Slavery

[GeneralZIft]

Sorry for this unsavoury topic in advance. But what do you guys think about a Slavery mechanic for Civ7.

It was unfortunately a very core part of civilisation that is generally ignored in these games (for better or worse).

For example, prisoners of war, could provide production. Or experimented on for science. Or sold to other nearby Civs for money? Or is that too "unclean" for Civ?

In Rimworld (which is a totally different type of game), there are plenty of depictions of Slavery as a totally optional but useable mechanic with it's own consequences.
I guess that could prove that a general audience could be mature enough to handle topics like that.

What do you think?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This has been discussed off and on previously in these Forums, so I'll just summarize what I've already said.

1. The earliest indications of 'slavery' seem to have been the wholesale appropriation of the population of a conquered city. There were two reasons for this. First, the early Bronze Age city-states had no mechanism yet to govern somebody not close at hand: bureaucracy hadn't even been invented yet, so there was no settling down to govern the place, you stole everything that wasn't nailed down, including people, and brought them home with you. Second, early cities concentrated people and animals, so they also concentrated epidemic Diseases. There is pretty good evidence that city populations had such a high death rate that the population didn't grow without continuous additions from outside - like captives from a conquered city.

This would be pretty easy to model: as of now whenever you take a city in Civ VI, the city population drops by approximately half. Instead of those people disappearing, maybe all or some of them get added to the population of your nearest city representing captives or 'slaves' incorporated in your population.

2. Slavery has some serious Downsides. Everybody who had slaves also had either slave revolts or had to modify their society to defend against potential slave revolts. The most extreme example being Sparta, who militarized her entire society to make sure her Helot slave population could never successfully revolt, to the point where Sparta produced no philosophers, no sculptors, no artists - virtually no Culture at all other than oral poetry, which they were known for but of which almost none survives because they didn't write it down or preserve it - no libraries or any other cultural architecture in Sparta.

So, Get Slaves = lose All your Culture? Not what I'd call a winning choice, but the choice you might be nudged towards with a large, alien slave population.

That also means if you have Slaves in the population, another part of your population has to be armed guards to keep an eye on them, or a militarized part of your population - which, of course, is not doing any useful labor so that the 'slave labor' is not all positive, it removes labor from the population as well.

3. Generally, Slave Labor was very inefficient. In the latest incidents, the Nazis discovered that on a per-manhour basis the slave laborers produced about 1/3 what German labor did, and of course very few of them were as well trained on production machinery as the experienced German workers and machinists were, and setting up training programs for them simply ate up more resources and manpower. There are some indications that earlier agricultural labor was equally less efficient, but the inefficiency was hidden by less efficient record keeping.

4. Depicting Slavery is not simple. There were numerous different types of slavery, from simple 'War Captives' from a neighboring city or state with a similar, related culture as described above who were usually pretty quickly integrated, to Really Foreign people who remained 'outsiders' in the population for generations even after being freed to the racist slavery of the European/American/African 'triangle trade' to the modern Slave Labor of the 20th century (German industry in the last years of WWII was up to 1/3 driven by Slave Labor from both military prisoners of war and civilians from conquered states). It is probably not possible to come up with a single mechanic that will cover all the varieties, and multiple mechanics may quickly make the whole thing too much of a cognitive mess for the average gamer to keep track of.

So, while I think some inclusion of slavery makes sense in a game that purports to show 'history' over the past 6000 years, it is not as simple as just providing a new source of Production and Population unless we settle for Slavery Fantasy, which if it doesn't also show the negative aspects of the loathsome practice is completely unacceptable.

 

[Patine]

3. Generally, Slave Labor was very inefficient. In the latest incidents, the Nazis discovered that on a per-manhour basis the slave laborers produced about 1/3 what German labor did, and of course very few of them were as well trained on production machinery as the experienced German workers and machinists were, and setting up training programs for them simply ate up more resources and manpower. There are some indications that earlier agricultural labor was equally less efficient, but the inefficiency was hidden by less efficient record keeping.

