08-08-2001 21:44									#1
	No Slavery in Civ3 Increase the size of your Attachments

The lack of slavery in Civ always bothered me. It is a huge part of the history of civlization, the only part anywhere near so significant to be excluded from the game.

Slaves was one of the main reasons for waging war. Slaves were critical to labour in the construction of many things, and did most of the mining.

Slaves were also a critical aspect of trade.

The abolition of slavery was a huge step forward for each civilization.

I know this has been talked about before, but this is something I really would have liked to see in Civ3.

	08-08-2001 22:03									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

A step forward (removing slavery)? Only in a PC world...getting someone else to do the dirty work, be it slave, robot etc IS GOOD if you want to run a decadent civ (and who wouldn´t!).

End of slavery ended the pyramid construction...rollers my :banned: they had HUGE whips!

	08-08-2001 22:29									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Viking-

I agree. I think that slavery would be even more interesting considering the new cultural/ nationality aspect to the game. Slaves wouldn't automatically become part of the host civ, but would stay whatever nationality they were "born". This could also add interesting features in a civ's discontent.

It's also historically extremely important for many civs. I think that Fireaxis is avoiding the issue though since it could easily cause conflict. It's not an easy issue to discuss and an even harder one to replicate while satisfying all parties.

	08-08-2001 23:21									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Having slaves in a game, and using them to progress and become the leader of the world, goes against politcal correctness in every way imaginable. It would open up the door for becoming Stalin in a videogame. There's a chance the media might blow that out of proportion so much that Firaxis might not be able to recover. Although alpha centauri bypassed the spotlight (obliterate base, nerve stapling), civ3, a more hyped game (based on reality), might not.

Anyone check out Imran's PC jokes? Funny stuff

	08-08-2001 23:39									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Political correctness? Easily solved. Call them "serfs" instead of "slaves" and bam, you're set.

	08-08-2001 23:45									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Having slaves in a game, and using them to progress and become the leader of the world, goes against politcal correctness in every way imaginable. It would open up the door for becoming Stalin in a videogame. There's a chance the media might blow that out of proportion so much that Firaxis might not be able to recover. Although alpha centauri bypassed the spotlight (obliterate base, nerve stapling), civ3, a more hyped game (based on reality), might not. Anyone check out Imran's PC jokes? Funny stuff

I don't think this would be a problem. There was slavery in CtP and CtP2 and, AFAIK, Craptivision never got hit too hard about it. If the concept is kept generalized like that, I don't see a problem. I would prefer to keep slavery in CtP either way. I like civ the way it is/was.

	08-08-2001 23:57									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yea, more micro managment.

if this was a game like Tropico however, it could work.

if u have slavery enforced in your empire +50% production -50% trade or something.

	09-08-2001 02:03									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

technophile-

Do you really consider people who have been enslaved by another country serfs? I think that serfs are different enough that they should be distinct, like laborers in CTP.

I liked the slaver unit in CTP. Never really got too many slaves, but it did force the AI to create emancipation units to free them.

UberKruX-

Everyone is talking about this Tropico game. I definitely have to play it.

And the more that I think about it, the more that I htink that CIVIII should deal with all the aspects of civilization including the bad parts like slavery. Besides it'd be fun to wage a war against another civ that was holding your citizens captive. I was also thinking that perhaps there could be slave revolts (like the Isrealites in Egypt) where the slaves up and leave and form and new civ or rejoin their old civ.

	09-08-2001 02:09									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Having slaves in a game, and using them to progress and become the leader of the world, goes against politcal correctness in every way imaginable.

YES!! Anything that involves pissing off the thought police who enforce the political correct tules is a good thing IMO. I'd love forCiv3 to be so robust as to allow a player to be a benevolent leader or vicious tyrant. Although I do think you overstate the media problem, even with slavery, the typical FPS game has more gore, which plays better in the 5-second blurb/sound-byte world of mass media.

	09-08-2001 02:15									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by jsw363 Do you really consider people who have been enslaved by another country serfs? I think that serfs are different enough that they should be distinct, like laborers in CTP.

Are serfs and slaves the same thing? No. Are they practically the same thing? I'd say so, at least to the point that a game could have a "serf" unit that would function in all ways like a "slave" unit. The fact that "serfdom" isn't as stygmatized as "slavery" makes up for any subtleties that are lost in the generalization.

