like if some guy goes to New York and tries to capture slaves to go to Poland or somewhere, they're gonna have a hell of a time doing that

I found in CTP that slaves just dis-balanced my cities... sure it worked for a while, but then when you become to dependant on slaves, and then slavery is abolished, your cities go wild

Like ancient Rome/Sparta, they were very slave dependant, and if they rebel, your screwed..

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 12-19-2000 06:16 PM Obviously the Nazi's never discovered the tech. I was thinking of a tech like the one off of Ribannah's tree - I think it was Humanitarianism - which I think it is safe to say that neither Hitler nor Stalin got but subsequent German and Russian leaders did.

In Rib's techtree there is Human Rights and we've also discussed the possibility of putting in Humanism. Human Rights should lead to the abolotion of slavery.

I think slavery should be definitely in the game. It has been a historical fact. The CTP concept of a slaver is not very realistic.

I always use history as my inspiration to come up with ideas for the game, so here are first a few historical facts.

Slavery has got to do with two things: war and social status.

The 17th/18th century slavetrade was based on tribalwars in Africa. Sometimes these wars were just began by tribes or tribal kingdoms to "gain the economical benefits" of the slavetrade, ethics was really the last thing which was involved here.

The position and social status of serves in a feudal society was almost slavelike. In western-europe things
Citizens, that is people living in a city were "free" according to feudal standards. People could loose (bits of) their status of free people when they were in debt and just couldn't pay or had gravely misbehaved themselves.
The progress in agricultural methods gave servs the possibility of a more or less independ live from their lord.
Up to medieval times it was quite common to enslave those who were beaten in battle. In earlier times (as did the romans sometimes) it was also common to just kill most of the fighting men and enslave the rest and all the women and children.

There are lots af possibilities to introduce the concept of slavery into the game.

The easiest one is just to give the possibility to capture instead of just killing off, like we do now in the game, your opponents in battle and enslave them. (In COLONIZATION you catch either a criminal, or an indentured servant, or a free citizen/tradesman).

When you conquer a city it should also be possible to put the whole population in slaveunits on "transport". But that's a bit trickier, because it brings in the element of social status in the game (maybe someone has already made a realistic introducable model for that), somewhere in your cityscreen it must show that there are free citizens and slaves. And what and how will happen things happen to them when time moves on ??

Enslaving people should become increasingly different with the progression of "civilization" and it's habits in the game. If you f.i. have install a democratic government it should be impossible etc.

quote: Originally posted by Grrr on 12-20-2000 04:59 PM I disagree, slavery should only be available under certain governments, eg: totalitarianism,tyranny. and not in others, eg Democracy

well, there has been slaver in the us, or not...

I am sympathetic to the idea that government type should have the greatest effect on slavery tolerance, rather than any specific advance. OTOH, I can see that it might not be so simple. So I have a few suggestions:

At some point, each civ can decide to abolish slavery within its borders. This will no doubt affect diplomatic relations with other civs, and will require a specific advance. (Steam engine? To replace human labor with mechanical. I know this might sound odd, but slavery is an ECONOMIC system.) Once this is done, it is permanent. Certain forms of goverment might become impossible afterward. But then, this will not matter, since anyone with, .e.g., Communism, isn't likely to choose Tyranny.

While it is *possible* to have slaves under an advanced government, it is dangerous, because the cities owning slaves have an increased chance to revolt, regardless of military presence in that city. The revolt might be led either by the slaves or by the owners (who fear for their power), and this revolt will have a chance of pulling nearby cities into revolt as well.

Another possibility is, it might make the central government unstable. E.g., due to the conflict between abolitionist and slave owners, a chance exists of a scandal breaking out that throws the civ into anarchy. Or perhaps the existance of slaves under democracy could cause unhappiness in all cities.

The above conflict(s) might be ameliorated by building an improvement which speeds the integration of slaves into society. E.g., a Homestead Authority might give a 10% chance per turn of one slave becoming a citizen. After all slaves are converted, it might eliminate one drone. Er, unhappy citizen. The problem with this last idea is that in RL, the lands provided for people seeking to start over with '40 acres and a mule' were frequently in new territories. But modeling immigration in a Civ game would be a major task.

That way one tech doesn't abolish slavery altogether - it takes several factors. Also, it allows for the reintroduction of slavery if a civ 'backslides' into fascism or other government type (Perfect parallel to Nazi germany.)

there are estimates that during the roman empire one of every eight persons was a slave! christianity, although having somewhere the idea that all men are equal, never complained about slavery itself, only about the treatment.
in ancient mesoamerica killing slaves was considered a murder, just like any killing.
this shows that there can be even slavery when you acknowledge the "humanness" of slaves.

in history we have several accounts of "slave governments". the most famous were the mamluks in egypt. but even in the roman empire high positions were mostly achieved by liberti (freedmen) or slaves. in most societies there had been a high demand for "specialist slaves", as we can see from the professions many slaves held in greek and roman times. they were not just used for agriculture or public works(although this surely was always an important factor)so slaves were even an influential political and/or intellectual (civilizing) factor in many societies

slavery is certainly compatible with Republic, but not Demo.