And, the inefficiency often can trace to the difference in incentive. A professional worker has a paycheck, the opportunity for promotions and lauding, a community with co-workers, a family (or usually other social life) to go home to, off-shift entertainments to indulge in, and a retirement to look forward to. Even in Communist countries, there was upward mobility and opportunity by excelling in one's field, epitomizing the Workers' Ideal, and showing loyalty to (and even joining) the Party. A slave's only incentives are avoiiding the lash of the whip, getting through the long, arduous, arbitrary work shift so they can have their meal and a ffew hours sleep on a mat on the floor in a leaky shed, and knowing their value of even living depends on their capability to be productive to their master.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And, the inefficiency often can trace to the difference in incentive. A professional worker has a paycheck, the opportunity for promotions and lauding, a community with co-workers, a family (or usually other social life) to go home to, off-shift entertainments to indulge in, and a retirement to look forward to. Even in Communist countries, there was upward mobility and opportunity by excelling in one's field, epitomizing the Workers' Ideal, and showing loyalty to (and even joining) the Party. A slave's only incentives are avoiiding the lash of the whip, getting through the long, arduous, arbitrary work shift so they can have their meal and a ffew hours sleep on a mat on the floor in a leaky shed, and knowing their value of even living depends on their capability to be productive to their master.

Difference in incentives has a huge effect on some economies, and I'd point out that it has not been acknowledged, as far as I'm aware, in any game.

Not only are slaves generally un-incentivized, so are many workers in non-Capitalist economies. Worst case that I know of: the agricultural sector of the Soviet Russian economy. They officially had something like 60 straight years of 'bad weather' causing agricultural output to be below the Plan. Remarkably, neighboring countries reported no such climactic disaster. They actually started meeting their goals only in the late 1970s, after a special '5 Year Plan' diverted huge resources to the agricultural sector. The collective and State farm workers were so unmotivated that while those massive collectives produced most of the basic cereals for the USSR, over 70% of the vegetables came from private plots around the agricultural workers' homes: less than 2% of the land under cultivation, because it provided potential extra income direct to the farmer and his family, produced the bulk of vegetables and herbs grown in the country!

We don't have a comparable mass of statistics from earlier periods, but I would bet that slave labor output on agricultural endeavors was equally inefficient and unproductive due to utter lack of motivation whether they were slaves on a Roman Latifundia or a southern US cotton plantation.

 

[AffineConstant]

Difference in incentives has a huge effect on some economies, and I'd point out that it has not been acknowledged, as far as I'm aware, in any game.

Not only are slaves generally un-incentivized, so are many workers in non-Capitalist economies. Worst case that I know of: the agricultural sector of the Soviet Russian economy. They officially had something like 60 straight years of 'bad weather' causing agricultural output to be below the Plan. Remarkably, neighboring countries reported no such climactic disaster. They actually started meeting their goals only in the late 1970s, after a special '5 Year Plan' diverted huge resources to the agricultural sector. The collective and State farm workers were so unmotivated that while those massive collectives produced most of the basic cereals for the USSR, over 70% of the vegetables came from private plots around the agricultural workers' homes: less than 2% of the land under cultivation, because it provided potential extra income direct to the farmer and his family, produced the bulk of vegetables and herbs grown in the country!

We don't have a comparable mass of statistics from earlier periods, but I would bet that slave labor output on agricultural endeavors was equally inefficient and unproductive due to utter lack of motivation whether they were slaves on a Roman Latifundia or a southern US cotton plantation.

I remember seeing a paper showing that, yes, slavery is an inefficient economic system. In fact it's so inefficient you can overlay a map of current incomes and economic development onto the US and find a map of where slavery was legal in the currently lower development index areas versus where it was illegal and the currently higher economic development index.

Of course this series is a game that seeks to be balanced, so if slavery were in there'd have to be trade offs. You could have it in as a really early economic policy, so it would be more "balanced" versus earlier worse economic policies as well. And it could be a tradeoff of like, it gives a short productivity boost if you capture some citizen as a slave pop from a war (I.E. Rome) but as as soon as you stop going to war all the time other economic policies would be a better choice (I.E. Rome).

