrown into a civil war, with all of the colonies on the "wrong" side of the demarcation line joining the side of the slavery faction, and the other colonies, obviously, joining the anti-slavery faction. In this war, the other European and Native civs would be permitted to take sides.

Now, in order to prevent the glorification of slavery, the human player would be required to continue play as the anti-slavery faction; forced to either put-down the revolt, or give in and grant the succeeding colonies their independence.Since you can choose Slavery as part the custom made Constitution you make for your colony when it declares Indepence, then I don't see how the above method you subscribe would make much sense - except of course, if you are using Slaves in your colony and do NOT choose to implement Slavery in your Constitution.

Instead (or in addition at least) any colony containing Slave labor should have a chance of being hit by a slave revolt with chance being modified by % of population in city being slaves. City would be without production until put down by Military and if going unchecked would have an increasing chance to turn independent(hostile barbarian style city) each turn in Revolt.


Also, slaves consuming no food and the double up idea is just too much of a benefit. Surely letting slaves require just 1 food instead of 2 and letting them otherwise function as regular Colonists (but only outdoors and without any boost from/toward/against Rebel sentiment) would be more than enough of a bonus.

How would you go about it then?

Anyway he is only asking for a Mod, so if one such as he request is ever made, all you have to do avoid getting this level of historical realism in your game is to ... not download and use it yourself. :p

It wouldn't be in Civilization or any game so it's irrelevant...imagine if the Civ4 1939 scenario had a slave feature like this...

It wouldn't be in Civilization or any game so it's irrelevant...imagine if the Civ4 1939 scenario had a slave feature like this...So you are against using games as a platform for education and enlightenment then?

What is there to imagine? The Slavery civic is still active and you can kill large portions of your population to hurry projects - and it is present by default from cIV vanilla through to BTS and even all the way up to Colonization also it would appear.

Anyway, you didn't really answer my question - and you also completely missed the point about it being a Mod request.

I did answer your question, the answer was I would not go about it in any way at all within the game...at least not to the extent suggested here. The slavery function in Civilization is nothing compared to the implication of an advanced slavery system in Colonization, mod or not. In Civ the slavery tech is like ancient Egyptian slaves of the pharaoh building the pyramids, at least it's your own people. Of course I don't have to download the mod, I just think it's in bad taste. I think everyone understands quite easily that slavery is wrong, they don't need a video game to enlighten them. Not to be sharp about it, I just can't help but see it this way ;)

@Dvalin:
Once you start being selective about the truth, withhold evidence or cushon the realities of the world for even then most noble of reasons/causes - you are already playing the devils advocate and are effectively helping to muddle the picture/make things worse.

People only ever truely understands the implication of anything once they to some degree have experienced it themselves. Experiencing it in a game is a poor substitute for the purpose of truely understanding, but it does gives a minor 'hands on' experience that you wont ever get watching documentaries, reading books or attending seminaries about it - and for the purpose of understanding implications it beats having no experience at all.

Much easier would be just have available "slave"-unit that you could get cheap from the Old World and would get small bonus to outside work but otherwise would be completely useless. Maybe you could get them as "real" colonists once independency becomes reality and you don't choose slavery.

I just think it's in bad taste"
No, I think it's great taste.

Telling the history as it is and not just as fashionable story but also the part of the victims are included.

That's real history not some cartoonish version of it.

And I agree with CyberChrist on this all the way.

More people know the better.

Colonization is a cartoonish way to go about this 'noble' thing you think you would be doing...if we go by your logic I guess representing anything historical in a game it's appropriate. The first mistake here is the suggestion that players should be able sail to Africa specifically to buy slaves, that sounds pretty racist to me...why would you put that in a game? Teaching history is a poor, poor excuse. Like I said, should the 1939 scenario have a custom improvement: slave-labour camp? Every turn it loses 25% of it's strength and has to be replenished from working the slaves to death...

I am sorry, unless you are denying the fact that slavery existed why would you hide it ? Why would it be racist to depict Early Modern Americas as they really were ? I don't get some of those so-called ''good thinking'' forumites who would rather HIDE or conceal such a fact - and economical linchpin as slavery was to the development of the English colonies south of Pensylvania and Delaware.

These arguments are as stupid as people who would rather deny the existence of the Holocaust saying that depicting it would be racist ! Errr... you can't and shouldn't censor History.

I'm not sure how you implement slavery in a game where you already have complete control of the labor force. Sure, you could make them better laborers but I really doubt that slaves were much more productive than free laborers on a man for man basis.

I'm not sure how you make it an interesting choice beyond the moral, and it's already been said that you can make this choice in the Constitution. Perhaps slavery would give free convicts in the dock but it would lower your score at the end of the game like razing Indian villages.

Colonization is a cartoonish way to go about this 'noble' thing you think you would be doing...if we go by your logic I guess representing anything historical in a game it's appropriate. You really need to read peoples posts more carefully and stop a min to think about the intended meaning.

You (and those like you) are the ones I am talking about that are crusading for a 'noble' cause, that you apparently feel justify clouding the truth about history and seek to keep as many as possible from knowing and understanding more about those truths.

It's completely the opposite my friend...people learn about slavery in school, a documentary, on the internet, or sometimes in movies. This is different from a game where the objective is to win and have fun, and anyone who knows anything about slavery knows it's wrong but that it's beneficial to the perpetrator. Anyone who needs to learn about slavery through a video game shouldn't have had their head on the desk so much in school. This notion that not including an explicit slavery system in a video game like Colonization or in a mod is somehow "clouding" or "denying" the history of slavery is a total joke. Someone foolishly mentioned the Holocaust, which is not in Civilization, or any commercial game AFAIK. Does this mean all these evil game companies are denying it happened? Get a grip!

I did answer your question, the answer was I would not go about it in any way at all within the game...at least not to the extent suggested here. The slavery function in Civilization is nothing compared to the implication of an advanced slavery system in Colonization, mod or not. In Civ the slavery tech is like ancient Egyptian slaves of the pharaoh building the pyramids, at least it's your own people. Of course I don't have to download the mod, I just think it's in bad taste. I think everyone understands quite easily that slavery is wrong, they don't need a video game to enlighten them. Not to be sharp about it, I just can't help but see it this way ;)

Well said.

Also, no one is hiding history, if you want to learn about slavery then take a class on American history. Certain things should not be replicated to full extent for entertainment value within a videogame, that's just horrible taste.

Would you want a WW II game in which you could run inhumane "experiments"? Certain parts of history are very unfortunate and should not be in a game to be played as anything remotely fun.

I hope no one here would want to see those type of things replicated. To say that we're trying to keep people from knowing the truth is so laughable, I'm sure more people will take History in HS than will ever play Civs.

It's completely the opposite my friend...people learn about slavery in school, a documentary, on the internet, or sometimes in movies. This is different from a game where the objective is to win and have fun, and anyone who knows anything about slavery knows it's wrong but that it's beneficial to the perpetrator. Anyone who needs to learn about slavery through a video game shouldn't have had their head on the desk so much in school. This notion that not including an explicit slavery system in a video game like Colonization or in a mod is somehow "clouding" or "denying" the history of slavery is a total joke. Someone foolishly mentioned the Holocaust, which is not in Civilization, or any commercial game AFAIK. Does this mean all these evil game companies are denying it happened? Get a grip!

Learning in a sterile classroom envrionment often lacks emphasis. It's more effective to provide a visceral experience that intersects with a child's play and will provide excellent discussion possibilities. I would prefer my child playing a "slavery" edition of Civ rather than playing GTA or even Halo. A scenario like I'm suggesting hints at consequences for giving in to immoral economics. A substantial quick fix like slavery might, in the long run, prove to be too expensive (both morally and economically) to make it worth while. I would prefer my child to be confronted with these types of situations and decisions, rather than simply being confronted with the decision of which gun to shoot the nasty little alien with: should I use the laser, the machine gun, or the rocket launcher?

I want my child to think, to consider, to cogitate upon the great moral issues of history. A classroom doesn't put them into that position; it simply disseminates information. A game like Civ can force them to actually confront the situation.

Learning in a sterile classroom envrionment often lacks emphasis. It's more effective to provide a visceral experience that intersects with a child's play and will provide excellent discussion possibilities. I would prefer my child playing a "slavery" edition of Civ rather than playing GTA or even Halo. A scenario like I'm suggesting hints at consequences for giving in to immoral economics. A substantial quick fix like slavery might, in the long run, prove to be too expensive (both morally and economically) to make it worth while. I would prefer my child to be confronted with these types of situations and decisions, rather than simply being confronted with the decision of which gun to shoot the nasty little alien with: should I use the laser, the machine gun, or the rocket launcher?

I want my child to think, to consider, to cogitate upon the great moral issues of history. A classroom doesn't put them into that position; it simply disseminates information. A game like Civ can force them to actually confront the situation.

That's you and your child...hey that's fine. However, that's still a silly argument, as hard as you try to word it elaborately. You really think a child is going to play a colorful video game like Colonization and extract some kind of moral lesson from it, especially from one minor aspect? That is fantasy and you should know better. Unless you are sitting there explaining all these things they do not understand without that dissemination you mentioned, they aren't going to see anything but one facet of the game. You mentioned shooter games, I'm sure you know about the desensitization to violence that can come with playing too much. That is because it's just a video game where the object is to try to win and have fun doing it. Put slavery into a game and the same effect applies, the virtual slaves become meaningless symbols in the game world used as a means to an end...like that laser gun. The player rarely if ever makes the connection between a soldier dying in a virtual world and one in the real, same with virtual slaves. No offense, but from a rational standpoint I find it hard to take this argument seriously...

@Dvalin:
Comparing the violence in FPS games with the Slavery function in cIV is pretty misleading, since the ONLY way to play and win a FPS is to engage in violence (and you are applauded for doing so), but the in cIV there are many other paths to choose from (and there are negative consequences to engaging in slavery - and other immoral practices).

And a hands-on-experience STILL gives a dimension of insight about a subject that you CANNOT gain from reading a book, attending a class or watching a film, but it CAN be gained to some degree from playing a game.

It is all about getting the thought "Hey now, why did this just happen? Why are these subjects of mine suddenly so unhappy?" (or something to that effect) and starting to think about it or even better yet - talk about it. People often just store information without further thought when experienced from more passive sources, but if it is something happening in response to something you have done then it does involve active thinking.

Also, you don't sound like some that has any children of your own. You can bet that if a child experience something in a game they don't understand, that surprises or annoy them they will talk to someone about it - a good opportunity to feed their actively interested brain with some more information about slavery (or whatever subject it is about).

Games are FAR better at getting people interested and engaged in subjects they wouldn't otherwise even consider bothering with (and for many people history is one such subject). Of course noone is suggesting to substitute books, classrooms or films with games, but (thoughtfully created) games can give a dimension of understanding that you just can't get from the more conventional types of learning.

I don't know how this got to the subject of young children in the first place as imo Civ/Col are teen-adult level games. Anywho it doesn't matter if I have kids, do you? I've been around kids in my family and of my friends often, but that's irrelevant. This is one big distortion you are presenting, it sounds to me like you don't know much about the minds of children. The unlikely possibility of parents assisting in the learning process aside, children don't make the same interpretations as we do given their lack of perspective. Unless you make this theoretical slavery feature barely noticeable at all or you make the negative effects of the choice blatantly obvious, it's not going to click.

Considering slavery was profitable and effective in its day, it is unrealistic to over nerf it and pointless just to make a point or 'teach' history. While you might learn something about wilderness survival in The Oregon Trail or something about urban planning in SimCity, hands on slavery is a pretty stupid way to learn about it. This game is complex by most standards, to be played by a majority of older teens and adults. The entire argument that somehow making slavery a prominent feature in the game is educational or beneficial to children or anyone is simply ludicrous. The bottom line is it is an excuse, a justification. A much better excuse would be simply that it was a crucial aspect of the colonization era and would add a new dynamic to the game. I still disagree with any level of implementation suggested here, but let's be honest about this.

@Dvalin:
Your most recent post said more about you than about the subject and it convinced me that continuing this 'debate' would be pointless.

Good luck with the crusade and don't forget NOT to download the mod once it is released. :mischief:

@Dvalin:
Your most recent post said more about you than about the subject and it convinced me that continuing this 'debate' would be pointless.

Good luck with the crusade and don't forget NOT to download the mod once it is released. :mischief:

That's pretty vague, what does it say about me? That I am an idiot and you know what you're talking about? Come on...get over yourself. Obviously this is just a weak cover story for the fact that you can no longer rationally defend your support for this ridiculous idea. If this is such a great idea with educational benefits, there would be more people clamoring for it and backing you up on it. :rolleyes:

It's completely the opposite my friend...people learn about slavery in school, a documentary, on the internet, or sometimes in movies. This is different from a game where the objective is to win and have fun, and anyone who knows anything about slavery knows it's wrong but that it's beneficial to the perpetrator. Anyone who needs to learn about slavery through a video game shouldn't have had their head on the desk so much in school. This notion that not including an explicit slavery system in a video game like Colonization or in a mod is somehow "clouding" or "denying" the history of slavery is a total joke. Someone foolishly mentioned the Holocaust, which is not in Civilization, or any commercial game AFAIK. Does this mean all these evil game companies are denying it happened? Get a grip!
Partly yes they are denying it.

And just for the sake of those as yourself who want some kind of cartoonish version of the game and deny the possibility of implenting something like slavery to the mix as potential teaching tool I suggest you take a look civilization 3 mod that was made for educational purposes in Canada and then come back with the same COMPLETELY ridiculous claim.

http://www.historicanada.com/ :king:

If there's one place above school, documentary, movie or even a book it's game where person can learn through being active part of the process of such event that has these elements in it. Why do you think there's extra information in the game about their history?

Why do you think I got interested about New World history? One of the reasons was Colonization when it came as I was in my teens. I wanted to learn more and I was completely stunned that it didn't had real slaves in it. But the whole series have from those days "matured" and it's time to also update the notion of Slavery in Colonization. I do understand that the game company doesn't want to do that because of some moralists BUT I think it's ESSENTIAL that somebody then implents it as feature by mod.

If the mod works well I will be the first download it and I can tell you that it's how historical games should be. Let's add two versions, the DISNEY one which you can cheriss and the REAL version which others will have.

And your comparison to Holocaust is bad because we can see it doesn't effect necessary the game dynamics neither to the historical elements, even though mod that would concentrate into social dynamics and not just to warfare should have notion of Holocaust present.

BUT slaves did have effect to the economy of these colonies and helped them to grow. They are ESSENTIAL to the whole idea of colonization. If you don't understand what african slaves offered compared to native or white workers you don't have clue about history and it's travesty that you are here to lecture others how to learn history when you haven't learned yourself the bit about slaves.

So maybe it would help even you to learn some history about slaves if they would implented in the game.

People just don't want to know how their own country was developed on to the ashes of other civilizations and who had to suffer and how much just so you could be writing this stuff right here.

Jezuz.

But CyberChrist is right this discussion is useless and over.

@Dvalin:
Comparing the violence in FPS games with the Slavery function in cIV is pretty misleading, since the ONLY way to play and win a FPS is to engage in violence (and you are applauded for doing so), but the in cIV there are many other paths to choose from (and there are negative consequences to engaging in slavery - and other immoral practices).

And a hands-on-experience STILL gives a dimension of insight about a subject that you CANNOT gain from reading a book, attending a class or watching a film, but it CAN be gained to some degree from playing a game.

It is all about getting the thought "Hey now, why did this just happen? Why are these subjects of mine suddenly so unhappy?" (or something to that effect) and starting to think about it or even better yet - talk about it. People often just store information without further thought when experienced from more passive sources, but if it is something happening in response to something you have done then it does involve active thinking.


Talk about it with whom? Some random guys on the internet? I doubt you're going to get a heart fealt convo on the issue going that route.

@DV, seems you possess a rather pessimistic view of the intelligence and ability to comprehend by children. I guess, when I was a child, I was simply smarter than other children.

And yes, in this context, I did include teenagers in my definition of children, who would probably benefit the most from this sort of mod (as it's actually in junior high/middleschool that American children start learning about these sorts of social issues).

My son is now a teenager, I'm certain that I could have a more interesting discussion with him regarding Civ than I've had with him regarding Halo.

Talk about it with whom? Some random guys on the internet? I doubt you're going to get a heart fealt convo on the issue going that route.You are no parent either are you? If you are despite of what you just wrote then perhaps you need to spend more time with your children and engage a bit more in what they do - and perhaps even enjoy playing some games with them yourself?

If children don't come to their parents/friends/close ones and want to talk when have something on their mind and/or experiences to share then they already got bigger problems than the imagined one of being faced with the concept of Slavery in a game.

That Historic Canada game is obviously meant to teach history, with voice overs explaining what you see in the 'game'. Civilization, where you can learn some bits of history along the way with a little perspective and background, is not like that. Just the same as if there was a game 'Historic World War II' that did the same thing, it's not going to have the same effect as say playing Company of Heroes which would be the equivalent relationship between 'Historic Canada' and Civilization: Colonization. So there are 1-2 exceptions here on these boards of people who claim they were a prodigy and playing games specifically enlightened them about slavery. This is irrelevant in comparison to the masses, the majority of the population. A grand total of 4 people have voiced support for this mod, amazing!

@C~G: I learned a lot about slavery, its beginnings, the practice, and its after effects. It's a travesty for you to tell others what they know about history when you're only making assumptions. I am simply standing up for the only rational conclusion I can make in regards to a mod centered on slavery and the civil war.

Silly 'feel good' arguments coming from folks like CyberChrist don't hold water in the real world. You don't make a game or modification assuming families are going to have an in depth talk about it as some bizarre justification for its insensitive content.

You don't make a game or modification assuming families are going to have an in depth talk about it as some bizarre justification for its insensitive content.Who are you to say why people do or don't / should or shouldn't make games or mods about/containing whatever? Seems to me you are the one making an awfull lot of assumptions here.

That Historic Canada game is obviously meant to teach history, with voice overs explaining what you see in the 'game'. Civilization, where you can learn some bits of history along the way with a little perspective and background, is not like that. Just the same as if there was a game 'Historic World War II' that did the same thing, it's not going to have the same effect as say playing Company of Heroes which would be the equivalent relationship between 'Historic Canada' and Civilization: Colonization.And why there couldn't be such mod that would try to achieve the same without voice overs?

What's the reason? Or is it just because you think mod cannot be as magnificent as whole game. Maybe if Firaxis would had implented such things into the game but because of guys like you, they never will.

There are no other such reasons unless it's inside your head.

So yes. You lose.

So there are 1-2 exceptions here on these boards of people who claim they were a prodigy and playing games specifically enlightened them about slavery. This is irrelevant in comparison to the masses, the majority of the population. A grand total of 4 people have voiced support for this mod, amazing!So what?

I suggest you consider the fact how many members are browsing this part of the forum right now and I can tell you that the whole Colonization mod in creation forum I posted already couple years back got same kind of support and now they are makin game out of it!

So yes. You lose.

@C~G: I learned a lot about slavery, its beginnings, the practice, and its after effects. It's a travesty for you to tell others what they know about history when you're only making assumptions. I am simply standing up for the only rational conclusion I can make in regards to a mod centered on slavery and the civil war.Well, apparently you know crap.

Slavery is essential element to any game that tries to describe the process of colonization. Whether it's used as teaching tool or otherwise, is non issue almost but at the same time, why not to use it as such when it's possible.

So yes. You lose.

@Silly 'feel good' arguments coming from folks like CyberChrist don't hold water in the real world. You don't make a game or modification assuming families are going to have an in depth talk about it as some bizarre justification for its insensitive content.I'm sorry but I happen to favour this "feel good" argument in favor of your "feel bad" argument.

You make mod whenever and about whatever you want and you have nothing to say or do that would change it to anything else.

So yes. You lose.

I think it'd be interesting to expand colonization to include Africa and Asia. Where you could take the Rum manufactured in New France and sail it to China and trade it for opium. A mod that would permit the pacification of the indigenous civ by drugging them.

I think few ppl in the west are even aware of how evil, or the extent, British economic policies were to the Chinese and Indian civilizations.

It might be interesting to create an Imperialism mod (based upon the economic and colonial structure of Colonization), where one would play as one of the European powers; having access to the entire 3rd world, creating colonies and trade outposts and trade routes between different parts of the world. The game would consist of attempting to create either the most diverse line of trade goods or of monopolizing a single type of trade. To see who could create the most "banana republics."

Tools available to the player would be slavery, pacification through either conquering, threatening or drugging, the ability to set up regional governors that would oversee indigenous settlements where the only Europeans present would be occupying troops (I suppose a veiled slavery).

Over the course of the game, indigenous elements could comprise rebellions, eventually colonies could declare independence, or Gandhi might appear and initiate a nationwide strike. Ultimately, the human player would eventually lose direct control over all of its overseas interests, but would have the fun of impacting world history and seeing how much wealth could be amassed before the bottom fell out.

To make the game even more interesting, when the human player agreed to grant independence to a region, the human player would possess the ability to segment the land area into as many as countries as they saw fit, drawing the new boundaries however they saw fit. For example, the power to create nonsensical boundaries that included multiple ethnicities that didn't like each other and who would naturally fight with each other for control of their "new country." The imperial power would still retain the right to trade muskets and canon to both sides in exchange for the near entirety of that regions natural resources.

Hence, in this scenario, England could preempt the Revolutionary War by choosing whether to carve America up into a large number of small, manageable countries, or into a single country and instigating war between the slave and non-slave factions (supplying both sides in a manner that would ensure continual unending warfare). In both scenarios, England could still control the resources of that area. In the former option by instituting exclusive trade rights with that newly formed tiny-nation, and in the latter by trading guns for the entirety of those feuding nations resources.

I think this would be educational. Perhaps brutal, but educational nonetheless. Through this gaming medium, even the common ignorant peasant would learn the reality of world trade and the control mechanisms that continue in practice today.

(Q: How do you think Iraq started? A: in the early part of last century, England created the nonsensical boundaries of Iraq that included multiple ethnicities and religious factions. Playing upon the natural fighting that immediately occurred, England supplied one of the factions with arms in exchange for the bulk of Iraq's resources. Eventually England lost control of the situation, and later America decided to intervene and attempt to replace England's hegemony in the region. Now America controls the entire oil industry of that nation. Because of England's divide-and-conquer-border-drawing-strategy America cannot withdraw its troops without creating a massive civil war. America will solve the problem by placing one of the factions in power in exchange for a domination of the oil resource. Simply another example of an age-old tactic of world domination.)

Let's make it happen!

That Historic Canada game is obviously meant to teach history, with voice overs explaining what you see in the 'game'. Civilization, where you can learn some bits of history along the way with a little perspective and background...

I could do some voice-overs explaining the history of what would be seen in this mod; with some bits of history, perspective and background...I also possess a very pleasant radio voice.

I could do some voice-overs explaining the history of what would be seen in this mod; with some bits of history, perspective and background...I also possess a very pleasant radio voice.

