Slaves, Hostages and Prisoners of War

[Thunderbrd]

Maybe keep them constructable but not contributing their production bonus without being off slavery?

 

[tmv]

I think even for constructing them there would be no incentive. There is no advantage in saving labor when you have slavery. If it was possible to implement the techs themselves could be blocked (although that would heavily disfavor slavery at some point).

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The point is to make Slavery not useful at some stage preferably around Industrialization if not before. In theory we should stop any of the civics after Feudalism from being available if you have Slavery but I am not sure we can do that yet. Similarly for some of the Labour civics.

Maybe keep them constructable but not contributing their production bonus without being off slavery?

Not possible as far as I can see. Plus I do want to stop the construction of buildings in the chains rather than having to turn off all the building contributions for all the buildings in the chain.

I think even for constructing them there would be no incentive. There is no advantage in saving labor when you have slavery. If it was possible to implement the techs themselves could be blocked (although that would heavily disfavor slavery at some point).

Yes, that would be more likely but some of the buildings on those techs are compatible with slavery. It is possible to block the techs, just have them require a bonus "no slavery", which is free but have the Slavery Active building remove access in all cities. That should work.

 

[TrippedOnACloud]

I should note that early industrialization is in no way incompatible with slavery. In fact, due to the danger of many early industrial processes, slave labor may well be preferable. For that matter, consider the Nazi and Soviet use of slave labor in the WWII period and later. My opinion is that until you start getting into processes that actually require an educated, motivated workforce, slave labor should remain a viable option, and there will always be unpleasant or dangerous jobs that slave labor could be applied to. That's not even getting into things like sexual slavery (entertainment slaves). Furthermore, saying that saving labor is incompatible with slavery is hardly accurate. It reduces the incentive to adopt labor-saving methods so long as slaves are a cheaper alternative, but does not automatically make them unviable.

Also, there are different degrees or types of slavery throughout history. It could range from slaves being second-class citizens but not actively abused in most ways, to being intentionally worked to death. In the former case, slaves may well be better off than serfs, for example.

I'll go into more detail later, as posting from my phone is kind of a pain.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I should note that early industrialization is in no way incompatible with slavery. In fact, due to the danger of many early industrial processes, slave labor may well be preferable. For that matter, consider the Nazi and Soviet use of slave labor in the WWII period and later. My opinion is that until you start getting into processes that actually require an educated, motivated workforce, slave labor should remain a viable option, and there will always be unpleasant or dangerous jobs that slave labor could be applied to. That's not even getting into things like sexual slavery (entertainment slaves). Furthermore, saying that saving labor is incompatible with slavery is hardly accurate. It reduces the incentive to adopt labor-saving methods so long as slaves are a cheaper alternative, but does not automatically make them unviable.

Also, there are different degrees or types of slavery throughout history. It could range from slaves being second-class citizens but not actively abused in most ways, to being intentionally worked to death. In the former case, slaves may well be better off than serfs, for example.

I'll go into more detail later, as posting from my phone is kind of a pain.

I agree here. Slave labor isn't that much different from capitalist labor in the sense that people still work and automating processes still increase the production output. Slaves are a little MORE productive per person than in a capitalist society but 'free' poor citizens under capitalism still MUST labor or perish basically. They just have to also manage their own finances and may accumulate which cuts into the profits of the venture owner. Factories, therefore, would still exist. Mills would still exist. These things are still tools to enhance the labors of others.

Where you could get as much or more benefit from freeing people is releasing all those MINDS to innovate for themselves. Thus, perhaps you WOULD take a rather large hit on production, but you'd certainly be gaining a tremendous amount of commerce. IF those people could find or create for themselves employment, they could nearly be as productive but may not be bringing the population down with less health, less happiness, more crime and disease, and so forth.

There is no advantage in saving labor when you have slavery.

I have to disagree. Slavery does not equal infinite labor. It's still a measurable commodity with value so there is still an advantage to reducing it's waste. Remember that paying for the basic needs of a slave is still an overhead cost for the owner. And the cost of the slave is also a factor. They aren't exactly 'free'.

