Printable View
Can we do this in Empire?
Let's say I , long story short, start conquering lands and defeating an enemy or coalition (if they're in the game) can I opt to put certain people or groups into slavery, working in my factories etc?
That's just a very loose example...I'm looking for anything along these lines.
Thanks
I'm pretty sure the ignored the issue of slavery all together. I think from a modding stand point, they could be modded in as a tradable item, but beyond that I think it might be difficult to implent such as you described, IMO.
That's disappointing...
You would think it would be in there...as well as slave trading like you said.
Whatever, this game better blow the doors off the industry or I'm going to go crazy :dizzy2:
For (In my view, ridiculous) reasons, CA would get their socks sued off if they did that.
Darnnit! I was hoping to enslave the Dutch! :beam:
Work Tosa! :whip:
:beam::beam::beam::beam::beam::beam::beam::beam:
EDIT: I can still exterminate populace though, so look out Org! :beam:
I thought I remember reading somewhere a long time a go that you got prestige if you abolished slavery, and that was the only way they were handling the issue.
They also said if I am correct that it offers no economic benefits, which is really stupid. The fact is that it did, which is why people did it. So you have nothing to gain by keeping it, and tons to gain by abolishing it. The fact is that it was a tough call of efficiency over humanity in real life, and it should be in the game. Also (as history has shown), when slaves are freed, it is better for the economy in the long run (in a capatalist society), because they can then start investing, making business ventures, etc. So aboloshing slavery could have a short term hard felt negative effect on your economy at first, but develop into long term increased productivity. I do not know how they will do it, but that is the way I would do it. It would be keeping things realistic (which is/should be the main goal) and giving people a choice. In my opinion (because of the nature of slavery) there is only one real answer.
It is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
It's ok to kill tens of thousands of them, tax your people to death, destroy historic sites, pillage the countryside, etc etc etc...but you can't enslave someone?
Totally ridiculous.
I can see them not wanting to make slavery a huge part of the game, but to whitewash it completely would be absurd. It was a huge part of 18th century economic history for many of the countries represented in the game. You should gain in prestige by abolishing slavery but also take an economic hit (and perhaps a hit in internal stability, particularly in colonies dependent on slavery) at least in the short term.
I doubt they would get sued, but it might offend people and CA doesn't want the bad press.
Why would you do that=Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Just try me
*reloads his m60*
I agree, no one would sue but they also don't want minority groups protesting outside of game shops and Best Buys. When it comes down to it it is was not put in for financials reasons. They want to sell as many units as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haxorsist
Once again, that's very disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ByzanKing
If someone is offended because their virtual race is enslaved in Empire:TW, they need to see a psychologist.
The medicine prescribed: Sitting down and playing Empire:TW.
Half the world would need that treatment, there are that many do-gooders and genuinely offended people.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
The funny thing is, slavery had nothing to do with race. Yes more blacks were slaves, because their countrymen or enemies would sell them. There were a lot of white slaves as well who could not pay off debts and were treated as such. They were whipped ect, not granted that attitude change in America later in the 1800's but there was still white slaves in America, Just as there were slaves of every ethnicity in every corner of the world. They represented slavery in both Rome and Medieval 2, In Rome you can Enslave the populace giving your population boosts in cities and represented by ankle shackles in the province, in M2TW it was a resource that you Merchants could collect. I see no reason to include it the same way, as long as you never single out any specific ethnicity.
For all the plain counter-factuality that the above comment may display, I think it is good to remember that TW games are games that are loosely set against the background of history, not historical simulations. White slavery, black slavery is a story of suffering and oppression and I am happy that it is being left out of the game.
And what do you think war is? If it is a conscripted army, it IS slavery. Even if it is not, the conditions that soldiers endure is often much worse than what slaves endure. Slaves had some value, so they were often treated as expensive property. A soldier's job was to endure the unendurable, and to make the ultimate sacrafice in the end. People's limbs were blown off, people were eaten alive by diseases, starved to death, froze to death, died of dehydration. When they took a city, people were mercilessly raped and butchered, men women and children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robespierre
That is war, and the entire game is about war. The game represents war without delving into those more gruesome aspects. They could have represented slavery as an economic venture, with chances of uprisings, and with humanist, antislavery opposition. If they did that, they would have also avoided the more gruesome aspects of slavery. It was an important moral issue, just like war, and so it deserves to be represented in the game. In a way, by not including it you are denying the suffering of every victim of slavery, just as by pretending that there were not wars you would be denying the suffering of every victim of war. You cannot shy away from representing something because it was harsh and horrible, esp since war is the most harsh and horrible of them all! If you are too sensitive to be playing a game with slavery, then how the heck could you play a game called "Total War"?!