France abolished slavery when became demo after the revolution, restored it under napoleon, abolished again in 1848 when made another try at demo with universal (well er male only) suffrage.

UK abolished in 1832, 2 years after widening suffrage.

US goes from republic to demo in Age of Jackson, the 1830's. Slavery survived another 20 years, but it was a period of almost continous struggle over slavery, especially after 1847 (the Mexican war). Interestingly many of the radical Jacksonian democrats went on to become free soilers (see Schlesinger, Age of Jackson)
While recognizing democracy in the ante bellum South and wartime Confederacy, ultimately slavery was incompatible with democratic ideology.

Industrialization should lead to automatic abolition of slavery in those states that get industrialization, even if they are still republics or monarchies. Pre-industrial states may keep slavery, but at severe costs in economic output and reputation. This shoiuld handle survival of slavery in places like Sudan, while acknowleding its virtual disappearance.

Fascist and Communist states should be able to restore slavery, but it should not be automatic, and should accompany economic/happiness/reputation penalties - thus recognizing Nazi and stalinist slavery, while recognizing that say fascist Italy and Khruschev USSR were different.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 12-22-2000 01:10 PM slavery is certainly compatible with Republic, but not Demo.

I totally disagree! The first democracy in the world, Athen in Greece in the ancient times, HAD slaves!

Actually, people's thoughts about slavery don't relate to governments or techs, but NORMS! We have different types of norms, like how to act when we eat, or how to handle humans, that is what we are talking about here.

However, norms are difficult to implement in the game, so I think we will have to use something else.

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 12-22-2000 05:18 PM Nikolai - don't techs sometimes represent a change in norms or values. I think we're saying the same thing sort of - I look at a tech which abolishes or allows for the abolishment of slavery (i.e. humanitarianism or some other name that is appropriate) as a change in norms. Discussions about the slave class in ancient times is intersting and should be considered.

In real life, it's much more complicated than just techs, but Civ isn't real life, is it? Exactly how slavery should be implemented is, as I said, difficult to say, but maybe we, if we say techs are used to this, could get a new choice in SE (or what system we will get); slavery on/off.

Maybe you should get some information on what your people mean, and if they mean something else than what suits YOU, you could have a attitude campaign to change peoples mind?

After a quick search to help my memory I propose to jump at Representation of slavery and Capturing unit

I posted on these threads, too, but the relevancy is because plenty of good idea come from other posters there.

Just for summarize a lot, I suggested to introduce:

quote: - Slave/PoW settler, when captured (immigrate/refugee settler into migration model) under control of warder Civ player - Special Worker Slave/Immigrate into common city screen - Ability to build Prison camp / Refugee camp by above special settler, instead of City - A "runaway unit", very low level infantry or special settler that you can try to recover back to original Civ (PoW) or found a new, separate Civ (Slave)

I would vote to build on top of that model with the following ideas;

as in ctp2, capturing slaves would give you a measure of slave labour at the nearest city.

Wernazuma had a good idea - these slaves should be transportable VIA CARAVAN to deliver them to a new city. (like importing slaves to help build the pyramids.)

Further, if you can move a unit of slaves from city 'a' to city 'b', then what if you can offer a unit of slaves in diplomacy, like you can with tech, units, or money. (As in selling slaves to the Americas.)

Lastly, for extra flavor, consider that while slavery has generally been abolished, the concept of 'prisoners of war' or diplomatic prisoners still exists. A civ may well get it's start in slavery, and after centuries of development, finally abolish slavery, only to develop into a fascist regime which then embarks on a campaign of prisoner taking and ethnic cleansing. We could very well say slaves=POWs for game terms. This then lets us use this model of slave transport & trade as a diplomatic bartering chip throughout the game.

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 12-22-2000 04:19 PM I have to disagree with LotM. As Nikolai points out, a system of slavery (be it physical or economic) has existed side by side with otherwise tolerant regimes. Valuing every human life is (in general) a pretty modern concept and has come with growing national wealth. If a lot of techs offer the choice of positive economic growth with more enlightened humanitarian treatment of people then who cares what the government type is called. Eventually it is in everyone's interest to reduce repression.

I think that demo in civ is more than simply a tolerant regime - it is a regime that is open in a particularly modern way, one with implications for economics and happiness. That is why in Civ2 demo comes at point in the tech tree well beyond the ancient mode of life - roughly at the beginning of the industrial era - this is modern demo, not Athenian demo. Valuing every human life is a modern concept that comes with increasing wealth - of course - and that is precisly what demo is in Civ2. Does it not fit Percilean Athens very well? given how exceptional Periclean Athens was, and how small the free "demos"
of Athens was, i have no trouble thinking of it as a Republic in Civ2 terms.

Enslaving your own citizens.

This is extremely usful in starvation, as slaves only get a minor amount of food.

The city would require an extremely large military presence as the chance of revolution should be very very high (90% without units, each unit takes off 10%, eg 1 unit 81%, 2 units 72.9% etc.
Note this is only if your citizens find out, eg if you put the slaves back in the city. Their should be a 10% chance of them finding out, each turn, if the slaves are in another city of yours.

In early days, slavery is an accepted part of life with few drawbacks (possible slave revolts) for the civ.

As advances pile up, slavery becomes a two-edged sword.