Making "Slavery" more interesting [IMPLEMENTED]

[Tugboatspotter]

Okay, what about slaves not being considered by RNG to become free if they are working on a plot?

This would solve the problem of productivity degradation by a slave suddenly becoming free, and also fit historically. Slaves used in towns have a chance of becoming free, those working the land do not.

 

[raystuttgart]

Seriously I do not understand the problem.

There is no "productivity" degradation if slaves become free.
"Converted Natives" / "Freed Slaves" are better than "Native Slaves" / "African Slaves".
(And they do not run away any more, they will not revolt and they can become Experts.)

So Slaves becoming free has only advantages ...
(But it does take time and until that happens there are also chances that they flee or revolt.)

Also Slaves working in Town Buildings does really not make any sense.
They are balanced to have way too much negative modifiers for Building jobs.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Because it won't be the best strategy to use them.

The best option would always be to use a free colonist because they have the best chance of getting you an expert quickest.

That depends on whom you are playing. Some countries have a bonus to cross production so you might actually have lots of settlers - but other countries gain fewer from crosses.
You may have a country with a bonus to food production and produce new free colonists using food - even with a bonus to food that takes a long time to populate an entire colony.
You may have a country that earns lots of gold from plunder or trading - and then you can quickly buy more settlers from Europe - but prices rise if you buy too many.
If the right indian village is nearby an Indentured Servant staying with the Natives might produce the right specialist faster than a free colonist could by hard work (depending if you have a bonus to learning by hard work or not).

Slaves on the other hand are cheap compared to the prices on the european docks and you could fill a colonies fields with slave workers who are better than your free colonists when you may still struggle to do that using free colonists.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

African slaves also seem to be producing more yields than native slaves. I don't know if this is intended or not.

@ConjurerDragon: I agree with everything you said but my concern is more with placing a free colonist on a bonus resource. It might not be obvious to a new player to sacrifice instant productivity for long term benefit, where a slave gives more at first but is not the best long term solution.

@raystuttgart Thanks for clarifying. I may have misunderstood some of the concepts so thanks for your patience.

 

[oldmole1984]

Historically, in the English colonies, cheaper servants were preferred in the beginning of the English colony, but later prices of servants increased, and black slaves as a better workforce became more preferred .

In the WTP, black slaves are cheaper at first, and seasonal servants are more expensive.
I think that by reversing this price, black slaves can make a historical reappearance if the price does not go down, no matter how many they buy. (Seasonal servants continue to increase in price each time they are purchased in Europe.)

I use native slaves when I play by Spain, but I do not want to use them when I play by England.
Is there no option to sell slaves?

 

[oldmole1984]

Also, does purchasing a slave lower the Revolution rate?
If so, I am not convinced. Slaves were not citizens that affected public opinion.
and, colonies with many slaves will not be able to become independent.

 

[AnAmericanCommunist]

I love this idea. The concept of the Haitian Empire in this game is incredible.

 

[AnAmericanCommunist]

Two minor ideas, runaway communities and native assimilation of runaways.

First, could independent cities be founded, like the barbarian cities in BTS, by runaway African slaves?

Second, could runaway slaves of all types go and join native communities (transforming into a brave whenever they enter a native city)?

 

[raystuttgart]

First, could independent cities be founded, like the barbarian cities in BTS, by runaway African slaves?
Second, could runaway slaves of all types go and join native communities (transforming into a brave whenever they enter a native city)?

Both technically possible to implement but both lots of effort.
(For the first one we would even need a new Civ and AI programming and somehow mechanisms to make this interesting for gameplay in DLL.)

I have no idea if anybody in the team would like to implement that though - because as I said, this sounds like lots of effort to make it worthwhile / interesting for gameplay.
Also those would be new feature suggestions that should be discussed in new threads.

 

[AnAmericanCommunist]

Sorry for posting them in the wrong place.

And thanks again for the amazing mod.

 

[raystuttgart]

Sorry for posting them in the wrong place.

Well, it fits to the "topic of the thread", but it is really a feature concept of its own.
Some of that (Runaways joining another Civ) will most likely be implemented similarly for the Pirate Civ though.
(Which however also will be a lot of effort to implement.)

 

[raystuttgart]

This is implemented now.
see here

 

[Swarbs]

A) Criminals, African Slaves and Native Slaves can now also revolt and then attack the Player (it is an additional feature to "fleeing" which also still exists)

May be difficult, but is there a way to tie that to wars and enemies (other cols with bad relations). That way criminals and slaves won't just revolt and be a nuisance you can easily kill, but may revolt and join your enemies. Similar to how Spanish Florida would accept fleeing British slaves provided they served in the militia.

In other words, if you are at war or have bad relations with another colony there is a greater risk that your criminals and slaves will revolt and join them, turning into colonial militia when they do (possibly stealing some of your weapons to do so). The chance could be tied to how many guard units you have in each colony.

That would make slavery even more interesting if during a war you had to keep some units in reserve to stop your slaves joining the enemy, rather than just marching everything off to fight on the front lines.

 

[raystuttgart]

May be difficult, but is there a way to tie that to wars and enemies (other cols with bad relations).

Possible but it would not really make it more interesting or change anything for gameplay.
(Other than being more rare - it already now is not triggered too often, do not worry.)

A) They would attack you anyways and you would kill them anyways or loose your city if you fail.
B) If we tie it to a condition "being at war" or any other "restriction", it would only be a little more rare.
C) The "Revolting Slaves" are generally relatively weak and most - almost all - Colonial Units have really good chances of beating them.
D) They currently have "hidden nationality" (to prevent being displayed as owned by "Wild Animals") so you would not even know which Nation they belong to.
E) If they would join another Nation that is not at War with you and not have hidden Nationality - they could not attack you and also you could not attack them.