Not possible as far as I can see. Plus I do want to stop the construction of buildings in the chains rather than having to turn off all the building contributions for all the buildings in the chain.

Should be possible. The Slavery Worldview at its base is a National Wonder right? We have those tags that influence the commerce (and I THINK we have them for yields as well though I don't know) of other buildings nationwide. Like the ones that make the Mound wonders influence the research and culture of the tumulus. (I really like those effects... we should be using this kind of thing more often imo.)

 

[Faustmouse]

Maybe slaves should give you to option to increase your (maybe only on building production and not on military?) and , in exchange for , , civil unrest and relations to others?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Maybe slaves should give you to option to increase your (maybe only on building production and not on military?) and , in exchange for , , civil unrest and relations to others?

Specialists can only do all production not be split to either military or non-military. I tried. Not sure I understand the rest, but then I am being particularly thick today.

 

[tmv]

It's still a measurable commodity with value so there is still an advantage to reducing it's waste.

Yes, slavery can exist in an industrialized society. But a slavery society does not industrialize, or at least not on a grand scale. This change is so investment-heavy I cannot imagine it taking place when a very cheap workforce is available. And the (future) rich industrials are rarely "old money", but upstarts during the industrialization, so where does the money come from? Especially with people thinking you ask for a lot of money to solve a non-problem.

 

[TrippedOnACloud]

I agree here. Slave labor isn't that much different from capitalist labor in the sense that people still work and automating processes still increase the production output. Slaves are a little MORE productive per person than in a capitalist society but 'free' poor citizens under capitalism still MUST labor or perish basically. They just have to also manage their own finances and may accumulate which cuts into the profits of the venture owner. Factories, therefore, would still exist. Mills would still exist. These things are still tools to enhance the labors of others.

Where you could get as much or more benefit from freeing people is releasing all those MINDS to innovate for themselves. Thus, perhaps you WOULD take a rather large hit on production, but you'd certainly be gaining a tremendous amount of commerce. IF those people could find or create for themselves employment, they could nearly be as productive but may not be bringing the population down with less health, less happiness, more crime and disease, and so forth.

This I strongly agree with, at least as applied to early industrialization.

Yes, slavery can exist in an industrialized society. But a slavery society does not industrialize, or at least not on a grand scale. This change is so investment-heavy I cannot imagine it taking place when a very cheap workforce is available. And the (future) rich industrials are rarely "old money", but upstarts during the industrialization, so where does the money come from? Especially with people thinking you ask for a lot of money to solve a non-problem.

I disagree. I think you're perhaps too focused on the role of slavery in the New World, as expendable labor in primarily agricultural work, with additional racial, economic, and medical factors involved as well. However, bear in mind that the initial source of slaves was often war captives from intertribal warfare, very much in line with where most captives in C2C come from. I'm not particularly well-read on the subject, but I believe at least one factor in their "cheapness" was simply the enormous difference in the technology levels between those doing the buying and those doing the selling. The slave buyers were able to pay in cheap trade goods that had significantly greater value to the lower-technology sellers. Slaves may not necessarily be cheap, and historically slaves could often be valued possessions and may well be better off than theoretically free citizenry. Also consider the counterexample of the urban poor in early industrial cities, or company towns. In many ways, they were slaves in all but name. This is why I brought up the example of second-class citizens. Theoretically, a society could make use of prisoners of war without subjecting them to any particularly harsh conditions, and without nearly as many negative consequences, especially if national or cultural identity is weak to begin with. "We beat you, so now you belong to us. Join us/work for us, and we'll feed and house you. Refuse, and we'll simply kill you." Naturally, there would still be resistance and possibly uprisings, but depending on the specific circumstances of the slavery in question, the actual degree of such could vary widely.

 

[tmv]

Regarding the following: As a libertarian, slavery is pretty much the antithesis of what I think of as right.

