Will there be slavery in Civ6?

[ThomasClark]

Makes some sense as an economic policy card. How about a phased-in diplomatic penalty? Slavery is a norm in ancient times, as you reach 1500, civs carrying slavery start to suffer diplomatic penalties, as you reach 1750, penalties get more severe, major internal unhappiness/revolt starts in 1800, etc. Diplomatically, one historic example that comes to mind: One of the reasons Great Britain did not "ally" with the South in the US Civil War was that GB had already abolished and condemned slavery (1830s).

From an optics standpoint the mechanic shows that what was done throughout history is not morally acceptable...but was a substantial part of world history and in some cases economic development. Wasn't it in Civ 4? This could be like ideology-like before ideologies come into play. If you abolish slavery, you could get some type of happiness boost and diplomatic boost with other civs that have abolished.

 

[Hajee]

As someone said above there will be a mod.

Since there the mechanic of defeating units into workers is already in the game it should be easy to make a mod.

 

[WillowBrook]

Nothing wrong with having slavery as a civics option, especially if it comes with negative effects as well, such as negative diplo with other civs, maybe those running more enlightened civics.

 

[stroypa]

It should be in. Civ V didn't have a government system so it's omission wasn't a huge deal. If they're returning to such a system though, where we can choose specific ways of organising and running our civilisation, slavery has to be in. It was a historically important and significant practice. Leaving it out is essentially trying to rewrite or censor history, which is an incredibly pathetic and shameful thing to do.

Historical accuracy, authenticity, and immersion are certainly big parts of what makes Civ great. Not including slavery, which was a crucial aspect of history, frankly damages the game's credibility.

Why would they even intentionally leave it out? Who would they be trying to please? Are there a significant number of people who wouldn't buy the game if it had slavery in? Would the game receive poor reviews? Would there be a call to boycott it? Nothing of the sort would happen.

What next? No more nukes? No more city razing? No more war?

 

[Scaramanga]

Clearly, slavery is only allowed and seen as cute when minorities (Amerindians) do it.

Moderator Action: This is not appropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Inhalaattori]

Slavery is universal Phenomenon that was practiced on all continents at some point of their history. I dont really see it being more controversial than war. Most civilizations in CIV games practiced large scale slavery. Arabs, Ottomans, Portuguese, Spanish etc.

In a way catching enemy workers and settlers is a form slavery in CIV V. You cant sell your workers to other players though, which could be seen as slave trade.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: The history of slavery can be discussed in the History section of the forums. In this thread, please discuss slavery as a game mechanic and whether it is useful or not in game terms, along with what in-game penalties the player that uses it may suffer. Game threads are not the place to get into historical arguments.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Larsenex]

I would be absolutely estatic if they brought back slavery and the units far back from CALL 2 POWER where you would hear a whip crack and the voice say..'who's next'...OMG sweet memories!

But alas PC idiots and the tender feelings of the liberal elite will say no no no.... you cant have that..

Moderator Action: Please leave politics out of the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Hopefully we can mode such back in. ..How I miss that voice..."Who's next"..../good times.

As an aside it was historically accurate. 1/3rd of ROMES population was slaves and as pointed out by the History Channel ....."as a 'pre industrial' society although brutal, slavery was very effective in getting production and civil projects built!"

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I hope for a mechanic that introduces to add slaves to cities (similar as in civ3) but that their efficiency (yield output) would be a bit lower. They should also consume less food though. The more the civs get cultural the more it should create "unhappiness". Also cities with a too large slave population should occasionaly revolt or have turn(s) with anarchy.

 

[Ryika]

Makes sense thematically, but gameplay-wise? Having the most efficient option be one where cities suddenly stop working for a while doesn't sound like it would be fun.

 

[OnceAKing]

I don't understand.

The Aztecs kill enemy units and magically workers appear that you can take back to your cities to rush districts, if that isn't slavery I don't know what is.

For China, you can sacrifice workers for building the Great Wall.

The Pyramids allow you to get an extra charge for your workers after building them.


They already have slavery in the game. Why do you need them to spell it out for you unnecessarily? I think this a good compromise. It's a game so having workers spawn where enemy units were is a good enough hint for me.