Okay wonderful, but do you see the problem with the argument 'it's educational for children'? At least you offer some broader ideas than just slavery. Although you mentioned 'drugging' indigenous people...don't you realize this is a game, a teen-adult game? :confused:

@C~G: That was a sad response, but since you tried so hard I guess you win :rolleyes:

some lack of perspective here, colonization is about a period in american history, where slavery was very much present, it was evil ofc, but it was life, if we deny parts of history, just because it was wrong, then you need to remove all indians, because what happened to them is so much evil as well. War is evil so we also have to remove that, pirate ships needs to be removed, they represent evil as well.

Now they are remaking an old game, i am looking forward too it, but it include what happened in history, slavery was very much part of all European nations tactics in america as was warfare along with the bad treatment of the Indians.

So coming with suggestions for the game seems like a fine idea and just make it so there is options, so if some of you dislike the slavery bit, you can turn it off and those who want it to be more historical can turn it on.

There is no reason to Argue alot about it, just make it an Option :)

@C~G: That was a sad response, but since you tried so hard I guess you win :rolleyes:Oh, yes. Indeed.

All I need is to quote yourself:
Come on...get over yourself. Obviously this is just a weak cover story for the fact that you can no longer rationally defend your support for this ridiculous idea.

All you can offer as rational argument is "sad response" and rolleyes.

And yes, my argument wins and your loses. I wiped your every point from the map but mostly because yours was pathetic from the start. ;)

Good luck with your next one, maybe it's bit stronger. :mischief:

But I doubt it since you cannot defend it with any integrity just with some lame off the wall posts.

No off you go to complain about some other mod idea that you don't like. :cool:

Oh, yes. Indeed.

All I need is to quote yourself:


All you can offer as rational argument is "sad response" and rolleyes.

And yes, my argument wins and your loses. I wiped your every point from the map but mostly because yours was pathetic from the start. ;)

Good luck with your next one, maybe it's bit stronger. :mischief:

But I doubt it since you cannot defend it with any integrity just with some lame off the wall posts.

No off you go to complain about some other mod idea that you don't like. :cool:

All I need to do is to quote you since everything you try to pin on me applies perfectly to your last two posts...I've explained my position, backed it up with rational thought, defended it tooth and nail...there's nothing left.

All I need to do is to quote you since everything you try to pin on me applies perfectly to your last two posts...I've explained my position, backed it up with rational thought, defended it tooth and nail...there's nothing left.Still here?

What was your argument again? Oh yes, you didn't have anything to back it up when I questioned it. You seem to be now lost at real words so all you have is blah-blah-blahs. You didn't have anything offer to the table when I showed why your original point was invalid, nothing. All you had was your opinion and your worthless comments about other posters' posts, nothing rational there to be seen at the end.

I suggest you waste your time in some other place and leave the arguments for those who actually can clearly show how things are, rather than try to save your face with empty rhetorics and wishy washy things about your failed attempt of mastery in argument, let alone try to stir up something with homeboy-cheap shots.

Your points didn't hold any water and you were unable to defend your position. Next time try to learn to admit it, to call it quits or say uncle when you run out of steam.

So much easier for both you and rest of us. :king:

Still here?

What was your argument again? Oh yes, you didn't have anything to back it up when I questioned it. You seem to be now lost at real words so all you have is blah-blah-blahs. You didn't have anything offer to the table when I showed why your original point was invalid, nothing. All you had was your opinion and your worthless comments about other posters' posts, nothing rational there to be seen at the end.

I suggest you waste your time in some other place and leave the arguments for those who actually can clearly show how things are, rather than try to save your face with empty rhetorics and wishy washy things about your failed attempt of mastery in argument, let alone try to stir up something with homeboy-cheap shots.

Your points didn't hold any water and you were unable to defend your position. Next time try to learn to admit it, to call it quits or say uncle when you run out of steam.

So much easier for both you and rest of us. :king:

You stopped saying anything relevant to the subject of the thread a few posts ago, all you're doing now is desperately attacking my character...if anyone ran out of steam it was you. Obviously I hit a nerve and now it's all about 'winning' an argument with you, not anything worthwhile. I readily admit I am a former conservative gone liberal and I understand your point of view very well but I will reiterate again that Colonization walks a fine line and from my point of view the ideas offered for this 'slavery' mod borderline on insensitive and offensive. I've already explained why and argued my case, there's nothing left but your rants and insults. Buying a boatload of slaves from Africa to toil away on my cotton plantation in a video game is not something I want to do and I will speak out against insensitive fools like yourself who support it whenever I feel compelled.

You stopped saying anything relevant to the subject of the thread a few posts ago, all you're doing now is desperately attacking my character...if anyone ran out of steam it was you..:lol:

Way to go, man. Try to shake it off and turn it over. ;)

I did happen to destroy your every point those couple of posts back into which you offered nothing but sore grapes so why I would mind anything what you would say now about me being the one that cannot answer in correct fashion?
Obviously I hit a nerve and now it's all about 'winning' an argument with you, not anything worthwhile. I readily admit I am a former conservative gone liberal and I understand your point of view very well but I will reiterate again that Colonization walks a fine line and from my point of view the ideas offered for this 'slavery' mod borderline on insensitive and offensive.You hit a complete miss.

It was your opinion. It wasn't winning an argument for me before you started to bully around that your opinion was the best and most rational one.

You tried to make it look like it was the only rational argument out there and rest of us were bunch of wussies.

Not going to cut with me. You got exactly what you ordered. You tried to show your "feel bad" opinion was above everyone else's and example I tried to show how things could be seen otherwise why it would make perfect sense to use game as teaching tool and above all included slavery to the game. You didn't listen and went all bollocks.

Listen pal, if you would ask some people here they would probably name me as someone who would be first go against slavery BUT that doesn't mean I'm so stupid to decline the possibility of slavery appearing in computer game ESPECIALLY if it used to explain why it happened and what slavery really is. And heck, it's an option since it's a mod! What there is to complain about?

Just because of insensitive moralists like you people will never learn about real history because for you it's better to show just the nicy-nicy stuff to people and because you don't like it.

I would had gladly continued to debate the issue which is still rather interesting one but because of your attitude and after I had dismissed completely your points (even with evidence of game that is used as teaching tool) you had nothing but rolleyes to offer.

Buying a boatload of slaves from Africa to toil away on my cotton plantation in a video game is not something I want to do.Actually that was your whole argument.
"not something I want to do". That's it. And you call it rational?
Especially consider a mod that you don't EVER need to play yourself and still enjoy the game?

I've already explained why and argued my case, there's nothing left but your rants and insults..Who's insults?
Dvalin, meet Dvalin:
I will speak out against insensitive fools like yourself who support it whenever I feel compelled.

Adios.

:lol:

dhgasbhafasdf ;)

fhkdas sdhfgsd jdsgf

Ifhsdkgf opinion. sadhga hskdjfhs

dfhasgdgfjjssasfdf

fskhgfsf sjfhhg hgdh hgdjfsagfsa bollocks.

fhgasdjgfs dfsjfghsdgf ghdgf hdgjfsasgh dfhs hgdhfsfjsdgfhsd

skfhdksjhfjkhsd dhfsd kjhsah you don't like it.

sdfkhsa dfsa sdfgh rolleyes to offer.

fsdgfhgasdf sfsdf gfgd whole argument.
"not something I want to do". dfgjkdgdh dsjg kshdgj ajhwuhfd

fdsdhfjhs djfhs Dvalin, sdfhbssa

abfdhs.

You're making a useless circular argument about nothing that's going nowhere, you aren't doing yourself any favors fumbling to make me look stupid. It's sad that you've resorted to trying to force your hand, it's pathetic, this does make you a fool. You can't flood yours posts with these silly 'I win, you lose' statements and expect it to look rational or convincing. Obviously you don't have a clue what rational is...:crazyeye:

... you aren't doing yourself any favors fumbling to make me look stupid.
For once I have to agree completely with you - you manage to achieve this all on your own.

Perhaps it would not be the case, if you actually took some time to write a post with weighty, relevant and well founded arguments about why it would be bad for a game/mod to portray immoral aspects of history in an accurate manner (such as slavery) - instead of just resorting to subjective and unhelpful repsonses fueled by your moral indignation about slavery.

For once I have to agree completely with you - you manage to achieve this all on your own.

Perhaps it would not be the case, if you actually took some time to write a post with weighty, relevant and well founded arguments about why it would be bad for a game/mod to portray immoral aspects of history in an accurate manner (such as slavery) - instead of just resorting to subjective and unhelpful repsonses fueled by your moral indignation about slavery.

Guess I struck a nerve in you too huh? ;) Let's cover this one more time...unless you're just chiming in to attack me personally like the reckless C~G it should be fresh in your mind that I have already made numerous posts presenting, explaining, and defending my position. This is an issue of opinion and pissing for pages on end about the same two opinions isn't very effective. Now the only reason I have continued posting recently is because C~G (not you too:rolleyes:) has become so aggravated after the fact that he won't cut it out with all the venom and dubious comments. When the argument becomes more about someone's character or intelligence than the actual subject, that isn't objective or 'well founded' at all. I doubt you're even reading the over-the-top comments from C~G, don't you think you might be a little biased here?

Speaking of opinions, C~G created a terribly weak argument that my views expressed here are just opinions (of course they are) yet somehow everything he and others have been saying are fact or infallible truth...this is nonsense. It is a moral issue based on opinion, do you believe X or do you believe Y. It takes a particularly bitter, irritated person to grasp at straws the way C~G has in the attempt to 'debunk' me or my premise. Let me ask you "CyberChrist" what response would be helpful to you? Agreeing with you? Conceding that I think the slavery mod idea is okay? What exactly does it take for an argument to be "weighty" or "well founded" in your eyes, do you have to agree with it? Must you agree with it for it to be relevant?

If the only problem is you've forgotten what my well founded argument is, then I will gladly reiterate once again.

... Let me ask you "CyberChrist" what response would be helpful to you? Agreeing with you? Conceding that I think the slavery mod idea is okay? What exactly does it take for an argument to be "weighty" or "well founded" in your eyes, do you have to agree with it? Must you agree with it for it to be relevant?
No, but it certainly must be more than you have provided so far in this thread. This isn't really about pleasing me anyway - it is about bringing more than hot air and subjective opinions to a debate.

History as a grand concept to me is not one-dimensional and I believe the underlying problem here is the lack of understanding for different ways of viewing and treating history. There's a good chance that most who support the explicit slavery mod idea view history as 'it is what it is'. I would describe my point of view as 'history happens only once, it must be respected'. You can't change history, we all know this. I will preempt any baloney and say that suggesting that I want to alter history or suppress any aspect of it is folly. History is important to teach so we can learn from the mistakes and triumphs of the past. How to go about doing that is the point of argument here.

The 'it is what it is' or 'anything goes' thinkers tend to feel that any method, outlet, or medium for teaching history is fair and appropriate--even if it is slavery or worse. Of course context is important in determining how tasteful a presentation of history is, but from my pov there are certain areas in history that deserve more respect. When you open a history book or website the information is usually presented in a respectful, factual, and chronological manner, sometimes with side notes and photographs. You learn history in a realistic and academic way. When you play a video game, it's like watching (semi)fictional movie or playing a board game. Of course you can learn things including history through entertainment, at times that is an important function of it.

However, a video game is a toy, albeit a complex one often intended for adult audiences. You don't toy around with the painful legacies of slavery, the holocaust, or poisoning or 'drugging' native populations in a commercial product. Do so in a third party mod and on your head be it. This is the core of my argument. Fight the battle of Waterloo, conquer or liberate Europe in WWII, launch the first crusades, fine! Most of history is appropriate to be portrayed in games as there is no large swath of population to offend or disrespect so long as these subjects are treated with reasonable accuracy.

Go in public somewhere and poll some people with the question "Do you think it is appropriate to portray global slavery of the 16th-18th centuries in a computer game in a historical context?" I wouldn't expect the results to be slanted too far either way but the results would certainly be interesting. I'm sure you would have very different answers from those who have a more personal connection to the history of slavery because of their background and heritage.

Bottom line is it's just not a tasteful idea, the educational argument for including slavery explicitly within Colonization or subsequent modifications I will say again is a weak one. Kids shouldn't/don't need this or any other game to learn about slavery, they will learn about it long before hearing about let alone playing Colonization or this mod. Adults who don't already know about slavery by now are an enigma. The 'educational' you're trying to censor history! argument is a poor excuse for the idea of an explicit slavery mod. History should be respected not treated like a game! You can bake your cake and eat it too, nobody will stop you, but that doesn't stop me or anyone else from criticizing it, harshly.

Edit: The justifications argued for the mod here have been subjective, it's nothing less than bias to say that my opinion against it is any more subjective than the opinion for it. I have already thoroughly debunked the 'educational' argument for it.

Much better, but you are still making unsupported assumptions about what people think/feel and what can't be used as a tool for learning/education.

Live roleplaying is sometimes used in classes to teach 'hands-on' insight about various topics/concepts (slavery among other) and while it isn't a direct parallel then a similar 'hands-on' insight CAN be gained from including the same topics/concepts carefully in a game ... even if conveying the insight on the topic/concept isn't the main objective of the game.

But it is a fact that you are more receptive to learning when you are being entertained at the same time. The trick is of course to be sure that what is being learned is also what is being taught, but then that is true with all forms of education.

On topic then when(if) you include a concept like Slavery in a game like Civ/Col, a good way of doing it would be to give the player a personal experience of why a nation might want to engage in slavery (benefits), why a nation might NOT want to engage in slavery (disadvantages) - and ultimately why slavery is wrong and should be fought whenever encountered (morals).

Of course games can't and shouldn't replace other more traditional sources of learning history, but it can be a valuable addition and sometimes it can offer something the traditional tools can't (the total sum is greater than all it's parts).


I have already thoroughly debunked the 'educational' argument for it.
I fail to see when you did that - unless you think that saying "It is true because I say so" is enough to debunk anything.

However, if you have any links to studies that supports you in 'debunking' games as being useful as an educational tool - then I would very much like to see them.


Btw, you do realize that the entire Civilization series is ALL about rewriting history, right? So yes you CAN change history - even to the point where Slavery is never implemented in the country of your choice. ;)

You're making a useless circular argument about nothing that's going nowhere, you aren't doing yourself any favors fumbling to make me look stupid. It's sad that you've resorted to trying to force your hand, it's pathetic, this does make you a fool. You can't flood yours posts with these silly 'I win, you lose' statements and expect it to look rational or convincing. Obviously you don't have a clue what rational is...:crazyeye:And what exactly is YOUR point?

Because that has been been your attitude towards the whole subject from your first subject.

Except you didn't say "I win" you just said "Because I say so".

Guess I struck a nerve in you too huh? ;)
You didn't hit any nerve any where, you thought you struck gold and ended up losing your argument. And just because it wasn't well founded.

Rest of this is just tirade of you being obnoxios towards others and your greatness in your subject when you obviously cannot defend your position.
Let's cover this one more time...unless you're just chiming in to attack me personally like the reckless C~G it should be fresh in your mind that I have already made numerous posts presenting, explaining, and defending my position. BS. Couple of posts and then you couldn't counter ANYTHING thrown at you.
When the argument becomes more about someone's character or intelligence than the actual subject, that isn't objective or 'well founded' at all. I doubt you're even reading the over-the-top comments from C~G, don't you think you might be a little biased here?It became about character from the moment you started throwing things around and not trying to answer the posts and points directed towards you.
Speaking of opinions, C~G created a terribly weak argument that my views expressed here are just opinions (of course they are) yet somehow everything he and others have been saying are fact or infallible truth...this is nonsense.Did I say they are?

I demanded explanations for your opinions and your point about education was dismissed because of games that are based into such concepts and quite plenty of education today which is relys into games.
It is a moral issue based on opinion, do you believe X or do you believe Y.Moral issue?

Problem is that you cannot really decide whether it's right or wrong since both things have their good and bad sides.

I do understand why you wouldn't want to add it into the game and I and others (support is growing ;)) why it should be added especially with a MOD that is an OPTIONAL for a game.
It takes a particularly bitter, irritated person to grasp at straws the way C~G has in the attempt to 'debunk' me or my premise. And who's going all personal now?
They aren't called "straws", they are called "witty points". ;)
If Let me ask you "CyberChrist" what response would be helpful to you? Agreeing with you? Conceding that I think the slavery mod idea is okay? What exactly does it take for an argument to be "weighty" or "well founded" in your eyes, do you have to agree with it? Must you agree with it for it to be relevant?No need to agree with anyone as long as you can really throw real facts and figures and rationality towards your cause rather than the same old crap which has been already turned the tables.
If the only problem is you've forgotten what my well founded argument is, then I will gladly reiterate once again.Your argument has been tested and has failed miserable mostly because your own stubborness to possibly admit anything towards the other opinions and only leaving you to state how precious and great your own opinion is.

I answer to your latest post that might some actual meat in it laterz.

And BTW, I'm not wasteful or bitter chap so we can forget this episode and save our precious time and go debate the actual subject but you better be prepared for it and not go that preferred route that I criticized earlier entitling your opinions with your moral compass and dismissing others out of hand. Which you probably missed.

:clap:

I could spend the next few pages playing games with you and quoting every few lines with an exaggerated response...but what's the point I already explained my views and defended them repeatedly. You can't just state that my argument is invalidated or 'wrong' by getting creative with accusations. I debated moral-philosophical aspects of this explicit slavery idea rationally* replying on a multitude of points from all parties. You know it would be nice if you looked up words like tirade before using them. :p

It's really sad to see someone who thinks everything is neutral, there's 'good' and 'bad' things to everything. Do you think there were real good and bad things about slavery? It is all a matter of opinion, and let those who speak up be judged for it. You mix obnoxious "I'm right" comments in between a few ridiculous slights, why treat that as a legitimate debate? I draw the line somewhere. Humans are supposed to make moral judgments and philosophical decisions in their lives, to stand up for what they believe in.

Finally, I have clearly explained my argument on the subject, and very little of you or your mannerisms until the moment you were ranting and going :crazyeye::eek::mad: at me with these circular smear posts:scared:. I knew you went over that line and this would become over the top. I explained and defended my positions, and your questions have already been answered in my previous posts and more so with my last. Anyone looking into supporting or playing this mod should be able to make a rational decision. They don't need to get lost in a back and forth. I have probably caused more publicity for this silly idea than anyone posting in it. :gripe:

* look it up

Dvalin, you should have stopped when you had your chance.

From the beginning...

I'll say it first: just too much for a game. This is not the way to educate people about the history or cruelty of slavery.
For you it's too much, for others it's too little not to include slavery to the game.

It is one way to educate people about history and slavery, and it has been done before.
It wouldn't be in Civilization or any game so it's irrelevant...imagine if the Civ4 1939 scenario had a slave feature like this...Your point being what?

I did answer your question, the answer was I would not go about it in any way at all within the game...at least not to the extent suggested here. So you answered the question and everybody should just shut up now? :lol:
The slavery function in Civilization is nothing compared to the implication of an advanced slavery system in Colonization, mod or not. In Civ the slavery tech is like ancient Egyptian slaves of the pharaoh building the pyramids, at least it's your own people.So it's better to slave your own people than others?

What's the difference between let's say building pyramids with your own people than using jews as work force in slave camps?
Of course I don't have to download the mod, I just think it's in bad taste.EXACTLY.

For you whole thing is about "bad taste" and you are right, those who don't like the idea don't have to download the mod. Everybody ends up being happy.
I think everyone understands quite easily that slavery is wrong, they don't need a video game to enlighten them. Not to be sharp about it, I just can't help but see it this way ;)Well, you certainly aren't sharp about it, rather dull in fact. ;)

What exactly is your position?

That slavery is wrong A) it doesn't need to be told to anyone B) It needs to be told but game or mod is wrong platform to do it?

Make up your mind.

Colonization is a cartoonish way to go about this 'noble' thing you think you would be doing...Noble?

I think it's rather sensible thing add such feature as slavery since it did shape the whole process of the colonization of New World.

Or what next? Do you have also great moral dilemma of playing war games where people die.

if we go by your logic I guess representing anything historical in a game it's appropriate....It depends how historically accurate you want to be. And if you add it to the game it is approriate to add the teachings of those things to the game.
The first mistake here is the suggestion that players should be able sail to Africa specifically to buy slaves, that sounds pretty racist to me...Oh, and attacking native settlements and looting their villages isn't problematic. :mischief:

Strange that in your perfect world of video games there isn't ANY PROBLEM FOR YOU that spanish get extra advantages of attacking Native settlements.
If you are so big in MORALS Isn't that bit problematic for you?

Come on, the shallowness of your point really makes me laugh. :lol:
why would you put that in a game? Teaching history is a poor, poor excuse. Like I said, should the 1939 scenario have a custom improvement: slave-labour camp? Every turn it loses 25% of it's strength and has to be replenished from working the slaves to death...How about fire bombing of opponent city which destroys it citizens and work force?

Not a problem. :confused:

It's completely the opposite my friend...people learn about slavery in school, a documentary, on the internet, or sometimes in movies. This is different from a game where the objective is to win and have fun, and anyone who knows anything about slavery knows it's wrong but that it's beneficial to the perpetrator. Anyone who needs to learn about slavery through a video game shouldn't have had their head on the desk so much in school. This notion that not including an explicit slavery system in a video game like Colonization or in a mod is somehow "clouding" or "denying" the history of slavery is a total joke. Someone foolishly mentioned the Holocaust, which is not in Civilization, or any commercial game AFAIK. Does this mean all these evil game companies are denying it happened? Get a grip!Get a grip yourself.

You should REALLY look around that GAMES are used as teaching tools even to the smallest of children nowadays in many places even IN SCHOOL.

If Civilization or Colonization aren't such games then what are?
That's you and your child...hey that's fine. However, that's still a silly argument, as hard as you try to word it elaborately. You really think a child is going to play a colorful video game like Colonization and extract some kind of moral lesson from it, especially from one minor aspect? They can but apparently you wouldn't give such chance.

MINOR ASPECT? :eek:
That is fantasy and you should know better. Unless you are sitting there explaining all these things they do not understand without that dissemination you mentioned, they aren't going to see anything but one facet of the game. You mentioned shooter games, I'm sure you know about the desensitization to violence that can come with playing too much. That is because it's just a video game where the object is to try to win and have fun doing it. Put slavery into a game and the same effect applies, the virtual slaves become meaningless symbols in the game world used as a means to an end...like that laser gun. The player rarely if ever makes the connection between a soldier dying in a virtual world and one in the real, same with virtual slaves. No offense, but from a rational standpoint I find it hard to take this argument seriously...No it's your argument that is failing.

The point was that if the element of slavery is used as teaching tool rather than just one aspect of economics people might learn something out of it.

I don't know how this got to the subject of young children in the first place as imo Civ/Col are teen-adult level games. Anywho it doesn't matter if I have kids, do you? I've been around kids in my family and of my friends often, but that's irrelevant....It's rather irrelevant since you cannot make up your mind is Civ/Col about teens or kids and who can learn things.

I bet that Colonization is played by people of many ages and for them learning about slavery and REAL HISTORY is way to go.

