Is it immoral to put slaves in Col2 ?

[JKMMustang]

Although there may have been more slaves in the "south" (a moot point in a game that starts with a blank canvas of a New World), there were certainly slaves in the north. Signatories of the Mayflower Compact kept servants and slaves. True, slavery abolitionist groups did eventually exist; Ben Franklin established the first such group in April, 1775. Pennsylvania mandated the gradual statewide abolition of slavery in March of 1780. Massachusetts followed suit three years later after their state Supreme Court abolished slavery, based on the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1980.

Such enlightened leaders as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, while some proclaimed dislike of the institution of slavery, nevertheless maintained holdings of slaves, among the largest in the country.

Is it morally right to hold another in bondage? No. Is it right to include slavery in a game simulating a period of history where slavery was a vital institution for years? Yes. Just my two cents!

 

[Marx]

Second option. Slaves were part of the history.

It is also imoral to kill people (for example: UT), and to hit animals (BnW)

 

[dledgard]

Africans slaves should be available from an African screen for Trade Goods. Equivalent to normal Colonist for outdoor work and 2 units for indoor work (freed Slaves) equivalent to a indentured servant, reflecting prejudice and lack of education. Send ships to buy them from Europe to Africa then America: the slave triangle.

A special type of Colony called a Plantation should be available to build. Instead of a Town Hall it would have a Planters House which could accomodate 1 Colonist. He would produce Liberty Bells in the same way as Statemen thus increasing production over time. An Expert would double the production of his speciality crop. All buildings would accomodate only 1 Colonist. Colonies could still produce cash crops. This reflects the underdevelopment of the Southern United States and West Indies and makes defence more difficult due to reduced lumber and SOL production thus losing you cash crops during the war of independence. George Washington had a Slave Estate so SOL production is accurate, despite the lack of liberty for the said slaves.

 

[Newbunkle]

I think it would be a good idea to include slaves, but there should also be a good reason for not using them too. Production versus ??? (<--insert good idea here).

 

[Maju]

I think it would be a good idea to include slaves, but there should also be a good reason for not using them too. Production versus ??? (<--insert good idea here).

Forced labor (slaves, converts, prisioners...) were practical only in plantations. They could do as much as free laborers and they were easer to achieve (you have to convince the freemen to go to your colonies but with forced labour you only have to capture them - and then keep them alive and submitted, that's a handicap). So guess that in order to simplify, slaves should be rather cheap/easy to get but quite uneffective (much like criminals, which fill the blank in the original colonization) and they should be reasonably effective in plantation crops (sugar, tobacco, cotton), mines and as pioneers and lumberjacks but rather innefective in freemen activities like fur-trapping (when have you seen fur trapping with forced labor?, they would maroon themselves inmediately), fishing, farming... of course they would be unable to fight (unless previously freed). I think that for most activities outside plantations and mines, freemen should have a production plus (of course, increased for industrial activities). This is not well reflected in the original Colonization, I think, as criminals (the closer to slaves, as hey are too forced laborers, are as good as any free colonist in all outdoor tasks, even fur-trapping).

The possibility of fleeing and marooning themselves should be considered as well. Then they would be like little independent indian tribes.