In balance terms, let's say: Slave pop gives you relatively "cheap" citizens if you keep capturing them from elsewhere (you don't even have to take a city and all that trouble!). But is both less productive than normal pop citizens, takes up an entire policy slot/whatever. And when you switch away from slave econ policy you get the same pop, but now it's severely unhappy and is dragging everything down around it. So it'd be a tradeoff of a short term temporary boost you can get from conducting war but you're trading off problems in the longer term.

 

[Evie]

The need to "balance" slavery so it's a valid game choice choice is precisely why there's such a big problem including it in the game.

You can represent slavery in a game. But once you start giving players incentives to embrace slavery, particularly ahistorical ones, you are opening a can of worms in term of public relation self-destruct, becsuse you're actively depicting slavery as a "good choice" in some circumstances.

Homestly I think the only way you can make slavery work from a PR perspective is...actually embracing its role as something harmful to your economy, an undesirable consequence of in-game actions, something that your population wants, but that you as a player don't, which youonly gradually gets the tools to fight and reduce. If it really must have in-game utility, then rapidly increasing city size with pops that have drastic limitationd should be about the limit of slavery.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In game terms . . .

IF you conquer anyone in the early game, you either get a reputation as a Raging Barbarian by razing captured cities, or you wind up with 'slaves' from conquered cities.

And without certain Social Policies, slavery will be considered 'normal', so your population will keep buying slaves from outside traders.

So:

You get extra Population/Workers, but they still have to be fed and they are less efficient.

And their Happiness/Loyalty is near-Zero so the chance of them revolting and becoming 'Interior Barbarians" (in Civ VI terms, anyway) is always well Above Zero.

And there will be increasing international Political/Diplomatic pressure to liberate them (which could start as early as the Medieval Period if it is connected to Religion), which if you ignore makes a Diplomatic Victory completely impossible and makes it easier and easier for your opponents to foment and support Rebellions in your state.

Like Religion, Slavery could possibly be something that happens to you and your Civ, whether you want it or not . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Under the current culture of "cancelation" the safest way for a company like Firaxis is to veil any reference about slavery.

Now, assuming it is still possible to have a direct representation of slavery, I think like any other element it should be some situation where it could be an actual option. Cover its objetively negative effects in a game that do not really care about what your population *think* whould need a depper mechanic than "happinest", and talking about efficiency I agree that Slavery should be usefull only in short term, have direct downsides and be a constant sourse of conflict.
Still, I think have slavery as something completely negative that players only interact with to abolish it would be point less in gameplay terms. After all offensive warfare is obviously also morally negative and self destructive, but... Will we have a CIV7 were players are dragged to offensive wars just to show how bad is it?

 

[Marla_Singer]

From a gameplay perspective, slavery was implemented in Civ4 as a simple mechanic allowing you to sacrifice 1 population in your city in order to directly achieve the current production. Many players denounced it as being overpowered (see this thread) as there's actually no other downsides. On the other hand, the most expert players seem to consider it's impossible to win the game without it on highest difficulties.

Civ4Col is more of a population game, and there was no slavery in the vanilla version. The community is all dedicated in one single mod (TAC, RAR and now WTP) which still continues to be developed after 15 years. The mod community has always struggled in order to implement slavery, varying from being overpowered to becoming a major annoyance. At first, slaves were constantly fleeing requiring them to be chased by troops which appeared as a pretty negative diversion from your main objectives, then later they implemented slave hunters which prevent them from fleeing, but it then became very powerful as they basically became "free workers".

All this to say that even in picturing slavery as having pros and cons, and indeed being short-term gains for long-term pains seems to me the most appropriate system, it's difficult to well-balance that.

 

[pokiehl]

Slavery is already represented in Civ 6 without any downsides, and it's not veiled either.

Eagle Warriors capturing enemy units as Builders. Many policy cards that represent slavery and other forced labor systems that are straight buffs: Triangular Trade, Serfdom, Corvee, Ilkum...There are of course other policy cards named after other horrible things too like Native Conquest.

So for all the insistence in this thread that all the various dimensions of slavery have to be realistically modeled into the game and carefully balanced, I don't think Firaxis sees it that way. My guess is that slavery in Civ 7 will be referenced the same way it is in Civ 6.

