Printable View
I haven't seen a thread on this, but it's really something I'm wondering about. A lot of games about the era avoid the issue of (black) slaves. Now TW games have included slavery in the past, but considering the context, it wasn't really a sensitive issue. Slavery in this period is.
I think it will be included. I dont think CA should shy away from history purely because it wasnt nice.
I think it should be included. Allowing a faction to take part in the slave trade would help explain why it occured (profit and sugar), its risks (mutiny, mass lose of profit if delayed), and why it ended (cheaper sugar elsewhere, public objections).
I don't mind if it's just treated as a trade resource (i.e. own a province with the resource, and you get income from it), as the micromanagement of a complex slave market wouldn't be too interesting gameplay anyway IMHO.
I'll just quote myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I agree it shouldnt be left out purely because its not something to be proud of, however it should not either be over emphasized in a way which could be ahistorical and possibly distasteful.
Indeed, a black page in our colonising heritage, but a page of history nevertheless. History should not be left out only because it looks bad in modern days, if that becomes a guidance it is very close to censorship.
LZ
It should be in unless there is some legal restriction (IE: Nazi depictions in WWII games sold in germany)
They abstracted slavery in RTW so I don't see why they would not in ETW...
Well, it won't be possible for a player using a European faction to settle America without pushing the native tribes off their territory. It will be graphic and explicit too... you'll be actively killing them in battle.
So if that is in the game, then I don't see how they can leave out slavery. It will probably be shown as an abstact gathered resource, the way it's been done in the current TW games.
I agree it shouldn't be left out for pc reasons, but I'm not convinced the economic benefits were so great that the slave trade should be represented heavily. Morally reprehensible it was, but it was also playing a smaller and smaller part in the transatlantic economy and wasn't the huge benefit to European economies it has on occasion been made out to be. Hence in this case I wouldn't be that bothered if it were left out or simply included in general transatlantic trade.
While slave trade might not have been so important anymore, slavery itself was common enough and with it there came several slave rebellions (I believe haiti was founded after a succesful slave rebellion around 1800). Rebellions (and slave revellions) have been pretty common in TW games, but I wonder if they'll have your all white army fight an all black army, and what the generals' speech would be before such a battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Killing natives americans is still pretty PC for some reason, but anything to do with slavery is usually avoided in games.
Slavery should be treated as any other trade resource. That is essentially what slaves were, a resource to be collected and traded. We already have precedents for this - RTW didn't distinguish between free men and slaves in city management or other manners despite slavery being a widespread and integral part of society across cultures and regions. M2TW only glosses over the subject with a few slave resources in the Crimea and completely ignores the massive medieval slaving campaigns during the time, which depleted entire regions of their inhabitants and gave us the very word 'slave' (from 'Slav').
Also, the population loss and money gained from sacking or exterminating a city is in large part due to slaves being taken. Again, CA didn't elaborate on this fact in previous games.
Having any in depth management doesn't even need to be debated, it won't be included. It would be unusually sadistic and beyond the scope and theme of the game - war.
Iirc CA stated that slavery will be included in the way of trade resources, but nothing more in deep.
it is already in the game, in M2TW there are slave resources in Crimea and near Arguin (might be more). You can choose to place a merchant on the square and Voila you are a slve trader.
Right, it's in M2TW but there's more emotional distance and separation in time from that period. Slavery in the Empire:TW period still has political and social repercussions today; especially in America, the Caribbean and South America. So it's a little more sensitive.
But I think it could still be handled as an abstract economic resource, for the sake of historical accuracy. You might even be able to take the high moral ground as a set of house rules. Avoid indulging in it, and go after factions that profit heavily from slave trading. That shouldn't be the main focus of the game, but it might be an interesting variation for one time through the campaign.
Actually the Slave trade was very profitible.
You only have to read the profits and revenues obtained in government records to see that.
The whole reason men and ships where invested in the trade, was because of the profit, espeically the profit to the african kingdoms that supplied the slaves to the "factories", which in turn collected them and supplied them to the ships. Which in turn, supplied them to the new world. Even ex-slaves owned slaves.
Then there is the secondary profit.
Slave labour on the sugar cane plantations.
Slavery itself, was a massive industry. Employing tens of thousands of people, these things we already know.
But slavely did not end with the halting of african slaves across the atlantic. After The British Empire used the Royal Navy, which alone in the world at the time, was the only power capable of enforcing the no slavery law on the high seas.
Slavery has been, and is, continous even today.
Slavery itself was bascially a means in many cultures, including european, in which the poor can pay a debt to which they have legally incurred. And or, a means to which those that are not so well off, can gain food shelter and protection of a more well off person. It's a kinda of social welfare program. This of course has long been demonised to the wants and needs of the bleeding hearts and alarmists.
And of course, it is a means of destorying another nations means of fighting you in the old days.
But slavery existed in europe in the 1800's, usually in a form of un paid debt, the poor and "down on luck", could work their debt off.
The main reason african slavery is most highlighted today, is because it was treated with the same ideas as production, and mass involvement that came about due to the industrial revolution. New thinking, was applied to the application of everything else. Which to some made sense, and others found wanting in the application of the "human condition", within the context of the 18th-19th century thought.
The main stream european application of slavery in it's context should be one of applying a means for the social caretaking of the poor.
In which the well off supplied food and shelter to those most in need. But as I pointed out, it went further than this in the new age thinking of the time.
Why should it be included?