With that being said, slaves are a renewable resource. In fact, the "maintenance cost" of a slave is almost constant, and if you don't "use" him/her/it, it's your net loss. If you have a certain "workforce" consisting of slaves, and someone offers you a new invention to save labor, you will usually throw them out, unless you have more work to do for the slaves than they are able to accomplish. This kind of "saving labor" is just a net loss for you (regarding the money you pay for the invention).

Regarding the "slaves in all but name": I think it is important to distinguish a few terms:

The main difference between slaves and serfs is that serfs are not a trade good. Usually the only way to get new serfs is by them being born to your serfs. Even that can limit the bad treatment of the master somewhat, but not always.

The main difference between slaves / serfs and industrial workers (even in the 19th century) is: The employer is not the direct cause of their troubles. The main "power / freedom" a slave or serf lacks is the inability to give notice. The fact that they are not paid is just a consequence of this. The industrial worker could give notice if (usually) he wanted, but it would be suicide, and not because he would be punished by the employer.

The slave who tries to run away is pursued by the master, and on capture the slave is punished, often by death. The master is the entire source of the slave's troubles. If the slave could get away, they would be better off pretty much anywhere. The industrial worker is usually someone who is the victim of rural exodus, and the source of their troubles lies in the fact that they cannot live in rural areas anymore, or that they have been promised a better life in the city. And very often life in the city is better than the life their ancestors had, especially if their ancestors were serfs (often the case in Europe). I'm afraid that I don't know that much about rural life in pre-industrial America, although my point would likely stand on weaker legs because there was obviously no serfdom. But even then, the industrial employer is not the source of the troubles. There is a moral obligation to take care of your employees, certainly if a horrible fate awaited them if fired, but I see a noticeable difference to slave / serf masters.

My last point for now: I have already said that there are both pre-industrial and industrial societies with slaves, but I don't think any society has industrialized under slavery. And I was mostly thinking about Rome as a pre-industrial society, not the New World. At least in later centuries, their slaves usually were the descendants of captives.

 

[TrippedOnACloud]

The slave who tries to run away is pursued by the master, and on capture the slave is punished, often by death.

That's pretty much the case with serfdom, at least in the more extreme examples, no? I dare say a lot of serfs were treated far worse than say, Greek or Ottoman slaves.

The master is the entire source of the slave's troubles. If the slave could get away, they would be better off pretty much anywhere.

Tell that to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha or Pargali Ibrahim Pasha at the height of their power. Admittedly, they were subject to the whims of the Sultan, but the same was equally true of free men.

There is a moral obligation to take care of your employees, certainly if a horrible fate awaited them if fired, but I see a noticeable difference to slave / serf masters.

I believe the ancient Greeks made the same argument for the care and treatment of their slaves, and to either treat them as valuable domestic animals, or as minor children.

Mind, I'm not arguing in favor of slavery, and I've intentionally picked examples at the, I suppose you could call it "better end", of the spectrum of conditions for slavery. My main point is that there can easily be no practical difference between slaves and free workers, and that both systems are equally subject to abuses on the part of those in power. For the purposes of modeling slavery in C2C, I don't think it's valid to generalize to the degree that some have suggested. If we really wanted to model things to that level of detail, we could easily put together an entire civic category similar to the Labor civic set solely regarding the conditions of slavery. Furthermore, Civilization/C2C is not a historical simulator, and while decisions have to be made for purposes of game balance, the basis for those decisions need not mirror specific historical cases. There are many problems with the current C2C implementation, both as a game mechanic and as a historically-based model, but my belief is that any rework should take at least most possibilities into account.

Come to think of it, what if the current Worldview - Slavery were split up into multiple Worldviews representing different aspects or conditions of slavery? Alternatively, have the effects, both positive and negative, vary significantly with various civics, primarily in the Labor and Welfare civic categories, but possibly others. Obviously, a major project, but just tossing ideas out there for discussion.

 

[Thunderbrd]

unless you have more work to do for the slaves than they are able to accomplish.

