Give me Slaves!!!!

It was already great they started to implement the "slaves" aspect in CIV3, but it needs a lot of improving....
Wether the Worker system stays as it is, or is replaced by a Public works system (see another thread), there never are enough slaves to come even close to a realistic system!!!
Rome was populated I think by 50% of slaves, old the old empires relied on slave work for growth.

Here is my suggestion, as it was in history, every military victory should produce slaves, these should be transfered to a city of your choice. These slaves should not count as normal popultion, but should be counted in numbers, with a chance every turn that some of them be converted into citizens of the capturing CIV (for example converting into some food in the foodbox, thereby increasing the population of the city).
The PC should keep track of these numbers and nationality of the slaves, which also should be tradable.
The Work force of these slaves should be at the free disposition of the Player, he should be able to choose wether they should build roads, produce food, production or commerce.....

I think this system would not be too hard to implement and would be very realistic... destroying barbarian tribes would be a lot more interesting then just getting the 25 Gold, as they would provide a lot of slaves... (a village could count for an extra slave bonus)

You can get slaves by razing Cities, and if Slaves were made as important as this then some kind of 'Emancipation Proclamation' would have to be in the game as a SW or GW, as in CTP2

No, there should be an option about freeing slaves that has positive effects, such as faster foreign assimilation, improved economy, etc. BTW, the Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's war powers, so it really only freed the Condfederate slaves. The border states kept slavery until Lincoln managed to get the Constitution amended.

Although I agree that the "slave" portion could be upgraded considerably, the idea of having a chance to enslave enemy combatants is incorporated into c3c. The Inca (I think, could be the Maya) have a unit with a 1/3 chance to enslave if they win an attack.

This is easily incorporated into any attacking unit (not bombard) in the game by clicking a box in the editor.

The biggest problem with doing this is that you will have way too many workers (albeit captured ones) in the game if you give every combat unit the "enslave" ability.

I think that slaves could be more powerful, but the downside-as Mewtarthio has alluded to-would be a lower assimilation rate as long as slavery is allowed-of course, this leaves you open to possible revolt or 'culture flip' if you have captured a lot of foreign cities! Also, the slaves themselves should have a chance to start a revolt-especially if you have a lot attached to ONE city! Of course, after emancipation, all slaves should convert to normal workers, and assimilation rates should come back to normal as well!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hmm, lots of comments, and some quite good concerns about it... let's see:
first:

Slavery should be only allowed by choice of the player, it should be one of the options you can preset, just like other goverment options (let's hope they'll be more ways to customize your goverment in CIV4)...
the Easiest way would be that some goverment forms allow slavery, while others won't, changing from one to the other would automatically free the slaves, turning them into citizens.

One important fact would have to be, slaves can also be assimilated, meaning A German city would have german slaves, not only foreign slaves...

The way to create workers now is a start, but why can't you get slaves from Barbarians??? also, there are no slave citizens in CIV3... I might risk something saying this, but the slave system in CTP was quite good in this point.. the slaves citizens worked like normal citizens on the land around the city, but cost only half/no food to maintain....

Again: I am not talking about having little worker units walking around the map, what I suggest are slaves added automatically to the cities to work there at lower cost then normal citizens

You know, I kind of like the idea that you might enslave some people in order to increase a city size (as was suggested above) where the workers (slaves) get 1/2 food. This could really be a strategic move.

1) Slaves often were people who couldn't pay their debts, were wards of the state, were politically dangerous, etc. They don't necessarily need to be foreigners or to come from military victory.
2) I like aeldrik's idea that type of government has a major impact on how much slavery is tolerated.
3) Similar to Aussie_Lurker's idea- If civil war comes back in Civ 4 (which I hope it does), the size/ratio of your slave population should be a factor in throwing your own empire into revolt. Anyone for Spartacus as a great leader?

SLave idea works but i think you should be able to trans form free slave into mercenaries or citezens.

I agree the unit enslavement in Civ3C is great (slavery sucks of course).

If you check out RAR (Rise and Rule) mod, they had to it. Slavery is a city improvement that actually generates unhappiness (slave revolts), but increases city production at cheap cost.
Captured workers (field slaves) can't join city pops (if I remember right).
Multiple Slave markets lead to the Slave Trade wonder.


In the ancient times, slavery may be a necessary evil, but as the tech tree progresses, more and more techs and wonders generate extra unhappiness in slave cities, representing that stuff becoming unpopular as the world becomes more advanced.

