The kind of person who's going to winge about it probably won't be the kind of person that plays video games anyway. So unless it attracts a worse rating therse nothing to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
Printable View
The kind of person who's going to winge about it probably won't be the kind of person that plays video games anyway. So unless it attracts a worse rating therse nothing to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
I beleive that it should be represented in a larger way than just a trade commodity like the ones found in M2 or Rome. It shoudl be more involved and more important because it was a great source of revenue for the european powers. The Dutch for example controlled the spice trade in the east indies for a long time and this gave them enourmus revenues. The spice trade however was run by the dutch and worked by the slaves. So if somehting went wrong like a lack of slaves or an epidemic than their profits for that year woudl go down immensly. So I believe that slave trading should almost be made as a mini-economy intertwined with the econmies in the area's that it affected the most. Say like having to build a slave trader building that doubles farm output, increases public unrest and increases squalor. That last one because they often had horrible living condidtions and frequently died of disease. Slave rebbellions too shoudl be a large part and the ability to deny an enemy slaves shoudl be have a big effect on their economy. Say make so that it is a resource that you have to constantly replenish in areas where it was heavily employed liek plantations. That way if you could deny you enemy slaves/take away the slave trade from him it would and should have a large afffect on his farming output and trade income.
My suggestion.
Make several buildings directly related to the slave trade, Slave trader, Slave ports, Plantations that rely on slaves etc. Make it so that you have to consistintaly replenish the resource by either conquering or defeating enemy armies or building slave "buyers" in settlements historically known for producing them. Also make new agents like a "quaker" or some kind of anit-slave guy to stick on opponents territory to cause unrest or deny/steal him slaves.
I think this would create a good representation of the slave trade and to make it more even make every factionn able to create these buildings in a settlement that has a significant population that isn't of your own ethnicity. For example, make it so the Ottoman Empire can make slaves out of any other race on the map. That way everybody else who has a grudge on the white man can enslave his ass and make him lick his boots for once....
Just me thoughts
Ratbarf
If it is in, it should be as a adjunct to a trade resource. So, if you can blokade Western Africa (stopping US ships for example) from coming and going this should have a direct impact on the ability of the US to trade in cotton.
Also, relying on slavery based commerce should carry with it a risk of rebellion. So, to take history's example, you could loose Haiti all over again to a slave uprising. Jamaica was "plagued" for many years by runaway slaves and a significant military effort had to be deployed to contain this.
Similarly, during the US war of independence Britain should be able to recruit runaway slaves (they saw self governing colonials as a much greater threat).
Whilst it should have a direct impact on the game I don't believe it should be in as a commodity. It should be run as in RTW.
I think it should be in the game but I don't think it will be, I don't count slaves as a resource as historically representing them, they should have them as historic as they can, stuff PC, PC is stupid.
But what are they if they aren't a resource? They were only used for economic purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
I can't actually see how else they could be represented in the game - apart from as rebels/new factions.
No European nation actually made money out of slaves, only the produce of slaves. Unless there are going to be African factions, they made money out of slavery.
for what? just for trade sourses?? if it roles as rebelion, so better name it rebel, doesn't it? As for the answer for whether salvery in or out, the reason for that except just for trade must be given out, cuz black ppl can buy n enjoy this game without mind hurt for the historical fact set in the game.
slave this period is wholey different from one in the roman empire age. what difference? find the book. i am not african american, but feel very disgust about this thread.
I don't see why there should be any sensitivity to this issue. It's simply a fact of history, and fussing about it is silly.
Place slaves as resources in Africa and the New World, slap some merchants on them, and be done with it. Let us establish the rum triangle.
There's no need to make "special slave buildings" or anything like that, that's over-emphasizing the issue in my view. Slavery was a resource, nothing more. Keep it simple.
I'm guessing your not old enough to have a very good sense of the inner eye. Just because a persons black does not mean they will immedietly get offended by a game with slaves in it. As was mentioned earlier most of Europe were slaves at one point. Are you offended by RTW? There will be black people who are and aren't offended by it. I don't think many people know what the ratios are though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dokparstal
Dont breach into racisim here guys.
This is a discussion about the possibility of slavery being in, not if african-american people are offended by the issue.
well i also think that it should be in, i believe that it was an important part of the ecenomy of the empires at that time especially british empire was using slaves as a very profitable merchandise. Also i believe that for some countrys they can even put some slave units though different from the ones in mtw2, they could be much more expensive to hire but much more cheaper in upkeep wise , as far as i know there were some regiments of slaves in egypt fighting for the ottaman empire. Also i think that there is nothing to be offended i mean for god sake this is just a game and if we will be offended by everything than i am sure that everyone can find something in the game aginst their ideas, like a fanatically catholic lithunian can see paganism as an offence. What we r arguing here is not racism or anything like that we are just saying that if the game is more historrically accurate then it will be more enjoyable.
