Slavery's Place in EUIV (Keep it tasteful and factual!)

So I haven't seen much on slavery in EUIV. Whether we like it or not, it was an integral part of Post-Renaissance/Early Modern Economics, and in my personal opinion should be included in some way in EUIV. I know it's a difficult subject to broach because of sensitive opinions, but it's an important story to tell factually, especially when it involves history. EUIV would -benefit- from events such as Slave Revolts which we saw occurring in a few Caribbean countries, as well as added economic depth and stability issues. Thoughts everyone?

 

Out of curiosity... what would you say the economic worth of the slave resource should be? is a province producing slaves worth as much as one producing Cotton? Would you have the two tied together to better reflect reality? Do you want the Caribbean sugar to be devalued until a certain percentage of slave provinces are brought into it's trade network?
If worked just right this would make a great expansion by itself, with the economics of many resources effected by colonial slave trading, and then effected again with the abolition of slavery. With events and modifiers all over the place. The problem comes in the politics, you can't just call an expansion pack 'Europa Universalis IV: Screw Africa'

 

Yeah, that's the biggest problem, it would not be politically correct to make slavery a game itself. But I'd love to see a better development to this part of the game.

 

It would be if the slaves aren't black. A barbary raiding and slaving game would be perfectly possible.

Hell, I would probably play it xD.

 

I dont see why its not just fully implemented... we are all Africans in the end, im fine with my people being historically portrayed

 

First you would have to go to Africa so they can sell you their prisoners as slaves.

 

All of those things sound good, as EUIV has dynamic events that go off with a few set triggers being in place before. The new trade system would obviously see the most effect with slavery, but I think the stability panel and revolt possibilities should get big penalties towards the player to help balance the economic boons a North Atlantic slave trade gives. As for the political correctness, the latest expansion for Vicky 2 was called Heart of Darkness for a reason. Paradox HAS simulated the mass exploitation and enslavement of populaces before, just not properly when it concerns economics.

 

You could have specific historical events referring to slavery in places like Haiti and Liberia, but presumably a slave revolt in EU IV would effectively desire the same result as a nationalist revolt: independence.

Are slaves not a resource in EU IV anyway?

 

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion of the circumstances of black slaves, there were many white slaves (slavs - hence the word) from eastern europe forced into the trade (maybe not so much in the renaissance?) - so if both were portrayed equally then i dont see why slave mechanics could not be made actually interesting instead of its current non existent portrayal.

Thinking about it, the ottomans took many, many slaves.

 

The Mongols and Tatars used to kidnap Russian peasants during raids and sell them at the Genoese slave markets in the Black Sea. That could be an event I guess.

 

Why would slavery be controversial?

 

Sure, but I still think triangular trade could be more interesting to depict.

 

Only way i would see slavery being depicted in EU4 would be events now given the changes in the trade system. We will have to see if there are any in EU4.

 

With the Aztec expansion in CK2, and the CK2 to EUIV converter..you should be able to take white Europeans from Europe and sell them in North America for the Aztec cotton/sugar plantations.

 

I don't think it's that everyone thinks ONLY of the black slaves. I think the problem is that during this time period African slaves were such a large part of the new world economy that to portray it with any kind of accuracy means portraying their misfortunes as well. Personally I believe that if it happened in History it should be fair game. There should be pogroms of Jews and slave raids in East Africa and incredible xenophobia and racism all around. For me it's all or nothing, I would rather have it shown accurately(with a neutral view to the morality of the situation) and economically accurate(transfers of population, modifiers to slave related trade goods, disenfranchised and often dangerous underclass of near rebels at all times). The worst case scenario would be a morally positive slavery which portrayed all the economic benefits but no abusing of human rights. This was a very discussed topic in the portrayed time period, and it should also raise the level of dissatisfaction in the home countries in Europe if they have a technologically advanced well educated population within a republic. Ivory and human beings are not equal industries in terms of needed military control, shipping requirements, and the reality of unequal trade(beads for slaves, slaves for resources, resources for beads), I heard it said once that a slave ship ran at 500% net profit on every single run it did successfully after the first. Without making it an expansion I don't know if you can do the reality of the situation justice. A limited view on slavery(just a resource that's there but undifferentiated) might be the safest course of action for Paradox.

 

Theres always some political correct activist who becomes offended on behalf of others.

 

I mentioned my comment in this post to my co-worker who's immediate response is "They can't show slavery in a video-game... that would encourage young children to think Slavery was ok"... I didn't respond to that comment. Slavery is controversial because there are really really foolishly ignorant people out there. They object to any mention of history as it happened, only read historically revisionist politically motivated articles about these subjects and also posses almost no knowledge of video-games. These are the guys who wanted to ban GTA III on the grounds it was a prostitute killing simulator. These are the people who will regularly tell you about the advantages of hunter-gatherer lifestyles and about returning to nature while buying their groceries at walmart and driving less than 4 blocks to work every day.

 

Don't really see what's wrong with making them a trade good like every other game in the EU series.

 

I remember that recent thread about the reasons not to kill every natives when arriving in the New World.

To my opinion, the better representation of triangular and slave trade would be to have an answer to this question: WHY slave trade?

The representation of triangular trade, shoudl be introduced in game with the possibility to enslave natives -- like Spanish and others did historically. This would lead to a decreasing native population. To maintain your economic efficiency, that would force you to import (black) slaves, increasing the value of these provinces producing such "trade goods".

Maybe these slave imports should also lead to something like a higher revolt risk every month, leading to revolts without necessarily needing specific events as triggers.

There should also be changing cultures: each revolt would lead, after a few months without retaking the province, to something like creole culture, implying great difficulties to manage this province again, leading to a still higher revolt risk, the possibility of new creole States in case of a new revolt, and such funny things.

But that would need to be very thoroughly thought to avoid weird things and unbalancing, I think.

 

Sir, what matter is not the truth, what matters is what people think, and, AFAIK, there will always be people to say slavery must not be included in a game, that's a shame, sure.

edit: Yeah Elfryc, I completely agree, to represent this, you must ask you WHY, HOW, and WHAT FOR.