Give me Slaves!!!!
It was already great they started to implement the "slaves" aspect in CIV3, but it needs a lot of improving....
Wether the Worker system stays as it is, or is replaced by a Public works system (see another thread), there never are enough slaves to come even close to a realistic system!!!
Rome was populated I think by 50% of slaves, old the old empires relied on slave work for growth.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting if the economic model could include increased production and also increased reliance on slaves, given the player's government choice. Then when Emancipation time rolls around, any civ under that government would suffer significantly from the switchover, this was true of the South after the end of the Civil War. Wartime devastation aside, they could not generate the crops they could under the old system of large scale plantations/forced labor. No slaves = no cotton and tobacco = no money.

This way the player could get deep into slave trading, but have to prepare for the consequences once world opinion goes against slavery.

Why would world opinion necessarily go against slavery?

Our 'world' is only one 'game' of civ .. one possibility, out of millions upon millions of possible variations! So, if the world superpower has slaves, and didn't want to give them up, and didn't advance socially, why would anything have changed?

By the way, slavery still exists! So, what about that? And now, we even have more fun ways of 'forced labour', like political prisoners in China, "free trade zones" in poor countries for the US or child labour ... hmmm, seems like that emancipation is still a little way off getting built ... perhaps we should go and give it some more shields so it can get completed ...

Those forms of slavery that albow cites exist primarily as punishment rather than economic output. The main reason slavery started to dissapear was because it became more economically efficient to produce things by other means.

But this is yet ANOTHER reason why 'emancipation' should be represented-not through some kind of Wonder (Great or Small), but through civics instead. For instance, your level of 'Libertarianism' and 'Legalism' will together represent the amount of freedom and justice your people enjoy. The higher your Libertarianism, the more thoughts and acts your people are free to do, wheras increasing Legalism represents both an increasingly more codified legal system, and harsher penalties for even minor crimes.
Libertarianism creates happiness, but at a cost in corruption and lost culture-due to decadance-and Legalism reduces corruption, but increases the cost of 'legalist' improvements/wonders and can reduce happiness.
So, where in this melange does slavery sit? Well, pre-abolitionist slavery would be a reflection of low Libertarianism. If your libertarianism levels reach a certain threshold, then any 'slave' related improvements and wonders you possess cease to function. However, the kind of 'slave labour' we see at work in certain third world countries would require both your nations Legalism and its Libertarianism levels to be at a preset level (eg. Legalism 6+ and Libertarianism 5-) If these conditions do not exist, you cannot build or benefit from forced labour camps and the like! Hope that makes sense.
Its interesting the kind of societies you can create using a mix of civic parameters-such as Libertarianism, Legalism and Nationalism. For instance, the IngSoc party of '1984' would have a Libertarianism level of only 1-2 (out of 10), yet a Legalism of only 0-1 (and a nationalism level of around 8+) because, in that society, you were not free to say, do-or even THINK-almost ANYTHING!!! Yet, as was mentioned, nothing was theoretically considered ILLEGAL!! A society like modern China, however, might have a Libertarianism of around 4-5, and a Legalism of over 8, and America would have a Libertarianism of around 6-7 (After and before the Patriot Act, respectively ) Yet have a Legalism of around 8 or more as well (given the Death Penalty exists in most states still). Most European Nations have a Libertarianism of around 6-8 (or even 9 in a nation like Denmark or the Netherlands) and Legalism of around only 5-7 at most!
Yet, almost ALL of the nations mentioned call themselves REPUBLICS !! Just goes to show.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hmmm, interesting point Rhialto, but HOW would you represent that fact within a Civ game? As it stands, there is really no reason AT ALL to abolish slavery within a civ game-from either a reputation or economic standpoint.
Perhaps if, as the 'social concience' of your nation increases, so does the economic, cultural and happiness costs of having such 'improvements/Wonders'. Also, as I have stated elsewhere, your reputation in the eyes of other 'civilized' nations would fall the longer you retained such 'improvements/wonders'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

My viewpoints on slaves... (and forgive my ignorance of correct terms/mechanics). I have also somewhat simplified from what I think an 'ideal' would be...

When you are fighting against an enemy, your relationship (player-toggled + inferred through previous history) with that enemy determines how likely a defeated unit is likely to be captured or killed. (e.g. if you hate them with all your guts, then there is nothing that will stop your men putting them to the sword).