Add it as dynamic playable element and use it as platform to tell the background of why and how it happened.
This is one big distortion you are presenting, it sounds to me like you don't know much about the minds of children. The unlikely possibility of parents assisting in the learning process aside, children don't make the same interpretations as we do given their lack of perspective. Unless you make this theoretical slavery feature barely noticeable at all or you make the negative effects of the choice blatantly obvious, it's not going to click.No idea what you are saying here.

In Civ it was ok as barely noticeable element but after you add it as more important element people (still you claim it's "minor" sometimes? :confused:) aren't prepared to notice why it could be wrong?

And whole point of the "click"-effect is at the same time to use it as teaching tool.
Considering slavery was profitable and effective in its day, it is unrealistic to over nerf it and pointless just to make a point or 'teach' history. While you might learn something about wilderness survival in The Oregon Trail or something about urban planning in SimCity, hands on slavery is a pretty stupid way to learn about it. WTF?

"Hands on slavery is pretty stupid way to learn about it"

That's your poor excuse for an argument? Are you serious?

Other games can teach things but this game not?
This game is complex by most standards, to be played by a majority of older teens and adults. The entire argument that somehow making slavery a prominent feature in the game is educational or beneficial to children or anyone is simply ludicrous. The bottom line is it is an excuse, a justification. A much better excuse would be simply that it was a crucial aspect of the colonization era and would add a new dynamic to the game. I still disagree with any level of implementation suggested here, but let's be honest about this.And now you are saying GOOD EXCUSE to add slavery to the game is it by making noticeable and important element to the game but it cannot teach anyone anything. :lol:

Like I made a point that you didn't have any real definition for your argument and I was right.

You're hanging yourself here.
That's pretty vague, what does it say about me? That I am an idiot and you know what you're talking about? Come on...get over yourself. Obviously this is just a weak cover story for the fact that you can no longer rationally defend your support for this ridiculous idea. If this is such a great idea with educational benefits, there would be more people clamoring for it and backing you up on it. :rolleyes:There are probably more people in this thread alone favoring the idea than going against it.

It's your idea that is ridiculous especially since it's unclear WTF it is actually that why you are against it. Only thing clear is that you are against it and use any possible excuse to make everyone supporting the view somehow being wrong.
That Historic Canada game is obviously meant to teach history, with voice overs explaining what you see in the 'game'. Civilization, where you can learn some bits of history along the way with a little perspective and background, is not like that. Just the same as if there was a game 'Historic World War II' that did the same thing, it's not going to have the same effect as say playing Company of Heroes which would be the equivalent relationship between 'Historic Canada' and Civilization: Colonization.Oh, God. Yes. We always need "voice overs" in order to learn something about slavery and to make it really "historical game". People don't know how to read or go look out for extra information from the net nowadays. It's ok as an excuse to add slavery as some theoretical design but as long as it won't try to teach anything. :crazyeye:
So there are 1-2 exceptions here on these boards of people who claim they were a prodigy and playing games specifically enlightened them about slavery. This is irrelevant in comparison to the masses, the majority of the population. A grand total of 4 people have voiced support for this mod, amazing!And total of something like 10 people were interested about Colonization mod way back when Civilization IV came out but now they are making game out of it.

Thing is that because of insensitive moralists that want to play "fun and entertaining" games without themselves ever encountering moral dilemmas is that why these very games aren't considered good teaching tools.
@C~G: I learned a lot about slavery, its beginnings, the practice, and its after effects. It's a travesty for you to tell others what they know about history when you're only making assumptions. No, it's actually you who is making those assumptions, others are trying to concentrate into real undertakings and trying to show that GAMES are used as TEACHING TOOLS and why it would be good idea ESPECIALLY with things like slavery that was essential element of colonization.
@I am simply standing up for the only rational conclusion I can make in regards to a mod centered on slavery and the civil war.:lol:
And your "rational conclusion" that you cannot base it into anything but your "it's bad"-feeling and "games are for fun only" is the only real thing around here?
@Silly 'feel good' arguments coming from folks like CyberChrist don't hold water in the real world. You don't make a game or modification assuming families are going to have an in depth talk about it as some bizarre justification for its insensitive content.And this is the final summation of your whole "rational conclusion and argument".

You think slavery is insenstive content and claim others base their opinion into "feel good" arguments when it's you who is insensitive to show people REAL HISTORY and not some washed up crap without pain and suffering and also the morals of the subject.
@C~G: That was a sad response, but since you tried so hard I guess you win :rolleyes:Yes, our side of the argument wins by miles. You didn' have anything but few lines and then your own "conclusion" that you had defended your point well. When in reality we're in Berlin and your officers are thinking of burning your body outside the bunker. :lol:
History as a grand concept to me is not one-dimensional and I believe the underlying problem here is the lack of understanding for different ways of viewing and treating history.And apparently your view of the history FOR GAMES is the only and right one?
There's a good chance that most who support the explicit slavery mod idea view history as 'it is what it is'. I would describe my point of view as 'history happens only once, it must be respected'. You can't change history, we all know this. I will preempt any baloney and say that suggesting that I want to alter history or suppress any aspect of it is folly. History is important to teach so we can learn from the mistakes and triumphs of the past. No.

We're making history right now and without learning how things COULD HAVE happened in the past we cannot change the future either.

You're saying first that history is some grand thing that can be seen from many perspectives but at the same time it's like you want to dismiss all the dynamics that affect the relations between different things, why different decisions are made and example to make show to people how slavery is partly the reason we are here right now discussing the very notion of it.

How to go about doing that is the point of argument hereYes, for you it's about not having fun but about dusty "serious" books. The days have changed my brother, kids need new tools and toys to learn about history. Game like Colonization is one of them.
The 'it is what it is' or 'anything goes' thinkers tend to feel that any method, outlet, or medium for teaching history is fair and appropriate--even if it is slavery or worse. Of course context is important in determining how tasteful a presentation of history is, but from my pov there are certain areas in history that deserve more respect.And who are you to decide what is that which needs more respect?

So I played game of Steel Panthers back in the days and example my countrymen, finnish soldiers, died in the game just by removing small icon of man from the squad. Is that moral?
When you open a history book or website the information is usually presented in a respectful, factual, and chronological manner, sometimes with side notes and photographs. You learn history in a realistic and academic way. When you play a video game, it's like watching (semi)fictional movie or playing a board game. Of course you can learn things including history through entertainment, at times that is an important function of it.And what exactly is why it cannot be an important function in Colonization? Why the exception here?...:confused:
However, a video game is a toy, albeit a complex one often intended for adult audiences. You don't toy around with the painful legacies of slavery, the holocaust, or poisoning or 'drugging' native populations in a commercial product.Yeah, I know.

Do you know why?

Because people don't want to know about those things and block their head way off from the experience that they are raping, pillaging and destroying other people to get their nation independent. That's why.

Problem with it is that it's the historical truth.

Could you explain why example it can be done to natives but not to african born?
Do so in a third party mod and on your head be it. This is the core of my argument. Fight the battle of Waterloo, conquer or liberate Europe in WWII, launch the first crusades, fine! Most of history is appropriate to be portrayed in games as there is no large swath of population to offend or disrespect so long as these subjects are treated with reasonable accuracy.Problem with that is then big population won't ever really go put their head through those things but think them just "minor things".

That's why Civilization feels entertainment and not more accurate history which reveals the beast within the mankind which would be the way to show what we and our societies are really made of.

I support games and mods that really go deeper to the history and show also the nasty stuff because that's the way to learn and comprehend the history. I understand why for commercial reasons as many people see these games just "packages of fun" such features as slavery isn't necessarily added but example it's utterly strange why it would be so for any other reason than that the people hypocrites (the dilemma with natives) and also because people don't to face the real history of mankind.
Go in public somewhere and poll some people with the question "Do you think it is appropriate to portray global slavery of the 16th-18th centuries in a computer game in a historical context?" I wouldn't expect the results to be slanted too far either way but the results would certainly be interesting. I'm sure you would have very different answers from those who have a more personal connection to the history of slavery because of their background and heritage.But, but...
Add to the question the notion of using it as "teaching tool" and the answer WILL BE different. Especially with those that have background of slavery.

So your argument falls apart.
Bottom line is it's just not a tasteful idea, the educational argument for including slavery explicitly within Colonization or subsequent modifications I will say again is a weak one. Kids shouldn't/don't need this or any other game to learn about slavery, they will learn about it long before hearing about let alone playing Colonization or this mod. Adults who don't already know about slavery by now are an enigma. The 'educational' you're trying to censor history! argument is a poor excuse for the idea of an explicit slavery mod. History should be respected not treated like a game! You can bake your cake and eat it too, nobody will stop you, but that doesn't stop me or anyone else from criticizing it, harshly.You can criticize it all the way if you want and I'll will be there to criticize your view and will tell all people how wonderful this idea it is.

This is the way of the digital world to teach people about history. Especially it's great starting point or encouraging feature search for more information about the subject.
Edit: The justifications argued for the mod here have been subjective, it's nothing less than bias to say that my opinion against it is any more subjective than the opinion for it. I have already thoroughly debunked the 'educational' argument for it.You haven't debunked nothing unless it's your own argument and showing why it exactly could be good idea use it as more of teaching tool rather than add it just as an element or treat it like it never happened.

BTW, I know what kind of your answer will be. You will say how greatly you have defined your point and how harshly you have been treated in this thread. So if that's it, please let it be.

Knowledge might mean more pain but truth will surely free you.
Otherwise the game will be real fantasy and you shouldn't call it never to be something like of "rewriting history with your own choices if you aren't allowed even such choice", let alone the effects of the choices and their aftermath.

It's really sad to see someone who thinks everything is neutral, there's 'good' and 'bad' things to everything. Do you think there were real good and bad things about slavery? It is all a matter of opinion, and let those who speak up be judged for it.
Who said anything about Slavery being either neutral, good or bad? You are reading a meaning into to a context that was never there.

Once again your post says more about you than about anyone/anything else. Sadly it also failed completely to counter any of the points in my post with anything but more subjective opinions and hot air.

I fear I was a fool to even try debating this with you a second time - rest assured there won't be a third attempt.

Who said anything about Slavery being either neutral, good or bad? You are reading a meaning into to a context that was never there.

Once again your post says more about you than about anyone/anything else. Sadly it also failed completely to counter any of the points in my post with anything but more subjective opinions and hot air.

I fear I was a fool to even try debating this with you a second time - rest assured there won't be a third attempt.

You're using argumentation as an argument against me and that doesn't work or make sense, you are dodging the point. Why aren't responding, because you can't? Slavery is bad. Why do you have a problem with agreeing? Obviously cause you've made up your mind to disagree with me no matter what I say.

On topic then when(if) you include a concept like Slavery in a game like Civ/Col, a good way of doing it would be to give the player a personal experience of why a nation might want to engage in slavery (benefits), why a nation might NOT want to engage in slavery (disadvantages) - and ultimately why slavery is wrong and should be fought whenever encountered (morals).This is the best and perfect explanation why it should be added along with that slavery is ESSENTIAL for explaining the history of the New World.

Come to think of it, I might even not play the game before this kind of mod with slavery comes out.

Since with out it, it's grand distortion of the reality of the truth and designed for the weak minded, opium for the masses disregarding real history.

Dvalin, you should have stopped when you had your chance.

:scared:

You say a lot but it adds up to meaning little ;) That seems to be your strategy, say as much about anything and everything to fluff up your counter-arguments.

From the beginning...


For you it's too much, for others it's too little not to include slavery to the game.

Your educational system must be failing if it's too little for people not to include explicit slave use and abuse in a computer game. Maybe out there you need complicated commercial strategy games to teach children or teens about slavery...again my opinion is (stop devaluing opinions to be nothing:rolleyes:) that this is an excuse not a realistic justification for the general mod idea. Surely, Civilization/Colonization are not here just to teach people history. Do you have any other reasoning besides this?

It is one way to educate people about history and slavery, and it has been done before.

Being from Finland and treating slavery as indifferently as 'just another part of history to teach' it's clear you do not have perspective like those who live here in the USA, a country with a very personal history of slavery.

So you answered the question and everybody should just shut up now? :lol:
So it's better to slave your own people than others?

I already answered questions you demand answers to, so you should maybe not try to smother me with you redundant points and exaggerated accusations. That is why I have not taken some of your posts so seriously, as you have mine. Don't deny it either, you can't stand every comment I make and quote every last one like I am sadly doing now.

While it is unclear whether the men who built the great pyramids were really slaves or not, there is a difference. Slaves from the 15th-17th centuries were forcibly removed from their homelands to have their lives turned into a living hell of servitude with (in most cases) the most meager of provisions, poor shelter, and almost no freedom to advance themselves for their entire lives. They were bred and raised to be human machines to slave away under the direction of their master. Only a lucky few would at least live with their master.

What's the difference between let's say building pyramids with your own people than using jews as work force in slave camps?

If you can't see the difference then you need :help:. First of all, an obvious difference is the nazi racial policy, ie. starving and working Jews to death not just because they 'needed' the labor but to kill off those Jews. Second of all, if the men who built the pyramids were slaves in the way we understand it, that is not a good thing and I did not say it was good but that it is not the worst case.

For you whole thing is about "bad taste" and you are right, those who don't like the idea don't have to download the mod. Everybody ends up being happy.

Except those who are offended may not be happy with it...people have morals and standards, and you expect them not to speak up? You think it is a just and moral purpose being done 'teaching' about slavery through these means and you feel compelled to speak loudly about it. Yet you completely misunderstand my motivations to do the same on behalf of myself and people I know?

What exactly is your position?

:dubious: :sleep:

That slavery is wrong

Don't you agree?

A) it doesn't need to be told to anyone

It doesn't need to be explicitly simulated in a game.

B) It needs to be told but game or mod is wrong platform to do it?

Yes, to me it is the wrong platform.

Make up your mind.

I have, it's both A and B. Where were you? :mischief:

I think it's rather sensible thing add such feature as slavery since it did shape the whole process of the colonization of New World.

It depends on how it is added and how much. I still would not download it, but a feature where you have a minor bonus in one place and setback in the other from implementing slavery is not as offensive as sailing to Africa to staff your tobacco plantation.

Or what next? Do you have also great moral dilemma of playing war games where people die.

In most cases those that are dying are soldiers meant to fight with advanced knowledge of what they are getting in to. We could explore this further specifically but there is no comparison between soldiers and slaves.

It depends how historically accurate you want to be. And if you add it to the game it is approriate to add the teachings of those things to the game.
Oh, and attacking native settlements and looting their villages isn't problematic. :mischief:

If you are referring to Civ (barb villages) this is no comparison to the activities of global slavery in the 15th-17th centuries. It is problematic from a moral standpoint if the looters are Spaniards and the natives are Aztec and Inca. If this is something prevalent in Colonization, hopefully those playing contemplate the real history. I don't find this to be likely rather I think it does just the opposite, makes a game out of mistreating civilians. I will still buy Colonization and play it, as there is more to the game than that.

Strange that in your perfect world of video games there isn't ANY PROBLEM FOR YOU that spanish get extra advantages of attacking Native settlements.
If you are so big in MORALS Isn't that bit problematic for you?

Do you have a problem with morals? It's not a perfect world but we can always try rather than give up. Is that a feature of Colonization, Spain has a bonus against natives? The immorality of the slave trade and the abuse and conquest of South America by the Spanish are similar, but at least in Colonization AFAIK the natives can fight back. The actual ideas for the simulation of explicit slavery in this mod have not been debated enough.

Come on, the shallowness of your point really makes me laugh. :lol:
How about fire bombing of opponent city which destroys it citizens and work force?

There is a line to be drawn, warfare is fun to simulate in games, that is obvious. I have no issue with war games, I like to play them too. In Civ the bombers damage military units, you can't bomb workers. It is purposefully generic and impersonal the way war is simulated in Civ, the suggestions for simulating slavery in this thread are not. I think your point is shallow and lacking empathy, especially your straw men comparisons of the Spanish conquests/inquisition, the Holocaust, and carpet bombing.

Get a grip yourself.

You should REALLY look around that GAMES are used as teaching tools even to the smallest of children nowadays in many places even IN SCHOOL.

Those games aren't like Colonization, they are usually made for teaching. They usually aren't commercial games like most leisure gamers play.

The point was that if the element of slavery is used as teaching tool rather than just one aspect of economics people might learn something out of it.

Again, the idea that they 'might' learn something is not enough of an excuse to me, but we could agree to disagree.

I bet that Colonization is played by people of many ages and for them learning about slavery and REAL HISTORY is way to go.

Real history as opposed to what? Isn't real history what really happened not a game's interpretation or alternate possibilities? It takes a video game to learn real history? Please! :rolleyes:

Add it as dynamic playable element and use it as platform to tell the background of why and how it happened.
No idea what you are saying here.

The game doesn't disseminate historical information in this way, telling background stories (real history) or explaining why and how. It puts the player in a historical setting with features resembling history, to create your own results for fun and challenge. In Civilization you may learn that the Augustus Caesar was a leader of Rome and that Praetorian were a special Roman force, but you don't learn that slaves were a large margin of the population. Any civ can use slaves, but this is irrelevant as the slavery civic is not the same as explicitly simulating the 15th-17th century slave trade in Colonization.

In Civ it was ok as barely noticeable element but after you add it as more important element people (still you claim it's "minor" sometimes? :confused:) aren't prepared to notice why it could be wrong?

You take the 'minor aspect' comment completely out of context. It was in correlation with my comment that to be morally sound and respectful of real history, the explicit slavery feature would have to be minor and unimportant or complicated with artificial drawbacks.

And whole point of the "click"-effect is at the same time to use it as teaching tool.

"Hands on slavery is pretty stupid way to learn about it"

That's your poor excuse for an argument? Are you serious?

Other games can teach things but this game not?
And now you are saying GOOD EXCUSE to add slavery to the game is it by making noticeable and important element to the game but it cannot teach anyone anything. :lol:

The 'hands-on' educational "it's for kids" argument is over, the debate has been done and it is dead, is there any other excuse?

Like I made a point that you didn't have any real definition for your argument and I was right.

I've been defining my argument more than necessary, but you continue pretending you cannot comprehend it.

You're hanging yourself here.
There are probably more people in this thread alone favoring the idea than going against it.

You can look at it as glass half full, but it is only natural that more people posting support the OP idea than speak against it. More people are indifferent than anything.

It's your idea that is ridiculous especially since it's unclear WTF it is actually that why you are against it. Only thing clear is that you are against it and use any possible excuse to make everyone supporting the view somehow being wrong.

If it's still unclear by now you're either lying or incredibly dim :crazyeye:. The idea is morally wrong to me, not factually wrong, since this is a matter of opinion.

Oh, God. Yes. We always need "voice overs" in order to learn something about slavery and to make it really "historical game". People don't know how to read or go look out for extra information from the net nowadays. It's ok as an excuse to add slavery as some theoretical design but as long as it won't try to teach anything. :crazyeye:

A pikeman slaughtering a Horse Archer doesn't teach anything about history, nor does whipping those last few turns on a wonder. It is all very minor, you exaggerate the historical learning argument way out of proportion.

Thing is that because of insensitive moralists that want to play "fun and entertaining" games without themselves ever encountering moral dilemmas is that why these very games aren't considered good teaching tools.

Do you really think games are better than classrooms and textbooks? The 'teaching tool' video game connection is weak. War is a moral dilemma, but nobody faces one when their axeman is destroyed by a crossbowman.

You think slavery is insenstive content and claim others base their opinion into "feel good" arguments when it's you who is insensitive to show people REAL HISTORY and not some washed up crap without pain and suffering and also the morals of the subject.

It's a game. People don't need a game to show them real history, you act like the only way to learn history is through video games and omitting anything is a crime against humanity.

Yes, our side of the argument wins by miles. You didn' have anything but few lines and then your own "conclusion" that you had defended your point well. When in reality we're in Berlin and your officers are thinking of burning your body outside the bunker.

"Our" side of the argument huh? I don't need anyone else to chime in for me, because I can argue my case all on my own and I know there are many who would agree with me. People outside of the gamer bubble.

I don't know what to say about the Berlin comment other than it is bizarre and nonsensical.

And apparently your view of the history FOR GAMES is the only and right one?

People can make up the own minds but anyone is free to offer up their view on it--which I have chosen to do.

We're making history right now and without learning how things COULD HAVE happened in the past we cannot change the future either.

Anyone who learns about slavery and still doesn't believe it shouldn't have happened or doesn't understand that it could have been prevented needs :help:

You're saying first that history is some grand thing that can be seen from many perspectives but at the same time it's like you want to dismiss all the dynamics that affect the relations between different things, why different decisions are made and example to make show to people how slavery is partly the reason we are here right now discussing the very notion of it.

Again, people don't need a game to learn about slavery nor will they ever. Is your last comment some sort of suggestive justification for the real slavery of the past?

Yes, for you it's about not having fun but about dusty "serious" books. The days have changed my brother, kids need new tools and toys to learn about history. Game like Colonization is one of them.

You are saying the exact same thing again. They don't need Colonization to learn, even if there is a slight chance they will learn a few things in between conquering and settling the new world. I still don't buy it.

And who are you to decide what is that which needs more respect?

Who are you to decide that all events in history are fair game to be taught in any context or through any means? People make moral judgments and set standards for themselves, and promote those standards. It's called doing what you think is right.

So I played game of Steel Panthers back in the days and example my countrymen, finnish soldiers, died in the game just by removing small icon of man from the squad. Is that moral?
And what exactly is why it cannot be an important function in Colonization? Why the exception here?...:confused:

They were soldiers doing their duty, not helpless civilians forced into bondage or massacred to make room for colonists. There is no comparison here.

Because people don't want to know about those things and block their head way off from the experience that they are raping, pillaging and destroying other people to get their nation independent. That's why.

Same goes for war games, right? The problem is you think implementing the raping and pillaging will help teach people that it is wrong, whereas I believe it will further desensitize people to it.

Problem with it is that it's the historical truth.

It should be respected, not put into a game to be used as a means to an end.

Could you explain why example it can be done to natives but not to african born?

Africans, native Mesoamericans, native Americans, it doesn't matter it's wrong any way you slice it. The reason why I use the African slave trade as my prime example is it is a well known part of slavery history.

That's why Civilization feels entertainment and not more accurate history which reveals the beast within the mankind which would be the way to show what we and our societies are really made of.

This is something you can come up with in a long drawn out argument like we have in this thread, but do you really think these are the things that cross the minds of players as they are playing?

I support games and mods that really go deeper to the history and show also the nasty stuff because that's the way to learn and comprehend the history. I understand why for commercial reasons as many people see these games just "packages of fun" such features as slavery isn't necessarily added but example it's utterly strange why it would be so for any other reason than that the people hypocrites (the dilemma with natives) and also because people don't to face the real history of mankind.

But, but...
Add to the question the notion of using it as "teaching tool" and the answer WILL BE different. Especially with those that have background of slavery.

Again, you must be special learning and comprehending so much from video games, I guess school was obsolete for you? Games are meant to be fun, the goal is to win and feel good about how you did it. You place too much stock in games as some sort of wonder teaching tool, I find it utterly strange myself.


So your argument falls apart.

I'm not seeing this, as much as you say it over and over.