In most manifestations of industry, there's usually either near infinite benefit from continuing to improve output, or such wealth has been accumulated that new ventures become possible. If neither is achieved, then selling off of unnecessary overhead is also a benefit. AKA, buildings and innovations improving the output of labor always remains another way to expand and enhance profit margin. There would never be a point where improving the value of the labor force you have does not have the likelihood of granting a return on investment enough to delve into. Perhaps it would take longer for that return to manifest since your labor is already cheap under slavery, but it would still pay off for any entrepreneur playing a longer term strategy to conquer his markets. The more he can manufacture, the cheaper he can price his product on the market. The cheaper he can price his product, the more likely he can beat his competitor. The more likely he can beat out his competitor, the quicker he gains such a tremendous advantage in the market that he can start to then raise the prices as he sees fit. So now he has both cheaper production and a higher price and his profit margin soars. So even the smallest shaving of cost in production means everything.

I don't think any society has industrialized under slavery.

The US south is a perfect example. Sure, the slaves were out in the fields picking the cotton but the cotton gin was sure invented and put to immediate and powerful use despite having near limitless hands to de-seed the cotton for them. This is just one example that hits the mark rather centrally. Even slaves are going to be more effective in what they are tasked to do if you give them a means to do it via an assembly line or automation. And some things still require such tools that large machinery, such as mills, becomes not only a luxury but necessary if you're going to keep up, even if you have a nearly infinite amount of manual labor on hand.

Mind, I'm not arguing in favor of slavery, and I've intentionally picked examples at the, I suppose you could call it "better end", of the spectrum of conditions for slavery. My main point is that there can easily be no practical difference between slaves and free workers, and that both systems are equally subject to abuses on the part of those in power. For the purposes of modeling slavery in C2C, I don't think it's valid to generalize to the degree that some have suggested. If we really wanted to model things to that level of detail, we could easily put together an entire civic category similar to the Labor civic set solely regarding the conditions of slavery. Furthermore, Civilization/C2C is not a historical simulator, and while decisions have to be made for purposes of game balance, the basis for those decisions need not mirror specific historical cases. There are many problems with the current C2C implementation, both as a game mechanic and as a historically-based model, but my belief is that any rework should take at least most possibilities into account.

Come to think of it, what if the current Worldview - Slavery were split up into multiple Worldviews representing different aspects or conditions of slavery? Alternatively, have the effects, both positive and negative, vary significantly with various civics, primarily in the Labor and Welfare civic categories, but possibly others. Obviously, a major project, but just tossing ideas out there for discussion.

What kind of systems and differences between those systems would we be looking at, whether it be through differing worldviews OR civics?

 

[Septentrion]

I couldn't help think of Rome when it came the slavery discussion. Rome was essentially the mega-slave city of the real world that we so often hear about in C2C. The difference is the it's much more viable in C2C whereas a slave economy could collapse quite easily. In Rome, there was a tax on freeing slaves. There were also laws in the southern states to make such an act illegal. The mere economics of buying and selling slaves could make a bubble and a resultant collapses. Labor innovations interferes the in slave market in ways the state would prefer to avoid. It's a bit too complex to actually implement in full.

Industrialization also needs workers, and free workers wouldn't be happy competing with slaves for basic jobs. Slavery basically ruins the job market to the point were the modern job market never forms. This is a less philosophically objection(world view) than one of self-interest of the majority of the population.

 

[tmv]

That's another aspect of slavery. Often the strongest opponents of slavery are not even the slaves themselves (as it was pointed out, there are well-treated slaves), but the lower-class citizens who have to compete with free (or almost free) labor.

 

[TrippedOnACloud]

What kind of systems and differences between those systems would we be looking at, whether it be through differing worldviews OR civics?

I was mainly thinking in terms of the primary uses to which slaves are applied as one group (roughly analogous to the current differing specialists that can be settled), and their relative place in society and their treatment as another.

Just as a rough outline, in the first we'd have "Agriculture", "Industry", "Commerce", "Entertainment", "Domestic", etc. and you could have multiple active at any given time. The specific types of benefits you'd gain from the slave population would depend on which of these were active. For example, having only Agriculture active, the slave population would effectively be dedicated to food production only. With both Agriculture and Industry, food and hammers. This could be adjusted with minimal to no dislocation or consequences.