When you capture a military unit they become a PoW. They are then 'bound' to that unit until they step onto a "PoW camp" (as an escort). The PoW camp is a tile improvement. (Any PoW-escorting unit can also "build PoW camp"). Multiple PoW units can be 'bound' to a single military unit.

If an escorting unit is attacked travelling, then all PoW units are re-converted to a fighting force instantly. (Simplicity = all one type on unit, complexity = original unit). Perhaps they should only be at 50% health initially.

This tile returns only 50% of its normal yield, but the benefit is that the PoWs do the work, not the nearby civilians. (For simplicity sake, any number of PoWs can be put into a single camp). If the player "civic" accepts torture, then there is a % chance that some information about the enemy PoWs home-city may be found out when they first enter the camp. PoW camps will be notorious for disease/pollution, so there is a good chance that units wont live too many turns in the camp.

PoW camps should be guarded, because of the risk they represent if freed. (Perhaps make it take 2 turns to return to a fighting force if in camp). Having your military held as PoWs should be a heavy factor of unhappiness for your civ.

If the player-settings accept it, then there is also a % chance the PoW will become a slave each turn.

When a city is taken, the player gets to choose how much % off the population should be taken as slaves, and how much should remain in the city (that's 2 sliders). How the slaves are divided amongst your cities depends on civics (e.g. fair share, or to the wealthy ones). Perhaps slave units can be 'built' and then 'settled', and hence moved between cities.

Ok; so a slave is shown in the population point area, and costs less food than a normal civilian. By default a slave population point is a worker-type, and can also work the land of the city in the same way as normal population. ALSO a slave pop point can also be 'specialised' to a gladiator (+entertainment) or to a house-servant (+luxury).

If you have -ve view of that civ however, your people might not like having them around; certainly not in high numbers. If slaves outnumber civilians there should be a high chance of uprising.

Slaves can be traded. Civic settings also effect if slaves can become freemen and/or citizens. (e.g. after x turns). This helps them assimilate in. Slaves should be capable of reproducing, and you can choose if they become civilians or remain as slaves. Slaves could also be 'sacrificed' to 'rush' wonders etc.

Diplomatic options should allow for the release/enslavement of all PoWs/slaves (ALL or some cities etc).

Aussie_Lurker said:

Hmmm, interesting point Rhialto, but HOW would you represent that fact within a Civ game? As it stands, there is really no reason AT ALL to abolish slavery within a civ game-from either a reputation or economic standpoint.

Click to expand...

Make slaves significantly less efficient than other workers, and have the efficiency of other workers go up exponentially through the game so that if you stick with slavery past a certain point it works about as well as trying to build a starship without leaving despotism, if not less so ?

Have slaveholding come with a risk of a slave revolt - possibly as a thing other civilisations can foment using whatever the Civ 5 espionage mechanism turns out to be ?

Have major diplomatic repercussions to slaveholding ?

I'm inclined to think, fwiw, that if slavery is going to be represented in Civ at all there should be more than one version of it supported; because the social and economic effects of Roman-type slavery and US-South-type slavery are quite different.

Aww I can't edit my post...

I was going to add that when you "free" PoWs they should all be "militia" (weak) type unit as this recognises that they are without weapons; e.g. they are not straight away fully armed troops.

PoWs should only be available after some tech (most were automatically slaves in the ancient times).

Perhaps to recognise the usually repressed setting of the slave (low education, low trust) then there 'productivity' should degrade in modern times (where most jobs require education).

If you select 'gladiator' then the effect (and slave pop point) should only last for x turns. (i.e. they are expended in the effort of entertaining your people).

If you select a 'house-servant' (which represents selling slaves privately so they are no longer property of the 'empire' i.e. you) then it should cause unhappiness in the turn (or two) after if you try switch them back.

how about $$ in diplomatic screen for enslaved workers and emancipation civic automatcally turn slaves into free people (unit w/ no ability, but can join city to increase pop)

I do think a more realistic slave system is in order than simply "whipping". And the solution may be to simply change the "citizen" specialist to a "slave" specialist, but at half the food cost (1 food cost per slave, 1 hammer bonus per slave). Unhappy citizens can be enslaved, converted to slave specialists, but only in the slavery civic. Outside the slavery civic, excess food that can't go toward worked tiles or specialists would simply be lost (no more "citizen" specialists).

Similarly we need to semi-nerf the chopping exploit, OR at least allow it to lead to more sane forestry management practices than simple clearcutting. But that may be for another thread.