I find it difficult to answer the question in the poll with accuracy. The only logical and direct answers I can think of would be 'yes' or 'no' yet the available choices depict more. I simply don't know if they will include slavery.
Point is, and it has been mentioned already I think, in-game slavery that regards the Afro-American -- or general black -- community can be touchy and more so than something from the medieval ages or ancient ages and such. Just like anti-Semitism is touchy (though this receives more attention it seems).
Sure, it is "historically accurate" to include it even if it is true many people(s) were enslaved somehow, but that doesn't remove the fact that black slavery can be a very touchy subject. Even if you dislike "political correctness" (assuming that is what people mean when they use the abbreviation 'PC') the potential effects and such matters must be carefully cogitated to prevent any negativities -- especially social/public, etc. -- from arising.
The Mamluks. They ruled egypt for a long time, on their own or as Turkish vassals. After the battle of the Pyramides, Napoleon Bonaparte incorporated a Mamluk cavalry regiment into his forces. They fought at Austerlitz for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Turk
Well actually CA said that slavery would be in the game in a similar way to normal trade resources. They will not however be giving it any special focus.
I still think it should be dealt with differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbarf
Using slaves takes resources. I think you should have to make the decision to use slaves. So you have to deploy more troops to an area where you have decided to use slaves. If you don't "happiness" declines rapidly into rebellion, look at Haiti, they kicked the French out. General happiness of your faction should be reduced as well to represent political agitation to end slavery. Pulling out of the slave trade should have a positive impact as well (more productivity, less troops required, more robust "happiness", etc...).
It depends on historical acuracy. For me, at least.
And for me, at least, historical accuracy would dictate a low-key implementation just as the PC-crowd would want, at most as a resource for merchants to stand on as in MTW2.
I thought I read that slavery was going to be in on one of the official threads. To ignore it would be criminal, as Africa was drained of certain populations areas. Unfortunately, the area still feels the effects of that today.
Talk about the original brain drain.
It would stupid and inaccurate not to include it. Slavery was something common during the time, and shouldn't be ignored, as it plays a large part on history. Before this time, when white and West Coast Africans didn't have contact, the whites ran a thriving slave trade of other white, and the black ran a thriving slave trade of other blacks. What happened is that whites found that blacks could work better in the fields of Southern places, so they started buying large amounts of black slaves.
The point is that it happened to whites, black, orientals, etc (in other words, men(as in man kind, not the gender)), and it is a travesty to humanity, not to the black race. By excluding it, because of the evil things that happened to blacks, you are putting a price on human life and sufferring when other races endured the same thing. What about the blacks who were bought by other blacks? Is their suffering any less important? And what about the whites who were enslaved throughout history? Is their suffering any less important?
The point is that it is an unfair institution that mankind has used to abuse members of its own species for thousands of years, and it would be ridiculous not to include it. (esp since it played such an important role during the time of which we are speaking). In RTW and M2TW you could trade slaves, was that any worse? Not at all. When playing M2TW, I never traded in slaves, as my moral values do not support slavery. Giving the player the option to (such as in M2TW), gives the player the ability to set himself on a moral highground above the other Nations. (ie, gives the player the ability to be civilised when those around him are not, and maybe even the ability to try and civilise his neighbors through arms :beam:)
The only way people can better themselves now is to learn from mistakes made in the past. I think slavery is one of history's most grave mistakes.
I will be insulted if they do not include the Irish slave trade. (I'm part Irish you see)
Vuk
I believe both that it should be in the game and that CA will have it in game. I don't imagine that CA would leave it out. However, I don't believe that they will make it a major part of the economic aspects of the game.
Using current MTW2 game mechanics, I'd imagine that CA would have slavery as a resource that can be exploited (via merchants). In addition, they could also include various triggers, both in General/Character traits and in world events (slave revolt, uprising, etc) that can occur if a player/faction decide to use slave recources.
I'm black and I hope they do put it in. However, if they put slavery in (and I emphatically think they should...can't have a united states without slavery) they should include the African empires and kingdoms in the game as well. The Ashanti Empire was really important in that respect. There's no excuse to exclude the Ashanti (who beat the british in a war and dealt with virtually all major sea powers of the period) or slavery. Let's keep it historically accurate. Also...can we get some blood in this one. PLEASE!!!!
Yes... Merchant with "slave trader" as trait is sufficient. It would be ridiculous to make assertions as to towns that have displayed on the main page "3.221 slaves per white landowner" Slavery was an economic resource just like rum was at the time... included in the same trade triangle. Should we highlight rum more? Although in general for resources I would like you to have to place x amount into merchant ships and try to have them sail across the Atlantic without being owned by some Man-O-Wars and galleons. That would be nice to put a little more emphasis on things other than moving armies around.
guys..........
wasnt slaves available in RTW?!?!?!
plz get over it