This is the way of the digital world to teach people about history. Especially it's great starting point or encouraging feature search for more information about the subject.

That is as optimistic as one could be about the simulation of slavery in a game, I find it highly unrealistic and hard to believe.

You haven't debunked nothing unless it's your own argument and showing why it exactly could be good idea use it as more of teaching tool rather than add it just as an element or treat it like it never happened.

I'm tired of addressing the same two points to no end. "It's a teaching tool" and "opposing it is to censor history"

BTW, I know what kind of your answer will be. You will say how greatly you have defined your point and how harshly you have been treated in this thread. So if that's it, please let it be.

I have defined it over and over, which you deny over and over...that is why I have to remind you. The difference between you and I is you have treated me harshly with insinuations (you admitted it already) whereas I have tried to stay focused on the moral rationale and debunking the 'educational' argument.

Knowledge might mean more pain but truth will surely free you.

What are you talking about? What knowledge/truth? I already learned about slavery and it wasn't through a video game. This is so over the top :lol:

Otherwise the game will be real fantasy and you shouldn't call it never to be something like of "rewriting history with your own choices if you aren't allowed even such choice", let alone the effects of the choices and their aftermath.

We disagree on the useful functions of video games, it's a matter of opinion, really. A mixture of history and entertainment is normal for games, for that reason it is crossing the line to take that mixture and add sensitive aspects like slavery so explicitly.

:nuke:

Well at least you gave a decent answer. :)

I will answer back later in more detail to your point, I'm in kind of hurry currently.

For now I can only say that your approach towards video games is one dimensional and the line you draw which aspects of history should be implented is extremely random.

You have no problem adding other elements that many can easily see as morally wrong as slavery (even other kinds of slavery) but you seem to draw the line whenever you want.

And I have attacked your character and it's very much because the way you presented your case from the start. From moral high horse and thinking that games couldn't be ever to be used as teaching tools. And you have been saying this point has somehow already addressed when IT'S NOT. In your mind maybe but others like plenty of actual history teachers don't agree with you and I even gave you one example. You didn't bother even answer it, just regarded it some kind of "different game" than Civilization.

As said you want the Disney version but plenty of others want the real version. Not because they so much like the slavery but because they want to know what history in those days was about.

But what is problematic and extremely strange how you miss the part where you attack other people and their stance and represent their character as immoral (now you even mention that me being from Finland is somehow clear disadvantage when compared your being from US. You probably understand that because of that very fact your opinion is very much subjective and I might be able to be more objective? :D). And unfortunately non of my points have been strawmen but quite important questions regarding the line drawing of what is immoral for computer games and whatnot. It seems you aren't ready to debate that issue but claim (which you don't hold as only your opinion but as fact that others just have to comply with) slavery regarding this specific scenario differs from all the other aspects of possible inhumane cruelty shown in games and that's why it's immoral and not useful to be added as element.

I can tell you why right now slavery isnt' part of the game. That is because in US the slavery is touchy subject and people want to close their eyes from it that their country might be build by the blood, sweat and tears of others. That's the cold truth and it's very unfortunate people need to escape such historical facts when they play video game that is about writing your own history and creating your own nation. I know you will be against this saying they learn about it in school but then it rises the question why on earth it cannot be part of the game if they know it's wrong? Why they cannot do their own decisions do they use slaves or not in their own colonization? Is there any other reason than it's not popular? NO and you haven't been able to even close convince anyone otherwise. Actually your own argument is totally based into the idea that this particular slavery is wrong to ever be part of the game and should be also mentioned in school while others seem to see the problem with that choice. The most important being that if computer game that is about COLONIZATION of the new world doesn't have slavery element it's like driving car in a rally game without front wheels.

That is the dilemma with your argument that I don't simply comprehend. You might say it's only my thick head but if you look closely it doesn't make sense to oppose adding slavery if people know why it's wrong if other similar (like slaughtering natives and destroying whole tribes! :eek:) is there but then adding any kind of teaching element to it, isn't in your opinion good because the game is for fun. So it's ok to kill natives for fun, looting them for gold to build up a nation (without any historical lesson or use it as teaching tool!) but slavering blacks from Africa is wrong? What the heck is with that?

I feel compelled to say I see the destruction and enslavement of natives and your total disregard for those facts as complete absurdity when thinking you're so wholeheartedly against adding slavery to the game.

IMHO if you use history as entertainment the least you can do is add learning experience to the mix including morals which makes the game not only richer but also fairer to the people of those who had to suffer in order to others being able to continue build up their dreams.

The most hurting element of your post is that you deny the immorality of killing of human being even though a soldier that has been just ordered go to front line or the human civilian casualty of raped or bombed city just in order to get your precious little point across how bad slavery is. It makes me sick really. Strange how those that are so big moralists are always so small on morals after all. Hypocrisy in action.

As said in more detail laterz, if you still have any teeth left. :cool:

(BTW, you should maybe check into Offtopic-forum here and tell people that C~G is immoral jerk and they will most likely laugh their bottoms off. :lol:)

As said in more detail laterz, if you still have any teeth left. :cool:

I'm smiling with a full set :goodjob:

And I have attacked your character and it's very much because the way you presented your case from the start. From moral high horse and thinking that games couldn't be ever to be used as teaching tools. And you have been saying this point has somehow already addressed when IT'S NOT. In your mind maybe but others like plenty of actual history teachers don't agree with you and I even gave you one example. You didn't bother even answer it, just regarded it some kind of "different game" than Civilization.

The 'high horse' accusation is pretty typical of anti-moral gray area folks like yourself. You don't agree with the blunt definitions of right and wrong presented to you so you go after the person over the premise.

You have no problem adding other elements that many can easily see as morally wrong as slavery (even other kinds of slavery) but you seem to draw the line whenever you want.

I draw the line somewhere, not willy nilly. You don't seem to draw it anywhere!

We could go in circles a few more times arguing about 'educational teaching tools', or games as you call them--but that really would be redundant. Firstly I will say I'm offended that you would insinuate the USA was built "by the blood, sweat and tears of others", which is as a general description simply false. Obviously you have anti-American feelings on your mind and here they come out. History teachers may or may not agree with me but there you go trying to represent people without their actual input. I'm sure there would be a fine line with many of them between a game like Colonization simulating explicit slavery and 'Historic Canada'.

I have defined my moral rationale against the specific topic of the thread five times over. It's time to agree to disagree over the appropriate uses of commercial games, you think anything goes, I say no to some things. I won't continue arguing about it as there is nothing left to argue, anything more is just a reiteration of what's already been said.

But what is problematic and extremely strange how you miss the part where you attack other people and their stance and represent their character as immoral

Attacking someone's viewpoints is not the same as attacking the person's image or insulting their intelligence. You are obviously quite accustomed to taking that approach. If someone supports an immoral act or idea, they are not bad people, but they are making a bad choice and promoting that bad choice. I am not stating that I am right like you have done a handful of times, I am explaining why your characterization of my argument as being personal attacks is false.

(BTW, you should maybe check into Offtopic-forum here and tell people that C~G is immoral jerk and they will most likely laugh their bottoms off. :lol:)

I don't plan to visit the Off-Topic forum because unlike yourself who must live or work here one of the two, I don't have the time or patience to accumulate thousands of posts to brag about later. Maybe that makes you more subjective, and me more objective? It's probably neither, both in this case and the US-Finland point. However, it's only logical that since your history is sparse with the legacy of slavery, your perspective is doomed to be too objective. You don't quite understand the brutal realness of slavery. Your comment that you may not even buy the game until there is a way to have explicitly simulated slavery says enough about your perspective on the real history of slavery. Even more hysterical than anything thus far is your terribly flawed comparisons between slavery and soldiery!

It's pretty desperate to say:

The most hurting element of your post is that you deny the immorality of killing of human being even though a soldier that has been just ordered go to front line or the human civilian casualty of raped or bombed city just in order to get your precious little point across how bad slavery is. It makes me sick really. Strange how those that are so big moralists are always so small on morals after all. Hypocrisy in action.

This isn't 'hurting' because it's a fallacious claim through and through. It contradicts my actual words completely. You were the one making useless comparisons between carpet bombing and slavery when I pointed out that for good reason, workers can't be bombed in Civ IV. These comparisons you pull out of thin air are irrelevant to the specific topic. Anyone who thinks bombing civilians or destroying native peoples is justified and slavery isn't, would be totally nuts. Do you really think I am that stupid or is it just too good of a smear to pass up? The topic is slavery: slavery.

It is a strawman to say that since I am not often mentioning other immoral aspects of the colonization period that I think they are moral or okay. Suggesting that I don't think the Spanish conquest/colonization of Incan/Aztec lands and the displacement/destruction of Indian tribes by colonial America were full of wrong doing and utterly immoral acts is just grasping at straws. It's not a witty point either. I have yet to play Colonization like everybody else nor do I know much about it's features. If I find it to be insensitive and biased, I will cross that bridge when I get there but not in this thread. You are just trying to paint me as a hypocrite as it's one of the few convenient angles you can exploit and skew.

Actually your own argument is totally based into the idea that this particular slavery is wrong to ever be part of the game and should be also mentioned in school while others seem to see the problem with that choice. The most important being that if computer game that is about COLONIZATION of the new world doesn't have slavery element it's like driving car in a rally game without front wheels.

Actually the African slave trade is just my prime example in the argument. Saying a game about the colonization of the 'new world' must have explicit simulation of slavery to be fair or accurate is like saying the Confederate flag has no racist overtones because 'it's just history'. History greets us in the present, it's a living/changing creature that affects us today, not just a museum piece to awe over. Certain areas deserve more respect than others, not to be toyed with in a game for everyone's amusement.

While I don't agree with all of the views of the infamous blogger who accused Colonization of being a racist enabler, I will quote him:

"A game about colonization that's entirely about controlling the settlers (or slaves) can either force the player to do horrific things or let him avoid doing it and whitewash some of the worst events of human history. Either option is offensive."

I think the problem with us history oriented gamers is we start to think everything is relative and lose individual perspective.

Your educational system must be failing if it's too little for people not to include explicit slave use and abuse in a computer game....Do you have any other reasoning besides this?Beside what?

Mod idea doesn't need justification, it just needs people to make it happen.

Surely there's line somewhere but it certainly is not an excuse if people want for historical accuracy to add the element to the game, let alone offer player both dynamic option to work with and also moral dilemma whether to use the slave system or not.

Example when I planned Colonization mod for Civilization, slaves were essential part of it and surely I would had included information about cruelty of slavery and everything else to the mod also.

So the main premise to add slavery into the Colonization game is historical approach which isn't white-washed to make people feel good.
Being from Finland and treating slavery as indifferently as 'just another part of history to teach' it's clear you do not have perspective like those who live here in the USA, a country with a very personal history of slavery.The most stupidest point ever.
I don't need to comment that one any further.
I already answered questions you demand answers to, so you should maybe not try to smother me with you redundant points and exaggerated accusations. That is why I have not taken some of your posts so seriously, as you have mine. Don't deny it either, you can't stand every comment I make and quote every last one like I am sadly doing now.Yes I cannot stand this crap because it wastes my time.

You haven't taken anyone's posts seriously from the beginning and it shows what is your tactic for debate. It's the same BS from the start which you repeat and repeat.

I'm not doing this for myself BTW but for the mod and also I speak for those who support the history element in these kinds of games and who want people to realize what slavery is even when they are playing these games.

Especially when slavery is so central for the whole concept of colonization of the New World.
While it is unclear whether the men who built the great pyramids were really slaves or not, there is a difference. Slaves from the 15th-17th centuries were forcibly removed from their homelands to have their lives turned into a living hell of servitude with (in most cases) the most meager of provisions, poor shelter, and almost no freedom to advance themselves for their entire lives. They were bred and raised to be human machines to slave away under the direction of their master. Only a lucky few would at least live with their masterWow, what a difference.

I laugh to that. :lol:

I suppose you could count that some kind of "advantage" for those serving the pharaos.

Talking of weakness of moral argument...
If you can't see the difference then you need :help:. Nope.

It's you who needs help.
First of all, an obvious difference is the nazi racial policy, ie. starving and working Jews to death not just because they 'needed' the labor but to kill off those Jews. Second of all, if the men who built the pyramids were slaves in the way we understand it, that is not a good thing and I did not say it was good but that it is not the worst case.Worst case?

So it's you who decides based into some "great moral table" which is the WORST.

I think other slaves would feel pretty offended by those claims.

Except those who are offended may not be happy with it...people have morals and standards, and you expect them not to speak up? You think it is a just and moral purpose being done 'teaching' about slavery through these means and you feel compelled to speak loudly about it. Yet you completely misunderstand my motivations to do the same on behalf of myself and people I know?No, the problem with between you and me is that you think game about history doesn't need such elements that were vital part of the period in it while at the same time showing that when it happened it was also WRONG.

For you it's better distort history in a game and make it look everything was alright as long as people enjoy the game and building up AMERICA if they just get the information from elsewhere.

Don't you agree?About slavery being wrong?

Yes, it was wrong during pharaos time and it was wrong to send sex slaves from caribians to Europe and it was wrong to sail blacks to sugar and cotton plantations and it was wrong to use jews and others as work force during Third Reich.

Isn't this the most obvious thing?
It doesn't need to be explicitly simulated in a game.
Yes, to me it is the wrong platform

I have, it's both A and B. Where were you? :mischief:.You didn't answer the question of whether it should be taught or not. I imagine yes but for you game based into history is wrong platform. Don't you have problem about the historical accuracy then if you are so history buff? And don't you think IT PRESENTS moral dilemma if IT ISN'T portrayed in historical scenario?
It depends on how it is added and how much. I still would not download it, but a feature where you have a minor bonus in one place and setback in the other from implementing slavery is not as offensive as sailing to Africa to staff your tobacco plantation.Well I don't need slave simulation where you can look into slaves eyes, hands and mouth before buying him/her to work for me.

For me and also in general for this kind of mod it's enough that at least player has ability to use slaves in the game of colonization. It doesn't mean he has to sail to Africa to get them but then again I don't see the difference or moral problem with it if it's ok to hunt down native tribal villages compared to sail to Africa.
In most cases those that are dying are soldiers meant to fight with advanced knowledge of what they are getting in to. We could explore this further specifically but there is no comparison between soldiers and slaves.Really?

Advanced knowledge of what? Dying and getting peppered with lead?

I find it most strange that slavery where person just works, maybe gets beaten once in a while and might not get decide what to do with his life differs from young man sent to the front and getting major headache from scrapnel while his inside stuffings get fixed by bajounette.

How you rate these actions in your "great scale of moral aptitude"?
If you are referring to Civ (barb villages) this is no comparison to the activities of global slavery in the 15th-17th centuries. It is problematic from a moral standpoint if the looters are Spaniards and the natives are Aztec and Inca. If this is something prevalent in Colonization, hopefully those playing contemplate the real history. I don't find this to be likely rather I think it does just the opposite, makes a game out of mistreating civilians. I will still buy Colonization and play it, as there is more to the game than that..Yes there is more to the game than slavery.

At this point you should notice how ridiculous your claim of slavery being so indifferent towards other aspects is.

But I bet you don't. Since apparently for you the only looters of New World were the spaniards.
Do you have a problem with morals? It's not a perfect world but we can always try rather than give up. Is that a feature of Colonization, Spain has a bonus against natives? The immorality of the slave trade and the abuse and conquest of South America by the Spanish are similar, but at least in Colonization AFAIK the natives can fight back. The actual ideas for the simulation of explicit slavery in this mod have not been debated enough.And other ideas have been?

How about the abuse and conquest of natives by other europeans?
There is a line to be drawn, warfare is fun to simulate in games, that is obvious. I have no issue with war games, I like to play them too. In Civ the bombers damage military units, you can't bomb workers. It is purposefully generic and impersonal the way war is simulated in Civ, the suggestions for simulating slavery in this thread are not. I think your point is shallow and lacking empathy, especially your straw men comparisons of the Spanish conquests/inquisition, the Holocaust, and carpet bombing.
It's not strawmen.

I think your knowledge of history is shallow if only problematic things happening in history are done by Spanish, Germans and Slave traders.

Simulating slavery happens in same fashion and in same level in this mod as the abuse and destruction of native tribes.
Those games aren't like Colonization, they are usually made for teaching. They usually aren't commercial games like most leisure gamers play.There are more historical accurate games and it seems Colonization has taken the Disney route which I example is against because it is against the history let alone forgets the sufferings of the slaves and also the WORK they put up so others could survive.
Again, the idea that they 'might' learn something is not enough of an excuse to me, but we could agree to disagree.So we agree to disagree.

And it's not an excuse neither it's the only reason as I explained but I think if slavery or attacking natives is added the LEAST you can do is at the same time try to teach something. Don't you agree?
Real history as opposed to what? Isn't real history what really happened not a game's interpretation or alternate possibilities? It takes a video game to learn real history? Please! :rolleyes:Real history is complex subject where you need to understand the dynamics that were involved.

It also has to show that example morals have changed over time which have allowed many people including former US presidents to have slaves in their disposal. This doesn't mean things like slavery isn't wrong as long as you stay in touch with your moral code.
The game doesn't disseminate historical information in this way, telling background stories (real history) or explaining why and how. It puts the player in a historical setting with features resembling history, to create your own results for fun and challenge. In Civilization you may learn that the Augustus Caesar was a leader of Rome and that Praetorian were a special Roman force, but you don't learn that slaves were a large margin of the population. Any civ can use slaves, but this is irrelevant as the slavery civic is not the same as explicitly simulating the 15th-17th century slave trade in Colonization.Really?

But tell me great teacher, what is game of COLONIZATION without slaves when regarding historical facts and the truth? Kind of big bag of sleazy lies don't ya think with butter and caramel on top of it to make it smell, feel and play nice?
You take the 'minor aspect' comment completely out of context. It was in correlation with my comment that to be morally sound and respectful of real history, the explicit slavery feature would have to be minor and unimportant or complicated with artificial drawbacks.So you don't think there are drawbacks to slavery?

Like say...that you are then depended on such work force that isn't free, that it imposes moral problem for the community and other nations might go against it (similar to that of game of Civilization) resulting problems with diplomacy, that slaves did bring fatal diseases from Africa and that example teaching slaves is or they might revolt against you? Are those artificial drawbacks or real drawbacks?

You're making it sound like it would be very difficult to do when you can just add bringing slaves from Africa to the shores of the New World just like you do with other colonists. They might be cheap (or not) and get bonus working outside etc.
The 'hands-on' educational "it's for kids" argument is over, the debate has been done and it is dead, is there any other excuse?It's not really dead.

The problem with you is that for you the game is toy game for adults. It's like something that never can give anything to the player but fun. And I'm against this view. I'm not saying it has to be ONLY teaching tool but it can be and show how example things like slavery happens in history if moral aspects aren't followed. It also gives player chance to explore it as possiblity or other options that don't need slavery.
I've been defining my argument more than necessary, but you continue pretending you cannot comprehend it.Well, it has so many weak points that I'm astounded someone can linger to such cardhouse so long. ;)
You can look at it as glass half full, but it is only natural that more people posting support the OP idea than speak against it. More people are indifferent than anything.That was your claim originally that there were so few people for it that it wasn't a worthwhile idea and that's why I showed you it's completely false statement.
If it's still unclear by now you're either lying or incredibly dim :crazyeye:. The idea is morally wrong to me, not factually wrong, since this is a matter of opinion.Still it escapes you how it's problematic for you to add it to the game as factual element and how it might be morally wrong not to add it.
A pikeman slaughtering a Horse Archer doesn't teach anything about history, nor does whipping those last few turns on a wonder. It is all very minor, you exaggerate the historical learning argument way out of proportion.Well it's in the same proportion as your argument that people don't learn anything from these games or they don't leave living expression to the people especially of some element that is VITAL for the whole scenario of the game as of slavery in game of colonization of the New World.
Do you really think games are better than classrooms and textbooks? The 'teaching tool' video game connection is weak. War is a moral dilemma, but nobody faces one when their axeman is destroyed by a crossbowman.Still you have no problem with that moral dilemma of war in computer game but only with moral dilemma of slavery, isn't that bit strange.

I never said games are better than classrooms etc. but they can be both entertaining and work as teaching tools. They support each other, not negate each other.
It's a game. People don't need a game to show them real history, you act like the only way to learn history is through video games and omitting anything is a crime against humanity.Nope.

I think it's crime against humanity to leave slavery out of game of Colonization.

But I would like to see elements of real history in the game rather than those aspects that just are "funny and nice" example for you (like soldiers dying)?
"Our" side of the argument huh? I don't need anyone else to chime in for me, because I can argue my case all on my own and I know there are many who would agree with me. People outside of the gamer bubble.I think I meant few people here like CyberChrist and I. Not sure he agrees everything I say but I bet he's on the same side.
"I don't know what to say about the Berlin comment other than it is bizarre and nonsensical.That you have lost debate already pages ago and try to stave of admitting defeat with taking cyanide and shooting yourself.
People can make up the own minds but anyone is free to offer up their view on it--which I have chosen to do.Right.
Nothing wrong with that.
Anyone who learns about slavery and still doesn't believe it shouldn't have happened or doesn't understand that it could have been prevented needs :help:That is interesting proposition...
since you deny the possibility of the player to choose of not it happening by not giving even him the option for it.

People are only moral when they can choose to do so.
Again, people don't need a game to learn about slavery nor will they ever. Is your last comment some sort of suggestive justification for the real slavery of the past?It's reason why to add it to a game that tells about historical period when slavery was important element of example economics.

People didn't choose to do it because it was right or wrong but because it was profitable for them. It has happened and there's no denying it whether it's in history book or in game that tries to simulate example the process of colonization. Even though in theoretical level.

But if you place just "free colonists" to work in your sugar and cotton plantations don't you think something is missing from such game? Then the slavery is forgotten and the slaves also.
You are saying the exact same thing again. They don't need Colonization to learn, even if there is a slight chance they will learn a few things in between conquering and settling the new world. I still don't buy it.Go back and read what I have said why it should be added and why it could be also considered as teaching tool.
Who are you to decide that all events in history are fair game to be taught in any context or through any means? People make moral judgments and set standards for themselves, and promote those standards. It's called doing what you think is right.:lol:

EXACTLY. That is the point what I'M trying to make and you are trying to choose what people should be able to do in a game. You are taking their moral choice away from them.
They were soldiers doing their duty, not helpless civilians forced into bondage or massacred to make room for colonists. There is no comparison here.Yes of course. Soviet Union didn't attack Finland and those soldiers were happily in the front, let alone the soldiers of Red Army that were shot to the back if they weren't proceeding the lines of finns.

Totally different thing. No moral dilemma there. :crazyeye:

Same goes for war games, right? The problem is you think implementing the raping and pillaging will help teach people that it is wrong, whereas I believe it will further desensitize people to it.What I want to do is offer them the choice and also show why someone might choose something like that while making the point where it leads those people.

