Slavery in BNW

[Louis XXIV]

I think Civ3 handled it the best - they worked slower but had no upkeep. My problem is I had an entirely slave-based economy until the 21st Century. There needs to be some mechanism for abolition. Ironically, the removal of stacking of workers means the concept would actually work better in Civ5 because the slower workers are actually a penalty (in Civ3, I would have so many free workers that I would usually have stacks of ten). Still, if they were combined with a happiness penalty, perhaps, that increased over time, they might be worthwhile (maybe even make them work the same speed).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think Civ3 handled it the best - they worked slower but had no upkeep. My problem is I had an entirely slave-based economy until the 21st Century. There needs to be some mechanism for abolition. Ironically, the removal of stacking of workers means the concept would actually work better in Civ5 because the slower workers are actually a penalty (in Civ3, I would have so many free workers that I would usually have stacks of ten). Still, if they were combined with a happiness penalty, perhaps, that increased over time, they might be worthwhile (maybe even make them work the same speed).

I would be all for this. But they would have to have some upside beyond no maintenance cost i think. It wouldn't be enough to counterbalance an unhappiness penalty. Especially early in the game..

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, it doesn't have to be one unhappiness per worker, it could be a fraction that doubles per era. For example, 1/4 unhappiness in the ancient and classical eras, 1/2 unhappy in the middle ages, 1 unhappy in the renaissance, 2 unhappiness in the industrial, etc.

In Civ3, the most noteworthy thing was that it was really easy to get slave workers. You could get them by capturing a worker, you could get a bunch by razing a city, you could buy one from another civ, etc. Presumably, in Civ5, you could extort one from a City-State. If you start having happiness issues, you can always sell them to another civ to address the issue. This would help simulate a slave trade too.

 

[Olleus]

How about when you capture an enemy civilian unit or city (or raze it) you get a slave unit. You can then move this unit back to one of your cities where you can "settle it" (a la Civ4) into the city and get plus 1 population. It consumes only half the food of a normal citizen, produces no science, and half the unhappiness of a normal citizen. However, they each produce -1 culture and weaken the spy defence in your city. They automatically die off after ~50 turns.

The idea would be that they are more productive than normal citizens when it comes to food/hammers/gold, but in the long run they damage you by reducing culture and science. Putting lots in a small city would effectively mean that its borders would never pop, while putting lots in your capital would make it more productive, but might cost you techs. Also, if you become accustomed to slaves to make your cities work, you'd have to go to war often to get more as they died off.

Liberty/Freedom would reduce the benefits of slaves for both you and other civs (think of the patronage finisher), while honour would increase the number/likelihood of getting one and autocracy would increase their output.

 

[mlund]

I think the population that's subtracted when you conquer or raze a city should be converted into Gold by default to represent the "spoils system" pillaging type of slavery common in many civilizations. If nothing else it'll stop rewarding the AI for spending all its treasury and running -GPT and thereby hosing you for spoils when you conquer a city. Also, this means that you aren't just killing / displacing all the people in a city when you raze it - you are carrying them off in chains and burning their city behind you.

Within a couple of generations these folks are usually no different than non-conquered peasants / servant caste members. Vast empires with significant populations of multi-generational chattel slaves at the heart of their economy are aberrations. I'd see that as a very specific ideological choice for a Civ if it were represented at all.