In the second, we'd have the overall position slaves occupy in terms of social standing and the conditions of their servitude as a spectrum of options, with only one active at a time. Roughly speaking, this would determine the magnitude of the effects of slaves, both positive and negative, perhaps a set of three or four options. At one end would be fairly mild conditions, roughly analogous to the better Ancient Greek or Ottoman conditions I mentioned previously, where slaves were fairly unrestricted in their occupations, protected to some degree by legal or other considerations, and able to earn freedom or occupy positions of trust or power. The chances of slave revolts would be lower, as would some but not all penalties, but yields from slave population would be lower overall, though again with differing degrees for different categories. Just as an example, Industry and Agriculture slaves would probably be most heavily affected, while Commerce or Domestic slaves much less so. At the other end would be harsh and inhumane conditions, with brutal overseers, wanton abuses, etc. You'd be able to get very high yields in some categories (again, such as Agriculture and Industry), but the negative side effects would also be much more severe, and slave revolts common. In effect, the difference between treating slaves as second-class citizens, and as expendable property, with one or two intermediate options. Specific actions available to captive units would also vary depending on this axis. For example, in the milder options, you would be able to add them to your cities as either slaves or as free citizens, or upgrade them to units, but not rush-build with them. At the other end, you could only add them as slaves, and you would be able to rush-build, but adding to city population as free citizens would be impossible, as would upgrading them to military units. I'm thinking this could only be changed with fairly major consequences or costs.

That said, the above would depend on a completely revamped system for modeling slave populations in general. My idea is actually something along the lines of an entirely new property for cities only, basically, "slave population", rather than using specialists to track slaves. Basically, all captives when added to a city population as slaves would add to this pool. Effects of slaves would depend on this value, as well as the ratio of free population to slave population. Using the categories I mentioned above, for example, if you had Agriculture, Industry, and Entertainment active, 1/3 of the slave population value would be used as the multiplier for each of the three. The value as a whole, along with the "slavery conditions" worldview, would determine the "baseline" negative effects, with possible modifications based on the types of slaves used. Abandoning slavery altogether would convert this "slave population" to free/normal city population according to some ratio or formula. Various events would also interact with this property. For example, a large-scale slave revolt event would reduce the slave population in the city it occurred by some value, and spawn hostile units around the city in proportion.

Mind, this is all just my ideas, and while I believe the technical aspects of it should be possible, I'm not certain how to go about doing it. For that matter, specific numerical values involved would need to be decided and adjusted. Anyway, as usual, thoughts, comments, suggestions, discussion?

 

[tmv]

What if both slavery and cannibalism are active?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Just as a rough outline, in the first we'd have "Agriculture", "Industry", "Commerce", "Entertainment", "Domestic", etc. and you could have multiple active at any given time. The specific types of benefits you'd gain from the slave population would depend on which of these were active. For example, having only Agriculture active, the slave population would effectively be dedicated to food production only. With both Agriculture and Industry, food and hammers. This could be adjusted with minimal to no dislocation or consequences.

That said, the above would depend on a completely revamped system for modeling slave populations in general. My idea is actually something along the lines of an entirely new property for cities only, basically, "slave population", rather than using specialists to track slaves. Basically, all captives when added to a city population as slaves would add to this pool. Effects of slaves would depend on this value, as well as the ratio of free population to slave population. Using the categories I mentioned above, for example, if you had Agriculture, Industry, and Entertainment active, 1/3 of the slave population value would be used as the multiplier for each of the three. The value as a whole, along with the "slavery conditions" worldview, would determine the "baseline" negative effects, with possible modifications based on the types of slaves used. Abandoning slavery altogether would convert this "slave population" to free/normal city population according to some ratio or formula. Various events would also interact with this property. For example, a large-scale slave revolt event would reduce the slave population in the city it occurred by some value, and spawn hostile units around the city in proportion.

Mind, this is all just my ideas, and while I believe the technical aspects of it should be possible, I'm not certain how to go about doing it. For that matter, specific numerical values involved would need to be decided and adjusted. Anyway, as usual, thoughts, comments, suggestions, discussion?

