Personally I would prefer it to be left out. Sure it was/is part of human history but so are other nasty things like the fact that most of the time when an invading army conquered a population thier troops would rape the women of the populace.

In fact this even happens now. Look at what the iraqi soldiers did to the kuwaiti women.

I'm sure that if someone "really" wanted to they could incorporate this into the game. Say if your troops occupy a city that city's populace would slowly change over 3 or 4 decades to a hybrid of your civ's ethnicity and the conquered city's ethnicity.

But I'm sure that this would be something no one on this group wants in the game.

I don't know what the ethnicity is of most of the people on this board but being a descendent of a group who went through REAL slavery less than even 2 centuries ago I certainly would not want to see this aspect portrayed in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment and NOT for a history lesson.

That said, it is certainly not a pleasant topic. I guess I have mized feelings about it being in the game. On the one hand, it was pretty much ubiquitous and played a definite part in the way civilizations developed and interacted, and was so universal that it would hardly have been considered an atrocity, but rather a common fact of everyday life. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be placed in a situation where I was forced to have slaves and slavers just to keep up with the Joneses. I definitely didn't like the way slavery was implemented in CTP, so maybe if it were handled in some less visible, non-unit oriented approach it would be better. I dunno.

It's worth noting that the American experience of slavery being based on race was relatively unique. Generally slaves were members of defeated tribes/countries or criminals, and their descendants, and were often racially and culturally indistinguishable from their masters. So while slavery is of course morally repulsive, it is not in and of itself a racist concept. If slavery exists in the game, I think Firaxis will save itself a few headaches by making that point clear.

"I think it's a very bad idea to try to bury the negative aspects of history and forget about them - if we forget the horrors, we're more likely to repeat them when the memory becomes sufficiently dim."

I never said that we should try to bury negative aspects of human history like slavery. My comment was that I don't think it has a place in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment.

I could only imagine how a jewish person would feel if in a game based on WWII you could play as the NAZI's and build concentration camps with gas chambers.

Did this happen in real life? Yes. Should we learn about it so that it never happens again? Yes. Should it be part of a game for enjoyment? No.

There was a post on the other thread that suggests we have POW work force instead. I think this would be a better option.

quote: Originally posted by CWM on 04-05-2000 09:42 PM Gord McLeod wrote : I never said that we should try to bury negative aspects of human history like slavery. My comment was that I don't think it has a place in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment.

That's true, you didn't say we should bury the past completely, but I feel games like Civilization, which have a certain emphasis on historical development and therefore historical accuracy, can be a valuable teaching tool whether people realize it while playing or not. I really don't like pretending this type of thing doesn't exist, even in a game.

1. Two or more units meet in battle...
2. After all the units of one side (within the battle area) are vanquished, there is a random roll to determine survivors/wounded.
3. If survivors, victor has three choices:

• Summarily Execute
  
• Release Unconditionally, and they revert to prior units belonging to their civ.
  
• Take as POW, and they become settler units in chains the color of their home civ.
  

• Fortify in prison, or
  
• Put to Slave Labor
  

• In order for slavery to be considered an attrocity it must be unanimous -- ALL nations must vote to make it an attrocity. Anybody who would be heavily penalized by their slave economy would thus be compelled to defend itself, and the rest who were abolition would be forced to wage war (or trade sanctions, etc.) against the slave nation until they capitulated.

I don't think "slave traders" are necessary. There is enough trade modeled in this suggestion to adequately represent that small piece of history.

The benefits of the model I've suggested here are that, first, in general, slavery is historically modeled as the atrocity that it was and always will be.

Second, it is integrated into the combat model, the building model, the trade model, and the diplomacy model.

And third, in game terms, POW slave labor has both a strictly utilitarian purpose and an equally utilitarian penalty. The moral civs will be confronted with temptation, the amoral civs will be confronted with penalties. It works on every level.

Slavery is far too important to be left out. As horrific as it was, many civs did get a big boost out of it. I agree it should not be neccessary to suceed however. As long as there are serious repurcussions if you do choose to take advantage of it, I believe it would be a satisfyingly accurate portrayayl of history.