- Marty Lund

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I like the idea of returning Slavery to Civ, if only because it's one specific mechanic that would force you to balance negative and positive factors.
In general, slave labor increased productivity in ancient/medieval eras, less in later eras, but always resulted in concerns (sometimes Major concerns) about security - slave revolts, slaves running away, slaves joining the enemy in a war, etc.
So, I suggest that you get slaves from razing/seizing enemy cities or seizing Workers/Settlers. Certain Civs might even get more slaves from a razed/taken city based on the Policies they are following - both the Tradition and Honor trees have policies that could apply. Too many policies from the Liberty tree might even make slave holding almost prohibitive in your Civ as incompatible with citizen stability/happiness.
Slaves can be used two ways.
First, as Workers. Possibly working less effectively, but certainly also requiring less upkeep.
Second, as 'specialists' in a city, providing a boost in Productivity/Gold and maybe even in Culture (slave artists, craftsmen, dancers, singers, etc) BUT never in Science.
Slavery becomes less and less 'profitable' both as a result of Cultural Policy changes (Liberty tree, mentioned above, certainly the Freedom tree later) but also as a result of technology changes - slave labor does not work well in entrepreneurial/capitalist societies, because the slave owner has to invest in relatively expensive training to make the slave worthwhile, and cannot simply 'turn loose' the slave when the work requirements change. Not economic. Therefore, slavery will get less and less useful as you progress into the Renaissance and Industrial Eras.
On the other hand, virtually every Totalitarian Regime of the 20th century used slave labor, so taking that path would allow slavery much later, but also have a major negative effect on relations with non-slave/totalitarian city states and civilizations.

All in all, it fits right in with the mechanics proposed for BNW, but I'm not sure that the proposed concept of a Brave New World of international trade and diplomacy would include Slavery in the eyes of most people.

 

[Securion]

Political Correctness dictates that slavery is as much an impossibility as Muhammed is as leader of the Arab civ (no one would dare to make a picture of him these "multicultural" days).

Also, Oikophobia dictates that European civs must suck tremendously compared to middle eastern ones.

Personally i dont care if slavery would be in or out of the game. I would never have slaves, even if it gimped my entire civ. i tend to... eh... "roleplay" my civs a bit...

 

[Halps]

I agree with Securion, they don't have the huevos to deal with the pc backlash of a historically accurate slavery mechanic.
Can you imagine the uproar if they reintroduced Zulu and some reporter played a demo where they were able to enslave a Zulu worker?
It would be mass hysteria ala current day gun grabbers.

 

[Inhalaattori]

If we would look this issue solely based on facts there would be no problem. Slavery is universal phenomenon that was used in all continents and in most cultures.

Few people know that more slaves were taken from black Africa to Muslim countries than to Americas. In fact if we are talking about slavery, Muslim countries and Arab countries should be the ones making the biggest apologies. There were hundreds of thousands black slaves in Saudi-Arabia even just few decades ago. Europeans on the other hand ended slavery in Africa. Without European influence slavery would have continued much longer.

Yeah I know that in a way slavery still exists in many ways, but its harshest forms are not accepted anymore.

 

[alpha2117]

If Civ was a straight sim like say Europa Universalis then I'd say slavery is straight in but Civ is more a "what if" game and I can understand it not being in. Although I think having an "Emanciaption" wonder that suddenly causes slave owning countries to have issues with happiness, relationships with other countries and city states whilst boosting the wonder builders culture might answer any issues people have with it.

 

[Ikael]

Hmmm, already thought about this, this is how I envision a slave system applied to Civ V:

- Make captured workers and settlers a "slave" type of unit. Some barbarian encampments and goody huts will provide slaves once occupied, based on random chances

- Slave units cannot be built like workers or regular units. You must acquire them trought war or by trading with another civilation willing to provide them

- Make slaves working units that have no manteinance cost, and build improvements 33% faster than regular workers. Slaves can also be sacrifized in order to hurry wonders (you will take a temporal hit to happiness, tough) making them useful even during the middle part of the games.

- Autocratic civilizations will be able to obtain more benefits from their forced labour, too (they will work faster and their wonder rushing will be more effective)

- However, empires that have adopted the Liberty civic won't be able to employ any slave, period

- You cannot downright abolish slavery, but you can add harsh unhappiness penalties for empires that mantains them (and sacrifice them) trought resolutions pushed by the world council and by finishing the liberty SP tree. Also, freeing slaves can be added to the conditions of an armistice (the slaves will be turned into workers from their original civs). If many civilizations have adopted the liberty SP by the end of the game, slavery will be a very rare occurrence in your world. If not, well, we might recreate a far more opressive version of today's world...