 

[Evie]

The topic of the thread is whether there should be a dedicated mechanic for representing slavery. Not whether we can have oBlique references to slavery in the game. The later can be done, everyone agrees with that, and the Triangular Trade policy proves it (mind you, there were variants of triangular trade that did not involve slavery, but the most famous one to ehich the name is associated did, so it counts). Although I would argue that as far as I can see it's the only slavery-relevant civic - Ilkum and Corvee are only slavery if you squint really hard and skate really fast across a really broad definition (they are more akin to primitive forms of conscription and taxation), and Serfdom though more akin is generally considered distinct nonetheless.

But a full mechanic that explicitly represent slavery is a different matter, and something we haven't seen since the Slavery civic in IV, nearly 20 years (ack!) ago, and its pop-rushing mechanism. The closest we have in VI is the Jaguar Warrior, but while the use of workers to represent captives evoke slavery, it's clear as day that the intent is not, actually, to represent slavery - it's to represent war captives being claimed for human sacrifice. History shows these captives were not treated as forced labor of any sort, so the use of workers is more of an unfortunate choice than accurate representation. A horrible practice in its own right, to be sure, but one that lies a lot further back in memory, and does not have the ongoing worldwide social impact of slavery. I don't believe it's a valid comparison.

 

[pokiehl]

History shows these captives were not treated as forced labor of any sort, so the use of workers is more of an unfortunate choice than accurate representation. A horrible practice in its own right, to be sure, but one that lies a lot further back in memory, and does not have the ongoing worldwide social impact of slavery. I don't believe it's a valid comparison.

Not true. The Aztec used war captives as personal servants and bought and sold them as well. They were not exclusively sacrificed. Even when they were sacrificed, they could be used as slave labor until they were chosen to sacrificed.

It is NOT clear as day that the intent was to represent sacrifice only. If Firaxis had wanted to represent the sacrificial aspect, they’d go back to having them grant culture or faith or something on combat victory. Like in Civ 5.

 

[Evie]

If we focus on the Jaguar Warrior ability at the exclusion of all else, then, yes, perhaps, it can be interpreted that way. But ignoring context is almost always a mistake in interpretation.

And what's the context here?

The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who explicitly have an ability, named after their religious belief that required human sacrifices, that enable them to use up workers to accelerate construction of districts. Again, here, there is no doubt what the ability refer to: the name makes that explicit. It is the "human sacrifice" ability. The Jaguar Warrior, then, have the ability to produce the necessary unit (workers) to feed that human sacrifice ability. The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who, though they (like many others) practiced slavery, are not in any way form or shape particularly known for it, or have any strong association with it, but who are especially known for taking captive in warfare for human sacrifices purpose. And the context is a game where no other civilization has any sort of special ability that represent slavery in any way.

Given that context, I'm sorry, but I cannot see any rational argument for the idea that the Devs chose to represent slavery only for the Aztecs, who are not particularly known for it, but no one else, rather than using workers sacrifice to represent Aztec human sacrifices (who are particularly known for it), and thus having jaguar warriors able to capture workers to represent their ability to take captives for sacrifice.

The theory that if they meant to represent human sacrifice they would have used an influx of culture or faith does not seem to hold much water when you consider that the aztec sacrifice-a-worker ability is named directly for their religious belief in human sacrifice. It is clear, if nothing else that, in this game, human sacrifice is represented by burning up worker charges for district production.

 

[pokiehl]

If we focus on the Jaguar Warrior ability at the exclusion of all else, then, yes, perhaps, it can be interpreted that way. But ignoring context is almost always a mistake in interpretation.

And what's the context here?

The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who explicitly have an ability, named after their religious belief that required human sacrifices, that enable them to use up workers to accelerate construction of districts. Again, here, there is no doubt what the ability refer to: the name makes that explicit. It is the "human sacrifice" ability. The Jaguar Warrior, then, have the ability to produce the necessary unit (workers) to feed that human sacrifice ability. The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who, though they (like many others) practiced slavery, are not in any way form or shape particularly known for it, or have any strong association with it, but who are especially known for taking captive in warfare for human sacrifices purpose. And the context is a game where no other civilization has any sort of special ability that represent slavery in any way.