*rant over*
Some excellent points there Vuk.
However I think that it is impossible to ignore the racist aspects of the slave trade for this period, and I just prefer that be kept out of the game.
the suffering and violence of real war differ from the drama of battle simulation, although people in battle doubtless do get an adrenaline high, esp. the commanders, and then there is endomorphine buzz for the less seriously wounded.
Slave traders and owners throughout history tried to justify what they did by saying that the people they traded were inferior. With the ancient Romans it was that they were evil barbarian races (again, racism), with the enslavement of Christians by Muslims and Muslims by Christians it was the religion. With the enslavement of debtors and criminals it was that they had done something to deserve it or that they were of a lower class, etc. Wars though recieve those same justification. Empire Total War is all about colonialism, what do you think that is? These people are inferior, so we need to exploit them. You see what I mean? That is what it is all about. These are the things that make Imperialism, war, and slavery horrible for those who experience it. If the world was perfect, you could not have a game because there would be no challenge! The player is supposed to be able to choose, and moral choices are part of that. They included that in RTW and M2 with allowing you to slaughter and sack. That is just as horrible, it is a moral call. And as I said above, it would be too typically European to brush it under the carpet and pretend it did not happen. The fact is that it did, and it should not be hidden from gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robespierre
As for you idea that combatants like battle, I think that you will find that most early armies were unwilling conscripts, and the later armies were often composed or people who so so far down in the dumps that it offered the only chance to rise. Was is NOT and enjoyable thing. Ask anyone who came home from Iraq.
I think it's merely a unique view point. Slavery was included in Rome Total War, no one seemed to mind then. Several roman leader had traits that gave them pleasure slaves. Yet I didn't see people with gaul ancestory crying havok.
It's just rather ridiculous that every other total war game invovles slavery but the one whose economy is based on it ignores it.
You don't need the drama, this isn't a rpg. Yet to not even include it as a trade factor takes something away.
The same thing was said of Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts campaign which left out the Holocaust side of the equation.
You can ignore it, or pretend it's not there, but at end of the day the way these empires are building, and wealth gathered is a large part due to slavery. To take it out just empties the history.
Obviously it won't be added in, but still I think it a odd move by CA, espically if they try to cover the Civil War as one of the four campaigns in a expansion pack. They want to skirt the issue but if they deal with american indepdence and the road to the civil war slavery is a part of that, not the only one, but a essential one.
it was a tough call of efficiency over humanity in real life, and it should be in the game. Also (as history has shown), when slaves are freed, it is better for the economy in the long run (in a capatalist society), because they can then start investing, making business ventures, etc. So aboloshing slavery could have a short term hard felt negative effect on your economy at first
I've poked around a few of the files in the demo after the unpacker came out and found this --
There's also a "Mistress_Circassian" ancillary for a character culture type of "middle-east". So I'd guess its not completely absent, just glossed over a bunch.Quote:
--[[ Ancillary_African_Servant_02_Trigger ]]--
events.BuildingCompleted[#events.BuildingCompleted+1] =
function (context)
if conditions.CharacterType("minister", context) and conditions.CharacterMinisterialPosition("governor_america", context) and conditions.CharacterBuildingConstructed("large_cotton_plantation", context) then
if conditions.DateInRange(1700, 1900, context) then
effect.ancillary("Ancillary_African_Servant", 8, context)
end
return true
end
return false
end
I think there was a huge thread about this a year or so ago when Empires was originally launched. You should go looking for it as it hass many of the points already discussed here.
Privateer to United States
Trade screen
Privateer offers
Population 2000 (568 Slaves)
Pivateer Demands
Raw Materials for Europe
What exactly is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TiberiusBeskar
As for the rest of the thread: Others have made every point I can already. It's historically accurate to include slavery in the game, considering what an economic backbone it was to many nations during this time period.
We'll see how it plays out. I'm sure it won't be what some of us want, but something tells me it won't be left out entirely either. It has to be represented in SOME form. It's exclusion is almost as bad as if they had left out artillery.
It was a mock up of trading.
The smaller number of 568 slaves represented those who lived to tell the tale as it were, when they were chained up and shipped away to America.