I can see how the above would work BUT I don't think we are at a point where we should be considering a total overhaul, which, as you say yourself, would be required to take this approach. It's taken us too long to get where we are and too much refinement as the system stands, imo, to throw out all the babies with the bathwater to reenvision the entire method I think.


But:

In the second, we'd have the overall position slaves occupy in terms of social standing and the conditions of their servitude as a spectrum of options, with only one active at a time. Roughly speaking, this would determine the magnitude of the effects of slaves, both positive and negative, perhaps a set of three or four options. At one end would be fairly mild conditions, roughly analogous to the better Ancient Greek or Ottoman conditions I mentioned previously, where slaves were fairly unrestricted in their occupations, protected to some degree by legal or other considerations, and able to earn freedom or occupy positions of trust or power. The chances of slave revolts would be lower, as would some but not all penalties, but yields from slave population would be lower overall, though again with differing degrees for different categories. Just as an example, Industry and Agriculture slaves would probably be most heavily affected, while Commerce or Domestic slaves much less so. At the other end would be harsh and inhumane conditions, with brutal overseers, wanton abuses, etc. You'd be able to get very high yields in some categories (again, such as Agriculture and Industry), but the negative side effects would also be much more severe, and slave revolts common. In effect, the difference between treating slaves as second-class citizens, and as expendable property, with one or two intermediate options. Specific actions available to captive units would also vary depending on this axis. For example, in the milder options, you would be able to add them to your cities as either slaves or as free citizens, or upgrade them to units, but not rush-build with them. At the other end, you could only add them as slaves, and you would be able to rush-build, but adding to city population as free citizens would be impossible, as would upgrading them to military units. I'm thinking this could only be changed with fairly major consequences or costs.

The idea of a civic set that represents policies on worker conditions, some only available to civilizations that have the slavery worldview, could be quite pertinent. There are a number of tags on civics that would make this sort of thing very applicable. Varying degrees of hurry anger, disease/happiness, commerce modifiers, production modifiers etc... You were talking about serfdom vs roman vs n. american styles of slavery and then there's also numerous varieties of worker protections in a non-slave state that can also be counted in the same civic category, right to work, unions, etc... This could be a great way to improve our modelling. We'd have to make it so that if a worldview is removed, it could possibly force the changing of a civic in this category. But all in all, if someone were to write up a plan for this and identify what programming was needed, it shouldn't be too tough I think to implement.

 

[Thunderbrd]

What if both slavery and cannibalism are active?

Wow... that's ... a thrillingly nefarious concept. People ranches.

 

[stoferb]

Industrialization also needs workers, and free workers wouldn't be happy competing with slaves for basic jobs. Slavery basically ruins the job market to the point were the modern job market never forms. This is a less philosophically objection(world view) than one of self-interest of the majority of the population.

This was actually one of the main driving forces behind the american civil war. The majority of the anti-slavery sentiment in the north wasn't about moral or egalitarian concerns, only a minority cared about that, it was exactly the fear that the spread of slavery would kill the job market for ordinary (and white) people that was the big issue.

One thing about slavery as regards to TrippedOnACloud's ideas is that historically speaking most slave populations didn't replenish themselves naturally, and before the british navy halted the atlantic slave trade that was largely the case in america too. But even where slaves were allowed to marry and start families there were usually constant demand for importing new slaves. 19th century america is rather unique in managing to multiply it's slave population within a few decades without importing them. Also if you want to include the phenomenon of slave soldiers and slave bureaucrats who sometimes in history end up as some kind of privelieged elite despite being technically slaves, that's a difficult thing to reduce to civ-style game terms.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Some remarks

• Can we have some more Slave coumpound? Like a Slave coumpound (Depollution), Slave coumpound (Education) or Slave Coumpound (Order). And some late game building about slavery, like Megatower - Slave Level (replace all Slave coumpound, act like all slave coumpound together with more bonus)

Does anyone have a game that has reached the Megatower stage so I can test the Slave Level?