Slavery

[Adm.Naismith]

May I suggest to take a look at previus threads on the same subject?

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 beg you , before starting to shoot at me , to read the mentioned thread to put my summary in its proper background

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[hHydro]

I believe that introducing slaves as any sort of a unit would simply be increasing the micromanagement required. Slavery was one of the only things I thought CTP2 did fairly well.

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.

ie: "We will accept your truce, however you must remove your units from our territory and return our slaves/POWS to us."

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by hHydro on 12-21-2000 03:54 PM If they consider using a social engineering system similar to SMAC, tolerance to slavery could be a value like 'Planet' rating was in SMAC. As you choose Society types or governments like Democracy or Humanitarianism, you receive -1 Slave, +1 Econ, etc. 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.) Course.. that's only if they're using something like the SE table.. [This message has been edited by hHydro (edited December 21, 2000).]

It sounds good. Yes, it can be the best way to do it, and btw the slavery concept is one of the very good things in CTP in spite of the game problems.

[lord of the mark]

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.

Now i have been referring to Civ2 and of course this is a Civ3 thread. But what I liked about Civ 2 was its quality of coming close to history - if not exactly in chronology, at least roughly in terms of broad outlines - ie medieval monarchy creates the conditions for growing order, wealth and science which in turn lead to new systems each with inherent conradictions. What i see on this thread and others is a desire for any conceivable social patttern to emerge, without regard to actual history. Civ3 cannot be complex enough to model all the reasons why certain combinations were impossible - therefore we either need a limit on what govt types are achievable, or we will get a social engineering model that will turn civ3 more of a historical science fiction game than the history game that civ2 was - i dont want that.

[Grrr]

This is VERY cruel, but should be possible:

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.

Don't bite my head off with this one!
[This message has been edited by Grrr (edited January 02, 2001).]

[The Mad Viking]

Lots of good stuff here. I think slavery is a must for Civ3, it is a huge part of the history.

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.

In pre-modern times, slavery becomes very difficult to maintain.

[Mihai]

In Civ3 Slavery is a must.
Slavery IS an economic system. It appeared when it became profitable, due to advances in agriculture, and it ended when the problems generated exceeded the benefits. That can be made in the Civ3 ajusting the production of the slaves, the amount of food they eat, unhappy citizens (that should be related to the type of govt.), diplomatic penalties and so on. That way, in the modern ages, it would be in the player's interest to abolish slavery; unless he choose a modern tipe of tyrannic govt.

i know, it's not about slavery:

mihai, i'm sure there are thousands of "Mihai" in romania and it's really improbable that i know you, but: what's your last name?

[Windborne]

Slavery should never be "Universally obolished" or even forced out of any single civilization, instead we should have certain choices, perhaps on a culture screen. Eventually we may choose to free our slaves, enforce freedom of religion or a national faith, enact human sacrifice (or stop the practice), same thing for other similiarly vital cultural practices. Government type could be chosen there too.