Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Please Don't Shoot-Slavery

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
King said:
Ok to ge tthis thread back on track, because if it continues the way it is it will be locked, there is a slave POP, not there is no international slave trade (that is outlawed) and the government does not go into the slave business.
Click to expand...

But how slaves migration will work? Slaves are not free, they can't just go somewhere where the living is good and a goldrush started. However they will probably move somewhere where their masters will go.
So do slaves have some special migration algorythm?
 
4kn said:
But how slaves migration will work? Slaves are not free, they can't just go somewhere where the living is good and a goldrush started. However they will probably move somewhere where their masters will go.
So do slaves have some special migration algorythm?
Click to expand...

IIRC King already suggested that slaves will move when their aristocrat will move. So when he will switch provinces, he won't be alone.
 
tchaves said:
one question: I know slavery is present in vicky 1(with a "slave" pop), but will it be present in vicky 2?
another thing(and this is where I ask you not to shoot me down): will you be able to buy slaves? this is historically accurate, and would be fun gameplay-wise.
:)(but please dont bomb me with angy replies:()
Click to expand...

Slaves would defintitely be a pop.

International Slave Trade was outlawed by the time of Victoria, and the only ones still doing it were African kingdoms (ok, I don't know enough of Asian kingdoms for this era to know if they traded slaves). Raids for slaves were still ongoing in Africa too.
 
what i meant about "buying" slaves is that provinces where there are aristocrats in countries where slavery is allowed would get forced immigration of slaves(varying amount of immigrant according to size and cash reserves of aristocrats...)
 
King said:
Ok to ge tthis thread back on track, because if it continues the way it is it will be locked, there is a slave POP, not there is no international slave trade (that is outlawed) and the government does not go into the slave business.
Click to expand...

Will there be internal slave trade?

For instance, in Brazil it was quite important during the period, with slaves being brought from the declining sugar plantations in the northeast of the country to the southeast (specially São Paulo).
 
Er...is there any reason in V2 to actually keep slavery as an insitution? Slavery was considered terrible economic-wise in V1, will this still continue? I mean, the fact that some people still wanted slaves indicated that slavery must have some sort of benieft to those nations, somehow...um...er...

Right now, all I know is that the only negative thing to outlawing slavery would be making your POPs more reactionary. :eek:o
 
tchaves said:
what i meant about "buying" slaves is that provinces where there are aristocrats in countries where slavery is allowed would get forced immigration of slaves(varying amount of immigrant according to size and cash reserves of aristocrats...)
Click to expand...

Would work in Africa, not only slaves, but peasants from neighbouring provinces forced to immigrate and become slaves due to raids.
 
I hope that the slave trade is not included in the upcoming game. Players could buy as many slaves as they could afford, knowing full well that when slavery is outlawed, they have a large labor force that they can promote to craftsmen/clerks and really boost their industrial score.

Imagine the former CSA as heavily industrialized as the North... :eek:
 
Vesimir said:
Apart from the fact that it was there and it was still pretty important in RL, and was the reason the american civil war started? Nope. I don't see why they want to keep it.
Click to expand...

What he meant was, would there be any reason for you as the player to keep the slaves and not turning them into good taxpayers:D
 
Vesimir said:
Servant said:
Er...is there any reason in V2 to actually keep slavery as an insitution?
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that it was there and it was still pretty important in RL, and was the reason the american civil war started? Nope. I don't see why they want to keep it.
Click to expand...
No need to get sarcastic.

I think you misinterpreted Servant's question. I'm pretty sure he wasn't asking why slavery should be in the game, but rather if a country in Vic2 would be able to benefit from keeping slavery rather than abolishing it. In Vic1, the choice between slavery and abolishment was a no-brainer. The only reason I can think of why someone would've chosen to keep slavery in Vic1, was role-playing. Economically, abolishment was far more interesting.