That was the other thing I wanted to mention. History was actually part of the appeal that the original civ held for me. It shouldn't feel like a lesson, but history and entertainment shouldn't be mutually exclusive either.

Obviously later in the game after cetain techs are reached (maybe religious) then unhappiness and attrocities are linked with slavery. The longer bondage takes place the bigger the punishments.

Also, I would make it so that non-slave nations and slave nations would have some diplomatic problems with each other. The South during the American Civil War hoped England would come to their side, but England was a free nation and the people would not support their government if they tried to help a slave nation.

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-07-2000 11:26 PM I wouldn't agree with making slavery an atrocity early in the game. Slavery itself was practiced by almost every society, and many inslaved their own people.

True, there should be a point before which slavery is considered "normal", but I'm not sure what the best way to go about that is. It seems to me that tying it to technology is somewhat artificial, though there are likely some good justifications for it... I would prefer to be able to run a society that is intolerant of slavery right from the outset, though, even if the rest of the world disagrees.

quote: Also, I would make it so that non-slave nations and slave nations would have some diplomatic problems with each other. The South during the American Civil War hoped England would come to their side, but England was a free nation and the people would not support their government if they tried to help a slave nation.

Definitely. That fits in with the attrocity idea. Maybe instead of "global" attrocities, Civ needs to have attrocities that are categorized on an individual basis by civs. If you nuke a country, every anti-nuke country in the world gangs up to get you. If you keep slaves, you face economic sanctions and potential massive scale warfare... etc.

quote: I would also make extra benefit in that a slave nation does not teach its entire population. And so a fraction of the populace would not aid in the research of technology.

You are quite right! Since we are talking about including religions in Civ3, we should give them some use. Slavity should become an atrocity since the expansion of new monoteist religions, like Christianism. This way, religions could force the fall of a great slaverist empire (like the Roman Empire in history).

Also, there is something inherently wrong, I believe, in reducing slavery to a game-playable feature. In my mind, it seems to take the harshness, the horror, the reality out of it. To me, playing a game with slavery would be the same as playing a game with concentration camps. Who would want to do that?

As for the game aspect of it, a military unit like the slaver from CTP is simply too unbalanced. If you think the diplomat in CivII is too powerful, what about a unit that can simply steal population?

Another thing: you could argue slavery already exists in CivII. Many of the comments are about ways to play out slavery. Yet slavery was as much as anything an economic model, albeit a horrible one, and as such rather abstract for inclusion in CivIII. Consider when you discover Feudalism in CivII. A large part of Feudalism was serfdom, which many believe was a form of slavery. You didn't need to have slavers or have discovered slavery; by your technology level and government choice you already knew if your civilization likely practiced slavery or not.

If there's something wrong about reducing slavery to a game-playable feature, then it's positively obscene to do so with war.

As for Slavers having too much power in CTP, that's just a matter of game balance which could be rectified by designers.

I think it is a mistake for anyone to remind anyone that Civ 3 is an "entertainment" as opposed to a "history lesson." When did we start making this strange distinction? There is nothing (I trust) inherently wrong with history. And it goes without saying (I hope) that anything can be a lesson -- be it a game or a traffic citation -- whether the person receiving said information wanted to learn something new about themselves or not. Therefore, let us dispense once and for all with the strange argument that Civ 3 for some reason should be neither a "history," nor a "lesson," but rather an "entertainment."

Entertainment. There's another word about which its easy to make unexamined assumptions. People say "it's supposed to be entertainment" as though to be entertaining a thing must have all the innocence of a plastic game prize in a McDonaldland Happy Meal, and can show nothing of the dark side of human nature. As though something like slavery, while not in the least bit entertaining to those who endured it, does not remain a gripping narrative of our human story, very entertaining to young and old alike. Did you ever here a true history of the slave experience in this or any millenium that did NOT entertain you? Do I forever have to play games that tell me the stories of only the victors, never the vanquished?

But the problem, presumably, is that in Civ 3 I will also be having fun with slavery. Enslaving others, being enslaved. That sort of thing. I guess the real question is can something as... personal as slavery offend some people to the point that its inclusion in a game like Civ 3 would ruin the fun they would otherwise be having with wholesale genocide of entire civilizations? I suspect the answer is yes, on paper. But no in reality.