In many cultures, Christian and Islam, hindu, and so on... there are actually laws that were laid down to how an owner, and a slave must treat each other. And the requirements on an owner, of owning a slave.
Many nations, Romans, Hellenes et cetera... all had laws protecting the rights of slaves, (yes, strange as it may seem, slaves had rights). And slaves had a right, to buy themselves, out of slavery, and many did. And many also sold themselves into slavery as a means of escaping poverty.
But in all honesty, no one today was involved in any part of the slave trade, anyones "feelings" twhinged by the thought of this trade in the context of inclusion within a game to mimick the trade of these times, or claims to be of the slave trade though family, needs to get a grip, no one today has committed these acts, well no one here i hope. And after ~200 years since the trade was abolished, no one here can know what it was like, nor claim to understand something they have not been part of. The term used is a bleeding heart, or trying to get something for nothing. So grandstanding for the moral high ground, is just that, grandstanding to make yourself look good.
It is a part of history, (it has passed), and a large part of history to nearly everyone, who at some point has had family in slavery, or bondage as it was known, or has been invloved in such.
For example, no one with a european family, unless you are of noble line, can claim that they have not had a family memeber as a slave at some point in history.
Because most of europe was a slave to the protection of a lord. As most worked without pay in respect to being given shelter, food, and protection. Most people as some point, fell into debt, and then the debt owed, was taken in service.
So in essence and fact, Slavery/bondage.
Lords of the manor in the British iles, in the Medieval period, had slaves. There own people, bonded servants. The French were still technical slaves up until the French Revolutions in the late 1700's.
So should it be in? Hell yes, we have just had M2TW with slavery, in which that would include most of us european families as being slaves. We have RTW with slavery, which would also include most of us of european hertige, so why are we now, shrinking from a historical part for the next game?
You are saying in context, it's ok to enslave a white person, but not a black one? There is an ugly word for that kind of thinking.
So lets be honest, lets represent the game as it should be, within it's historical context. CA has always done it as an abstract trade resource, I see no problem doing the same.
Post scriptio: There were also white slaves in Amercia, Europe, Middle East, Africa... in the time period too. So do we keep playing politics, or do we finally put the catch cry to bed with the rest of history, and treat it the same?
After all, I wager everyone here was born a freeman?
And PLEASE, remember.....Everyone was Involved, Africans, Europeans, Arabs, New World indians, all traded slaves, Kept Slaves, and Used Slaves. So Everyone back then was guilty, not just white people like many claim. But none of us were involved, SO please, No trying to guilty trip people in to someone else's wrongs, BY OUR STANDARDS TODAY.
fenir
Amen fenir, amen.
IN M2TW, slaves were treated as a trade good. They were one of, what, 20 different goods? I can't see how leaving out one of them could hurt the game in the slightest.
Besides, there was never an attempt to represent every important trade good in the game. Some get in, some are left out. If leaving out one of them prevents hurting someone's sensibilities, then why not??
You made some good points fenir, although I would like to point out that the poor were not treated much better than slaves during the slave trade. At the time of the slave trade in England men were abducted and forced to work in the Navy, children were sent up chimneys to clean them, and people worked in factories and sweatshops for very little money.
Life was bad for all people in Europe.
In one interview I read they said it would be in but you wouldn't be able to exactly traffic in slaves...
I don't know exactly how it will be implemented or what to make of it, but it was real and existed for what it is worth...Ignoring it because it is not PC is silly as is making too big a deal of it being in a game.
I can hear the black community screaming about being victimised as i read this thread.
Honestly, get over it. It was a terrible thing, but it doesn't affect you, and it's not like this game will be glorifying it. It will just be depicting history for what it was - horrid.
Nobody's suggesting such a thing, and to be honest, if anything TW glorifies the nasty parts of history (such as, wiping out the native indians). But I can't say I care.Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
One point I would like to make is that blacks were not the only people hurt by being indentured or put into slavery.
The state I live in, Georgia USA, was colonized as Australia was later on as a repository of unwanted rif-raf, prisoners and indentured servants. Indentured white servants were very well known and used even in northern states. People sold themselves or were sold for a specific time period. Some people may never had the ability to pay off their debt and may very well have remained indentured (a slave) for life.
I echo another person here who said that slavery was in use by all people around the globe. A little known fact from my state is that when the Cherokee moved to Oklahoma they took their slaves with them. The leader of the tribe of the Cherokee, Mr. McIntosh, was the largest owner of slaves in the state.
I think it will be in.
I think it'll be in, if it's been in other TW games. Though I never noticed slave trading in M2TW, I did in Rome
I'm not quite sure really. I do have my doubts that it will be in though - the slave trades of the 18th century may be a little too near to the present day, unlike those of the Medieval and Classical period.
On the other hand though, I do believe that they should be in, and perhaps they could even be a detailed part of the game. Slave revolts for example and civil wars over the sensitive matter could add more depth to the overall player experience. I'm not quite sure if any large events like this happened in the timeframe though.
I think that slavery should be included in the game because it was a historical part of European and American history.
1. There should be the 'Ulster Plantations'
2. Slavery in the Caribbean and Americas. Without slaves to work the land, there wouldn't be as much cotton, sugar, or raw material production which would help supply the European economy. I think that they should, unfortunately, be treated as any other trade commodity, because that's what they were.
Also it is a game. This souldn't be considered to not be in. Slavery was a huge part back then.
It should definately be in the game but I fear CA might shy way from it for political correctness' sake.
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