The point here is that because Colonization concentrates into that time period it's insatiny for historical reasons to leave slavery out. So leaving it out would need justification so you wouldn't distort history. Morals don't really cut it since if you add it as element (and it already is a element of choice later on in the game BTW) you can use it to show people it might be wrong.
It should be respected, not put into a game to be used as a means to an end.In history it was means to the end just like destruction of natives.
Africans, native Mesoamericans, native Americans, it doesn't matter it's wrong any way you slice it. The reason why I use the African slave trade as my prime example is it is a well known part of slavery history.Well known part...and why you would leave it out of a game that tries to simulate that time period if other such "immoral" elements are present?
This is something you can come up with in a long drawn out argument like we have in this thread, but do you really think these are the things that cross the minds of players as they are playing?Yes, because it certainly will affect example you.
Again, you must be special learning and comprehending so much from video games, I guess school was obsolete for you? Games are meant to be fun, the goal is to win and feel good about how you did it. You place too much stock in games as some sort of wonder teaching tool, I find it utterly strange myself.Never said it was wonder teaching tool.

What I find strange it's ok you to win probably by looting Aztec cities but african slavery is big no no.
I'm not seeing this, as much as you say it over and over.Look closer.
That is as optimistic as one could be about the simulation of slavery in a game, I find it highly unrealistic and hard to believe.Now tell me what is it?

Is it because people who play Colonization are teens/adults that already have learned the moral problem with slavery and there fore the game doesn't need it (which is PRETTY stupid from historical pov considering it's 15-17 century related game and slavery as it was is big element of it) as element because nobody will learn anything about it from a game....

Or

is it because people who play Colonization are so stupid they might start to think slavery is OK because it's included in the game (which is pretty stupid if you deny that game cannot teach anything to people) which makes it immoral...

That you are against it?
I'm tired of addressing the same two points to no end. "It's a teaching tool" and "opposing it is to censor history"It's more like it's opposing is censor history and it could be used as teaching tool.

Problem is that you haven't addressed those points with any vigour since your argument is failing like I show above.
I have defined it over and over, which you deny over and over...that is why I have to remind you. The difference between you and I is you have treated me harshly with insinuations (you admitted it already) whereas I have tried to stay focused on the moral rationale and debunking the 'educational' argument.Get the **** out of here.

You should look back and see how you have treated others in this thread.
What are you talking about? What knowledge/truth? I already learned about slavery and it wasn't through a video game. This is so over the top :lol:Yes, it's over the top of your head for you.

Maybe other people haven't learned it and if they have...what's the problem adding it to the game that is so big part of that time periods history?
We disagree on the useful functions of video games, it's a matter of opinion, really. A mixture of history and entertainment is normal for games, for that reason it is crossing the line to take that mixture and add sensitive aspects like slavery so explicitly.Sensitive aspects like casualties of war?

I'm smiling with a full set :goodjob:But surely they aren't your own anymore :goodjob:
The 'high horse' accusation is pretty typical of anti-moral gray area folks like yourself. You don't agree with the blunt definitions of right and wrong presented to you so you go after the person over the premise.Yes I'm immoral and bad bad person who wants people to know about the truth in history.
I draw the line somewhere, not willy nilly. You don't seem to draw it anywhere!My point being that the line drawn should be straight not crooked. If you try to tell about the process of colonization at least with some accuracy and try to have some kind of working economical model and you can destroy native villages and their culture...I think it's rather fair to say slavery is inside those borders.
Firstly I will say I'm offended that you would insinuate the USA was built "by the blood, sweat and tears of others", which is as a general description simply false.No, it's the truth.
Which you obviously try to deny by sitting in high horse and trying to sway others why slavery shouldn't be added.
Obviously you have anti-American feelings on your mind and here they come out.And that's because I'm from Finland am I right. :lol:

You got to kidding me...

Yes, I'm all anti-American who is interested about building up America in game called Colonization by American game company.

You see, every nation and all the people have dirt in their past and that's what people shouldn't forget when they play these games especially if you try even remotedly to show historical side of things.
History teachers may or may not agree with me but there you go trying to represent people without their actual input. I'm sure there would be a fine line with many of them between a game like Colonization simulating explicit slavery and 'Historic Canada'.Historic Canada was an example of game used as teaching tool since you said bluntly that it's impossible.
I have defined my moral rationale against the specific topic of the thread five times over. It's time to agree to disagree over the appropriate uses of commercial games, you think anything goes, I say no to some things. I won't continue arguing about it as there is nothing left to argue, anything more is just a reiteration of what's already been said.
Yes I agree. There's hardly anything to say.

You draw the line randomly to things which don't appetize you and I draw the line depending into what kind of historical accuracy we're aiming for and what we're trying to achieve with the game or mod.

I know Firaxis is aiming for "feel good" factors in Colonization which element like slavery would destroy for some people as it might present too much in detail their nation's not so pretty past. I root for the real deal in full flesh mod that tries to show also the nasty stuff.
Attacking someone's viewpoints is not the same as attacking the person's image or insulting their intelligence. You are obviously quite accustomed to taking that approach. If someone supports an immoral act or idea, they are not bad people, but they are making a bad choice and promoting that bad choice. I am not stating that I am right like you have done a handful of times, I am explaining why your characterization of my argument as being personal attacks is false.You have already stated numerous times why people who are against your view are somehow immoral people.

I'm promoting bad choice because it's one choice more to people to choose from and one more moral dilemma to face themselves and not be dictated by people like you.

I think it might be even challenging try to win the game of Colonization without using slaves don't you think?
I don't plan to visit the Off-Topic forum because unlike yourself who must live or work here one of the two, I don't have the time or patience to accumulate thousands of posts to brag about later.Where did I brag about it?

I haven't been here for ages you know but I just mentioned that while I have been in OT I mostly likely will not be consider as some kind of immoral character as you would like to paint picture of me.
Maybe that makes you more subjective, and me more objective? It's probably neither, both in this case and the US-Finland point. However, it's only logical that since your history is sparse with the legacy of slavery, your perspective is doomed to be too objective. You don't quite understand the brutal realness of slavery. Your comment that you may not even buy the game until there is a way to have explicitly simulated slavery says enough about your perspective on the real history of slavery. Even more hysterical than anything thus far is your terribly flawed comparisons between slavery and soldiery!No, those things are terribly flawed in your head.

Did you know that one of my favourite photographs of all time is one from Cold Harbour? http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/pictures/Battlefield-Cold-Harbor.jpg

That's REAL HISTORY.

This isn't 'hurting' because it's a fallacious claim through and through. It contradicts my actual words completely. You were the one making useless comparisons between carpet bombing and slavery when I pointed out that for good reason, workers can't be bombed in Civ IV. These comparisons you pull out of thin air are irrelevant to the specific topic. Anyone who thinks bombing civilians or destroying native peoples is justified and slavery isn't, would be totally nuts. Do you really think I am that stupid or is it just too good of a smear to pass up? The topic is slavery: slavery.So you're now dictating what we can and should talk about while you can either laugh (or call them "strawmen) to my comparisons towards other similar elements which you don't have any trouble of accepting?

And when I question you for it and where you draw that line and why, you ran away.
It is a strawman to say that since I am not often mentioning other immoral aspects of the colonization period that I think they are moral or okay. Suggesting that I don't think the Spanish conquest/colonization of Incan/Aztec lands and the displacement/destruction of Indian tribes by colonial America were full of wrong doing and utterly immoral acts is just grasping at straws. It's not a witty point either. I have yet to play Colonization like everybody else nor do I know much about it's features. If I find it to be insensitive and biased, I will cross that bridge when I get there but not in this thread. You are just trying to paint me as a hypocrite as it's one of the few convenient angles you can exploit and skew.I did play the original colonization and it was Disney type stuff were you could attack villages without mercy and get nice treasure chest to send back to Europe and build up your America.

You might be a hypocrit or just someone that doesn't understand the problem with his claims.
Actually the African slave trade is just my prime example in the argument. Saying a game about the colonization of the 'new world' must have explicit simulation of slavery to be fair or accurate is like saying the Confederate flag has no racist overtones because 'it's just history'.So in civil war game you couldn't play with South or use Confederate flag since it has racist undertones, is this your argument or what?

Level of simulation of slavery in game of Colonization depends greatly on many factors. But not adding it at all is certainly an insult to both history and also the slaves.
History greets us in the present, it's a living/changing creature that affects us today, not just a museum piece to awe over. Certain areas deserve more respect than others, not to be toyed with in a game for everyone's amusement.Like people who died in wars are now used as amusement by yourself too?
While I don't agree with all of the views of the infamous blogger who accused Colonization of being a racist enabler, I will quote him:

"A game about colonization that's entirely about controlling the settlers (or slaves) can either force the player to do horrific things or let him avoid doing it and whitewash some of the worst events of human history. Either option is offensive."

I think the problem with us history oriented gamers is we start to think everything is relative and lose individual perspective.So for you it would be better such games would ever appear?

BTW, I think the blogger has a point in that quote of yours. Both options are as offensive so why not add it to the game like any other insensitive element and let player decide while giving nice history lesson with it?

That's what I'm rooting for.

(I think we're pretty much done BTW and it's stalemate. Let's not quote all the stuff from others but concentrate into few more important things. Unlike you guessed I have other things to do in my life and not just hang around here so I don't have simply time to write answer to everything.)

I apologize for all the errors and mistakes in my text.

It seems I should have taken more time to write it but I haven't been lately using my english so...

To make the game both historically accurate and instructive, it should be possible to purchase slaves in Europe or the West Indies.

Civ has always been an educational game, hence, rather than avoiding the subject altogether, it would be educational to include this mechanism within the game. In this manner we could experience the stark reality of this issue, and perhaps take time to consider similar occurrences in our current modern times.

I am not a modder, but I'd like to already request someone to create the "Slavery and Civil War" mod. It would entail simply creating a single unit called the slave, which would be obtained in similar fashion to how the player purchases horses, muskets or even free colonists.

Perhaps even a "wormhole" to a small coastline of part of northwestern Africa could be included, where a colony could directly sail a ship and purchase, from other African tribes (at a discounted price), a large number of slaves to then be shipped back across the ocean to the new world. Perhaps there should also be the option to send over dragoons who be enabled to attack African settlements (in similar fashion to how one could invade Native American settlements in order to encourage "converts") and obtain slaves directly (at no charge, but with the possibility of losing soldiers). Now, to truly simulate the historical accuracy of slavery, there would need to be a random modifier that would determine a certain % of slaves to die (between 25 and 75 %) in the ships en-route to the new world. This would simulate the terrible shipping conditions slaves were subjected to.

In addition, to fully flesh out this scenario, it should be enabled that when one of the colonizers goes about conquering Native American settlements, that they can then obtain Native slaves that would be used in identical fashion to the African slaves. This was an issue in the Southern American colonies and should be simulated here.

As to the usage of slaves within a colony, in order to make slaves desirable for use within a colony, slaves would not count towards to the population, nor toward the "rebel sentiment" meter, nor draw food requirements. Slave units would only permitted to work in outdoor environments (not within buildings). Additionally, slave units would be permitted to "double-up" with another regular colonist on a square (think double usage of a tile in civ). Hence, through the usage of slavery, a colony would gain a dramatic production bonus.

The slave unit would be available for use only within a certain geographical boundary. For example, in a random map game, slaves might only be used within colonies to the west (or north, south, east; randomly rotating the direction of the demarcation line for each map) of a certain line.

The catch to the usage of slavery, would be that immediately following the conclusion of the normal victory method (that is, by defeating the mother country), that your civ would be thrown into a civil war, with all of the colonies on the "wrong" side of the demarcation line joining the side of the slavery faction, and the other colonies, obviously, joining the anti-slavery faction. In this war, the other European and Native civs would be permitted to take sides.

Now, in order to prevent the glorification of slavery, the human player would be required to continue play as the anti-slavery faction; forced to either put-down the revolt, or give in and grant the succeeding colonies their independence.

Note: even though I suggest and request this mod, personally, I am adamantly opposed to slavery and indentured servanthood.

I have written articles concerning America's continued use of disguised and virtual "banana republics" in our modern age. Which, incidentally, comprises the roots of the current "banananization" of Iraq.

I simply believe that such a mod is instructive for understanding the period of the time, and can stimulate reflective thought and debate concerning the actual historical mechanism and morality.

It should at least, even in a medium as passive as a game, serve as a rather terrifying object lesson of our morally depraved our world history has been.

I agree. I just hope that they are worth more/have a better effeciency than they did in the original game. Slaves couldnt become specialists, used the same amount of food consumption, and were generally useless.

Actually, scratch that. You could give a slave unit muskets and get cheap soldiers, but they still couldnt earn the veteran upgrade, and died rather quickly.

I can see this topic has brought about the usual objections from some folks, but from a purely gamer's standpoint...

It would be both realistic and a welcome addition to the game. (Provided there is some sort of benefit. Maybe remove the cost of buying slaves entirely, and simply have the slave ship pay the price in time spent to transport them? That way you can have a less-than-average worker unit for free.)

I'd like to see slavery implemented one way or another. One thing that has to be conisdered anyway are the game mechanics. I'd say the original proposition is a bit too complex for my taste and should be changed into something a bit more managable. At first I found the slavery mechanism of CiV4 highly unrealistic, but then I quickly realized that it was probably done this way to keep it easy and playable (instead of having to defeat units to gain slaves etc...). But maybe Colonization would do fine with even more micro-management.

Slaveryneeds to be in the game consindering this is about the colonies in the Americas. The richest colonies were built off of African slave labor, so that should be included in the game. Though the focus seems to be on the North American colonies such as Canada, the 13 North American colonies, and Quebec, the real prize colonies were the Carribean islands. Britian's most valued colonies were Barabados and Jamica where tens of thousands of black slaves worked the sugar cane fields. France's Saint Dominique (Haiti) was the richest colony in the America's, counting for majority of France's foriegn trade. The colony made its money from the 450,000 black slaves who worked the sugar cane fields. The need for slavery is a must.

Slavery could be implemented be being able to purchase slaves. With a large number of slaves the production of certian recources (sugar, cotton, tabbaco) could increase. However, having slaves would be an issue. There should be a chance of revolt and even a full scale rebbelion, with the possiblity of establishing their own country (Haitian Revolution). This would could create so many possiblities to the game.

Wow, people really got off subject with this forum....

I think that the inclusion of slavery would be an interesting addition, though sending ships and dragoons to Africa doesn't add anything to the game, what would be the point?

The slave trade was not a state-funded expedition, yes it was allowed, but it was private individuals that did the trading, so what would it add to the game if the player had to physically pick up slave units? The colonies did not own slaves, people did, so having a slave unit in the game is just pointless - it's a government based 'god game', not a slave trade or plantation simulation.

The player should be able to choose if they want to allow slavery in the game or not, if yes, then all colonists working an agricultural square/job would get a slight boost in production, however in those cities/colonies that do allow slavery, they would not be able to build the more advanced industrial buildings, thus simulating the heavy relation between agriculture and slavery (in the Americas). i.e The northern united states was much more industrialized than the southern states that relied heavily on slavery. There could also be a grownig unhappiness level associated with slaver, similar to the war effect in Civ4.

The suggestion that there be an immediate Civil War after independance is also just absurd. If that is the best way to be sure that slavery is NOT glorified, then including it in the game should really be re-considered.

In my opinion, as applied towards the colonization of the new world, the ability to have slavery at the price of not being able to build a large factory of any kind within that city/colony would be sufficient to include slavery that was obviously a large part of the early americas, but would make the the choice a bit more costly to the player.

The original post just did not seem to have enough 'cost' associated with the decision to have slavery.

I do believe that a poster said it quite well though earlier in this forum (sorry I forget who) when they pointed out that slavery is hard to simulate in the suggested mod when you already have complete control over all the workers. (yet another reason I dislike the idea of actually having a 'slave' unit)

As far as the earlier posts go, you can't teach morals through a game in the way suggested, if you include the slave trade, you've reduced the slave unit and the people it stands for as a mere commodity, which was the original problem to begin with, and trying to show a child, or anyone for that matter how morally corrupt slavery was, by having them trade and use slaves is just ridiculous. If you want to teach them that through a game, have a simulation where they ARE the slave, not where they are the 'master'. And let me say that game would probably suck, as such it should, cuz being a slave sucked. But if you really want to teach a kid how it felt to be a slave - try just for a weeks time to make them rake the leaves, mow the lawn (with hand clippers), take out the trash, do all the dishes... etc... no allowence, no games, no shopping, don't allow them to shower, or change clothes, only let them eat after everyone else (and after chores are done of course), then just maybe you'll have impressed upon them just slightly what being a slave was like.

Slavery could be implemented be being able to purchase slaves. With a large number of slaves the production of certian recources (sugar, cotton, tabbaco) could increase. However, having slaves would be an issue. There should be a chance of revolt and even a full scale rebbelion, with the possiblity of establishing their own country (Haitian Revolution). This would could create so many possiblities to the game.

I do like the idea of the possibility of a slave revolt, then needing to be supressed by military, and the idea of them breaking off to form their own country, though not sure if they should actually build their own independant 'nation', or if they should just break off to be an independant/separate 'colony' of the same parent nation.

I think that the inclusion of slavery would be an interesting addition, though sending ships and dragoons to Africa doesn't add anything to the game, what would be the point?
The point would be ... to show how it actually happened in real history (simulating the Colony --> Europe --> Africa --> Colony etc. trade setup). And also to actually force the player to take a personal moral choice about whether they really wanted to engage in such immoral acts (which could be explained as being such in-game when first faced with the choice).


The slave trade was not a state-funded expedition, yes it was allowed, but it was private individuals that did the trading, so what would it add to the game if the player had to physically pick up slave units? The colonies did not own slaves, people did, so having a slave unit in the game is just pointless - it's a government based 'god game', not a slave trade or plantation simulation.
Of course it is true that the colonies didn't own slaves themselves as such, but they also didn't own the Farmers, Fishermen, Carpenters, Cotton/Sugar/Tobacco Planters etc. etc. - yet these are already represented individually in the game and under state(crown) control.

Same goes for Privateers btw.


The player should be able to choose if they want to allow slavery in the game or not, if yes, then all colonists working an agricultural square/job would get a slight boost in production, however in those cities/colonies that do allow slavery, they would not be able to build the more advanced industrial buildings, thus simulating the heavy relation between agriculture and slavery (in the Americas). i.e The northern united states was much more industrialized than the southern states that relied heavily on slavery. There could also be a grownig unhappiness level associated with slaver, similar to the war effect in Civ4.
...
In my opinion, as applied towards the colonization of the new world, the ability to have slavery at the price of not being able to build a large factory of any kind within that city/colony would be sufficient to include slavery that was obviously a large part of the early americas, but would make the the choice a bit more costly to the player.

While I don't think it is a good idea for slaves to be invisible and magically add production boosts to farm/plantation type civilians(primarily because this allows players to avoid being constantly reminded about their own immoral choice) - but should rather work as independant units (just like Converted Natives, Criminals and Indentured Servants do) - then your idea about cities/colonies that have slaves present should be unable to build any kind of factory level improvements is a very good one. One I'd personally vote for as being used in the slavery model for the mod (and elsewhere as well).


As far as the earlier posts go, you can't teach morals through a game in the way suggested, if you include the slave trade, you've reduced the slave unit and the people it stands for as a mere commodity, which was the original problem to begin with, and trying to show a child, or anyone for that matter how morally corrupt slavery was, by having them trade and use slaves is just ridiculous. If you want to teach them that through a game, have a simulation where they ARE the slave, not where they are the 'master'. And let me say that game would probably suck, as such it should, cuz being a slave sucked. But if you really want to teach a kid how it felt to be a slave - try just for a weeks time to make them rake the leaves, mow the lawn (with hand clippers), take out the trash, do all the dishes... etc... no allowence, no games, no shopping, don't allow them to shower, or change clothes, only let them eat after everyone else (and after chores are done of course), then just maybe you'll have impressed upon them just slightly what being a slave was like.
I have to strongly disagree (no surprise) - and I have yet to see anyone offer anything other than personal opinions to support the claim that it isn't possible to learn about concepts like slavery etc. (from either end of the 'gun') through a computer game.

Anyway then I don't think anyone here suggested that they wanted to 'teach' anyone how it was like to BE a slave, but about the history of slavery and it's implications and consequences on a 'state' level.

Of course it is true that the colonies didn't own slaves themselves as such, but they also didn't own the Farmers, Fishermen, Carpenters, Cotton/Sugar/Tobacco Planters etc. etc. - yet these are already represented individually in the game and under state(crown) control.

Same goes for Privateers btw.



No the colonies didn't own any of those that you mentioned either, however many were state funded, either by funding the expeditions to explore and colonize the new lands, or giving citizens (i.e. farmers/planters) land grants to work on. And Privateers were given state backing as well (as opposed to pirates who did not).

Just seems to me that the addition of the slave unit wouldn't add to the game-play, sure you can say it is to remind the player of their immoral decision, but that doesn't seem like a very sound reason to have an extra unit in a game. The constant reminder would be the inability to build large industrial facilities, though not on a moral level I suppose, but is anyone really going to 'feel bad' about adopting slavery within the context of the game?

Hung_up_99. Though its true that the "Mother Countries" didn't own slaves themselves, they both condoned and profited from the trade in slaves from Africa to the Americas via Europe. Coastal cities in Old Europe in particular did *very* well from ships trading slaves to and from the New World.

As the "administrator" of these colonies, you should be required to deal with the slaves coming under your bailiwick. From the other end, it would be interesting if your colony were faced with a European event where your home country banned the trade of slaves through their ports. How would you deal with it? Do you free the slaves under your nominal control (risking a citizen's uprising)? Do you ignore the mother country and start bringing them in yourself? Educational or not, you have to admit that it adds a certain degree of extra strategy to the game.

Aussie.

No the colonies didn't own any of those that you mentioned either, however many were state funded, either by funding the expeditions to explore and colonize the new lands, or giving citizens (i.e. farmers/planters) land grants to work on. And Privateers were given state backing as well (as opposed to pirates who did not).
If you want to go down that road then the slave trade could also be said to have been given state backing. Slavers was operating within the law of the state (as opposed to Pirates also), so it goes to reason that the slave trade was at the very least silently sanctioned by the state.


Just seems to me that the addition of the slave unit wouldn't add to the game-play, sure you can say it is to remind the player of their immoral decision, but that doesn't seem like a very sound reason to have an extra unit in a game.
If it was the only reason then maybe not, but they also need to be represented in the game because slaves also need food to stay alive (even though they should probably only require half that of a regular colonist) and it should be possible to trade slaves between colonies/nations (once again forcing the player to be confronted with and thinking about the immorality of it all).

Also, as a further mixed blessing then Colonies with slaves should have a chance to produce a new slave whenever the colony had enough food for a new citizen - instead of a regular citizen (depending on % of slaves already in colony of course).


The constant reminder would be the inability to build large industrial facilities, though not on a moral level I suppose...
Since you can't (or at least you couldn't in the original Colonization) build any factory level building before Adam Smith joined the congress (and IIRC he couldn't be recruited before after some time) then the player might not be confronted with any moral qualms before quite late in the game.


...but is anyone really going to 'feel bad' about adopting slavery within the context of the game?
Heh, hard to predict really. At the very least it would be possible to force people to stop and think about it - and then hopefully some of those people would gain some degree of insight from the confrontation.

