No slavery in CIV III

[CWM]

There is a very long thread on this board about ways in which slavery could be implemented in CIV III.

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.

[Atahualpa]

Actually, slavery was quite a good concept in CtP. I quite liked it to either send my slavers over or be on the abolitionist side and try to free as many as I can.

Ata

[Gord McLeod]

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 say let there be slavery in Civ III but provide plenty of means to oppose it. According to Sid's message, diplomacy is being enhanced beyond even the level of SMAC's diplomacy engine - perhaps slavery could be something similar to an attrocity.

[Ubergeek]

As unpleasant as it certainly is to our modern minds, for the great majority of human history, slavery was an everyday fact of life in practically every civilization on the planet. In fact, slavery seems almost to have been a necessary phase or aspect of developing civilization, as pretty much every civilization developed it very early on. Repugnant? Yes. Unavoidable? Apparently so. I guess it's the dark underbelly of our human legacy. It's hard to have a serious, comprehensive discussion of human history without bringing up slavery.

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.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

[CWM]

Gord McLeod wrote :

"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.

The people who are wondering how I could buy a game with POWs in it but not with slaves would probably wonder why I would buy a world war II game that allowed the use of chemical warfare but didn't include nazi gas chambers.

[tniem]

me for entertainment for me. Sure it was fun but after a while it was not fun it was just a drain on everything else that I did. I would not get enough sleep, enough food, failed tests. It did not matter and it wasn't even fun, just consuming. That is what the civ series is consuming of everything else that I am.

I believe slavery should be in civ III because I learned history from civilization. I understand your point CWM and so I think that an option could be to turn it off just like an option to turn of ethniticity so as not to offend or hinder someone's entertainment. But as for me, I think the game needs a little more complexity at the earlier stages, especially if things like corporations are added later.

[Gord McLeod]

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.

So, I still have to disagree. I can see why you feel as you do and I respect that, but the attraction of a game like Civ to me is that it's based on historical and prehistorical concepts, so practicing revisionism on the history the game is based on leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth. Slavery happened, and was a vital, integral fact of life in virtually every civilization until modern times. To leave it out is blatantly unrealistic and would rob the game of an important, though unfortunate, element of humanity's past development.

[raingoon]

New Improved Slavery Model for Civ 3

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.

4. In the event units are taken as POWS, player may do one of two things with them:

• Fortify in prison, or
• Put to Slave Labor

5. In the event POWs are held as prisoner, their numbers do not diminish and they may later be traded back to their home civ.
6. In the event POWs are put to slave labor, they may be used as diminished settlers, able to do anything settlers do except found a new city. POW slave laborers will eventually diminish in number, lessening their worth as bartering tools to trade later, and in time will perish all together.
7. Early in the game, Slave Labor should be considered a "normal" alternative, with no sanctions. Later, after certain tech advances have been discovered, perhaps Industrialism, it COULD be considered an "Atrocity" and appropriately sanctionable. At that time, any slave states still practicing slavery would be HEAVILY penalized and perhaps any who did not would be given a bonus. I suggest this for the following reason:

• 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.

8. After United Nations, "War Reparations" should be allowed through diplomacy, wherein a majority of civs will vote that a given country who has committed the atrocity of slave labor must pay reparations to the survivors of the offended country (reparations can also be a negotiating chip for everything from cease fire agreements to trade agreements).

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.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 08, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

I haven't been able to get on to the forums for a couple of days, but everyone pretty much said what I would have anyway.

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.

- MKL

[tniem]

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.

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.

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.

[Gord McLeod]

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.

Very good thought... that alone would discourage me from using them, even if I were otherwise inclined to use them. I'm very research-oriented.

tniem,

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).

And I agree with CWM that slavery is a very dark part of human history, but you, as the player, have the choice of using it or not, as well as you may choose to attack a peaceful civ with no reason at all.

[Charles the Third]

CWM is right, slavery should be left out. It's not a question of ignoring it; anyone who plays the game knows that slavery existed. The crucial fact being forgotten here is that CivIII is (will be) a game for entertainment. There is nothing entertaining about slavery. If CivIII is historically accurate, so much the better. But it is not a history lesson. If you want to learn about slavery, read a history book or one of the countless primary sources that exist on the subject.

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.

The one feature that I might envision being in CivIII is, to steal from CTP, the inclusion of the Emancipation Proclamation as a Wonder of the World. This would acknowledge the existence of slavery without necessarily forcing the player to actually practice slavery itself to win a game. I think it would be much more in line with the original spirit of Sid Meier's Civilization, which is a game that uplifts the human experience, rather than playing down to its lowest elements.

War can match slavery horror for horror. There's nothing uplifting about war either, contrary to the thoughts of some (the overwhelming majority of whom have never actually experienced it). War is not a game. It is simply the business of killing people. End of debate.

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

Of course, removing war wouldn't leave you with much of a game, but at least you'd know that you'd been correct.

[Charles the Third]

Good point, Iago. Of course, that takes us down the tangential role of what aspects of war we include or not include. For instance, if we create a scenario recreating the Second World War, do we or do we not include concentration camps? Internment camps?

