Slaves vs Indentured servants

What do people think of the difference between these? Is there one?

Why not rename Indentured servants (quite verbose a title) to Slaves?

Indentured servants work w/o pay (like slaves) for 4-7 years in return for a passage to America. They are not slaves. Learn your American history, dude

Huayna Capac357 said:

Indentured servants work w/o pay (like slaves) for 4-7 years in return for a passage to America. They are not slaves. Learn your American history, dude

Click to expand...

cheers I know they're historically different and that's why there are no slaves in the original game. But I don't see indentured servants changing into free colonists after 10 game turns! I'm asking because I thought about perhaps renaming the unit in-game, simply changing the title to the shorter "Slave"

Do people think they should be their own 'distinct' unit in game or is this sufficient?

What do you think about recruiting slaves from Europe instead of Indentured Servants?

(before you say it. yes. slaves were from africa!)

Maybe adding a new trading post in "Africa" (south of your home port) would accomplish this. Maybe that is possible?

i would prefer a distinct unit. make them have the stats of petty criminals and sail to africa to purchase them. allow the occasional enslavement of the natives perhaps as an option when you take a tribal settlement (but would anger all other tribes)...not sure how slaves would add to gameplay though, ....except as cheap imports of colonists (eventually it gets too expensive to sustain/import them from Europe) and drawback being they are 'ejected'* from the colony as revolting slaves with a strength of 3 and +100% city attack/ignore defences (since they are within the town they revolt in)

or even make a slave take no food when put in a town farming/cotton picking..

*like how it happens when the food runs out