	09-08-2001 02:16									#11
	Remove this text

well, slavery was important in ancient times and also in times of colonisation and imperialism.... and in the middle ages, there was large fiefdom and similar feudal systems in europe, os they should definitely put in at least some abstract kind of alternative production line.... now that they didn't, I can live with it... who cares where the produciton shields on the map come from? it's called ab-strac-tion.... slavery in CTP sucked, anyway.... the fella with the whip caught 10,000 of your people at once...

	09-08-2001 04:23									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: YES!! Anything that involves pissing off the thought police who enforce the political correct tules is a good thing IMO. I'd love forCiv3 to be so robust as to allow a player to be a benevolent leader or vicious tyrant. Although I do think you overstate the media problem, even with slavery, the typical FPS game has more gore, which plays better in the 5-second blurb/sound-byte world of mass media.

I'm sure the media wouldn't force Firaxis out of business or anything, I was exaggerating a bit there. I'm stongly against the whole PC hysteria, for the record, but civ can cross the line, even for me. I wouldn't want the option to line up all my captured people and shoot them, or create concentration camps, for gameplay purposes or not. It just doesn't do justice to the millions of people slaughtered in wartime. Some people seem to get satisfaction from things like this, and that's not a very good thing. Ever lost a relative in WW2?

Then again: people die in war, civ is a war game. I just don't see the need for the more graphic options, though.

	09-08-2001 05:12									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yup, my great uncle was a chaplain shot while giving communion out on Okinawa. My grandfather was on a destroyer at Tarawa and saw the first wave of Marines come back in the water, dead and floating. My father was a Marine at Khe Sanh and then signed up for a second tour. After I finish grad school in May, I'm heading to Parris Island for my 4 years as a Marine. I'm dating a girl who lost two greatgrandparents to the Holocaust. I've heard every horrible story about war you can think of, that's why I want to join the Corps. Someone's got to be there to fight the next one and to make sure that the US fights a moral war, no repeats of Vietnam.

But I digress, sorry for the OT. I think slavery should be in, as should religion as much stronger concepts then they are in the current Civ iterations. Why? Because the world isn't just economics and warfare. "Culture" is a good start, but very abstract, if a game engine or AI could handle it, the more detail the better.

	09-08-2001 06:29									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What bothers me is people who would gain satisfaction from pressing the "execute millions of innocent civilians" button they want in civ3. Given the amount of people in your life who died in the second World War, I hope you'll agree with me. Becoming a mass murderer in a videogame isn't damaging to a mature person's mental health. It's not setting an outrageous precedent. It is, however, belittling the enourmous sacrifice of allied, and in some cases, unknowing Axis troops who gave every single thing they had for freedom.

And that's that. Damn the option, I don't want it.

	09-08-2001 06:39									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Damn the option, I don't want it.

Don't use it. That's why it would be an 'option.'

By the way, do you know that Age of Kings had to remove dolphins as a food source because it was thought to be too insensitive to the public while slaughtering hundreds of enemy troops was O.K.?

Brainless nitwit, politically retarded ****ers...

	09-08-2001 06:59									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yin:

I'm not a PC looney, as I've detailed previously. The dolphin thing is ridiculous, and I've never backed that decision. I have, however, spoken out against putting more extreme options in civ3 because (and I'm sure you have too) I've had several relatives killed for pointless reasons in war. Therefore seeing people all excited about death and destruction is sickening.

quote: Brainless nitwit, politically retarded ****ers...

Who ordered the flamefest?

	09-08-2001 07:10									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by yin26 By the way, do you know that Age of Kings had to remove dolphins as a food source because it was thought to be too insensitive to the public while slaughtering hundreds of enemy troops was O.K.?

Ughhhhguuuuuerrrrr. Gimme a f###ing break! The poor poor dolphins...

I think slavery should be in the game and actually be helpfull, to a point... After your civ has built a grand empire on the backs of your slaves, changing attitudes, of your people and the slaves, would call for a drastic rethinking of the issue. Of course one could try to supress the abolitionists and slave revolts, with increasing difficulty, of course.
JSW touched on something like this, seeing how the new game mechanics allows for nationality, it could create some interesting possibilities when it comes to managing your opressed underlings.(sorry to go OT, but is the whole nationality of your citizens thing seem like a long overdue change? perhaps it is just me.)