Given that context, I'm sorry, but I cannot see any rational argument for the idea that the Devs chose to represent slavery only for the Aztecs, who are not particularly known for it, but no one else, rather than using workers sacrifice to represent Aztec human sacrifices (who are particularly known for it), and thus having jaguar warriors able to capture workers to represent their ability to take captives for sacrifice.

The theory that if they meant to represent human sacrifice they would have used an influx of culture or faith does not seem to hold much water when you consider that the aztec sacrifice-a-worker ability is named directly for their religious belief in human sacrifice. It is clear, if nothing else that, in this game, human sacrifice is represented by burning up worker charges for district production.

I feel like you're strawmanning here. You said the Aztec builder capture ability (it's the Eagle Warrior by the way, not the Jaguar) did not represent slavery because war captives were exclusively sacrificed. "...not treated as forced labor of any sort" were your exact words. That was an incorrect assertion which you've not bothered to defend, and that was what my post was about. I bring this up because your entire rest of argument was predicated on that.

Now you're turning it into another discussion of the Aztec civ ability, which wasn't part of slavery discussion at all and I didn't claim that was an example of slavery. I'm not sure the relevance of even bringing it up. It's just as easily a valid argument to say "sacrifice is already represented via the civ ability, so the capture ability represents slavery; they're clearly discrete concepts."

It's also wrong that they were not "particularly known for slavery" or didn't have "any strong association with it". This is moving the goalpost from your initial assertion. At any rate, their depicting slavery in that ability while no other civs do is certainly not some signal that it's ONLY represented for the Aztecs or that slavery isn't in the game otherwise. Only a couple civs have abilities specifically related to colonialism--but no one would say colonialism is not reflected in various game mechanics (despite it not having some separately set up formalized system with a fancy UI and wordy labels). That also ignores the fact that there are other abstractions of slavery in the game which I've already pointed out.

 

[Evie]

I'm interpeting the Aztec UU (Jaguar,Eagle, they're both Aztec elite military orders that interchangeably take up the role of aztec signature unit in video games), ability in context of the general civ design and game design. If putting things in context is a strawman to you, there is no room for informed discussion here.

It makes no sense to my mind to interpret the Aztec UU ability, in context of the rest of the game, as slavery. I cannot speak for others, but I suspect I'm not alone. But even if I am wrong, even if hour theory deserved more credence than I give it, it does not change the discussion. At best, it would be an ability that may be interpreted as representing slavery. Not an ability that unquestionably represent slavery.

Which, again, is what this thread is about: a suggestion that slavery be actively (and, presumably, clearly) represented in the game. Not oblique representation, not things that may or may not be slavery depending on interpretation.

The Aztec UU ability is no argument for how socially acceptable a general, clearly identified slavery mechanism would be. Which was the starting point, and remains the point.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

An explicit, non-Civ-specific Slavery mechanic is potentially a marketing/sales Time Bomb. That and the basic difficulty of getting a representation of the numerous types of slavery 'right' are, IMHO, the two most important reasons to dodge the issue in a game design.

My only counter-argument is that slavery was such a pervasive part of human society for so long (in game terms, about 5700 out of 6000 years of game time) that not acknowledging it seems, basically, intellectually dishonest. Which is why I argue that any depiction of slavery in any form has to also show the negative aspects to your Civ, economy and culture as well as any perceived advantages - and, of course, even that might not be enough to avoid public outcry at the prospect of 'playing slavery' in a game.

Hiding or fudging the whole slavery thing by making it an inferred part of a Civic or Social Policy or part of a single Civ's Unique Unit capability appears equally dishonest, because it seems to be simply attempting to hide the whole problem behind Gaming Smoke and Mirrors and hope no one notices.

Civ IV had an explicit Slavery mechanism (Thank you, by the way: I remembered the mechanic but couldn't remember which Civ had it) but, as remarked, that was some years ago: I'm not so sure a game design could 'get away' with that now, but I'm pretty sure that a commercial gaming company would not want to risk potential controversy or negative publicity by trying it these days.

