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

[Tarasnations]

Slaves should NOT be portrayed in the game in detail. It is just too insulting to many groups. However, at the trade nodes, if other commodities are portrayed, then slaves could simply be another commodity along with INDENTURED servants. In the same way the Hearts of Iron series should never portray the Holocaust against the Jews in detail.

See that's where I disagree with you. I shouldn't announce this publicly, but just to make it clear my father is Jewish and I received a bar-mitzvah, so I'm saying this as someone who strongly feels for the Jewish people. The holocaust used so many resources in so many places that could have been used towards the war effort. Not portraying it skews the strategic decisions made to keep the holocaust running at full speed at the expense of the front line soldiers and their ability to be resupplied. HOI should surely have modeled it in some way. These events happened, it's not for us to judge them as not happening because they offend us. Not portraying something of such magnitude invites the criticism that its exclusion from the scenario A)absolves the Nazi's of their historic prejudice and potentially allows you to play the Axis as pure good-guys in your mind, and B)actually is insulting to those involved. No Jew wants to play through the holocaust, but we're talking about text pop-ups that allow the game to better reflect the situations involved without moral judgement involved. To simply pretend it didn't happen is playing it safe at the expense of perceived reality. In many ways you are saying that a company should deny the holocaust since it is a controversial subject. Education is the solution, not exclusion of events.

 

[franbatista]

Errr, some people get offended too easily. It's a just a video game and i could somehow understand if it was another type of game... but it is just a strategy game! Slaves should be a trade resource like they were in reality, a very important one. It's not like you support slavery but that's how it was...

 

[unmerged(584823)]

Errr, some people get offended too easily. It's a just a video game and i could somehow understand if it was another type of game... but it is just a strategy game! Slaves should be a trade resource like they were in reality, a very important one. It's not like you support slavery but that's how it was...

But they already are ! We are discussing about the possibility to make slave trade as deep as it was during the time frame.

 

[Elfryc]

I agree that having this more fleshed out would be a good addition to the game. There should be government decisions where you can ban slavery and you should get small negative opinion modifiers if you practice it and another country doesn't. A lot of countries didn't outright ban it until later in the games time line or after it though.

I believe that was in EU3. At least I remember having seen that in events, with modifiers, events and flags related. And if I remember well, banning slave trade makes slave producing provinces produce a random trade good. Maybe veterans should precize of deny it, however.

Slaves should NOT be portrayed in the game in detail. It is just too insulting to many groups. However, at the trade nodes, if other commodities are portrayed, then slaves could simply be another commodity along with INDENTURED servants. In the same way the Hearts of Iron series should never portray the Holocaust against the Jews in detail.

Would you suggest that players should practice slave trade without having to question themselves about it, or only when one peculiar event appears every 10 years?

+ If your answer is "yes", then slaves should "only" be a trade good like any other.
+ If it's "no", then you have to make them a specific trade, with a special mechanism.

Good luck if your answer is the first one... Mine was here and here. Just say me if you think I may be offending anybody.

 

[Tarasnations]

The discussion isn't if slavery should be included, but rather, should the included slavery be treated uniquely and differently, as surely we all agree that trading in slaves is different in almost every way from the trading of wheat in terms of what is required of both the buyer and seller.
Edit: I see Hargrave said this(or something similar) about ten seconds before I hit send

 

[Lord Canterbury]

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?

I think that there are broadly four aspects to this:

1 - Trade impact. This was already in EU3. Slaves were a trade good, and gave bonuses to production of cotton, sugar etc. Presumably the same in EUIV.

2 - Events. There could relatively easily be a series of events, reflective many aspects of slavery, and representing its many forms - from the Ottomans to the Transatlantic trade.

3 - Demographics. The transatlantic slave trade clearly had massive and long lasting demographic impacts. It would require an entirely new mechanism to represent this. I think this is well beyond the EU4 mechanics (which no longer even has a population counter). Obviously this is more accurately represented in Vicky2.