But, that's just me. I'd like to play a game where I protected the world from slavery and wiped it off the face of the earth -- using only economic might. Again, just my own whimsy, here.

First off, I should probably apologize for seeming to say that all horrible aspects
of history should be left out. This was not what I had in mind. Nonetheless, Iago and raingoon have put me in my place in this regard. Any game that includes siege and nuclear warfare might as well include slavery.

The question remains to what extent slavery should be included. I still feel the existing government/economic types in Civ automatically include slavery in their abstractions and that it is not necessary to further highlight the issue. If it has to be in, it should be to only a small degree. I went back and re-read raingoon's original post in this forum on the topic. With all respect, I found his suggestion on POWs bulky and unwieldy but he had a great idea in stating slavery should become an atrocity after discovery of certain technologies.

My suggestion is this, then: assume all government/economic models in CivIII practice slavery. A civilization would not actually cease slavery until discovery of Abolition, which might also include the Emancipation Proclamation as a Wonder of the World.

I still feel that slavery is too messy of an issue to be included in CivIII or, as raingoon pointed out, it allows for a player to benefit by practicing slavery in a game (at least in CivII if you drop nukes there are negative consequences).

You'd get advantages early on, but you'd pay for it later. It should be balanced so that you have to weigh up your alternatives from game to game. You shouldn't be forced to use slavery in order to win, but it should be tempting because of the 'bonuses' you'd receive in the short term. I want a realistic game, not one that's been censored for my (or the general playing community's) supposed benefit.

quote: I must disagree with raingoon on several points. First, CivII is a game, an informative, enlightening game, but still only a game.

This is not in disagreement with anything I said. It's not in agreement either. My point was that the very effort to draw a distinction between a game and whatever else is being implied here -- history? reality? -- is ineffective. There is no need. Again, there is an unexamined assumption in the very act of making the distinction, and in the statement "only a game." What does it mean when we say "only a game"? Whose criteria are we using? Put it this way, I start by assuming everyone knows Civ 3 is a game. I try not to impose my own criteria for that onto them by "reminding" them of the obvious.

quote: It should not try to be all things to all people.

I don't understand what this means in this context. I can't find where I said that.

quote: Second, by entertainment I did not mean mindlessly banal.

Ah. I understand now. You see where I thought you did.

quote: Third, isolated stories of combatting slavery, such as Harriet Tubman leading slaves to freedom, can be entertaining. Slavery itself is not nor should be.

I disagree. I disagree with the word "isolated" -- Isolated from what? -- I disagree with the implication that stories of people who promoted slavery rather than combatted it should NOT be entertaining, and I disagree with the use, in this context, of the word "should" -- Stories of the Romans and the American Southern slave holders "should" not entertain me? Why? Or else what? Far too morally challenging and important and fascinating are such stories, and isn't it great fun to read about such things? And why shouldn't the game Civilization be fascinating, morally challenging -- it already is, to me anyway -- and important?

But I think I do understand what your objection is, and with respect I suggest your fears are unfounded. Nobody on this thread, as far my reading goes, is suggesting that slavery qua slavery is entertainment. However, I believe that books, films, music, poetry, performing arts such as dance, abract expressionism, impressionistic works, etc., and yes -- games like Civ 3, relating to and dealing with the reality of slavery are appropriate and can be -- at least one would hope -- entertaining.

That said, I still think it's something important enough that it has a place in the game. But I also think that there should be a price to pay for having it.

So if you do have a slave society, you face a greater probability of revolts in your cities, you will need stronger garrisons to control them, a revolt in one city should increase the likelihood of revolts in nearby cities, etc.

Also, free civs should advance more rapidly, both scientifically and economically.

I may not be right, but I learned that the South did reap huge benefits from slavery. They were not bringing slaves over as enemies, Africa had nothing to do with the Americans. Instead they bought slaves because they were very cheap labor for plantation owners.

