Slavery

[King_Ford]

I use it for most of the game. It does wonders when you have all of those angry citizens and you can get rid of them with a whip. It also has saved my butt numerous times during war. When I need units right away, I can get them.

I do find it very interesting that some people don't use it due to the morality issues. That is something that you don't hear everyday especially when playing computer/video games. How do the people who don't use it due to the morality, feel about going to war and destroying civilizations? Do you tend to go after more cultural and space race victories?

 

[CoZe]

doh, I just can't believe there're people out there that refuse to run civics because of personal biases it's a game dammit. slavery basicly a food-hammer conversion which is very crucial in the early stages of the game.

 

[gash]

It doesn't really benefit me so I don't use it. The cost in population isn't worth it once cities are producing well. It's only useful on new or island cities, and they should typically be a minority in one's empire. Besides, one also has to worry about the anarchy phase that it creates and its occurrence in relation to other more useful civics. I like to build my cities up so that's the main reason it isn't useful. Of course, I also have a personal bias against it, but that alone won't stop me from using it in the game. After all, I have the same bias against police state and state property, but the usefulness of state property also means that I switch to it very soon (I have big empires and hate wasting time on courthouses in non-Rhye's and Fall games), and the need to control war weary populations has made me choose police state once in the past while fighting against several European civilizations at once while worrying about my large cities.

 

[Roy123]

In anything like Civ or, in an earlier era, SimCity, I feel like you're not *just* playing to win it's also interesting to see what kind of place you can create on the way to victory. I don't run around trying not to kill people in Call of Duty 4 because that's totally different but in Civ I do feel kind of bad building on slavery. I tend to gravitate toward free market, emancipation and toward inventing and spreading the religion I actually follow in real life. I do tend to gravitate toward space race and cultural victories.

But, that said, in my last game I was Montezuma and had Sacrificial Altars so...the whip came out...

 

[Kevie]

I'm somewhat surprised about how many ppl dont really use it due to morals. Granted that when I first played civ, i never use slavery because it was morally wrong. But now that I learned to play better, slavery is useful in the early ages.

But I thought this poll/thread was just gonna be a yes or no kinda deal. lol. guess i was wrong ;x

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I do find it very interesting that some people don't use it due to the morality issues. That is something that you don't hear everyday especially when playing computer/video games. How do the people who don't use it due to the morality, feel about going to war and destroying civilizations? Do you tend to go after more cultural and space race victories?

I think the "morality" problem that some people have is that all of our lives we have been educated that slavery is wrong. I certainly hold that opinion in the real world, and I have difficulty overcoming my uneasiness using it in the game. I realize that it is just a game and as such my citizens are fictional and really don't care what I do to them, but for me it's a "guilt" issue. By using the civic, I feel I am condoning it, and that makes me uncomfortable.
That being said, I wouldn't remove the civic from the game, or criticize anyone who uses it. I have no business imposing my morality on others and your game is your game, I have no problem with that.
As far as going to war and wiping out civs, well, that's just part of the game and I don't feel bad about doing it at all. After all, it is just a game. I go after every type of victory, but I'm usually not aggressive enough for domination or conquest. I have tried using slavery a bit in my latest games and I probably will again once I make the mental leap that these little people aren't real and I'm offending no one (and me).
There's one explanation, anyway.

 

[Civsassin]

This is all a bit silly... It's a game folks; play and enjoy. Try not to add morality to it.

 

[Al Capwn]

I think the "morality" problem that some people have is that all of our lives we have been educated that slavery is wrong. I certainly hold that opinion in the real world, and I have difficulty overcoming my uneasiness using it in the game. I realize that it is just a game and as such my citizens are fictional and really don't care what I do to them, but for me it's a "guilt" issue. By using the civic, I feel I am condoning it, and that makes me uncomfortable.
That being said, I wouldn't remove the civic from the game, or criticize anyone who uses it. I have no business imposing my morality on others and your game is your game, I have no problem with that.
As far as going to war and wiping out civs, well, that's just part of the game and I don't feel bad about doing it at all. After all, it is just a game. I go after every type of victory, but I'm usually not aggressive enough for domination or conquest. I have tried using slavery a bit in my latest games and I probably will again once I make the mental leap that these little people aren't real and I'm offending no one (and me).
There's one explanation, anyway.

You make a very interesting statement here. Now I'm not "attacking" you so please don't take any offense. However, you stated that you don't like using the game mechanic of slavery because "By using the civic, I feel I am condoning it, and that makes me uncomfortable." But you then go on to say that war (and all the civilian deaths and atrocities and war-crimes that inevitably follow any war), "As far as going to war and wiping out civs, well, that's just part of the game and I don't feel bad about doing it at all."