4 - Is it acceptable to represent it? Different people will have different views on this. Certainly some people will find it offensive. Clearly slavery was a very bad thing, and slavery in the early modern era was particularly pernicious and impactful. My personal view is that if it is represented in a way that shows its impacts while not glorifying it, then I would find it acceptable. Given the rather abstract EU environment I don't think this would be difficult (The game represents sacking of cities, wars of religious persecution, forced marriages and the genocide of aboriginal people, all in a very abstracted and broadly non-offensive way).

 

[DanubianCossak]

(slavs - hence the word)

Actually youre quite wrong there, in this case, as in many others, the problem lies in English language itself.

You call us (since im a Slav too) "Slavs" which comes from Greek "Sklaveni" or something like that, which in itself is not accurate (whatever it might sound like or mean for Greeks). We call our selves "Sloveni" / "Slavyani" and similar versions of those, because in the root of our people's name is Slavic word "slovo" which means literally "word".

Essentially you English folk use a wrong word which sounds like your word "slave" so you make the obvious conclusion.

Its similar with my people, for example. We call ourselves "Srbi" and our country "Srbija" ("Srbiya"). However ever since like medieval ages or whatever most Europeans called us "Servi", some languages still do to this day (Dutch do, French sometimes), even in English it was so till like 19th or 20th century (we had a PR campaign to change it lol). And again, this error on your part was, and still is, a basis for many similar slanders/conclusions - Servi - from servo/servire (sp?) meaning servants/slaves, which has nothing to do with how we call ourselves lol.

/rand over.

 

[Tarasnations]

I like what you said Lord Canterbury, but in regards to #4: It's very difficult to glorify slavery, I think we should do the opposite. Really portray the moral abuses(through text events) while accurately reflecting the large economic boon slavery brought to plantation economies. It should be something that is morally off putting but perhaps necessary or economically too advantageous to not partake in or quit doing. Like many things in EU I think it should force you to either distastefully engage in immoral behavior, or actively avoid it but forego the opportunities that it presents. No one says you must kill every last native in EU3 to get your colony set up, and it's distasteful to do so, but you could, and it was advantageous to your colony to do so.

 

[franbatista]

But they already are ! We are discussing about the possibility to make slave trade as deep as it was during the time frame.

Ah ok, i thought i was removed or something.

3 - Demographics. The transatlantic slave trade clearly had massive and long lasting demographic impacts. It would require an entirely new mechanism to represent this. I think this is well beyond the EU4 mechanics (which no longer even has a population counter). Obviously this is more accurately represented in Vicky2.

Yes, we can rule out the demographics part, unless some mod or an expansion later adds a pop system (which i doubt it).

if it is represented in a way that shows its impacts while not glorifying it, then I would find it acceptable.

That is essential.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

I like what you said Lord Canterbury, but in regards to #4: It's very difficult to glorify slavery, I think we should do the opposite. Really portray the moral abuses(through text events) while accurately reflecting the large economic boon slavery brought to plantation economies. It should be something that is morally off putting but perhaps necessary or economically too advantageous to not partake in or quit doing. Like many things in EU I think it should force you to either distastefully engage in immoral behavior, or actively avoid it but forego the opportunities that it presents. No one says you must kill every last native in EU3 to get your colony set up, and it's distasteful to do so, but you could, and it was advantageous to your colony to do so.

Personally, I agree that it should be nigh on impossible to glorify slavery, and that in principle, portraying the economic gains vs the moral concerns may well be interesting to explore for a mature adult.

But then I imagine some teenage powergamer in an MP getting a monopoly of the slave trade an mouthing off about " hahaha - just pwned all the *******..."

Well, I'll leave it there... though I would suggest that any implementation is left rather abstracted.

 

[Nilmerf]

Would reggae music exist without slavery?

 

[dosqi]

Slaves should NOT be portrayed in the game in detail. It is just too insulting to many groups. However, at the trade nodes, if other commodities are portrayed, then slaves could simply be another commodity along with INDENTURED servants. In the same way the Hearts of Iron series should never portray the Holocaust against the Jews in detail.