Only one thing is 100% certain and that is that noone will learn anything new about slavery from playing Colonization unless slavery is properly implemented. IMO then a small chance of reaching even just 1 person is better than the guarantee of reaching none.

How best to achieve that the message comes across to the player is something worthy of further brainstorming/debate.

The mod would serve as a true and accurate portrayal of the brutal history of Western Civilization, rather than an offensively sanitized version that excuses and disregards the ugliness of colonization/imperialism (which the present version seems to present as a benevolent action). This mod is a visceral confrontation with our ugly history. We are not going to sweep slavery under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. We are not going to ignore the slaughter and enslavement of the native peoples. We are not going to ignore the implementation of banana republics. To ignore such things is the immorality. To pretend that the colonization of the world could be a kind and happy thing is to demean the suffering of the native ppls.

A slave unit is a must. We're not going to make this abstract, we're going to make this tangible and visible. Whenever you go into a colony, you will see slaves working for you; your conscience must be continually confronted with the sight of your policies. The original game is a unit based game, not an abstract policy game. It included indentured servant and criminal units, therefore it should also include slave units. And these slave units should be permitted to "double-work" the land tiles in order to reflect their increase in colonial output. Removing factories doesn't make sense, bcz slavery increased production rather than limited it. That's its whole point. It should be noted that visually, the colonies were set-up like plantations (with free workers).

Let us not be ignorant and think that Western colonization was confined to the America's. In fact, this is where the game finds one of its greatest omissions. Colonization also occurred in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia. The inclusion of Africa is a must, I'm making a concession to not include the entirety of Africa. Truly, if we wished to really reflect Colonialism, than we should have both America and Africa fully represented; with the ability to make slaves out of both populations.

To say that the governments of Europe and the local governments of the colonies were not involved in the slave trade is a remarkably naive comment. Most of the members of parliament owned stock in slaver shipping enterprises or recieved large bribes to ensure its continued legality. To say that the governments did not regulate the slave trade is as naive as saying that Bush and the members of Congress are not currently profitting from the occupation of Iraq through a monopilization of oil. Why do you think our gas prices are soaring?

In this mod, you would be able to obtain slaves by three possible mechanisms:
1) You can go directly to Africa and take them and sell them like another commodity
2) You can conquer native american settlements and force them into plantations
3) You can purchase them in port from slavers (it would be more expensive to do this)

We are not going to sugar-coat history, to do so is a dis-service to the victims. It's time to reveal Europe for what it was. Only through this sort of confrontational truth can we truly come to grips with world economic practices still extant today. We currently sugar-coat history so much that we can no longer see how we got to where we are today, nor are we able to see that we are still doing it.

For America today, who fights our wars? Who sits in our prisons? Who performs our manual labor? Do we continue to utilize Economic colonialism? How can we see it if we do not understand and confront our own history? How can we create a disney version of our past and pass it off as the inevitable progress of civilization? Because we are so adamant about creating a disney version of our past (so that we can feel better and can simultaneously pretend that our motivation for ignoring it is sympathy for our victims), we continue that practice today by creating a similar disney version of our present which therefore cements the abuse to continue into our future.

Wale up. World, wake up. For the Americans are coming; the Americans are coming for you...and we will rape your country's resources. We will take your oil. We will take your gems. We will take your intellectuals. Whatever you have of value, we will take it. You will work in our factories for mere cents. Even your children will slave for us. We control you, and if you act-up enough to disrupt our accumulation of wealth, than we will send our troops to pacify you. We are not police, and we do not care about international law or for justice. If you kill each other (even with genecide), we will simply watch with detached interest. But if you screw with our wealth, than we will screw you.

We need to be confronted. If we start with our past, maybe we will be able to see our present. It's time for Walt Disney to finally die.

Sidenote:

most slaves were sold by African tribes (slavery was a common pratice among African tribes)

If they really wanted they would have kicked the Europeans back into sea.

The mod would serve as a true and accurate portrayal of the brutal history of Western Civilization, rather than an offensively sanitized version that excuses and disregards the ugliness of colonization/imperialism (which the present version seems to present as a benevolent action). This mod is a visceral confrontation with our ugly history. We are not going to sweep slavery under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. We are not going to ignore the slaughter and enslavement of the native peoples. We are not going to ignore the implementation of banana republics. To ignore such things is the immorality. To pretend that the colonization of the world could be a kind and happy thing is to demean the suffering of the native ppls.

A slave unit is a must. We're not going to make this abstract, we're going to make this tangible and visible. Whenever you go into a colony, you will see slaves working for you; your conscience must be continually confronted with the sight of your policies. The original game is a unit based game, not an abstract policy game. It included indentured servant and criminal units, therefore it should also include slave units. And these slave units should be permitted to "double-work" the land tiles in order to reflect their increase in colonial output. Removing factories doesn't make sense, bcz slavery increased production rather than limited it. That's its whole point. It should be noted that visually, the colonies were set-up like plantations (with free workers).

Let us not be ignorant and think that Western colonization was confined to the America's. In fact, this is where the game finds one of its greatest omissions. Colonization also occurred in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia. The inclusion of Africa is a must, I'm making a concession to not include the entirety of Africa. Truly, if we wished to really reflect Colonialism, than we should have both America and Africa fully represented; with the ability to make slaves out of both populations.

To say that the governments of Europe and the local governments of the colonies were not involved in the slave trade is a remarkably naive comment. Most of the members of parliament owned stock in slaver shipping enterprises or recieved large bribes to ensure its continued legality. To say that the governments did not regulate the slave trade is as naive .

In this mod, you would be able to obtain slaves by three possible mechanisms:
1) You can go directly to Africa and take them and sell them like another commodity
2) You can conquer native american settlements and force them into plantations
3) You can purchase them in port from slavers (it would be more expensive to do this)

We are not going to sugar-coat history, to do so is a dis-service to the victims. It's time to reveal Europe for what it was.


I edited your comments to focus more on the historical than the present.
Present political discussions have a way of closing threads.


Civ is a descision-maker's game in a historical context. You have to make choices, and it can lead you to reflect upon the Real Life history. Of course history helps you to understand the present and future. Choices have dynamics- the pluses and minuses, the short term and long term, us and them.

I certainly agree that if there are convict and indentured servant units that there should also be slave units. I don't know if double -working the tile is the proper representation of slaves- I'm not sure it was that much more productive than other forms of labor.
I am sure it was more profitable because the slaves got only subsistance levels of food, clothing and shelter, that is to say next to nothing in the warm colonies where crops could be grown almost year-round. Certainly extra commerce.


There wouldn't have been such a slave trade without slave dealers/brokers/collaberators in Africa trading with the colonies, as you mentioned.

Likewise, the game should reflect the choice of the Iroquois Confederation to make a treaty ,trade furs for firearms, and use them to drive their ancient enemies west, taking their hunting grounds and removing the fur to sell for more firearms.

So, for trade, and for understanding purposes, it should include Slaves, Africa, and Collaberators as well as Colonials and Natives.

A slave unit is a must. We're not going to make this abstract, we're going to make this tangible and visible. Whenever you go into a colony, you will see slaves working for you; your conscience must be continually confronted with the sight of your policies. The original game is a unit based game, not an abstract policy game. It included indentured servant and criminal units, therefore it should also include slave units.
I agree, but in fact I think that there need to be 2 different types of slave units - native slaves and african slaves. Because, while the Portuguese did make use of native slave labor in the beginning, they soon realized that natives was not really suited for slavery - due to the social structure and beliefs of the natives that the Portuguese had access to (Tupi etc.) - so instead they soon turned to their African colony in Angola for a much better suited source of slaves and started trafficing those to their colonies.


And these slave units should be permitted to "double-work" the land tiles in order to reflect their increase in colonial output.
I am not sure about the whole double-working idea. It seem better suited for the abstract model than the one with slave units.

Double working would imply that slave plantations could produce more than a non-slave plantation on the same amount of land. This is of course nonsense - slave plantations was more cost-effecient to be sure, but pushing slaves into the fields didn't make the earth suddenly capable of higher yields.


Removing factories doesn't make sense, bcz slavery increased production rather than limited it. That's its whole point.
I still think the idea of Factories not being available in colonies with slaves is historical valid - at least to some extent.

Yes, slaves increased production(due to them being cheap labor) and they did work in what could be called Factories, but they were pretty much solely used in the production of raw materials (Cotton etc.) and not in producing more refined products (Cloth etc.). And since the Factories in Colonization only deal with boosting production of refined products and not raw materials then I think the idea should be included - along side with the other pro/con mechanisms of slavery.


The inclusion of Africa is a must, I'm making a concession to not include the entirety of Africa. Truly, if we wished to really reflect Colonialism, than we should have both America and Africa fully represented; with the ability to make slaves out of both populations.
For the purpose of Colonization (focused on America) I think Africa could be sufficiently represented with an overseas port city like the European capitol ports(each nation have their own). Only the Portuguese would have access to Africa from the start, other nations would require to meet some other requirement (perhaps a particular Founding Father?) - or to have incorporated Slavery in their Constitution - before being gaining access to their own African port.

I think it'd be interesting to expand colonization to include Africa and Asia. Where you could take the Rum manufactured in New France and sail it to China and trade it for opium. A mod that would permit the pacification of the indigenous civ by drugging them.

I think few ppl in the west are even aware of how evil, or the extent, British economic policies were to the Chinese and Indian civilizations.

It might be interesting to create an Imperialism mod (based upon the economic and colonial structure of Colonization), where one would play as one of the European powers; having access to the entire 3rd world, creating colonies and trade outposts and trade routes between different parts of the world. The game would consist of attempting to create either the most diverse line of trade goods or of monopolizing a single type of trade. To see who could create the most "banana republics."

Tools available to the player would be slavery, pacification through either conquering, threatening or drugging, the ability to set up regional governors that would oversee indigenous settlements where the only Europeans present would be occupying troops (I suppose a veiled slavery).

Over the course of the game, indigenous elements could comprise rebellions, eventually colonies could declare independence, or Gandhi might appear and initiate a nationwide strike. Ultimately, the human player would eventually lose direct control over all of its overseas interests, but would have the fun of impacting world history and seeing how much wealth could be amassed before the bottom fell out.

To make the game even more interesting, when the human player agreed to grant independence to a region, the human player would possess the ability to segment the land area into as many as countries as they saw fit, drawing the new boundaries however they saw fit. For example, the power to create nonsensical boundaries that included multiple ethnicities that didn't like each other and who would naturally fight with each other for control of their "new country." The imperial power would still retain the right to trade muskets and canon to both sides in exchange for the near entirety of that regions natural resources.

Hence, in this scenario, England could preempt the Revolutionary War by choosing whether to carve America up into a large number of small, manageable countries, or into a single country and instigating war between the slave and non-slave factions (supplying both sides in a manner that would ensure continual unending warfare). In both scenarios, England could still control the resources of that area. In the former option by instituting exclusive trade rights with that newly formed tiny-nation, and in the latter by trading guns for the entirety of those feuding nations resources.

I think this would be educational. Perhaps brutal, but educational nonetheless. Through this gaming medium, even the common ignorant peasant would learn the reality of world trade and the control mechanisms that continue in practice today.

(Q: How do you think Iraq started? A: in the early part of last century, England created the nonsensical boundaries of Iraq that included multiple ethnicities and religious factions. Playing upon the natural fighting that immediately occurred, England supplied one of the factions with arms in exchange for the bulk of Iraq's resources. Eventually England lost control of the situation, and later America decided to intervene and attempt to replace England's hegemony in the region. Now America controls the entire oil industry of that nation. Because of England's divide-and-conquer-border-drawing-strategy America cannot withdraw its troops without creating a massive civil war. America will solve the problem by placing one of the factions in power in exchange for a domination of the oil resource. Simply another example of an age-old tactic of world domination.)

Let's make it happen!


The Imperialism Mod- This one sounds as if it's better thought out, more historical, more fun , more playable and more instructional... Kind of a Railroads meets CIV:goodjob:

:) I'm glad you approve.

The mod would serve as a true and accurate portrayal of the brutal history of Western Civilization, rather than an offensively sanitized version that excuses and disregards the ugliness of colonization/imperialism (which the present version seems to present as a benevolent action). This mod is a visceral confrontation with our ugly history. We are not going to sweep slavery under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. We are not going to ignore the slaughter and enslavement of the native peoples. We are not going to ignore the implementation of banana republics. To ignore such things is the immorality. To pretend that the colonization of the world could be a kind and happy thing is to demean the suffering of the native ppls.

A slave unit is a must. We're not going to make this abstract, we're going to make this tangible and visible. Whenever you go into a colony, you will see slaves working for you; your conscience must be continually confronted with the sight of your policies. The original game is a unit based game, not an abstract policy game. It included indentured servant and criminal units, therefore it should also include slave units. And these slave units should be permitted to "double-work" the land tiles in order to reflect their increase in colonial output. Removing factories doesn't make sense, bcz slavery increased production rather than limited it. That's its whole point. It should be noted that visually, the colonies were set-up like plantations (with free workers).

Let us not be ignorant and think that Western colonization was confined to the America's. In fact, this is where the game finds one of its greatest omissions. Colonization also occurred in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia. The inclusion of Africa is a must, I'm making a concession to not include the entirety of Africa. Truly, if we wished to really reflect Colonialism, than we should have both America and Africa fully represented; with the ability to make slaves out of both populations.

To say that the governments of Europe and the local governments of the colonies were not involved in the slave trade is a remarkably naive comment. Most of the members of parliament owned stock in slaver shipping enterprises or recieved large bribes to ensure its continued legality. To say that the governments did not regulate the slave trade is as naive as saying that Bush and the members of Congress are not currently profitting from the occupation of Iraq through a monopilization of oil. Why do you think our gas prices are soaring?

In this mod, you would be able to obtain slaves by three possible mechanisms:
1) You can go directly to Africa and take them and sell them like another commodity
2) You can conquer native american settlements and force them into plantations
3) You can purchase them in port from slavers (it would be more expensive to do this)

We are not going to sugar-coat history, to do so is a dis-service to the victims. It's time to reveal Europe for what it was. Only through this sort of confrontational truth can we truly come to grips with world economic practices still extant today. We currently sugar-coat history so much that we can no longer see how we got to where we are today, nor are we able to see that we are still doing it.

For America today, who fights our wars? Who sits in our prisons? Who performs our manual labor? Do we continue to utilize Economic colonialism? How can we see it if we do not understand and confront our own history? How can we create a disney version of our past and pass it off as the inevitable progress of civilization? Because we are so adamant about creating a disney version of our past (so that we can feel better and can simultaneously pretend that our motivation for ignoring it is sympathy for our victims), we continue that practice today by creating a similar disney version of our present which therefore cements the abuse to continue into our future.

Wale up. World, wake up. For the Americans are coming; the Americans are coming for you...and we will rape your country's resources. We will take your oil. We will take your gems. We will take your intellectuals. Whatever you have of value, we will take it. You will work in our factories for mere cents. Even your children will slave for us. We control you, and if you act-up enough to disrupt our accumulation of wealth, than we will send our troops to pacify you. We are not police, and we do not care about international law or for justice. If you kill each other (even with genecide), we will simply watch with detached interest. But if you screw with our wealth, than we will screw you.

We need to be confronted. If we start with our past, maybe we will be able to see our present. It's time for Walt Disney to finally die.


so right!!

But the guy below you said "Slavery was mostly limited to the african tribes".

GAH! The romans established an empire by conquering celts, and selling non-conformists to slavery to remove them. they destroyed an entire culture and civilization, and northern europeans were also victims. You can also debate that slavery remains in the form of "debt slavery" traps, predatory lending practices, outsourcing jobs which reduce wages and wage values to practical slavery. I saw an article on free trade that says:

"Lets pretend we still have slavery. The costs of feeding the slaves, housing them and providing them the medicines to perform well and have strong ample bodies is more expensive than outsourcing labor to other areas, which eliminates many costs for the company. Outsourced labor is essentially free. You the company have no concern about the well-being of the employees condition - or the morality of how they are treated. 2 more costs eliminated. By using free trade, you are using a system cheaper than slavery. But everyone else who is not a slave?

By their wages going down, and the average wage scaling down and the dollar value going down, paired with inflation - you essentially turn the whole labor force into slaves, who are forced to pay debts, and cover their own expenses. With a slave, who has no debts or expenses, you have only his labour to profit from, but economic slaves can feed the rich through the system of purchasing and sales."

There have been many essays - just google up "Free trade vs Slavery" and youll find quite a few of them. Myself, i think we still have slavery today - just re-packaged and sugarcoated.

But the guy below you said "Slavery was mostly limited to the african tribes".
I think he meant that (during the age Colonization represents) the African tribes was themselves heavily involved in capturing and trading slaves to the Europeans.

GAH! The romans established an empire by conquering celts ...
Not really arguing your point, but lets keep in mind that Colonization is focused on the time from the dicovery of America to the Independence of the United States (1492AD-1780'ishAD)

Why is slavery such a big issue when compared with other atrocities addressed by games?

The Crusades and nuclear weapons come to mind.

Is it on the off chance that people of African descent will be offended?

What about all the Native American decendants? Why does nobody care about offending them?

...is anyone really going to 'feel bad' about adopting slavery within the context of the game?
That concerns me as well. You can mod in slavery and all, but besides teaching about it, how do you make sure you emphasize it's bad? Moral qualms won't stop most players.

In Civ4, we routinely loot, pillage and raze cities (which includes genocide as the city's population 'disappears'), not to mention other evil deeds like carrying out unrestricted nuclear warfare and becoming police states whenever it's advantageous to do so. And we don't blink about it.

So if you implement slavery, and it's practical, many players won't care whether it's right or wrong. If a colony that uses slaves to their maximum potential and keeps a garrison strong enough to suppress possible revolts is more efficient and productive than a town completely made of free citizens, what's to stop them from choosing the former?

Games aren't taken seriously, and few people feel bad after doing evil things in videogames. In Grand Theft Auto, morals don't stop people from shooting cops or unarmed civilians. In SimCity 4, morals don't stop mayors from destroying entire cities and their inhabitants with hurricanes, earthquakes and meteorites. In the original Colonization, if the natives proved annoying, morals didn't stop explorers from burning their villages and killing them all. So why would morals be any kind of barrier against slavery in this hypothetical mod? Few will 'stop and think about it'. Soon it'll become routine and adopted into their gameplay strategies.

So if you implement slavery, and it's practical, many players won't care whether it's right or wrong.
...
Games aren't taken seriously, and few people feel bad after doing evil things in videogames.
To me that says more about the failure of traditional sources of teaching to provide people with sufficient moral insight on problematic issues than anything else.

Anyway, just because games in general does nothing to point out the right/wrong of things and doesn't give the player any kind of incentive to choose the moral high ground (or at least the insight to recognize which is which) - it doesn't mean a game couldn't be able to do so if done in a carefully thought out manner.

It has nothing to do with flawed education. Just because a player likes to do evil stuff in video games doesn't mean his perception of right and wrong has been compromised, nor that he'd do (nor condone) those evil things in real life.

For slavery to be properly present in the game, it would have to be a balanced alternative to an all-free-citizen colony. With enough 'incentive' for the player to make the morally correct choice, it becomes pointless for slavery to be implemented in the first place, as you'd be adding a feature nobody would use. On the other hand, granting pro-slavery colonies too many bonuses would reverse the situation, and slaves would be omnipresent to the point free citizens would be used at a bare minimum.

However, after all this, I doubt you could get any player to think "Wow, slavery was worse than I thought" after saving and quitting their game for the day. Not unless you get really graphic with the slavery-related content (like showing videos of lashings or worse), to the point the game would stop being fun at all.

On the whole, one can add a balanced slavery system for the sake of realism, but in my humble opinion I don't think it's possible to teach any moral lessons about it. Most people already know slavery's bad, and there's not much you can do to reinforce that. That, and a simple game won't convince those that think otherwise.

Games in general do nothing to point out what's right and what's wrong because it tends to be something people already know, given the ethics and morals of society. It's just not necessary.

On the whole, one can add a balanced slavery system for the sake of realism, but in my humble opinion I don't think it's possible to teach any moral lessons about it. Most people already know slavery's bad, and there's not much you can do to reinforce that. That, and a simple game won't convince those that think otherwise.

Games in general do nothing to point out what's right and what's wrong because it tends to be something people already know, given the ethics and morals of society. It's just not necessary.Morals of slavery or morals of creating America?

It is necessary to have it in the game if it claims to be game set into history. It seems Firaxis has claimed this isn't the case and want to do the fun Disney version of "create your own America".

But having both natives and slaves in the game create moral dilemmas ON THEIR OWN which you have to react to somehow.

Of course the correct way to teach about morals of slavery is to show it is present on historical scenario, it's valuable option compared to other choices but can be evaded and has also it's downsides and example you can get extra information about slavery in history from the game documents. That's basically all you can do whatever subject is in question.

Taking that opition and dilemma away from them is the problem. And from my point of view this outweights the cost of adding it and making it "too easy and fun" to use slaves so someone would get offended by it.

It's utterly strange that gaming world where there are such brutal games out there someone tries to deny the existence of slavery from game about creating America.

I wonder why...somebody just might be not so comfortable with their own past.
Denial, that's the key word.

That concerns me as well. You can mod in slavery and all, but besides teaching about it, how do you make sure you emphasize it's bad? Moral qualms won't stop most players.

In Civ4, we routinely loot, pillage and raze cities (which includes genocide as the city's population 'disappears'), not to mention other evil deeds like carrying out unrestricted nuclear warfare and becoming police states whenever it's advantageous to do so. And we don't blink about it.

So if you implement slavery, and it's practical, many players won't care whether it's right or wrong. If a colony that uses slaves to their maximum potential and keeps a garrison strong enough to suppress possible revolts is more efficient and productive than a town completely made of free citizens, what's to stop them from choosing the former?

Games aren't taken seriously, and few people feel bad after doing evil things in videogames. In Grand Theft Auto, morals don't stop people from shooting cops or unarmed civilians. In SimCity 4, morals don't stop mayors from destroying entire cities and their inhabitants with hurricanes, earthquakes and meteorites. In the original Colonization, if the natives proved annoying, morals didn't stop explorers from burning their villages and killing them all. So why would morals be any kind of barrier against slavery in this hypothetical mod? Few will 'stop and think about it'. Soon it'll become routine and adopted into their gameplay strategies.

Of course these are valid concerns. My proposed mod would address them via the subsequent civil war that would follow the revolutionary war. Knowing about this future catastrophe, the player would continually be required to ask themselves whether slave "enhanced" cities would be worth the trouble in the end. This game mechanic itself would prompt continued thought regarding the slave issue, which is the entire point.

It's simply a mechanism by which to confront our history, to become more cognizant with its application, and perhaps something that might make us give 10 minutes of thought to slavery while we're driving in our car to work.

Morals of slavery or morals of creating America?

It is necessary to have it in the game if it claims to be game set into history. It seems Firaxis has claimed this isn't the case and want to do the fun Disney version of "create your own America".