I think allowing slaves to work in factories, would go a long way to make it more interesting for a country to legalise slavery. Since the slaves wouldn't receive an income, the rest of the factory's workforce and capi's would receive more money. And you wouldn't have much-needed workforce stuck in RGO's.

Or will the income generated by slave POP's go to aristocrats?
 
Rhion said:
The only reason I can think of why someone would've chosen to keep slavery in Vic1, was role-playing.
Click to expand...

A fine tradition that I intend to continue upon the release of Victoria II.:D Not necessarily in regard to slavery, just in general.
 
I would like to see at least the ability to promote slaves of your own national culture - for example, as Persia, in Vic1, slavery is leagal (although I can't remember if Persia actually begins with any slaves). If you annex Bukhara and the other steppe nations, the Persians there remain slaves, which always seemed a little strange to me. Wouldn't it make sense to be able release your own people who had been made slaves by someone else?

On a related note, perhaps laborer POPs in slavery nations which were poor enough could be demoted to slaves? This would represent debt bondage, which I suspect was a prime cause of slavery in some parts of the world, at least in Africa.
 
My pet peeve with slavery is how it DID NOT demonstrate primitive accumulation of capital properly.

See, slavery was an "annoyance" in V1. You should get rid of it ASAP or you are losing precious cash because of inefficiency. But the game never demonstrated the "advantages" (do not that I am using this word in the most pragmatic of senses here, please) that made slavery last so long.

For the plantation systems south of Río Bravo, several crops (mostly coffee, cocoa and sugar) had the structural advantage of labour being so damn cheap that a wage system would actually compromise such advantage. Or, in other words, by keeping slaves, countries such as Brazil actually managed a productive gain greater than "free" labourers. In Vicky's timeframe this aspect was quickly declining due to central capitalism and it's goal of breaking previous systems and agricultural modernization, that made Europe capable of exporting food for the first time in it's history. Slavery could only go so far as to provide an "edge" against this rising tide.
 
Rhion said:
I think you misinterpreted Servant's question.
Click to expand...

In that case sorry. I didn't even think about the possiblity of keeping/releasing slaves as in my case it's always strict roleplay. And I don't really pay much attention to POPs except to make sure I've got people to work in factories and the cultures/religions of theirs.
 
telesien said:
IIRC King already suggested that slaves will move when their aristocrat will move. So when he will switch provinces, he won't be alone.
Click to expand...

Isn't the idea of aristocrats moving rather far-fatched to begin with? Where they live is where they are on the top of the heap after all. No, I just can't see real life precedents of aristocrats moving from Brazil to the US, taking a throng of slaves with them.
 
Colon said:
Isn't the idea of aristocrats moving rather far-fatched to begin with? Where they live is where they are on the top of the heap after all. No, I just can't see real life precedents of aristocrats moving from Brazil to the US, taking a throng of slaves with them.
Click to expand...

How about aristocrats moving within Brazil?
 
If a POP can move within Brazil then it can also move outside Brazil, unless you're going to write a special rule for it. Besides, the basic question remains: how conceivable is it that an aristocrat would leave his estate behind to migrate elsewhere with his slaves?
 
No, I just can't see real life precedents of aristocrats moving from Brazil to the US, taking a throng of slaves with them.
Click to expand...

The History Channel had a special documentary about a bunch of Confederate slave-owners moving to Brazil after the Civil War because Brazil promised to keep slavery legal. Not sure if they brought their slaves with them, though, but I wouldn't be surprised. The descendants of these Confederates still live in Brazil today, and the History Channel showed these people holding a party and waving Confederate flags.
 
Servant said:
The History Channel had a special documentary about a bunch of Confederate slave-owners moving to Brazil after the Civil War because Brazil promised to keep slavery legal. Not sure if they brought their slaves with them, though, but I wouldn't be surprised. The descendants of these Confederates still live in Brazil today, and the History Channel showed these people holding a party and waving Confederate flags.
Click to expand...

:rofl: That's awesome! Wonder why more didn't go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back