Yes, they had to feed slaves and keep them working, but it was much cheaper than hiring a workforce. The problem with slavery in the South is it was not highly profitable until the cotton gin. At this point slavery was essential to keep the economy going. That is why in the Constitution it provides for the end of the slave trade in 25 years (I think that is the right time), because the founding fathers wanted to end slavery. But by the time of the cotton gin and the Civil War slavery was a key element provided huge benefits for the economy. The South could not get rid of slavery they would have lost everything anyways.

I have some different ideas from Raingoon about the model, but now I want to come back to the topic of Slavery model into the game.

Q:Is Civ III an entertainment game or a history book?
A: It depends, if you want it more like a "CIV simulator" where you can play with different concept and social model or you prefer the "Western model succesful way of life edutainment".

Sorry, may be I'm a little rude here, but I know very often the only right model in a game is our "American plus West Europe" one.

Democracy (how modelled into the game) is the only acceptable way to win. Fight a war to crush any potential enemy in sight, is socially acceptable. Nuke'em as Hiroshima (that's good enough?), but don't touch slavery because some people can upset (I suppose Japanese will "LOVE" to see use of nuclear weapon, won't them).

In SMAC we can gas and kill thousand of people, as on France and Italian front during WWI (but I suppose there isn't lot of survived soldier who bother to play SMAC anyway >:-> )

In my humble opinion the problem is not to shadow atrocities. Yes, maybe Monarchy government hide this inside, as Roman and Greek Republic with early slavery, but who cares?

The problem is to let the more scrupolus players to understand the world government had or still have the ability to make LOT of atrocities, still they must understand and cope with the consequence.

You can't throw million of man to death as in WWI and II, because your country can be a winner, still end on its own knees. In CIV and SMAC you can lose units ad fast as you build them from nothing, so who cares to fight a forever war?

In SMAC you can use nerve gas, crush your populace under a Police State, still you can suffer little or no consequence.

In WWII the nation mutually decide to avoid the use of same or worst gas that was used in WWI because of fear of escalating consequence, but Nazi killed million people in concentration camps because they don't faced consequenced early enough. They make an orrible bet, hoping to hidden that horror on a world that, sometimes, preferred to ignore the early hints, but no one stop that "game" fast enough.

I once played "Wings", a Cinemaware game on WWI Camel's Fighters pilots. They put, on a very simple and playable flight simulator of dogfight, ballon busting, strafing and bombing run,
a credible diary that, linking the missions, show how funny and orrible was the war from inside.
You really understood the tears when some buddy was killed, and looked to the earned medal with another perspective, when the other end scene was showing your burden on war cemetery. But if you where killed, another "rookie" take the place, (war "show" must go on) and you end the war reading the list of dead pilots you played.

So, you can see a movie about war, enjoy it, understand the reason of the war but not like the war at all. IMHO we can cope with a reasonable slavery model in CIV III, as we already do with nuke, famine, pollution, war, etc.

I personally will like a more deep show of negative, horrible, effects of that kind of decisions, still I will enjoy to find my way to a "clean" or a "dirty" victory.

Then I can learn something about the good and the evil, without too much hypocrisy.

raingoon and Iago, you both make powerful arguments. I would still be happy to see slavery left out of CivIII but I now see why it might be important to include it to some degree.

I've done a little bit of research on this issue as I told MidKnight Lament I would. I apologize for taking a while; I've been busy the last day or two As such, my research has only been very basic but I've already learned a few important points for this debate.

Apparently slavery was employed at one point or another by practically every civilization in history. At the least, all cultures in what we term Western Civivilization did. Use of slaves predates 2000 BC and slaves were accorded legal rights in the Hammurabic Code. In 4th century BC there may have been as many as 100,000 slaves in Athens or about half the population. Most slaves in the ancient world were prisoners of war though a few were sold or sold themselves into slavery. For instance, the Romans used slavery to free the local population for its wars. Also, in most cases slaves did have a few rights and could even buy their way out of slavery. The primary purpose of slavery was in agriculture and in city building.

Prior to the 18th Century, all organized religions and cultures viewed slavery as a simple part of life. During the Enlightenment, however, scholars first began to speak out against the practice and the idea of abolition began to slowly spread.