Perhaps the question that should be addressed is what, if anything, adding the element of slavery would bring to CivIII, other than more realism? How does it behoove game balance and play?

[MidKnight Lament]

It would give the player another choice by which to mould their civ. There are benefits (in a game-playing perspective) and consequences, just like with declaring war.

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

- MKL

[raingoon]

Iago is absolutely correct -- if slavery would be playing down to the "lowest elements" of "human experience" I am astonished at the blind eye the game currently turns to the horrors of conventional warfare against innocent populations. Further, the idea that slavery somehow offends us while we ask for a game that instead incorporates nuclear genocide is mildly alarming.

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.

Is slavery a gameplay feature that will, above all, increase the fun in a game about the history of trade, diplomacy, and war over the course of human civilization? Yeah, maybe. I'm not anywhere near convinced. CTP certainly didn't do it. And even though I've suggested one possible model (if anyone cares to see it, it's in this thread, above) that includes trade and diplomacy, I still have to say slavery as a game feature remains an interesting question, not quite yet essential to Civ 3, in my book.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 09, 2000).]

[Charles the Third]

I had a feeling I'd be opening a can of worms...

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).

On a tangential note, I must disagree with raingoon on several points. First, CivII is a game, an informative, enlightening game, but still only a game. It should not try to be all things to all people. Second, by entertainment I did not mean mindlessly banal. Third, isolated stories of combatting slavery, such as Harriet Tubman leading slaves to freedom, can be entertaining. Slavery itself is not nor should be.

[MidKnight Lament]

Slavery shouldn't be included if there are no consequences. But surely there would be. The designers wouldn't glorify slavery.

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.

- MKL

[Charles the Third]

Yes, but what advantages? My own understanding of the issue is that slavery never really did anybody any good. Slavery as an economic model was horrible and never produced any real benefits for the slaveholders. No much slave labor you own, they will not be efficient simply because they are slaves. Slavery required more put into it to sustain it than it ever produced.

What specific, short-term bonuses do you have in mind when a civilization first adopts slavery?

[MidKnight Lament]

Well, I don't know heaps about history, but I would have thought there were production bonuses. And if there is, then people can also make money by selling them. Feel free to set me straight if I'm wrong though. I can't imagine that there were no real advantages to it.

- MKL

[Charles the Third]

Well, before I dive into the deep end here, I had better do a little bit of research tomorrow to make sure I'm right. Like I said, my understanding is that any production bonus was negated by cost to acquire, hold, "motivate," and get new slaves. The only real reason for slavery was to subjugate your enemies.

[raingoon]

A few points regarding comments re my comments...

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.

P.S. -- Re the "concentration camp" argument early on. Yes, I would accept prison camps in Civ. No I would not like a game about gas chambers. Yes I would accept slavery in civ, no I would not like a game about putting people into the hold of a slave ship. You see my point...

CWM was right to voice his concern. Slavery in the past few centuries was concentrated among a few groups, while war is more generalized and has affected everyone.

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.

Maybe slavery should be a given at the beginning of the game, and only as you advance can you work your way out of it.

[tniem]

Charles the Third,

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.

As I said before that was my understanding. I cannot make any claims about the slavery in Rome and whether that was benefitial. To summarize slavery is production beneficial especially in easy tasks that require many people like picking cotton.

[Adm.Naismith]

I already wrote a lot about slavery model on CIV III into the previus thread:
"Representation of slavery" on http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001242.html

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.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Steve Clark]

I don't understand how Civ can be or should be an educational tool. There is a whole segment of the market called 'edutainment', education games mainly geared towards school-age kids. Civ (and all of its variations) is not edutainment nor should it be. Everything designed in Civ is abstracted. For me, as a miltary and popular historian, I draw no parallels whatsoever to history and in the rise of my particular civ in a game. No more than when I play Outlaws and shoot bad guys or play JN6 golf and shoot a 71, does they have anything to do with my real life. Civ is a game that abstractlely models historical developments but more than anything else, it is a game of fun, which is Sid's #1 criteria.

[Gord McLeod]

Civilization is educational in the very fact that it *is* an abstraction of historical events and forces. You can learn some specifics by reading the civilopedia of course, but that's about as far as it goes with the 'names and dates' approach to history. You learn more about concepts than about the rise of a particular empire. There's no way you're going to learn the extent of world history by playing Civilization... at least I hope not. Anyone who's world view included the rise of the Celts as the major global superpower against all 6 other global nations needs to read a few more newspapers. But that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that there's nothing to be learned from the game.

[Charles the Third]

Well, we've gone round the bush a few times on this topic, haven't we?

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 think slavery should be a given of all economic/government types in the beginning of CivIII until the discovery of certain technologies (maybe Democracy or Capitalism or a new one like Abolition). This would include slavery in CivIII and allow the human player to fight against slavery without necessarily having to be in a position to choose to practice it.

[MidKnight Lament]

Good researching there. So many devoted people on this forum!

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

- MKL