War, genocide (wiping out a civilization), and slavery are all parts of the game's mechanics yet you have a distinct aversion to only one of them (slavery). It's a very interesting study into the morals of today's society and what is and isn't deemed acceptable.

As far as morals are concerned, well that's just a byproduct of each individuals upbringing. No one is born with morals. Morality is taught by the society that one lives in. For proof of this all you need to do is look at different societies in the world today to see that, on the "moral compass", there is no true north.

 

[Al Capwn]

^^^
Also, I'm not trying to bring any sort of moral judgement into the forums. I just like the debate.

 

[alamo]

It has its uses, but the penalty is significant enough to not be an exploit.

As for morality, consider the morality of the things we do today. Attacking ideology in one corner and ignoring atrocity in another is hardly moral.

 

[Roy123]

"I have tried using slavery a bit in my latest games and I probably will again once I make the mental leap that these little people aren't real and I'm offending no one"

Lemon Merchant: are you suggesting that the little people aren't actually real, living and suffering in some parallel universe?!?!?!?

 

[CLST]

There are a total of 5 civics in the game that aren't immoral by modern standards.

Even some of the defaults, despotism, barbarism, are simply horrible egregious acts against mankind.

I think trying to pull a`most moral civics you can with your current technology' is pretty silly.

Especially when you then go around and declare war for nebulous reasons, or poison a cities drinking water, or raze an entire city to the ground and kill all of its citizens whilst destroying priceless human achievements (wonders).

I think to win a `moral' game is very difficult.

I smell a new game!

 

[Krazy]

I have no problem with Slavery in game, just as I've no problem about killing things in games, it does not turn me into a psychotic murderer for instance. My only thing with the Slavery civic is that I find the "We cannot forget your cruel oppression" angry people really stupid. Slavery should come with a no-unhappiness bonus, if your populace are slaves they get no say. End of story.
The way round this is to apply penalties for using Slavery when more "modern" civics are open to you then I feel the WCFYCO is appropriate, until then not.

 

[DilithiumDad]

I'm surprised at people who whip wonders. That's very inefficienct. Mostly I whip graineries (help pop regrow), lighthouses, temples (erases the resulting unhappiness), and theaters (in newly captured cities).

Mostly I whip in fishing villages. These cities are now valuable for trade, but it can take 120 turns to build a courthouse! Come on!

Fishing villages would be a lot more managable if lightouses or harbors gave you +1 hammer. It many cities, that would double production!

 

[thadian]

I like this thread.

Touching a sensative issue, while avoiding flamages.

I may have to change my vote though, i do find slavery immoral but i have used it a lot more lately to get out some early units to allow my builder strategy to go a little less hindered. (especially workers!) As said, is no better to use Nukes, Raze Cities, and demand a nation to submit its soverignty to become a vassal, so i guess slavery isn't that much worse. In the end, it depends on my leader and some leaders are better with it than others.

 

[Leveler]

I'm surprised at people who whip wonders. That's very inefficienct.

Inefficient or not, it is still a lot more efficient than losing wonder by just couple of turns.

Unless I am 100% certain that I am able to be first one to finish a wonder, I will use slavery to finish it, no matter the cost. Citizens will regrow, but with wonders you don't get second changes.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

If I play a RP game where I use my morals as a guideline then no, I don't use it (as I would hope everyone on this site would do!). However, if I'm playing just to play, which is the case most of the time, then yes I do use it. It's such a powerful civic it's silly not to use it.

 

[CCRunner]

I'm surprised at people who whip wonders. That's very inefficienct.

You can overflow whip them. Wait until you would have a large amount of overflow from whipping and then whip. The extra hammers from whipping go right into the wonder with no penalty.

 

[Civsassin]

I find slavery a most useful civic when I am having happiness/healthiness problems. Both of those problems can be temporarily solved with a well timed whip. In fact, if I am having health problems, whipping an aqueduct is not a bad use of the civic, and if I am having happiness problems, whipping a happiness building provides similar benefits. Sometimes I will keep slavery for quite a while; it is purely situational. Build a city on floodplains and quickly find the benefit of whipping a population that surely will not grow anyway due to healthiness problems to get key infrastructure in place. Once you remove the happiness/healthiness problems there is less need for whipping.

 

[Defiant47]

You can overflow whip them. Wait until you would have a large amount of overflow from whipping and then whip. The extra hammers from whipping go right into the wonder with no penalty.

Not if you're running the latest patch... for the past year or so...