The case of slavery in the United States is somewhat unique. It did not result from military conquest but out of a need for a large labor pool, as tniem pointed out in his post. By the middle of the 19th century, this need no longer existed and in fact was to the South's advantage to abandon slavery, but it still continued. Part of the reason was the modern idea of race based on skin color, which slave holders cited to continue the practice. Also, many Whites in the South held an irrational fear that they in turn would be "enslaved" or become inferior to the North if they gave up their slaves.

The prevalence of slavery in history implies two things. First, it reinforces calls for slavery to be included, even in a small degree, in CivIII. Anything that central to the history of civilization should probably be included. Second, that same prevalence reinforces Iago's suggestion that maybe slavery should be a given in the beginning of a game. For most of human history, a civilization that did not accept let alone practice slavery would be a massive anachronism. For instance, if a settler unit is 50% or more slave, does this actually change its performance any in game terms?

I'm not sure which way I'd prefer it to be implemented now...

Well, maybe in the end the best solution is to assume slavery in the beginning of the game. And after the discovery of Emancipation those who declare it receive some social bonus with a production penalty.

Also, declaring Emancipation might mean that in a democracy the senate may reject trade agreements with a "slave state" on ethical grounds, much the way senate doves currently make peace against your will in Civ 2.

Early : Slavery is the norm
Renasance : Abolition is on the rise (as an advance)
Modern : Slavery is an atrocity

A lot of exellent ideas have been posted, so all I have done is give a little idea of a model... I think atrocity in the modern age could be interesting. Not like in CTP where everyone is freed automatically, but a civilization will be warned by a central institution (UN?). It would not become atrocity until the UN (which could work similar to the Planetary Counsel in SMAC), but it might compromise your reputation before that.

Just a friendly reply to Steve, on the same line of the IMO very good post of Gord.

Steve, don't be blinded by the false concept of "edutainment" vs. "entertaining" game.
Every game and toy have some kind of "education" effect. Animals learn playing (learn to follow and catch a pray, learn to escape, learn to find food...).
They also learn "social" rules, as human children often do. Often some "simulation" is the name of the game.

Of course an adult can (or should ) understand the difference between killing someone on a Quake game or in real life, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something anyway. Any proper game or toy must contain an opportunity to learn something.

Learning is a big part of entertainment, if someone is not forcing you to learn something you don't care nor understand (and that's often the weak point of "edutainment" software).
Or at least learning something can add a lot of taste.

Right, some simulations are too hard to enjoy (think about very realistic car races or flight simulations), but probably they are trying to bite more than a common player can chew.

As in my previus post, I don't learn about WWI playing "Wings", still I understand much more about some facets of war than from some arid history books.

In CIV series you can learn about consequence of actions, the need of properly balance development, the role of a war (understanding, in a superficial way, why so often a country chose to fight a war instead of develop itself peacefully).

On CIV III we should learn more IMHO about effects of religions, diseases, enhanced diplomacy and trades and, why not, slavery and atrocities.

Good news Steve, you pay for a product but in fact you got two
(shhh, don't tell to EA/Firaxis or they will charge 100$ every box!)

The control for slavery could include this:

- Slavery allowed? - Y/N
- What kinds of slavery? - Serfdom/slavery
- How to become a slave? - Crime/indebted/POW/Ethnic background/Religion/Nationality/Born slave
- How well are slaves treated? - 1 to 10 (1 is bad 10 is very good)

If slaves are not in...how can u get in a war to stop slavery (and get bigger)?? War and slavery are both awful things in human history but nevertheless they have shaped our world to become what it is today.
Personally i think it would be fun in playing a game where you have to defend your people from the 'evil and barbarian' neighbours.
And why not be able to build concentration camps too? I mean. They only have one advantage and alot of disadvantages. The advantage is that you get rid of alot of people (That may have caused you problem later or to appease other people). the disadvantage is all the riots and all the international sanctions that this may cause. I want a game where u can do anything u want, be cruel or nice, but u have to take the consequenses.