	09-08-2001 07:11									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm afraid I agree with SMACed (I liked your old name better) on this one.

Slavery can be in, but is not necessary. There certainly doesn't need to be a concentration camp feature or anything like that. Whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant.

	09-08-2001 07:20									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If Black and White wasn't banned by the PC nazis (a game where you can kill many innocent people and still go on to winning the game) why would they react differently to a Civ3 that does something similar? The evil people that enjoy killing are not going to become virtueous just because they don't have the "bad stuff" in Civ. In fact it'd be satisfying defeating a civ that was comitting war crimes (or if you're evil: killing all the loving and peaceful civs). It'd add another dimension to the game if you can play a "good" or "evil" civ ruling style.

	09-08-2001 07:23									#20
	Tired of ads?

quote: Who ordered the flamefest?

Wow. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you! I was talking about the executives at MS who made the dolphin decision. I hope you know it's not my style to flame people...except for the Captains of the Gaming Industry, of course.

I agree with your point that gratuitious violence is, well, gratuitious. However, you can't ignore the fact that most civilizations until just last century were built in large part on slave labor. Even the US has that history to bear.

So removing it from a game about civilizations isn't going to make the world a better place or anything. Now, if slavery in Civ 3 also runs great risks of tarnishing your diplomatic relations with non-slave nations and that sort of thing, it might be fun AND educational.

	09-08-2001 07:27									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You can't really compare Black and White to civ3, Lord Magnus

	09-08-2001 07:42									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th You can't really compare Black and White to civ3, Lord Magnus

Quite true! Aside from Civ superior on so many different levels , killing and maiming are much more acceptable in a 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi' situation.

However, there is a line that is being blurred in this discussion. We moved from slave labor, an extensively used economic strategy (yes, I know it is morally wrong), with wanton thrill killing and genocide. Allthough I think recreating the greatest crimes against humanity could be done, I am not sure that it really belongs in a game like Civ3... OTOH a case could be made that ethic cleansing of some sort has also been a widely practiced method throughout the ages... I digress.

	09-08-2001 07:52									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Wow. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you! I was talking about the executives at MS who made the dolphin decision. I hope you know it's not my style to flame people...

No problem, sorry for the confusion

quote: I agree with your point that gratuitious violence is, well, gratuitious. However, you can't ignore the fact that most civilizations until just last century were built in large part on slave labor. Even the US has that history to bear. So removing it from a game about civilizations isn't going to make the world a better place or anything. Now, if slavery in Civ 3 also runs great risks of tarnishing your diplomatic relations with non-slave nations and that sort of thing, it might be fun AND educational.

I have nothing against slavery, war, death, destruction, etc in civ3 because lets face it, it's a game. It's wrong, though, for someone to get so excited about these features they can't wait to use them, which I've seen on these forums recently. That makes me question their whole purpose entirely..do we really need mass grave sites and executions in a hearty game of civ3? I could do without it.

Again, sorry for the mistake yin.

	09-08-2001 08:47									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You can't really compare Black and White to civ3

In the eyes of PC nazis (which was the context I was 'comparing' the two games) since they are both games they see them as the same even though, like true PC'ers, they never played either of them. And like Warm Beer said Civ3 has more depth to it than B&W, that's why I suggest the B&W component becomes part of Civ3 not that Civ3 becomes B&W.

quote: killing and maiming are much more acceptable in a 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi' situation.

so if Civ2 had killing of units (at least I think that's what happens to them), then that makes it 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi'? Killing and maiming happens in real-life and during the history of civilization and I think it's foolish to hide it just because people don't like it. If you don't like to kill, then don't do it. You can't just keep the good parts of Civ and omit the ugly parts otherwise civ is just a fantasy game.

	09-08-2001 09:08									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lord Magnus so if Civ2 had killing of units (at least I think that's what happens to them), then that makes it 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi'?