In the future - once it is implemented - they will join "Pirate Civ" though - which is supposed to be an "independent Nation fighting the existing colonial system".
For most historical slave revolts the slaves did not really want to join other European Colonies - they wanted to be independend and free - there were of course a few exceptions to that.

That way criminals and slaves won't just revolt and be a nuisance you can easily kill, but may revolt and join your enemies.

As I said, "who they join" does currently not make a difference for gameplay if their AI behaviour is the same (and I currently do not want to invest effort of recoding their AI).

The chance could be tied to how many guard units you have in each colony.

It would basically only make the feature more rare again.
Because already now you need to keep some defenses in your cities to guard them, or your cities themselves will trigger an uprest.

Summary:

The result for gameplay would pretty much always be the same - no matter who they join.
(In the future they are supposed to join "Pirate Civ" though - and will not need "hidden nationality" anymore - which currently simply prevents them from being displayed as Nation "Wild Animals".)

If you have a City with lots of Slaves you need more Military to defend the City - because Revolting Slaves are a danger even if they are not that strong.
Once the Slaves revolt, they will attack you and if they are beaten they are killed - if they kill all City defenders you loose the City.

So having many Slaves has now become a danger for the security of your Cities.
So you should consider that in your strategy when playing with lots of Slaves.

Restrictive conditions (e.g. being at War) will only make the feature more rare and thus reduce its gameplay importance.
(That however can be done much more easily with the balancing modifiers added in XML.)

General Remark:

The current feature "Revolting Slaves" is generally a new base component.
The other additional change "Slaves can now become free" (as "Freed Slaves" or "Converted Natives") is as well.

It could be used e.g. by Python Event System or expanded in other ways in the future.
Before we already discuss changing it, please at least give it a try once it is released.

 

[Swarbs]

Possible but it would not really make it more interesting or change anything for gameplay.
(Other than being more rare - it already now is not triggered too often, do not worry.)

Actually I was thinking it would be a much more frequent event during wars and when you have bad relations. Maybe even a 50% chance per turn for a unit to rebel and join another col if you are at war with them, reduced to 25% if you have a garrison and further for additional units. And one rebelling slave has a big chance to inspire others in your col to rebel as well, so it's not just one unit but maybe a 5-10 unit stack of rebels.

That way it is something you have to deal with if you have a slave based economy and are at war, else you get a massive slave uprising which is hard to deal with - even if each individual unit is weak fighting a stack of them is a problem. It would also be a way to represent the numerous large scale rebellions which the North American colonies experienced during the 17th and 18th centuries.

E) If they would join another Nation that is not at War with you and not have hidden Nationality - they could not attack you and also you could not attack them.

This is true, but then it creates another challenge for gameplay - if you have bad relations with a civ and all your slaves are rebelling to join them, do you start a war to try and win your slaves back / gain compensation for all the fleeing slaves. It would historically represent the fact that Spanish Florida was a major destination for fleeing British slaves, for example.

If you have a City with lots of Slaves you need more Military to defend the City - because Revolting Slaves are a danger even if they are not that strong.
Once the Slaves revolt, they will attack you and if they are beaten they are killed - if they kill all City defenders you loose the City.

So having many Slaves has now become a danger for the security of your Cities.
So you should consider that in your strategy when playing with lots of Slaves.

But if the base chance of this is rare, and rebelling slaves are weak, you will only face 1-2 at once, and thus the risks are minimal. 1-2 strength 3 rebels won't have a chance against artillery in a stockade, for example.

My idea is not that you have to be at war for slaves to rebel, this can happen at any time just as you suggest. My suggestion is that being at war / having bad relations with a nearby col will make the chance much greater and also increase the number of rebels for each event. So you then have to keep garrisons in your colonies rather than just send them all to fight, as maybe you will otherwise have a third to a half of all your slaves revolting at once, as well as an invading army, so it is a major event and a proper risk to your colonies.

If it is too difficult or complicated to give the slaves to another colony, maybe just make it more likely that they will revolt during specific periods like during wars? My thought is just to make the slave revolt mechanic a bit more interesting. The current chance to rebel seems much like the chance to flee, with the rebelling slave only having slightly more strength, but still being nothing more than an administrative nuisance to chase down and kill. I'd like a slave revolt to be a more significant problem and challenge to the gameplay.

 

[raystuttgart]

@Swarbs

Please give this a try first - once it is release - before asking that I change it again or add further stuff.
(You have not even played it yet.)

It is already fully implemented (and tested) and I already started implementing another feature.
I can not jump in squares. I need to focus on things sometimes. And right now I am not going to change this.

This is just a base feature - which is already working for itself fine.
In the future - if I am motivated or somebody else is - it might be expanded by events or other addons.

"Massive Slave Uprises - Triggered by a War" (in a City with many Slaves) could e.g. be a One-Time-Python-Event.
(Something like that happening too often - several times in game - would most likely make Slavery a really bad strategy.)

 

[Vaeringjar]

I suggest changing the revolter's graphics to be of a single unit, to better represent their low combat strength is so low, and the revolting native's graphics also is the exact same as that of native mercs, so this would help differentiate them as well.

 

[raystuttgart]

.... and the revolting native's graphics also is the exact same as that of native mercs, so this would help differentiate them as well.

This has already been changed in the latest - not yet published - development branch.