Will there be slavery in Civ6?

[cakes]

slavery wasn't a fun or interesting mechanic in civ 4. it was a required strat to the point where there was no need to even have it in the game

and we're talking about civ here -- it takes clues from history but doesn't attempt to be historically accurate. we can have a history game without having slavery, it is possible. maybe you think civ 6 is censoring the aztec's floating gardens as well

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Given that you can raze cities I don't understad why slaver which have been in previous civ games is now to controversial to be mentioned in Civilization VI. Im rather sure it will be in Civilization VI.

 

[Valmighty]

I don't think there's a problem with mentioning things like slavery or sacrifices. And personally I'm not against having Slavery as civic or policy card. However, making Slavery to be one of the viable civilization choices, like in Civ4, may not look good from the modern point of view. Like "Slavery has its advantages and disadvantages over free work. Surely they revolt sometimes, but you could fix this by having enough military". Not very good point of view to promote.

We can diminish the usefulness of slavery in the next era just like the real world mechanics. Slavery, is morally wrong (happiness penalty), and not efficient (less productivity) compared to the new labor system. Adam Smith and Henry Ford said so and proved it.

 

[historix69]

What is wrong with slavery (in a historical context)? For example George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both slave-owners, Benjamin Franklin too. (While the first two personally might have disliked the situation and would have preferred to release their slaves, their economical situation as plantation owners implied slave work as part of the business plan ...) Having a steady income allowed them to engage in politics and take part in the American Revolution, which can be regarded as a (small) step into the direction of enlightenment of humanity ...

Differing attributes (compared to the dominant group) like different ethnic origin (race, color, conquered tribe) or different religion were historically used to justify war and slavery ... this caused a high pressure for religious assimilation of pagan cultures to avoid war and slavery, as can be seen in medieval Europe, e.g. in Christianization of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe ...

Since population in Civ Games in general is completely controlled by the player (without paying any wages), you can regard population in general as the player's slaves ... so a slavery feature for a new Civ game would mostly focus on the possibility "to steal another player's population" ...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And you "steal another player's population" by taking their cities.

 

[historix69]

Slavery would require a way to move population, e.g. in form of a worker or settler unit which can be added to a city, which for example was possible in Civ3 but is not possible in Civ5 ...

 

[Ikael]

I think that slavery will be present implicitly rather than call it by its name. I mean, Qing did built the great wall by the virtue of forced labor in the real world, while in the game he gains an extra builder charge, the Aztecs sacrifized thousand of slaves in order to inaugurate new temples and great public works while in the game they "expend" builders in order to rush districts... I think that it is pretty clear that the slavery mechanics are there in the game in all but name.

 

[Reboot]

This has been brought up time and again with each version of Civ.

(1) It's a problem with sales (and political correctness). The focus of the game is not about slavery. Lots of historical concepts are dropped from Civilization and are not specifically represented, so historicity is not the issue here. e.g: the concept of national borders doesn't reflect how it was imagined in the past; bio and chemical weapons are not represented; the Americans are added as a civ more for sales than history; colonialism and post-colonial nationalism is poorly done; natural disasters hardly happen; etc. heck - the map isn't even a globe, while we're at it.

(2) Slavery exists in at least 2 distinct forms - the classical-type slavery from the times of ancient Rome, and the colonial-type slavery that's associated with the mass (force) migration of Africans to the New World. So which Slavery should be represented? Even if both are represented, how do they add value to the game? As a social policy? There are slave warriors as well, so do we need special units tied to Slavery as a game mechanic? Should we dedicate an entire mechanic on configuration of labor so players can choose between tribal, castes, slaves, serfs, indentures, capitalist, communist? I'd say that's just complicating the game with little value.

(3) Some elements are already implicitly ingame - e.g. Workers are almost always considered some kind of forced labor, especially if you capture them from someone else in the early eras. In fact, this mechanic should be broken in the late eras but that's another suggestion.

(4) Why not consider the positive side of things. Rather than expect Slavery to be explicit in game, include a social idea called Civil Rights, which canvases more areas.