Persnally I would not mind having the option to use some thing like it in the game. I personally don't see a usage of it in jenocide like in previous wars. Jews didn't have a country in WWII and the Armenians also didn't have a country in WWI. And in civ once a nation doesn't has a country it's considered obsolete for good. so, then genocide is counquering a whole nation but we all did that in the previous civ games.

And I know I did kill conquered population by starving cities to decrease population so the would stop revolting. Building a camp in a city would make the job easier but it will be considered an atrocity.

Extermination of people and nations was always a part of history. Slavery also was. No reason not to include it.

But, if you would suggest 100 years ago to make slavery a game, it would't have been pretty. Then slavery was a very close to heart topic. how would a slave feel if you would suggested him a game with an option to have slaves? he'd kick your ass.

Now slavery can be included. death camps can not.

Early games included only option to play good guys. I'm tired of it. Also in movies, good guys win. they suck ass. I enjoy playing Dungeon Keeper II if anyone is familiar. Years ago this game would cause outrage.

Back to topic. I actually have a 'take no prisoners' attitude.I don't like having small wars and many wars. I try to have as many wars as there are opposing nations. Each war has the purpose of destroying completely an opposing nation.

I think we all claim to be very nice but when playing civ we often do horrible atricities. I believe nothing will ever stop atrocities in the real world. not to say civ = real world, but people always were and will be agressive and not nice.

Here you are, sitting around hoping to build an empire and negotiate epic truces with other civs. The bzzzzzt! a slaver. Bzzzzzzt! a lawyer. It ended up being one more thing to worry about.

I like aspects of espionage. Slavers are okay if they are part of a military force, and not free agents running around slowing down the game.

I think this discussion about leaving out slavery because it is not 'nice' is the summit of hypocricy! As I pointed out in another post, slavery and trade in humans/slave-running continue to the present day, though often those practices are called differently. And especially the guilty will set great store by using other names for this same practice.

What is their purpose? What actions can they perform? Do they operate both within your empire and outside of it? How much control do you have over them? What choices do they offer a player? Are there pluses and minuses to using them? Do they require special forms of government?

There's no reason NOT to include slavery, the whole bit about "my culture went through slavery less than 2 centuries ago". . umm, so what? That's irrelevant. You never had shackles on you did you? ANYONE you know? Thought not. Not to be insensitive, but. . hey, get real. Second, on this comment.

quote: I say let there be slavery in Civ III but provide plenty of means to oppose it.

First time to the board, let alone in posting here, so please grant me some leeway.

As many already have pointed out, slavery was integral in many a civilization. Morally, almost everyone alive agrees it is wrong. Economically, it had it benefits at the times -- else it wouldn't have been used. After all, why employ a practice that is counterproductive? So, for slavery to accurately be represented in the game, a civilization should reach a point where it is no longer beneficial to practice slavery. After all, once the industrial revolution came and passed, was there really that much demand for manual labor in the fields? Once a society reaches that level of advancement, it would have a lower level of productivity if it continued to use slaves -- after all, they would be valuable as free citizens who could generate wealth/scientific advancements through their brains, not muscles. So, by continuing to practice slavery would be penalty enough for the civilization that continues to employ it long after it’s been rendered obsolete.

Morally and socially, though, slavery has a much more profound impact. We in the United States are still dealing with its legacy today. So how do we program those social ramifications it into the game?

Considering that almost all societies used slaves at one point or another in their past, it would be stupid for the designers to program the game to punish every civilization that used slaves. That said, slavery should be an option for every form of government in the game -- at least initially. And it should be an aspect of government that does carry outrageous penalties. After all, some of the cultures that practiced slavery have done pretty well for themselves in the real world.

But societies that abandon slavery relatively late in the game would be penalized by lingering population discount for X number of years for every year that slavery is used after the 50 percent mark. Say for every year after the breakthrough point, a civilization would suffer negative happiness rates of 3 for 25 years. I’d also recommend that only cities that were founded (or conquered) prior to the date in which the penalized civilization enacted abolition.