No, actually I was saying sacrificing a child in BnW cos they give you the most prayer power is OK, since the game is about playing with a giant Care Bear. It looks like noone is in a uproar re: child sacrifice.
Where as in Civ3, if it were possible to round up all your English minority citizens and put them into camps because they were a high revolt risk, I could forsee a huge outcry of anguish, since it is a 'reality' based game.

I do feel the need to echo the point that it is disturbing that people get excited when it comes to commiting simulated acts of violence (Losta people loved starving thier sims to death when the Sims was released). But I do not think you shouldn't elimintate a feature because someone may get perverse enjoyment out of it.
If we were to to that the Gaming industry would have scant few game choices.

	09-08-2001 09:33									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Warm Beer No, actually I was saying sacrificing a child in BnW cos they give you the most prayer power is OK, since the game is about playing with a giant Care Bear. It looks like noone is in a uproar re: child sacrifice. Where as in Civ3, if it were possible to round up all your English minority citizens and put them into camps because they were a high revolt risk, I could forsee a huge outcry of anguish, since it is a 'reality' based game.

Even though what you speak off is probably the truth, it is stupid that one violent action is seen as okay just because you know that it isn't real but another is unacceptable just because it has or can really happen. Of course I'm probably the fool in trying to make logical sense of humanity. But as a last example in support of why a "B&W enhanced" Civ3 may not be gagged by PC thugs, and I know it been said before, is that CTP was able to pass with slavery in it. And maybe Civ3 can get away with other things too.

	09-08-2001 09:35									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

Civ 3 is fine without slavery. Just because CtP has it - and what a flawed implementation that was - it doesn't mean it has to be in Civ.

So it's a big part of ancient history. There are bigger parts that are still abstracted and not done properly, such as food production and population growth.

If we want realism, we should start with what's already in the game.

	09-08-2001 09:47									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Tropico lets you play as Pinochet and a host of other thugs whose reign of terror still haunts many people. So why wasn't it banned? Because of the way the game itself tended to be rather light-hearted and instructional (though you could still order somebody killed if he threatened your being elected). And because in the end most people could care less what is in or not in a computer game. And Free Speech, etc. Most people understand that entertainment can be in bad taste, after all.

So if THAT can get made without many waves (i.e. using REAL dictators), why are we so conceited as Civ players to think the rest of the world gives much of a damn about what is in or not in Civ 3? At worst, various elements might be considered uncouth by some people, but that's all that would come of it. And if those elements mirrored history in some meaningful way, that "education" tag would makes things even smoother.

What is, to me, a far more interesting discussion is this one: In Civ, when you defeat an army and take over a nation, the "realities" of the death and misery involved are kept from us. Is that, in the end, more or LESS educational? I would argue that in a way, replicating the horror of war and occupation in a graphic and clear-cut manner might actually do people some good. However, to do that kind of thing really well would take an astounding amount of wisdom and programming prowess. And there will always be the one or two freaks who post stuff like: "Yeah, now I can finally torture some Jews!" But idiots are idiots.

All things considered, I'm pretty happy with a more abstract and simple model but wouldn't mind some token nods towards the dark-side of what is really being abstracted in this empire building.

	09-08-2001 10:31									#29
	Suffering from ads?

This reminds me of an underlying topic on this board that I, at times, for get: "What would be in the spirit of Civilizaton?"
And I must admit that, although I would like to see an empire builder with more teeth, Civ3 has indeed been an abstraction of what it would be like to run a nation. Which doesn't detract from the Civ series being an incredibly engaging, replayable and enjoyable game.

So perhaps not having slavery, religion and other touchy subjects is the best thing for Civ3... But it is safe to assume that, some day, someone will make a empire building game (non sci-fi) that is more complex and realistic, as long as the syllable "civ" doesn't appear anywhere in the title.

	09-08-2001 20:01									#30
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: why are we so conceited as Civ players to think the rest of the world gives much of a damn about what is in or not in Civ 3?

Yin nailed it. No matter what all the game reviewers say when they declare Civ the #1 computer game of all time, Civ is not the end all be all of computer games. Besides that the PC Nazis have a lot more blatant problems with video games, bloody, gorey violent FPS games causing Columbine . You don't Joe Lieberman complaining about reports of disenfranchised teenagers becoming vicious dictators because they got to be cruel dictators in a Civ game.