As you probably know I'm part of the Col2 project. We've discussed the idea to put slaves in the game many times. Most people so far seem to have nothing against it, but I'd like to hear more opinions about it.
I don't want to know if they add depth to the game, I'd just like to hear if you think that including slaves in Col2 is immoral.

My feelings on the subject are exactly what is stated as the second option.

Wow, it's unanimous! Time to close the poll, methinks. :slay:

I believe, if something was "good enough" to happen in history, there is absolute no reason not to include in a game (in a game there are no people suffering - maybe those who do it from poor game systems :) )

I was surprised that the original ostracized the slave-trade. I surmise that it was dropped in favor of missionaries procuring converts. The latter actually resemble slaves; they are unable to settle/use tools, are poor statesmen - producing half as many liberty bells compared to a standard colonist, are 2/3 less effective than standard colonists when manufacturing, but receive a +1 bonus when put to work on a tile (they are industrious outdoorsmen). Of course, you don't <i>import</i> them; you must subjugate villages with missions to accrue them. If you attack the missions, either it is destroyed or reeling natives flee and become converts.

If you want to add a new dimension to the game, then implement it; if you want to maintain the game's original flavor, then don't – for that reason alone, not the one suggested in the poll. Yes, of course slavery was (and in some parts of the world, i.e. Sudan, still is) a nefarious institution, but isn't imperialism itself immoral? Doesn't the game allow you to eradicate large native populations without any sort of compunction?

"(in a game there are no people suffering - maybe those who do it from poor game systems)"

Ha ha ha! He he he! That's a good one! Oh my goodness, that is funny! I'm choking here! HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO! Tee hee hee! Phew, don't have another one like that. I'd die of laughter.

HA HA HA! I can't stop!

Thank you for your worthy addition to the topic of the forum, it was both excitingly interesting, humorous and and added a great deal of information. :p

Originally posted by SvenSlayer
"(in a game there are no people suffering - maybe those who do it from poor game systems)"

Ha ha ha! He he he! That's a good one! Oh my goodness, that is funny! I'm choking here! HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO! Tee hee hee! Phew, don't have another one like that. I'd die of laughter.

HA HA HA! I can't stop!

I'm against it (putting slaves in, I mean). It would change the flavor of the game too much. Also, how would you represent the diferences between the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south?

Umm colonization is set WAY before the time your talking about lizy. It was set in early 1700s.There was no distincton between north and south then. Also there wasnt as many slaves either. Your argument dosent really hold up.

Originally posted by spycatcher34
Umm colonization is set WAY before the time your talking about lizy. It was set in early 1700s.There was no distincton between north and south then. Also there wasnt as many slaves either. Your argument dosent really hold up.

Actually there was a distinction between regions, except there was also the Middle Atlantic states. So it was New England (north), Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies. How much slavery there was, I'm not exactly sure. But during the earlier times, slaves were treated more like indentured servants and were eligable to be freed after working for a period.

"Slave labor was used throughout the colonies from New England to Georgia but ws particularly widespread in the agrarian South."

-quote from my history book

Yes true BUT there wasnt a regional didvde between the peopele wich i be live is important to this issue. And I belive he(?) said "anti slavery north". No, during the time the north had no "consciousness of the immorality of slavery"- :rolleyes:

Massachusetts was even the first British colony to permit slavery. And slavery's been there from the beginnings of postColombian European colonialism, one of the first things Columbus did was take native slaves

The game like Col2 should always be historically correct, not political correctness:eek: :eek: :(

Originally posted by CoolLizy
I'm against it (putting slaves in, I mean). It would change the flavor of the game too much. Also, how would you represent the diferences between the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south?
It is okay that you are against the inclusion of slaves, but I don't know why we should include "the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south". True, it might be historically correct, but the player should be able to decide where he puts his slaves (if we include them). In Col2 it could happen that a player forms a nation with an anti slavery west or a nation without slaves at all.
If our goal was to be historically correct we couldn't allow a Dutch player to drive the English out of America because that did obviously not happen.

Originally posted by spycatcher34
Yes true BUT there wasnt a regional didvde between the peopele wich i be live is important to this issue. And I belive he(?) said "anti slavery north". No, during the time the north had no "consciousness of the immorality of slavery"- :rolleyes:

Not quite. The gap between the states wasn't quite as big in pre-revelutionary times, but it WAS there. In fact, the Delcaration of Independence was ment to cite slavery as one of the imorals the king brought upon the colonies, but the southern states where against it and refused to join the war if it were included.

Originally posted by Son of Liberty

It is okay that you are against the inclusion of slaves, but I don't know why we should include "the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south". True, it might be historically correct, but the player should be able to decide where he puts his slaves (if we include them). In Col2 it could happen that a player forms a nation with an anti slavery west or a nation without slaves at all.
If our goal was to be historically correct we couldn't allow a Dutch player to drive the English out of America because that did obviously not happen.

