AffineConstant
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2022
- Messages
- 227
It'd be interesting to have Slavery as a civic, but to show what it was originally meant for and the tradeoffs it takes, and this tradeoff ties into the fact that early Empires weren't as stable as modern countries are today.
Slavery in most places around the world wasn't about a specific caste system for people born in the same place, at least not in terms of its origins. Instead it originated as a way to move workers from one place to another without them having a say in it. Romans slaves came from conquered cities and nations, not from Rome, because it was perceived, and may well have been, a better economic decision to burn and smash a city and move its inhabitants than to leave a city intact even if you've "conquered" it.
Intact cities can rebel after all, and many often did. The "near" (middle) east was full of empires that were tentative at best, many cities were only "titularly" conquered, and ready to try and break free at a moments notice.
Having a city only be "conquered" stably based on your Civ's culture score, and favoring cities being prone to rebellion and instability in the early game would be both a really interesting mechanic and historically accurate. Slavery could be civic/policy/whatever that you can implement allowing you to burn cities instead and move most of their populations elsewhere. However "slave" Pop wouldn't be nearly as productive as normal pop, perhaps dragging on things like culture and etc. as well as slowly dwindling over time (Rome notably had ever fewer slaves as time wore on without conquering any new territory, however the lack updating their economic system to suite can be seen as a factor in bringing the Empire down). So if you are conquering cities you can't hold it's a potential benefit. But as time advances and capturing and holding cities and an ever bigger empire becomes more viable it becomes an ever worse choice.
Slavery in most places around the world wasn't about a specific caste system for people born in the same place, at least not in terms of its origins. Instead it originated as a way to move workers from one place to another without them having a say in it. Romans slaves came from conquered cities and nations, not from Rome, because it was perceived, and may well have been, a better economic decision to burn and smash a city and move its inhabitants than to leave a city intact even if you've "conquered" it.
Intact cities can rebel after all, and many often did. The "near" (middle) east was full of empires that were tentative at best, many cities were only "titularly" conquered, and ready to try and break free at a moments notice.
Having a city only be "conquered" stably based on your Civ's culture score, and favoring cities being prone to rebellion and instability in the early game would be both a really interesting mechanic and historically accurate. Slavery could be civic/policy/whatever that you can implement allowing you to burn cities instead and move most of their populations elsewhere. However "slave" Pop wouldn't be nearly as productive as normal pop, perhaps dragging on things like culture and etc. as well as slowly dwindling over time (Rome notably had ever fewer slaves as time wore on without conquering any new territory, however the lack updating their economic system to suite can be seen as a factor in bringing the Empire down). So if you are conquering cities you can't hold it's a potential benefit. But as time advances and capturing and holding cities and an ever bigger empire becomes more viable it becomes an ever worse choice.
