Slavery

[unmerged(71980)]

Hi!

Could anyone explain to me how Slavery in the game works? I mean, AFAIK, you can't turn people into slaves, and even though you have a full citizenship party in power, you need an Emancipation event to free the slaves.

:wacko:

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Correct. Keep in mind that before emancipation event slaves are not humans, they are property so any voting rights won't affect them.

 

[Hagie Sophia]

But there is no way to reincorporate slavery, right?

That kinda sucks.

 

[OHgamer]

But there is no way to reincorporate slavery, right?

That kinda sucks.

You could create an event that would allow slavery, with a follow-up event that would convert pops to slaves.

 

[Surgünoglu]

So why do slaves always get liberated when I take over regions that have slavery?

As Japan, I always move into Indochina and the slaves immediately turn into laborers. Good for me, sure, but I don't recall emancipating anyone.

 

[Graf Magnus]

So why do slaves always get liberated when I take over regions that have slavery?

As Japan, I always move into Indochina and the slaves immediately turn into laborers. Good for me, sure, but I don't recall emancipating anyone.

Maybe it's because Japan does not start with slavery? I'm not too sure myself.

 

[Kagernaut]

I don't see a benefit to slavery...

I mean, aren't they less efficient? And since they can't be turned into craftsmen or anything like that, why would you want them?

And aren't they also prone to high militancy?

 

[Dustermaker]

I think paradox didnt want to offend anyone with the slavery option. Thats the main reason why slavery isnt "good" in the game. If you could actually take people from your colonies or conquests and put them into provinces that you choose then it would be better than it is now.

 

[Oerdin]

I think paradox didnt want to offend anyone with the slavery option. Thats the main reason why slavery isnt "good" in the game. If you could actually take people from your colonies or conquests and put them into provinces that you choose then it would be better than it is now.

That's actually a good idea bother historically and game wise though I agree some people would get pissed off. The whole point of slavery was forcing labor to relocate where you wanted and not having to pay them.

 

[James Mason]

Perhaps, but gamewise, having slavery be somewhat neutral (not good, not bad, just there...) is probably realistic from a historical standpoint. There would likely be very interesting psychological aspects that could be modeled on citizens from slave states vs. non-slave states, but as far as economically, it's about a wash.

Numerous studies of the resources necessary to maintain slaves, feed them, etc. show that it doesn't really add up to that much of an advantage. That's why in the US there were slaveowners with huge plantations who had lots of slaves, but lots of "regular" workers too. Then there were "regular" farmers who didn't have slaves, and barely managed to get by. But they bought into the whole ethos, etc...

It's definitely a can of worms, diplomatically speaking, so I'm not surprised that Paradox pretty much leaves it alone and you don't get to mess with it very much.

Jim