But having both natives and slaves in the game create moral dilemmas ON THEIR OWN which you have to react to somehow.

Of course the correct way to teach about morals of slavery is to show it is present on historical scenario, it's valuable option compared to other choices but can be evaded and has also it's downsides and example you can get extra information about slavery in history from the game documents. That's basically all you can do whatever subject is in question.

Taking that opition and dilemma away from them is the problem. And from my point of view this outweights the cost of adding it and making it "too easy and fun" to use slaves so someone would get offended by it.

It's utterly strange that gaming world where there are such brutal games out there someone tries to deny the existence of slavery from game about creating America.

I wonder why...somebody just might be not so comfortable with their own past.
Denial, that's the key word.
I meant morals and ethics in general: the set of rules that define what's right and what's wrong. People already have that in them, so they know stealing is bad, killing is bad, exploiting others is bad, etc. So they needn't be reminded slavery's bad: they already know that!

As for Firaxis' stance, I doubt they're trying to deny anything. Adding slavery might offend some people, and apparently the African American population is more sensitive and influential than the Native Americans.

Many WW2-themed games don't mention the Holocaust, so by your reasoning, they'd be denying it. But no, ignoring doesn't equal denial.

EDIT:
Of course these are valid concerns. My proposed mod would address them via the subsequent civil war that would follow the revolutionary war. Knowing about this future catastrophe, the player would continually be required to ask themselves whether slave "enhanced" cities would be worth the trouble in the end. This game mechanic itself would prompt continued thought regarding the slave issue, which is the entire point.

It's simply a mechanism by which to confront our history, to become more cognizant with its application, and perhaps something that might make us give 10 minutes of thought to slavery while we're driving in our car to work.
That's interesting, but what if, after thoroughly using slaves throughout the game, the player simply abolished it in the Constitution during the declaration of independence? That'd technically prevent any civil wars while having extensively enjoyed the production benefits of slavery. From the gameplay point of view, it seems pretty unbalancing.

As for Firaxis' stance, I doubt they're trying to deny anything. Adding slavery might offend some people, and apparently the African American population is more sensitive and influential than the Native Americans.

That and there's a heckuvalot more of them.

I meant morals and ethics in general: the set of rules that define what's right and what's wrong. People already have that in them, so they know stealing is bad, killing is bad, exploiting others is bad, etc. So they needn't be reminded slavery's bad: they already know that!

As for Firaxis' stance, I doubt they're trying to deny anything. Adding slavery might offend some people, and apparently the African American population is more sensitive and influential than the Native Americans.

Many WW2-themed games don't mention the Holocaust, so by your reasoning, they'd be denying it. But no, ignoring doesn't equal denial.It is direct denial of history of Americas.

Of course I can understand why for commercial reasons they don't do that but it's not only because of black folks but also white folks that don't want to face the dilemma of having slaves when they play game that is about creating United States.

They might know it's wrong and they might know it happened but they also seem to forget it when they play the game just because they want to remember the good and jolly old stuff .

That thing about why it isn't added came very apparent seeing the interview with the producer of the game.

He told right away about founding fathers and I'm willing to bet nobody likes to hear founding of US is based into the work of slaves.

In WW2 game you can understand why not to mention Holocaust because it's more of sideshow from example about warfare perspective. But using slavery in Colonization of New World isn't any sideshow it's very much the prime time deal.

It's bit strange to hear how to build up colonies and game producer explaining how you can ship cargo to Europe and get gold...without mentioning how sugar and cotton are exactly produced or what else comes to New World from the trip cross the Atlantic.

So very good reason to add it into the game.

Slavery is wrong.

Did I say that loud enough?

I have a comment to make about slaves, slavery, and slave owners.

During 1860:

The average slave cost $450

The average american wage $800 yearly (and that was middle class)

Slave owners treated their slaves on the most part well, as they didnt want their investment to die or to become less efficient. The slave owners clothed, fed and sheltered their slaves as well or better than the confederate states of america did for their soldiers.

Todays average salary in america is $32,000 which is 40 times what it was in 1860. So using this information to account for inflation we can multiply $450 x 40 = $18,000 for slavery today. Most farms had an average of 50 slaves during 1860 ($22,500) so lets look at that in todays money, $900,000. Wow! What an investment almost 1 million dollars. Some plantations had 500 slaves.

Now on to the reason the US government of 1860 said slavery was wrong and must be abolished.

The northern manufacturing couldnt keep up with or make as much profit as the southern agriculture plantation was during that time. The #1 cash crop during the time was cotton, and England and europe were buying it by the boat load. The majority of rich men were plantation owners and naturally 10 of the 15 presidents up to that time were southerners and gained office because they had more campaign money.

The north rich men lobbied congress to mandate that the south has to sell the cotton to them at a reduced rate and they needed to get the south out of office, only 5 have been from the north. The southern governments responded that its their right to sell to whoever they want and for the market price. This is true as written in the constitution and the south felt they had no fear from congress. But the northern lobbiest were persisitent they wanted to have all the money and profits the south were recieving, they then pushed the issue that if the south didnt have slaves then the south wouldnt be as profitable. This is when the abolishment of slavery was introduced, not out of morality but out of greed of money. The south didnt fight the north over slavery alone but over state rights.

After the war Abraham Lincoln himself stated that blacks cannot live with whites once freeed. The whites would hold them down and discriminate them and then Mr. Lincoln commishioned 7 barges to start shipping the blacks back to their homeland. Southern farmers didnt want this to be done either as the farmers could hire the blacks for pennies-a-day and then not have to cloth, feed, or shelter the blacks. So they south shot Abe Lincoln and burnt the barges.

This is the best summary of the US, Civil War, and Slavery i can offer.

SLAVERY IS WRONG!!!!

I majored in US history and loved the pre-1877 time frame.

How well a plantation owner treated their slaves is neither here nor there. Many didn't by the way-they may not have killed them, but many slave owners happily beat a recalcitrant slave, and would gladly kill a slave who was no longer useful (i.e. was sick or lame). Be that as it may, it was about being treated as a *thing* to be bought and sold like we would buy and sell a car or a stereo which is the worse thing about slavery. Well, that and not having the freedom to leave an employer if ill-treated. Not having the freedom to stop your "owner" from raping you if you were a female slave. Having your name and your culture forcibly removed and being branded would also be an issue for me. If slaves were so well treated-and if slavery was simply about economics, then why did so many slaves run away via the Underground Railroad? Why did the slave population of Haiti revolt against their masters? The fact is that slavery is wrong and can never be justified, no matter how "well" those slaves are apparently treated.

Aussie.

Slavery is wrong.

This may be true, but it has no bearing on a video game. Are Grand Theft Auto games wrong, because you murder prostitutes? Is it wrong to burn your Sim's house down in the Sims? Shouldn't we ban all fighting and shooting games (Mortal Kombat, Max Payne, et al) because they are wrong?

No.
Thus, slavery should be a part of Colonization, because it was an integral, influential, and necessary part of history.

Most of america doesent even realize that we are still slaves today, we all have to keep working for a few men to pay our debt to them so they get richer.

Most of us have mortgages, car notes and credit cards. What happens when we decide to not pay them? We all know that answer, we get penalized or taken to court and garnished or even worse we are jailed but here is the real kicker....What happens when the creditors call in their debts to be paid now? Which happened in October 1929 and can still happen today. Dont think for a minute the government will not let it happen or that they will protect us from evil men.

We are all just sheep led around by the rich elite, the same rich elite that caused the civil war, the mexican war, WW1 and 2, vietnam, gulf war and afghan/iraq war and the soon to come iran war and even the future venezuelan war.

Wake up people and question yourselves, question our government, and certainly question why the rich elite want more people to be slaves to them, why do the rich want more money? why was george w. bush's grandfather laundring hitler's nazi money? 3 million of it! thats in the paper look it up he was caught and tried for trading with the enemy. why did the founding forefathers say that banks are more powerful than standing armies? LOOK IT UP. read what rockefeller says is his ultimate goal for the world, has any one heard 1 world government? i know everyone here has heard about the north american free trade agreement (nafta)but have you heard of the amero? its to replace our current dollar along with the canada's dollar and mexico's peso. does anyone here know how the federal reserve bank works? and no its not government controlled, just because the name has federal in the title doesent make it governmental agency just look at federal express it has nothing to do with the government. look it up they are a private corp with personal intrests in making as much money as possible off the residents of the US and their eyes are set on the world.

the greed of men is the demise of the soul. our ignorance to the powers that be enable them to enslave us all and if we speak out against them we are discredited or even worse we mysteriously die. we are being violated as human beings and treated as slaves. non of us are safe. the same tactics hitler used on the german population to control them and make them feel they were doing the right thing was a lie, now our government is doing the same things to us. hitler used larg quantities of flouride in the german drinking water, do you guys know what flouride does to the brain? it makes us loyal subjects and not care. whats in our drinking water? you guesssed it, flouride. they say its just a little bit to help out teeth, but ask a dentist next time you visit what would happen if you drank large doses of flouride on accident.

i wish this wasnt true, it saddens and angers me at the same time, what do we do about this? how do we free ourselves from the bonds of modern slavery?

With enough 'incentive' for the player to make the morally correct choice, it becomes pointless for slavery to be implemented in the first place, as you'd be adding a feature nobody would use.

May I mention an example counter to this statement? There is a lot of incentive to use a cottage economy in Civ IV, there is a lot of incentive to use a specialist economy, there is a lot of incentive to use a hybrid, and there is even some incentive to use various minority economies like the trade-route and religious economies. None of them are pointless, and the first three are so far from pointless that they all have their staunch defenders.

In short, you don't have to make something "the only choice" in order to make it "a viable choice." That seems obvious to me, although I don't blame you for thinking otherwise, since in my opinion there is so much bad game balancing out there on the market nowadays that it clouds just how possible it is to provide players with balanced choices.

It's a shame that all the discussion of whether or not someone should make such a mod (a mod, not even the official, base game!) has sapped energy that could be spent on how to make it the best it could be.

I think the basic idea is really good, but the suggested implementation is perhaps a little too simple. Too much complexity is bad, but too much simplicity can be bad too: here, it could mean too few added decisions (these are not always good in every game, but pretty good in a Civlike) and too little education about all the "whys and why nots" of the subject from a colonizer's perspective.

Speaking of these, I think a list of them is the best starting point for designing such a mod. I'll take the liberty of making a draft list of them, obviously reiterating some that have already been stated, and give some short thoughts on how they could be implemented in the mechanics -- not much, though, because everything I know about Civ-Col mechanics, I learned from this thread. (I only came here because of the BTS thread regarding which players use/avoid cIV's Slavery civic, and why.)

I AM RUTHLESS (by today's standards) AND WANT GLORY AND GOLD FOR THE CROWN. WHY WOULD I WANT TO USE SLAVES?

* Slaves are cheap. (Not so much hard-working as cheap, but see below.)
- Thus I would suggest not giving them more production, but making them cost less to maintain.
* Slaves will do jobs others won't do, or won't do cheaply.
- Thus I would suggest scaling their cost (or output) based on what job they are doing, in a way that strongly promotes their use in non-industrial jobs.
* (not so sure on the historicity of this) Slaves widen a labor pool that is otherwise insufficient at any cost for everything a plantation owner would like to do.
- Thus I would (if this is historical) suggest sizing the available non-slave labor pool so as to not suffice for everything colonies in raw-materials regions would like to do if they only could.


I AM RUTHLESS (by today's standards) AND WANT GLORY AND GOLD FOR THE CROWN. WHY WOULD I WANT TO *NOT* USE SLAVES?
* Slaves are not so good for educated work, since uneducated, they're not so up to the job, and educated, they're not so docile.
- Thus I would (again) suggest scaling their cost (or output) based on what job they are doing, in a way that strongly promotes their use in non-industrial jobs.
* Slaves are unpredictable - escapes, revolts.
- Thus I would suggest some *random* fluctuations in slave costs. This would both give historicity and "spook" a lot of players out of a heavily slave-based economy -- turn-based strategy players *hate* unpredictability. Maybe a lot of colonizers did too.
* (towards the end of the period) Slaves cause political problems.
- Thus I would suggest a smorgasbord of political events that could disadvantage colonies heavily invested in slavery. Civil war would rule the roost in this department, but should not be the sole representation of it, both for increased historicity and to avoid putting all of the game-balancing eggs in this department in one basket.


also mentioned and worthy of consideration:
I AM RUTHLESS (by today's standards) AND WANT GLORY AND GOLD FOR THE CROWN. WHY WOULD I WANT TO *NOT* USE ENSLAVED NATIVES?
* Enslaved natives are not so cheap,
* Enslaved natives are highly unpredictable (much more fighting spirit).

None of the above sufficiently addresses the valid point mentioned earlier about the U.S.'s post-colonial agricultural South vs. the industrial North, but maybe the slave model is not the right "core" for modeling that? Wasn't that more about each region trying to get the best short-term profit that their region offered, anyway? (Incidentally, or maybe not so, I feel like historically the regions contemporarily rich in natural resources, barring resources like coal* that can be trivially utilized to enslave or "enslave" others, have ironically (or maybe not?) quite consistently been the LOSERS, not the winners, of history, from a dominator/dominated perspective... which would make the South just one more loser in a long string of such losers.) Anyway, I think the mod should model the North/South split if feasible, but not necessarily primarily via the slavery model.

Bostock

* ...and even this type of raw-material region can take on the classical "loser" role once it's not the foundation of domination -- see the Rust Belt...

lots of stuff

Tinfoil hat. You craaaazy.

Some of the comments in this thread are far too personal. Hurling insults does not make anyone want to support your argument. If you can't discuss things rationally and with respect toward other people, it is useless for you to speak at all.

As for this idea for a mod, I don't believe "sailing to Africa to obtain slaves" would enhance the game in any way. Civilization is inherently an abstract game, so it doesn't make sense to portray something in such an explicit manner. The game does not portray massacres and rapes as part of warfare, nor does it portray the disparity of wealth inherent in all economies, nor the competitions between political factions within all countries. Civilization is not a history lesson, it has always been a cartoony pseudo-historical game intended to be entertaining while offering various tidibits of info about history. I have no problem with slavery being included as an appropriately significant part of the gameplay, but it should be as abstract as everything else in the game.

how do we free ourselves from the bonds of modern slavery?

Sorry, I didn't read your whole comment, the conspiracy theories started to hurt my brain. But to answer your last question: Rise up in revolt! Kill your boss! (You know, that guy that you went to and explained why you want this particular job so much...)

Lemme know how that works for you.

...

...uh, and back on topic, I think Bostock has some excellent points.

Some of the comments in this thread are far too personal. Hurling insults does not make anyone want to support your argument. If you can't discuss things rationally and with respect toward other people, it is useless for you to speak at all.There was mostly only one person doing such a thing and he's apparently now gone. ;)
As for this idea for a mod, I don't believe "sailing to Africa to obtain slaves" would enhance the game in any way.Civilization is inherently an abstract game, so it doesn't make sense to portray something in such an explicit manner. The game does not portray massacres and rapes as part of warfare, nor does it portray the disparity of wealth inherent in all economies, nor the competitions between political factions within all countries. Civilization is not a history lesson, it has always been a cartoony pseudo-historical game intended to be entertaining while offering various tidibits of info about history. I have no problem with slavery being included as an appropriately significant part of the gameplay, but it should be as abstract as everything else in the game.I don't think there should be big difference hiring gold miner or buying a slave from the Old World. Slave-unit etc. should be the level it is portrayed in the game, anything more abstract makes it useless and defies the whole purpose of the mod take the slavery seriously as part of that time periods events and dynamics of the game.

And I think the very reason people who are behind this mod defend the idea is to try to get away of it being overly cartoonish pseudo-historical game towards offering more real historical scenario even possible offering historical lesson along with.

If someone doesn't like it or don't think should be part of the game, it's better stay away from it or download it and decide not to use slaves if mod has other parts that appetize the person.

IT is as simple as that. :king:

...uh, and back on topic, I think Bostock has some excellent points.Oh, yeah he does.
Something to consider for sure, of course when the game actually comes out such mod can be designed better when we know more about it's system.

I agree with C~G. With the exception of a single poster, I think this has been a fairly adult discussion of both slavery from a historical context and the need for slavery to be represented-in some way-in the game (if only in Mod form). Maybe it could be done something like this:

You build a slave market (can only be built in port towns-grants bonus commerce but a Liberty Bell malus).

When you build the slave market you can "Build" a slave in any city, which has a lower resource cost than a regular "worker" (the cost will depend on how many slave markets you've built). Slaves, once built, also have a lower food requirement.

Every 2nd slave you "build" produces some kind of malus-whether to happiness, health or Liberty Bells.

Either instead of, or in conjunction with, the last point-you could have an event pop up every X turns (the chance dependent on how many slaves you currently own). Possible events-1. your Mother Country has Outlawed the transportation of slaves will you (a) accept the decision and close your slave markets (obvious loss of commerce, and a temp. -1 happiness hit in slave market towns); (b) refuse to accept the decision and collect the slaves yourself (keep slave market but slaves cost +25% more to "build"); (c) refuse to accept the decision and get them from another Country (-2 relations with the Mother Country; +1 relations with a new Old World Nation; +2 Liberty Bells). Event 2. Residents of (City Name) have become disturbed with the idea of slavery, they're insisting that you end the practice immediately; (a) accept the decision (loss of slave markets; all slaves become regular workers; +2 happiness and liberty bell in (City Name)); (b) offer to end the slave trade, but not to free the slaves (loss of slave markets; +1 happiness and liberty bells in (City Name)); (c) refuse to bow to pressure, slavery is vital to the local economy (-2 happiness and liberty bells in (City Name). The third event would be a variant of the Slave Revolt from BtS-Slaves from (City Name) are in revolt, demanding their freedom do you (a) crack down on the rebels (X gold and anarchy for X turns-with X depending on the number of slaves built by that town-loss of % of the slaves from that city); (b) grant freedom to the slaves of (City Name) (all slaves from that city turn into regular "units"; increased chance of the event occurring in other cities); (c) end slavery in your nation (lose all slave markets; all slaves converted to regular units; +1 Liberty Bells in all cities for X turns); (d) do nothing (only an option if you lack the resources) (-1 population in (City Name); Anarchy in City name for X turns (depending on number of slaves from there); each turn of (d) increases the chance the city will become "independent"-under the control of the slaves think Haiti).

Anyway a little complex sounding, I know, but what do you think?

Aussie_Lurker.

Maybe it could be done something like this:

...several well-thought-out situations and scenarios...

Anyway a little complex sounding, I know, but what do you think?

I've had some pretty similar ideas during my years of Colonizing. Didn't go into quite that much detail, because a) I'm not a modder, and b) I never in my wildest fantasies imagined they'd actually make Col2.

I always thought Col2 (or SM's Civ4:Col, but Col2 is so much easier to write) should have, at a minimum, a slave/plantation option which would increase agrarian productivity but cause resentment in the industrial colonies. You guys have clearly given this much more thought than me... ;)

There was mostly only one person doing such a thing and he's apparently now gone. ;)

I agree with C~G. With the exception of a single poster, I think this has been a fairly adult discussion of both slavery from a historical context and the need for slavery to be represented-in some way-in the game (if only in Mod form).

Of course you would say that. Pointing fingers is so much easier than having the balls to admit being wrong. But if you don't have the sense to see when you've crossed the line, I don't see how it's possible to convince you otherwise.

Good luck with whatever you intend to do for this project. I won't be paying any more attention to this discussion as this does not interest me.

OK ExMachina-so whose engaging in childish name-calling now? No-one asked you to come to this thread, so you ignore it all you want-the rest of us won't care the slightest. Perhaps you're just trying to get your post-count up hmmm?

Aussie_Lurker.

That's interesting, but what if, after thoroughly using slaves throughout the game, the player simply abolished it in the Constitution during the declaration of independence? That'd technically prevent any civil wars while having extensively enjoyed the production benefits of slavery. From the gameplay point of view, it seems pretty unbalancing.

Would not be possible to abolish its history. A mechanism would be set-up similar to how the Rebel Sentiment is generated. In this case it would record Slavery Permeation. and this meter would determine the slave and free colonies.

Pointing fingers is so much easier than having the balls to admit being wrong.

Oh irony, thou art but the graetest forme ever.

Kay, I really doubt I'm the first one to see this, but I haven't noticed it anywhere else in this thread, so here ya go...

From a review (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/20/joystiq-e3-eyes-on-sid-meiers-civilization-iv-colonization/) that's posted on the Colonization Info Center:

We also asked about slavery, a significant concept in American history that would be a glaring omission if it were completely ignored. We've been told that much like the introduction of religion in Civilization IV, Firaxis has gotten used to handling loaded concepts and taking the teeth out of them for the game. Slavery in Colonization civic accessible early in the game and players can choose whether or not to use it.

Up until now, I had only heard that slavery would be one of the choices when you declare your independence. This review is kinda vague, but there's no way "early in the game" can possibly mean 1776ish, right?

Oh come on

Stop this fight

We're just talking about possibilities to make this mod right???
It's just a mod
If you like it, use it.
If you doesn't just leave it
It's so simple right???

Yep, thats how I see it, i_diavolorosso. In fairness, though, there was only one person who was suggesting that it wasn't even worth making into a mod. Surely, though, that is the decision of the mod-makers?
Anyway, on the matter at hand. I personally believe an event based system is the best way in which to deal with the negative impacts of slavery. That said, I think sirsnuggles idea has merit too.

Perhaps it could work like this: Build a slave market as I suggested, which allows you to "build" slaves in all your cities (you're not really building them, the build time merely represents the time and resources to get them to market-which is why building more slave markets should reduce the build time).

Each slave you "build" in a city should increase the number of "Abolition Points" you get in the city (perhaps +2 per slave built). Each time you reach a threshold, one of your citizens becomes an Abolitionist-a new kind of Specialist.

This specialist cannot be assigned to any other duties, but produces a hammer in the same way as a regular Civ4 Citizen specialist does. It also produces +1 Abolition points per turn. Thus, the more abolitionists you have the faster a town will demand abolition of slavery.

The more Liberty Bells your city gets per turn, the more Abolition points you get from building slaves. Similarly, the more specialized a city is, the more Abolition points you get from building slaves. A city with a slave market will actually produce Abolition Points at a SLOWER rate. Disbanding slaves built in a city will reduce the accumulation of Abolition Points. Also, the longer you go without building a slave in that city, your base number of abolition points drops.

If a city have has more abolitionists than non-abolitionists, then that city can no longer build slaves. In addition, the greater the ratio of abolitionists to non-abolitionists, the more likely you are to get demands to end slavery from that city-with refusal resulting in the loss of the city (of course, accepting could cause you to lose those cities with few if any abolitionists).

So, how does that idea sound?

Aussie_Lurker.

Another alternative is that either instead of-or in conjunction with-building slaves, slaves could also be available as "Specialists". They produce +2 Food and +2 hammers per turn, but don't require you to lose any worked tiles. However, the total number you can have in a city is limited by the number of slave markets you build *and* is limited by the size of the city. Plus, like abolitionists, Slave "Specialists" cause you to gain Abolition Points.

Aussie_Lurker.

