Request: slavery and civil war mod

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.

 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
Top Bottom