 

[Cyon]

Slavery as a economic policy card could be interesting if they did it right. They're should be some conection to military conquest and gold (see the book 'Debt the first 5000 years' the David Graeber lays out the theory of the slave-military-coin complex)

Down sides with slavery are many, not counting the moral ones:

>>Stagnation of applied science. <<

The ancient Greek built steam driven toys but never considered building a steam engine since they saw no benefit in more efficient work.

Don't know how to model this, maybe a flat minus percentage to science? Sure slave owning Greeks made a lot of scientific brake through but mostly in theoretical fields.


Unstabillity and riots.
Minus in amenities or a risk every turn to spawn slave rebellions that you have to defeat or abolish slavery.

But I guess that it is easier to not include it.

 

[Thormodr]

It will be abstracted, if anything, but it won't be overt.

 

[King Jason]

Honestly, my first thought during the Aztec reveal of Eagle Warriors was that they were capturing slaves.

My second thought was that I hope, much like the Prized Ships promotion in civ5, it's something that every civ can access in some way. (Ottomans had prized ships promotion on all of their melee ships, every civ could access this ability with Privateers)

Since it would seem that the Aztec's ability to do this has a particularly limited window, it would make the most sense for Slavery to be an economic or military policy that allows any of your melee units to be able to do this. This would actually force players to abandon slavery as a policy in the late game naturally, as the gunpowder class of units arrive in the game. Basically, Slavery would actually reach a point in the game where it becomes obsolete.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think slavery could be an economic civic which may convert defeated enemies into builders/ allow you to rush stuff with builders/ give an extra builder charge or something like that.

It could be an early game civic which later on may be replaced by stuff such as serfdom (enlightened slavery), free labor and so on.

I think all civics should only be good for you, this mean the tradeoff of using one civic is the lack of not using another civic with another bonus.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Having it called "forced labor" as a policy card works because that is something that is practiced currently (ie communism, bond slavery, prison labor, 'work' camps, etc)

It should be scaleable (so you could have society that was mostly slaves, or just a few for a bonus) and the penalties would scale as well. (Probably tech penalties, not happiness/diplo ones)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Civilization IV had slavery, Serfdom and caste system as choices for labour. So I think you can expect to see these in Civilization VI as well.

 

[Mustakrakish]

It should be in. Civ V didn't have a government system so it's omission wasn't a huge deal. If they're returning to such a system though, where we can choose specific ways of organising and running our civilisation, slavery has to be in. It was a historically important and significant practice. Leaving it out is essentially trying to rewrite or censor history, which is an incredibly pathetic and shameful thing to do.

Historical accuracy, authenticity, and immersion are certainly big parts of what makes Civ great. Not including slavery, which was a crucial aspect of history, frankly damages the game's credibility.

Why would they even intentionally leave it out? Who would they be trying to please? Are there a significant number of people who wouldn't buy the game if it had slavery in? Would the game receive poor reviews? Would there be a call to boycott it? Nothing of the sort would happen.

What next? No more nukes? No more city razing? No more war?

It could be very good mechanic, one of those that has bonuses and penalties, let's say occasional revolts that would depend on how much military power you have in comparison to slaves or something, requiring more housing but less amenities etc etc. plus the usual negative modifier from other civs to outright aggression the closer you get to modern era. So many things that can be with it. But alas, there won't be slavery policy because they are slaves to political correctness

 

[cakes]

there's no real reason to include slavery in any overt way other than to be controversial in this climate

 

[stroypa]

there's no real reason to include slavery in any overt way other than to be controversial in this climate

So historical accuracy and a fun or interesting mechanic aren't good enough reasons? It's not even "controversial". It'd be interesting to see what percentage of the target audience, and what percentage of the overall population in given countries, think it is wrong to have a wide and long practiced historical phenomenon like slavery, in a game like Civilization.

I bet anything it would be a small but probably vocal minority in both cases. So who frigging cares what they think. Pandering to this way of thinking, censoring history, it isn't the way to go. If some people are godforbid, offended, they can be. It's not the end of the world.