- In short, make slaves not only equal to workers, but downright superior to them. Make it costier for you to act as a prince of liberty, making it a truthly morall decision and a double edged sword, slavery being useful in the early game but quite taxing if you still rely on it on the latter part of the game, and making ending with slavery a laborious process with no clear outcome (as it happened in the real world)

 

[gunnergoz]

Good luck getting a working simulation of slavery into this game; the PC uproar potential is too high for the marketing types that run these companies to feel comfortable with.

 

[Azale]

Yea, remember the uproar when they had slavery in Civ3, as a labor civic in Civ4, in the Europa Universalis series and in Victoria? It was just like in that one book 1984!

Come off it. Firaxis is hesitant to include slavery because maybe they think it's difficult to model and they don't want to shoehorn it in the game when you can basically generate 'head canon' slavery through your policies & capturing workers anyway.

And mods.

 

[gunnergoz]

Yea, remember the uproar when they had slavery in Civ3, as a labor civic in Civ4, in the Europa Universalis series and in Victoria? It was just like in that one book 1984!

Come off it. Firaxis is hesitant to include slavery because maybe they think it's difficult to model and they don't want to shoehorn it in the game when you can basically generate 'head canon' slavery through your policies & capturing workers anyway.

And mods.

Never underestimate the power of money in a for-profit business. No one will buy Civ V specifically because it includes slavery, but there probably would be a number of people who would boycott it if it officially did include slavery.

 

[Eru Ilúvatar]

I think Civ3 handled it the best - they worked slower but had no upkeep. My problem is I had an entirely slave-based economy until the 21st Century. There needs to be some mechanism for abolition. Ironically, the removal of stacking of workers means the concept would actually work better in Civ5 because the slower workers are actually a penalty (in Civ3, I would have so many free workers that I would usually have stacks of ten). Still, if they were combined with a happiness penalty, perhaps, that increased over time, they might be worthwhile (maybe even make them work the same speed).

Pehamps the World Congress will work that matter.

Slavery is also expesive, indeed. If there is slavery in the game, it might cost a lot to sustain.

 

[Azale]

No one will buy Civ V specifically because it includes slavery, but there probably would be a number of people who would boycott it if it officially did include slavery.

I don't think you have any good reason to actually believe that other than some irrational fear of whatever you've decided is "PC."

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think there is real potential for good slavery mechanics-especially given what we know about other BNW mechanics. I agree that having a specific honor policy which allows you a chance to capture slaves from defeated military units is a good idea (the GEM mod has a "Spoils of War" policy, which allows you to gain gold from defeated military units, & gold/culture from defeated cities-so maybe include slaves in that too).

Another nice addition might be a building called a "slave market", which might allow you to either merge slaves with an existing city (a new "specialist" that consumes less food, but produces no GP points) & also allow you to trade unattached slaves to other civs as a "luxury resource". Of course, there might be a potential downside of having too many slaves merged with your city at any one time (the aforementioned "Slave Revolt"). Alternatively, there might be a social policy added to one of the existing trees (most likely Tradition) that would allow you to exploit slaves beyond mere "slower workers".

Another possibility is that you could have a religious belief that allows you to sacrifice slaves for faith points-just a thought. Oh, & the World Congress idea might allow for the trade in slaves to be banned at some point.

With that in mind, I think that once you switch to the Freedom Ideology, having slaves should definitely start causing happiness issues within your civ.

Apologies if any of this has already been said, but I don't always have to time to look at every suggestion before posting myself ;-).

Aussie.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

Another mechanic could include that when a certain city state reaches a certain era, they will be prone to not like civs that have slaves, hurting a civs Influence points with them. This can be used to show the progressive nature in the world, kind of like a "look at these barbaric people, we will not be diplomatic with them" kind a way.

 

[g3istbot]

I think it would be a good idea, but, what if instead of capturing workers it was capturing barbarians?

and what if you could possible sell those captured barbarians now workers to other countries?

might be a stupid idea, I dunno.

 

[Torwaechter]

If Khazars get in they could have a special ability to reflect slave trading, many Slavic slaves were brought from Europe to the Middle East by Jewish Rhadanites (perhaps one of the sources for antisemitism).

But I think it's too controversial to include that into the game, although human slavery & trafficking really was (and still is) a profitable business and a strong economical force...