Another game question for which there are no good answers . . .

 

[GeneralZIft]

Maybe it depends massively on what kind of audience Firaxis wants to appeal to.
If they go hog wild (I doubt it), and introduce all kinds of off-the-wall mechanics, I could see slavery being one of them. You know, if they wanted to really hone it into a "customise everything you ever wanted in a Civilisation, for realsies!"

But I suspect that the series has been going more and more towards a sort of PG, child friendly, history-teaching type of game. Where it's half complex and half educational. In that case more simplistic and less complicated, less disturbing mechanics are more likely to see the light of day.

Besides, mostly negative mechanics are usually avoided in the series. For example, Plague. While it's very important, nobody wants to be struck by RNGPlague and have to change their entire game to fight it. We know as much from Millennia don't we?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe it depends massively on what kind of audience Firaxis wants to appeal to.
If they go hog wild (I doubt it), and introduce all kinds of off-the-wall mechanics, I could see slavery being one of them. You know, if they wanted to really hone it into a "customise everything you ever wanted in a Civilisation, for realsies!"

But I suspect that the series has been going more and more towards a sort of PG, child friendly, history-teaching type of game. Where it's half complex and half educational. In that case more simplistic and less complicated, less disturbing mechanics are more likely to see the light of day.

Besides, mostly negative mechanics are usually avoided in the series. For example, Plague. While it's very important, nobody wants to be struck by RNGPlague and have to change their entire game to fight it. We know as much from Millennia don't we?

Negatives of any kind are generally frowned on in games: gamers don't like to be prevented from doing things by the game design.

On the other hand, designs that present 'negatives' with an Alternative can work. Case at hand, a Slavery mechanic that was not mandatory, that you could avoid adopting with a little work. Sure, it means your Roman Empire isn't historically authentic, but even I know that doesn't mean diddley/squat to most gamers as long as they have a chance to win the game with 'their' Romans . . .

 

[Patine]

If we focus on the Jaguar Warrior ability at the exclusion of all else, then, yes, perhaps, it can be interpreted that way. But ignoring context is almost always a mistake in interpretation.

And what's the context here?

The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who explicitly have an ability, named after their religious belief that required human sacrifices, that enable them to use up workers to accelerate construction of districts. Again, here, there is no doubt what the ability refer to: the name makes that explicit. It is the "human sacrifice" ability. The Jaguar Warrior, then, have the ability to produce the necessary unit (workers) to feed that human sacrifice ability. The context is a civilization (the Aztec) who, though they (like many others) practiced slavery, are not in any way form or shape particularly known for it, or have any strong association with it, but who are especially known for taking captive in warfare for human sacrifices purpose. And the context is a game where no other civilization has any sort of special ability that represent slavery in any way.

Given that context, I'm sorry, but I cannot see any rational argument for the idea that the Devs chose to represent slavery only for the Aztecs, who are not particularly known for it, but no one else, rather than using workers sacrifice to represent Aztec human sacrifices (who are particularly known for it), and thus having jaguar warriors able to capture workers to represent their ability to take captives for sacrifice.

The theory that if they meant to represent human sacrifice they would have used an influx of culture or faith does not seem to hold much water when you consider that the aztec sacrifice-a-worker ability is named directly for their religious belief in human sacrifice. It is clear, if nothing else that, in this game, human sacrifice is represented by burning up worker charges for district production.

I feel like you're strawmanning here. You said the Aztec builder capture ability (it's the Eagle Warrior by the way, not the Jaguar) did not represent slavery because war captives were exclusively sacrificed. "...not treated as forced labor of any sort" were your exact words. That was an incorrect assertion which you've not bothered to defend, and that was what my post was about. I bring this up because your entire rest of argument was predicated on that.

Now you're turning it into another discussion of the Aztec civ ability, which wasn't part of slavery discussion at all and I didn't claim that was an example of slavery. I'm not sure the relevance of even bringing it up. It's just as easily a valid argument to say "sacrifice is already represented via the civ ability, so the capture ability represents slavery; they're clearly discrete concepts."