Slavery was an intregal part of many societies and was all the way to the industrial revolution when slaves importance to industry fell dramamtically. Slaves didn't go away some just turned into POWs who happened to be captured and were forced to do things slaves would do anyway. Japan had slaves out of POWs just like Rome. I think slavery is morally wrong as do most people but you have to think of this, the times, something taboo today doesn't mean it was taboo then also. American and European standards of divorce, adultery, greed would disgust many of the previous American and European societies but it society doesn't enforce such dogmas as harshly now. The whole hating your slaves incident seems to be very isolated to the United States and shouldn't be taken as the view of slavery as a whole. Many slaves in ancient societies were respected and close friends to the masters family most specifically slaves from Greece in Rome who taught the children. Slavery was mainly POWs and populations who just pissed the conquerors off, ie Jerusalem. I would hate such wounds and taboos about slavery in the United States to affect the feeling and historic view of the game. CTP slavery was abstract and IMHO if reworked a little could prove very viable. Heres how I think the game should work.

Non slave states
Slavery would be economic and after someone creates Emancipation Proclomation would hurt societies that don't lower the number of slaves in their empire before and the unhappy citizens(the exslaves) could be more prone to riot.
1. Trade
Trade needs to be fixed and with this I think it will be realistic, non slave countries should be manufactures, slave countries raw producers. Raw materials need to be the main bulk of a slave states trade because
1. Citizens that have slaves should be less inclined to work themselves I mean think of this, instead of going to school yourself and learning to be an artisan get some slaves and plant corn and ship it off to Fiji for them to eat. While you might say well most people will want to work I think most average people would rather be the lazy master of an estate.
2. Raw materials are hard to gather, mining is hard, picking cotton, corn, wheat is hard. Most people don't want to do this. Bottom line if you have slaves and a farm your gonna put your slaves to work.

1. The non slave state isn't going to mine alot of raw materials and should consentrate on manufacturing and mining of precious things, oysters, gold, gems. Manufacturing could be buy wood, create funiture, sell furniture and buy food. If anyone has played Pharaoh there is 1 mission with very very very few resources but you can succeed very well(its the only way to succeed) by importing raw materials and selling finished goods. Think cotton trade early 1800s United States still slave state produced alot of cotton sold it to England and France who in turn sold it to everyone else willing to buy and bought other things like extra wood and food.
2. say a city on like the Strait of Gibraltor(sp) should be able to tax traders coming through to gain money(this would cost no money to the empire who the ships belong, its a game lets say the money comes from the traders) example of game
England needs lots of wheat and egypt has it, but italy is at war with england and controls all land routes from england to egypt unless you want to go all the way around asia minor and up through russia and over. The one way out is ocean and the small nation of monoco protected by carthage who controls spain lets monoco be on the strait. Monoco has no resources and there is enough manufacturing so is the city gonna starve(its on a straight not fertile pasture) well they can tax the traders coming through to pass so they make lots of money off the war feed their people and when the war is over trade is still lucrative because england can't sustain its population at the end of the 19th century and needs to trade with egypt again but with large ocean liners its more efficent to trade by water. Just so you know Egypt was slave, England was not this is early 1800s before industrial revolution.

Slaves would be brought home from won battles on land. Slave routes could be seen by emancipaters and intercepted once by manually sending a unit there then it would be on a screen for that route. After say 2 years the slavers would realize some slaves are being stolen and freed so they could
a. Use slave hunters to capture emancipators on routes(Im into routes manually moving is a pain)
b. Add slave hunter escorts which would make it harder for them to emancipated.
Emancipators could be cheap to build and have say a 50% chance of escape to return in 1 year to the route and free slaves.

A trade screen could make trade easier, no more camels running all over the place and I want supply and demand.

Slavery needs to be tied in heavily with POWs not razing a city and taking home 50000 slaves because of new trade, we need polarized resources people!

I know this post turned into trade but I don't care.

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 05-08-2000 08:52 PM Welcome to Apolyton, and well spoken. You did a pretty good job of summarising the thread actually. The only thing you missed, imho, is that civilizations shouldn't be forced to use slavery to keep up with the rest of the bunch. It should be an inviting option, but you should be able to do without it. - MKL

Thanks for the welcome, MKL.