Yeah, that's true. I'm just worried that the game is going to change too much and I'm not going to enjoy.
Also, on the simular subject of political correctness, if you try to be too politically uncorrect, then the whole game just becomes an uninteresting political statement. I guess I'm just in the minority over this, so I'll shut up and let everyone else enjoy themselves.

Originally posted by CoolLizy


Yeah, that's true. I'm just worried that the game is going to change too much and I'm not going to enjoy.
Also, on the simular subject of political correctness, if you try to be too politically uncorrect, then the whole game just becomes an uninteresting political statement. I guess I'm just in the minority over this, so I'll shut up and let everyone else enjoy themselves.

In our project "fun" will be a more important aspect of the game than historical correctness. Nobody knows if slaves will make the game better ( / increase the fun), if it does not we won't include them even though it is not historically acurate. If slaves add fun to the game we will most likely include them (or make them an option).
But this thread is not supposed to be a discussion if the inclusion of slaves in Col2 adds fun to it. Right now I'd rather like to know if you think it is morally correct to add slaves to a Civ style game.

Originally posted by Son of Liberty

But this thread is not supposed to be a discussion if the inclusion of slaves in Col2 adds fun to it. Right now I'd rather like to know if you think it is morally correct to add slaves to a Civ style game.

Okay, that makes sense. Well, it wouldn't be so much the slaves themselves, but the way they are included. What advanteges and disadvantages would be included. (I guess it's a little early in development to determain something like that. :crazyeyes )
I would have voted in the poll, but I couldn't really express my opinion very well in any of the three options given.

Slaves were an important part of the plantations in the New world. Their use in post-independance USA is irrelevant as it does not fall within the timescale of the game (Most European nations had abolished slavery a good 50 years before American Civil War anyway)

I think you should be very careful about changing history to be more "user-friendly". We must study history to learn about our past mistakes and hope that by doing so we should not make them again. So I am firmly for including slaves in Colonisation II.

Although there may have been more slaves in the "south" (a moot point in a game that starts with a blank canvas of a New World), there were certainly slaves in the north. Signatories of the Mayflower Compact kept servants and slaves. True, slavery abolitionist groups did eventually exist; Ben Franklin established the first such group in April, 1775. Pennsylvania mandated the gradual statewide abolition of slavery in March of 1780. Massachusetts followed suit three years later after their state Supreme Court abolished slavery, based on the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1980.

Such enlightened leaders as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, while some proclaimed dislike of the institution of slavery, nevertheless maintained holdings of slaves, among the largest in the country.

Is it morally right to hold another in bondage? No. Is it right to include slavery in a game simulating a period of history where slavery was a vital institution for years? Yes. Just my two cents!

Second option. Slaves were part of the history.

It is also imoral to kill people (for example: UT), and to hit animals (BnW)

Africans slaves should be available from an African screen for Trade Goods. Equivalent to normal Colonist for outdoor work and 2 units for indoor work (freed Slaves) equivalent to a indentured servant, reflecting prejudice and lack of education. Send ships to buy them from Europe to Africa then America: the slave triangle.

A special type of Colony called a Plantation should be available to build. Instead of a Town Hall it would have a Planters House which could accomodate 1 Colonist. He would produce Liberty Bells in the same way as Statemen thus increasing production over time. An Expert would double the production of his speciality crop. All buildings would accomodate only 1 Colonist. Colonies could still produce cash crops. This reflects the underdevelopment of the Southern United States and West Indies and makes defence more difficult due to reduced lumber and SOL production thus losing you cash crops during the war of independence. George Washington had a Slave Estate so SOL production is accurate, despite the lack of liberty for the said slaves.

I think it would be a good idea to include slaves, but there should also be a good reason for not using them too. Production versus ??? (<--insert good idea here).

I think it would be a good idea to include slaves, but there should also be a good reason for not using them too. Production versus ??? (<--insert good idea here).

Forced labor (slaves, converts, prisioners...) were practical only in plantations. They could do as much as free laborers and they were easer to achieve (you have to convince the freemen to go to your colonies but with forced labour you only have to capture them - and then keep them alive and submitted, that's a handicap). So guess that in order to simplify, slaves should be rather cheap/easy to get but quite uneffective (much like criminals, which fill the blank in the original colonization) and they should be reasonably effective in plantation crops (sugar, tobacco, cotton), mines and as pioneers and lumberjacks but rather innefective in freemen activities like fur-trapping (when have you seen fur trapping with forced labor?, they would maroon themselves inmediately), fishing, farming... of course they would be unable to fight (unless previously freed). I think that for most activities outside plantations and mines, freemen should have a production plus (of course, increased for industrial activities). This is not well reflected in the original Colonization, I think, as criminals (the closer to slaves, as hey are too forced laborers, are as good as any free colonist in all outdoor tasks, even fur-trapping).

The possibility of fleeing and marooning themselves should be considered as well. Then they would be like little independent indian tribes.