It's also wrong that they were not "particularly known for slavery" or didn't have "any strong association with it". This is moving the goalpost from your initial assertion. At any rate, their depicting slavery in that ability while no other civs do is certainly not some signal that it's ONLY represented for the Aztecs or that slavery isn't in the game otherwise. Only a couple civs have abilities specifically related to colonialism--but no one would say colonialism is not reflected in various game mechanics (despite it not having some separately set up formalized system with a fancy UI and wordy labels). That also ignores the fact that there are other abstractions of slavery in the game which I've already pointed out.

An explicit, non-Civ-specific Slavery mechanic is potentially a marketing/sales Time Bomb. That and the basic difficulty of getting a representation of the numerous types of slavery 'right' are, IMHO, the two most important reasons to dodge the issue in a game design.

My only counter-argument is that slavery was such a pervasive part of human society for so long (in game terms, about 5700 out of 6000 years of game time) that not acknowledging it seems, basically, intellectually dishonest. Which is why I argue that any depiction of slavery in any form has to also show the negative aspects to your Civ, economy and culture as well as any perceived advantages - and, of course, even that might not be enough to avoid public outcry at the prospect of 'playing slavery' in a game.

Hiding or fudging the whole slavery thing by making it an inferred part of a Civic or Social Policy or part of a single Civ's Unique Unit capability appears equally dishonest, because it seems to be simply attempting to hide the whole problem behind Gaming Smoke and Mirrors and hope no one notices.

Civ IV had an explicit Slavery mechanism (Thank you, by the way: I remembered the mechanic but couldn't remember which Civ had it) but, as remarked, that was some years ago: I'm not so sure a game design could 'get away' with that now, but I'm pretty sure that a commercial gaming company would not want to risk potential controversy or negative publicity by trying it these days.

Another game question for which there are no good answers . . .

Maybe it depends massively on what kind of audience Firaxis wants to appeal to.
If they go hog wild (I doubt it), and introduce all kinds of off-the-wall mechanics, I could see slavery being one of them. You know, if they wanted to really hone it into a "customise everything you ever wanted in a Civilisation, for realsies!"

But I suspect that the series has been going more and more towards a sort of PG, child friendly, history-teaching type of game. Where it's half complex and half educational. In that case more simplistic and less complicated, less disturbing mechanics are more likely to see the light of day.

Besides, mostly negative mechanics are usually avoided in the series. For example, Plague. While it's very important, nobody wants to be struck by RNGPlague and have to change their entire game to fight it. We know as much from Millennia don't we?

I think the debate has segwed from what should be the focus. Not arguing for or against, and defending or criticizing, whether or not Firaxis has touched noticably and mechanically on slavery, and been beneficial woth few drawbacks or not, in past and the current iteration of Civ, but whether it REALLY should in Civ7 and going forward, be notably referenced beyond intimation, and, if so, be without significant drawback. This is an example, since I was asked, of why harkening to iteration-specific mechanics to bring back, rrather than inovating new ones, for each iteration, especially given changing attitudes in general societal views on such things (which I was declared to be conjuring an opinion out of wholecloth with the original topic that was brought up around, though I was not, and what I said is a shift in viewpoints, and the issue of the change in views on slavery is even more blatant).

 

[GeneralZIft]

I think the debate has segwed from what should be the focus. Not arguing for or against, and defending or criticizing, whether or not Firaxis has touched noticably and mechanically on slavery, and been beneficial woth few drawbacks or not, in past and the current iteration of Civ, but whether it REALLY should in Civ7 and going forward, be notably referenced beyond intimation, and, if so, be without significant drawback. This is an example, since I was asked, of why harkening to iteration-specific mechanics to bring back, rrather than inovating new ones, for each iteration, especially given changing attitudes in general societal views on such things (which I was declared to be conjuring an opinion out of wholecloth with the original topic that was brought up around, though I was not, and what I said is a shift in viewpoints, and the issue of the change in views on slavery is even more blatant).

Are you that annoyed about the other thread? Oh my god man let it rest
Not that a slavery system and an ideology system is even barely comparable