Whats so hard about adding a slave unit i know they did it for the maya in civ3.

Because that would oversimplify something that some of us want dealt with in a bit more depth-the "good" and the "Bad" as it were.

Aussie_Lurker.

my idea to accuratly portray slavery is to specialize the cities. a slave city would produce more food and cash crops like cotton. this would be at the expense of manufacturing. a manufacturing city couldnt have a slave and a slave city shouldnt have a manufacturing plant.

Ok if we look at US history we can see that the southern states had considerably more slaves than the north, right?

we know this because of agriculture and cash crops that were grown in the south as the north didnt have near as many slaves because they were a manufacturing economy and didnt have near as many farms, i.e. the north made their living by making things while the south made theirs by growing things.


so now we have to choose what do we want our city to do? make food and cash crops or make clothes and weapons?

a manufacturing city would get a bonus to hammers while a slave city would get a bonus to food and cash crops for money.

maybe a certain number of tiles should have farm squares.

"Because that would oversimplify something that some of us want dealt with in a bit more depth-the "good" and the "Bad" as it were."

I know what you mean. I know slavery was a major part of the colonization of the Americas. Native and African slaves could be put into the game easily IMO using jdogs Revolutions mod(maybe capturing natives units/city's has a % chance of giving a slave unit under slavery) and as for african slaves they could be traded for X amount of cash or during treaties(even though this is really harsh and would probably be looked down upon,that is how it happened).

They would both have a chance of revolting or defecting to countries/natives that dont practice slavery when you finally give up slavery those slaves could join you're cities but still have a different culture attached to them that is added to the city and could either fade away or end up breaking them away from you're country.

Yep, thats how I see it, i_diavolorosso. In fairness, though, there was only one person who was suggesting that it wasn't even worth making into a mod. Surely, though, that is the decision of the mod-makers?
Anyway, on the matter at hand. I personally believe an event based system is the best way in which to deal with the negative impacts of slavery. That said, I think sirsnuggles idea has merit too.

Perhaps it could work like this: Build a slave market as I suggested, which allows you to "build" slaves in all your cities (you're not really building them, the build time merely represents the time and resources to get them to market-which is why building more slave markets should reduce the build time).

Each slave you "build" in a city should increase the number of "Abolition Points" you get in the city (perhaps +2 per slave built). Each time you reach a threshold, one of your citizens becomes an Abolitionist-a new kind of Specialist.

This specialist cannot be assigned to any other duties, but produces a hammer in the same way as a regular Civ4 Citizen specialist does. It also produces +1 Abolition points per turn. Thus, the more abolitionists you have the faster a town will demand abolition of slavery.

The more Liberty Bells your city gets per turn, the more Abolition points you get from building slaves. Similarly, the more specialized a city is, the more Abolition points you get from building slaves. A city with a slave market will actually produce Abolition Points at a SLOWER rate. Disbanding slaves built in a city will reduce the accumulation of Abolition Points. Also, the longer you go without building a slave in that city, your base number of abolition points drops.

If a city have has more abolitionists than non-abolitionists, then that city can no longer build slaves. In addition, the greater the ratio of abolitionists to non-abolitionists, the more likely you are to get demands to end slavery from that city-with refusal resulting in the loss of the city (of course, accepting could cause you to lose those cities with few if any abolitionists).

So, how does that idea sound?

Aussie_Lurker.

I think the problem with the abolition points is that slave regions did not become abolitionist. I still think the better implementation would be anti-union sentiment that upon reaching a certain threshhold would cause succession.

As to slave units, those who have played the original game would understand the appropriacy for this. Col was so much more visceral about trade and units than civ ever was. For those who have only played civ, think of it in these terms. Think of having 200 worker units who can build roads, mines, irrigation, etc.., but who also fight wars and populate the cities. They can join cities anytime, they can leave and do other things. They work in the fields, they work as specialists, they can take up guns and go fight. And each of these workers have specialized abilities (like expert ore miner, or expert lumberjack, or master manipulator). Think of taking a specialized carpenter, who during times of war leaves the city to become a Horse Archer. Or, during peacetime, of an axeman who joins a city to become a lumberjack. That's why actual slave units are necessary, bcz each type of person has an actual physical representation.

Additionally, for similar reasons, African slave markets should exist. Another part of the visceral experience of Col was the manual manufacturing and transportation of goods, and also the manual retrieval of workers from Europe and their actual transportation to a colony. In this scenario, slaves are unique in that they are both goods and workers.

As to final details, indeed, we cannot truly formulate the mod until we see what has stayed the same, what has changed, and what is new.

As to slavery being wrong: of course it is. And indeed, most of us today are the peasants who work on the plantations of stockholders and CEO's. We make a little bit more money now, and we have a few extra rights, but the true profit of our labor goes to those who do not actually work.

Yet, of course, we wish to encourage the type of brain-storming that will enhance this mod.

I, and I think most players, don't care much about morals in games. What is important is the options it gives you to make in the game. If the option has no benifits, most players aren't going to choose it. If it has to many benifits, most players are going to choose it regardless of what you call it.

My basic idea would be to add a Slave Unit, give it its own Veteran Slave upgrades and what not, and add a chance that it could run away (dissappear) or revolt (turn hostile and attack/pillage stuff). The unit could be bought in Europe (like other units) or gained by attacking/destoying Native Villages.

I like the ideas I'm hearing from ya sirsnuggles, but my question is, do you have any programing knowledge, cause what you propose sounds like quite an SDK mod.

I seem to remember several Civ4 slavery mods over the past few years. Might be worth looking into what/how they did things to get some ideas.

Actually, Sirsnuggles, at the time of American Independence, all of the colonies had large numbers of slaves. The North was the first part of the newly independent US of A to start talking up Abolition-but I put this down to the large number of "founding fathers" who came from there (in game parlance-more Liberty Bells=more abolitionist sentiment). Also, the presence of a more specialized and industrialized economy will increase the chance of getting abolitionists in a city-again fitting neatly into the historical situation. Certain terrain improvements and city buildings could also reduce or increase the chance of getting abolitionists, and these should fit into the historical situation (so plantations might reduce abolitionist sentiment, whilst more industrial improvements would boost abolitionist sentiment).

See where I'm coming from?

Aussie.

I thought I'd post my request here rather then make a new thread since what I would like to see is a combination of base game with the mod that's being talked about here. Would love to go through the whole process of founding a colony, building up to Independence and then go through a civil war period.

Particularly, would love to just see more of the game after gaining independence.

I wish in a interview some one would sit there and ask the developers of the game why they excluded slavery(both native & african) even though a large part of those populations absored or were absored into the spanish/portugal/even english(latin/hispanic/anglo) cultures. I know most of the native civs will be badly represented(city size,structures) to help european expansion. I wonder if disease was even discussed.

http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff357/smoke202/Indio.jpg

I'm not sure how you implement slavery in a game where you already have complete control of the labor force. Sure, you could make them better laborers but I really doubt that slaves were much more productive than free laborers on a man for man basis.

I'm not sure how you make it an interesting choice beyond the moral, and it's already been said that you can make this choice in the Constitution. Perhaps slavery would give free convicts in the dock but it would lower your score at the end of the game like razing Indian villages. Exactly which is why slavery is no longer popular. With slaves you got to cloth them and feed them and provided some place to live on your property. Now compared this to the very cheap labor in China.

Exactly which is why slavery is no longer popular. With slaves you got to cloth them and feed them and provided some place to live on your property. Now compared this to the very cheap labor in China.Now, give the slave his freedom otherwise and "minimum wage" for his work and provide dream about "better living" through media and he will work twice as hard for you and spend money on your products while still staying kind of slave rest of his life, voluntarily. ;)

Well in a way, slavery is in the game. See this screenshot:
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/files/4/9/4/4/0/constitutional_decision_original.jpg

While it would be a unique experience to have slavery to add to the historical accuracy of the game (it isn't the most proud chapter in American history but it did happen), I don't really think it would be appropriate.

Well in a way, slavery is in the game. See this screenshot:
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/files/4/9/4/4/0/constitutional_decision_original.jpg

Sadly then this approach gives zero negative side effect to adopting Slavery. The decision to adopt Slavery or not will be based solely on city placement and/or richness of lands available - there is no incentive to take any moral angle into consideration.

I would love to see a slavery mod. I'm not a child and I don't have any children that might play the game so I don't care a whit about the moral implications. In any case it's up to parents and not game companies to censor their children's activities as they deem appropriate.
Slavery played a significant part in the economy of America for a long time and colonization is a game with focus on managing the economics of colonization to aquire power. Throughout the civ series it's already been emphasized how effective killing your neighbours and taking their lands can be and as has been pointed out, the slavery civic is in CIV (and can be used in conquered cities to help eradicate native culture there I might add, those citizens are killed first).
Leaving slavery out makes about as much sense to me as leaving out Portugal as a playable faction (that is, very little).

I didn't write this but its pretty informative about the history of slavery in the English colonies....

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]

When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. “African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,” The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).

I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and was starting a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner. The historian Joanne Pope Melish, who has written a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England, recalls how it was possible to read American history textbooks at the high school level and never know that there was such a thing as a slave north of the Mason-Dixon Line:

"In Connecticut in the 1950s, when I was growing up, the only slavery discussed in my history textbook was southern; New Englanders had marched south to end slavery. It was in Rhode Island, where I lived after 1964, that I first stumbled across an obscure reference to local slavery, but almost no one I asked knew anything about it. Members of the historical society did, but they assured me that slavery in Rhode Island had been brief and benign, involving only the best families, who behaved with genteel kindness. They pointed me in the direction of several antiquarian histories, which said about the same thing. Some of the people of color I met knew more."[3]
Slavery in the North never approached the numbers of the South. It was, numerically, a drop in the bucket compared to the South. But the South, comparatively, was itself a drop in the bucket of New World slavery. Roughly a million slaves were brought from Africa to the New World by the Spanish and Portuguese before the first handful reached Virginia. Some 500,000 slaves were brought to the United States (or the colonies it was built from) in the history of the slave trade, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 10 million Africans forced to the Americas during that period.
Every New World colony was, in some sense, a slave colony. French Canada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Cuba, Brazil -- all of them made their start in an economic system built upon slavery based on race. In all of them, slavery enjoyed the service of the law and the sanction of religion. In all of them the master class had its moments of doubt, and the slaves plotted to escape or rebel.

Over time, slavery flourished in the Upper South and failed to do so in the North. But there were pockets of the North on the eve of the Revolution where slaves played key roles in the economic and social order: New York City and northern New Jersey, rural Pennsylvania, and the shipping towns of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Black populations in some places were much higher than they would be during the 19th century. More than 3,000 blacks lived in Rhode Island in 1748, amounting to 9.1 percent of the population; 4,600 blacks were in New Jersey in 1745, 7.5 percent of the population; and nearly 20,000 blacks lived in New York in 1771, 12.2 percent of the population.

The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and much to do with climate and economy.

And one last little history lesson here about Northern Slave owners here's a essay about my state's history of slavery in Massachusetts, once again I didn't write this.

SLAVERY in MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England, though the exact beginning of black slavery in what became Massachusetts cannot be dated exactly. Slavery there is said to have predated the settlement of Massachusetts Bay colony in 1629, and circumstantial evidence gives a date of 1624-1629 for the first slaves. "Samuel Maverick, apparently New England's first slaveholder, arrived in Massachusetts in 1624 and, according to [John Gorham] Palfrey, owned two Negroes before John Winthrop, who later became governor of the colony, arrived in 1630."[1]

The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God's having placed in his hands "another drove of Adams' degenerate seed." But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the ship Desire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with "Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes."

"Such exchanges became routine during subsequent Indian wars, for the danger of keeping revengeful warriors in the colony far outweighed the value of their labor."[2] In 1646, this became the official policy of the New England Confederation. As elsewhere in the New World, the shortage and expense of free, white labor motivated the quest for slaves. In 1645, Emanuel Downing, brother-in-law of John Winthrop, wrote to him longing for a "juste warre" with the Pequots, so the colonists might capture enough Indian men, women, and children to exchange in Barbados for black slaves, because the colony would never thrive "untill we gett ... a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business."[3]

Most, if not all, of the limited 17th century New England slave trade was in the hands of Massachusetts. Boston merchants made New England's first attempt at direct import of slaves from West Africa to the West Indies in 1644, but though the venture was partially successful, it was premature because the big chartered companies still held monopoly on the Gold Coast and Guinea. By 1676, however, Boston ships had pioneered a slave trade to Madagascar, and they were selling black human beings to Virginians by 1678. For the home market, the Puritans generally took the Africans to the West Indies and sold them in exchange for a few experienced slaves, which they brought back to New England. In other cases, they brought back the weaklings that could not be sold on the harsh West Indies plantations (Phyllis Wheatley, the poetess, was one) and tried to get the best bargain they could for them in New England. Massachusetts merchants and ships were supplying slaves to Connecticut by 1680 and Rhode Island by 1696.

The break-up of the monopolies and the defeat of the Dutch opened the way for New England's aggressive pursuit of the slave trade in the early 1700s. At the same time, the expansion of New England industries created a shortage of labor, which slaves filled. From fewer than 200 slaves in 1676, and 550 in 1708, the Massachusetts slave population jumped to about 2,000 in 1715. It reached its largest percentage of the total population between 1755 and 1764, when it stood at around 2.2 percent. The slaves concentrated in the industrial and seaside towns, however, and Boston was about 10 percent black in 1752.

As in other maritime colonies of New England, the chief families were among the chief slavers. Cornelius Waldo, maternal great-grandfather of Ralph Waldo Emerson, was a slave merchant on a large scale, a proud importer of "Choice Irish Duck, fine Florence wine, negro slaves and Irish butter." His ship, Africa, plied the Middle Passage packed with 200 black people at a time crammed below-decks, though lethal epidemics of "flux" sometimes tore through the captives and cut into Waldo's profits. Peter Fanueil, meanwhile, inherited one of the largest fortunes of his day, which was built in large part on his uncle's slave trade. His philanthropy with this money gave Boston its famed Fanueil Hall.

Massachusetts, like many American colonies, had roots in a scrupulous fundamentalist Protestantism. Christianity was no barrier to slave-ownership, however. The Puritans regarded themselves as God's Elect, and so they had no difficulty with slavery, which had the sanction of the Law of the God of Israel. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination easily supported the Puritans in a position that blacks were a people cursed and condemned by God to serve whites. Cotton Mather told blacks they were the "miserable children of Adam and Noah," for whom slavery had been ordained as a punishment.

A Massachusetts law of 1641 specifically linked slavery to Biblical authority, and established for slaves the set of rules "which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such people, doth morally require." When two Massachusetts slave merchants joined with London slave raiders in a massacre of an African village in 1645, the colonial government registered its indignation, because the two men were guilty of the Biblical crime of "man-stealing" (kidnapping Africans instead of acquiring them in the approved way, in exchange for rum or trinkets) -- and because the slaughter of 100 or so villagers had taken place on a Sunday. Nonetheless, because of its Scriptural foundation, Massachusetts' attitudes toward slaves in some ways were more progressive than those of other colonies.

Like Connecticut and Rhode Island, however, Massachusetts had a problem with masters who simply turned out their slaves when they grew too old or feeble to work. Unlike the later Southern system, which took pride in its paternal care for slaves in their old age, Massachusetts masters had to be forced to keep theirs by a 1703 law requiring them to post £50 bond for every slave manumitted, to provide against the slave becoming indigent and the responsibility of some town. There are also instances on record of slave mothers' children given away like puppies or kittens by masters unwilling or unable to support them. There was no law against this.

Later reminiscences, long after slavery's end, emphasized the benign nature of Massachusetts slavery, but the laws and statutes of the time show it to be grim enough, and the need for control over even so small a population of blacks as lived in Massachusetts was felt to be great. Fear of an uprising no doubt was behind the 1656 exclusion of blacks (and Indians) from military duty. Concern about fugitive slaves, meanwhile, probably lay behind the 1680 act by which the colony imposed heavy fines on captains of ships and vessels that took blacks aboard, or sailed away with them without permission from the governor. Protection of masters' property from slave theft certainly motivated the 1693 statute that forbade anyone from buying anything from a black, Indian or mulatto servant.

Boston, which had the largest slave population, also had its own layer of controls, on top of the province-wide ones. In statutes enacted at various times between the 1720s and 1750s, slaves in Boston were forbidden to buy provisions in market; carry a stick or a cane; keep hogs or swine; or stroll about the streets, lanes, or Common at night or at all on Sunday. Punishments for violation of these laws ranged up to 20 lashes, depending on aggravating factors.

Black slaves were singled out for punishment by whipping if they broke street lamps, under a law of 1753, and a special law allowed severe whippings for any black person who hit a white one (1705-6).

The colony, along with Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, punished both races for miscegenation. But Old Testament abhorrence of "mixed natures" may help explain why the Massachusetts statue was more severe than that of any other colony on the continent. The Massachusetts law against mixed marriage or sexual relations between the races [Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, I, 578], dating to 1705, was passed "for the better preventing of a spurious and mixt issue." It subjected a black man who slept with a white woman to being sold out of the province (likely to the cruel plantations of the West Indies). Both were to be flogged, and the woman bound out to service to support any children resulting from the illicit union. In cases involving a white man and a black woman, both were to be flogged, the man fined £5 and held liable for support of any children, and the woman to be sold out of the province.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.16.
2. Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North, p.6.
3. Greene, p.62.

The problem with punishing the player with a civil war if they use slavery is, well, is that a punishment at all?

Unless there's something objectively better waiting for the player post-independence, you're actually rewarding the player with new and varied gameplay.

It doesn't make any sense, either, since among all the slave-owning countries in the new world, a geographically divided post-independence civil war occured in a grand total of one country. Most countries avoided a racially based civil-war post independence, and in many cases abolished slavery relatively painlessly.

When trying to represent slavery in the game, working from a moral standpoint is either going to result in a situation where slavery is never taken as an option, or with penalties that are unrealistic.

As a result, if we are to implement slavery in a mod, we should be concerned with modelling it realistically, but in a dynamic way that doesn't hinge on the geography of our own world.

---

My proposal:

What were the slave owning colonies like? They produced large amounts of natural resources, but historically found it difficult to industrialise. For the slaves themselves, life was not happy, and some would try to escape or revolt. For the slave-owners, they could lead a life of luxury, and devote themselves to less arduous pursuits.

Resource Production
Say we have a slave unit. What should his abilities be? Only consuming 1 food is a popular one, so let's have that. Many have suggested that he should have a production bonus, but is that really accurate? A slave might know how to pick and plant cotton, but does he know how to run a cotton farm? Could he really run one better than a free colonist, much less a master cotton planter? In reality, slaves were told what to do by their owners, so unless they actually have an owner, they shouldn't really be more productive. As to owners, a plantation owner, with his tens or hundreds of slaves, could work a much larger patch of land, and do it much more efficiently than lots of small, free farmers could. How best to simulate this?

Mechanic 1: Slaves. Slave units are unskilled labourers, trained only to do manual tasks, and cannot work tiles efficiently without an owner. Slaves only cost 1 food, but only produce half of what a free colonist can produce.
Mechanic 2: Plantations. Players can build plantations in a colony. When a colonist is placed inside a plantation, he transfers his tile-working abilities to the slaves in the colony. So placing a free colonist inside allows all slaves to work as if they were free colonists, while placing a master cotton planter allows slaves to work as if they were master cotton planters.

Effect: This means that slaves become more useful the more tiles they are working, to even greater effect if they work multiple tiles of the same type. By the same token, since slaves still have a cost in food, as well as taking into account the food requirement of their owner, they only break even when working two tiles, and are only beneficial past three.

Result: Players will only use slaves where there are large enough tracts of land to support a plantation. They will also clear most of the forests away to reveal as much arable land as possible. In areas where only a few tiles are going to be used for agriculture, players will use free colonists or non-slaving specialists, as they are less inefficient.

Difficulty of Industrialisation & Slave desertions
We don't exactly have industrialisation represented in the game, but we do have something close, in the production of buildings. Buildings are produced with hammers and tools, which are in turn produced from lumber and ore, harvested from forests, marshes, and hills. Due to the mechanics mentioned above, if a player is using slaves in a colony, it is beneficial for him to get as much arable land as possible. But every player would leave at least one source of lumber and one source of ore to be able to build things, right? So what could encourage a player not to do this? On the same hand, there is also the issue of what slaves do, other than work the land. Historically, some were sufficiently daring to make a break for their freedom, though it could lead to their deaths. Where did they go? The most sensible place to run was somewhere your pursuers would have a hard time chasing you, and those just happened to be hills, forests, marshes and mountains.

Mechanic 3: Slave production suffers a -1 penalty for each tile of forest, hill, marsh or mountain within the colony radius.

Effect: Players will have to make a decision as to whether construction in a colony is more important than the resources it produces. In places where the primary resources are going to be lumber and ore, slavery is a bad idea, and those colonies are better focused on construction. In places where clearing the forest will reveal tiles producing high-value arable resources, slavery is a more advantageous system, and removing that last bit of forest and avoiding hills and marshes will not just mean that those tiles can be used for more production, but mean that all other tiles are more productive too.

Result: Making a concious decision not to industrialise certain colonies can allow them to produce massive amounts of resources, which balances the lack of possible construction out.

Plantation owners
Okay, so construction is going to be minimised in colonies with plantations. But that means things like printing presses and newspapers aren't going to be built, which means less liberty bell production. That doesn't seem right, since plantation owners were highly prominent in the war for American independence, and rich landowners were prominent in many other independence wars in the Americas. We need to rectify that.

Mechanic 4: Plantation owners produce liberty bells at the same rate as the average rate of individual production by the occupants of their town halls.

Effect: The mechanic reflects that Plantation Owners had the time to spend dabbling in politics and attending things like continental congresses, and didn't need newspapers so badly when they were in direct contact with the people making the news. If a Free Colonist is in a town hall in a colony containing a plantation owner, the plantation owner will produce liberty bells at the same rate as the free colonist. If an Elder Statesman is in a town hall, the plantation owner will produce at the same rate as an Elder Statesman. If an Elder Statesman and a free colonist are in the town hall, the plantation owner will produce at the rate of 1.5x a Free Colonist, as that is the average liberty bell production per person in the hall.
Though this may seem overpowered, bear in mind that the Newspaper improvement in the original provided a 100% bonus, so a colony with three elder statesmen and a plantation produces as if there were four elders, while one with a newspaper produces as if there were six.

Result: Players will not refrain from choosing slavery simply because it is harder to get the rebel sentiment needed to gain independence, which would not be accurate.

---

So, that's my idea. I think it provides players with a geniune choice about whether to use slavery in their colonies, and represents fairly accurately what happened in our history, where colonies built on the backs of slavery were slow and reluctant to industrialise and produced vast quantities of wealth for their owners and their motherland, and those which sprung up from fishing villiages and small, freeheld farms which grew into centres of production never saw agrarian slavery on quite the same scale. And it represents how different colonies in the same empire might go down different routes.

What it doesn't do is send a moral message. But I don't know how a correct representation of history in this period ever could, at least using the game's mechanics as that vehicle.