I cannot understand this line of thinking; Is reality insulting? These things happened and affected our history immensely, and portraying this correctly in historic video games should not be perceived as insulting in any way, shape or form.
Taboo and silence towards the history of mankind instead of proper portrayal, will only lead to ignorance in newer generations.
Now sure, you might argue that these sensitive topics should be taught in school instead of being portrayed in a video game, but in my opinion the games that Paradox make are serious enough to contain these topics as well.
I agree that there is no reason to add unnecessary detail to these things, however the amount of detail given to these topics should not be based on their controversy, but rather upon how big of an influence they had on history, like I imagine every other aspect of the game is evaluated.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

Actually youre quite wrong there, in this case, as in many others, the problem lies in English language itself...

/rand over.

Interesting... I just learned something new. According to the stupendous Wikipedia;
- The Slavic autonym Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo "word", originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)
- The English word Slav is derived from the Middle English word sclave, which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus "slave,"

So English seems to have taken an entirely different root and then re-adjusted the word back towards the Slavic word.

(Apologies for continuing the OT... but I found this rather interesting).

 

[Tarasnations]

MP would be a problem. When playing currently I've never seen someone take South Africa without letting out a comment that I would consider... well... out of sorts with the maturity demanded to actually play the game. In fact I'm always amazed in MP at what people think is appropriate to say. The worst offenders seem to be those who claim to 'roleplay' their nation... I've yet to hear of a king in Europe referring to Africans using the N* word IRL however. So I suspect that many people are privately horrifyingly racist.

 

[Tarasnations]

I cannot understand this line of thinking; Is reality insulting? These things happened and affected our history immensely, and portraying this correctly in historic video games should not be perceived as insulting in any way, shape or form.
Taboo and silence towards the history of mankind instead of proper portrayal, will only lead to ignorance in newer generations.
Now sure, you might argue that these sensitive topics should be taught in school instead of being portrayed in a video game, but in my opinion the games that Paradox make are serious enough to contain these topics as well.
I agree that there is no reason to add unnecessary detail to these things, however the amount of detail given to these topics should not be based on their controversy, but rather upon how big of an influence they had on history, like I imagine every other aspect of the game is evaluated.

I said almost exactly this just a few posts above. I totally agree. Who does it insult to show history accurately? No one, these things happened. What is insulting to the victims is to pretend they never happened. As far as Germany's unique laws towards portraying certain aspects of history(the law is you CAN'T), should all of us cheapen the debate about these important topics based on one market, or any market? If people are offended by history are they the target market of your historical strategy game? My fiance won't play CK2 because it has child beating in it, should CK2 shy away from these things because she is offended personally by it? My argument is that you devalue the product as a whole by worrying about a small number of potentially offended players.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

See that's where I disagree with you. I shouldn't announce this publicly, but just to make it clear my father is Jewish and I received a bar-mitzvah, so I'm saying this as someone who strongly feels for the Jewish people. The holocaust used so many resources in so many places that could have been used towards the war effort. Not portraying it skews the strategic decisions made to keep the holocaust running at full speed at the expense of the front line soldiers and their ability to be resupplied. HOI should surely have modeled it in some way. These events happened, it's not for us to judge them as not happening because they offend us. Not portraying something of such magnitude invites the criticism that its exclusion from the scenario A)absolves the Nazi's of their historic prejudice and potentially allows you to play the Axis as pure good-guys in your mind, and B)actually is insulting to those involved. No Jew wants to play through the holocaust, but we're talking about text pop-ups that allow the game to better reflect the situations involved without moral judgement involved. To simply pretend it didn't happen is playing it safe at the expense of perceived reality. In many ways you are saying that a company should deny the holocaust since it is a controversial subject. Education is the solution, not exclusion of events.

In other words n ot having the Holocaust in allows players to pick nazi germany without guilt and fails to account for what a lot of Germany's war machine was doing?

Now if we tastefully portray slavery by making somebody engaged in it see some very horrifying pictures in events accompanied by the sound of whips and blood, with a very blunt event message making the horrors of slavery clear if that accompanies it here is my idea for the requirements for engaging in the slave trade and it's cost/benefits.

1. Own colonies in the Americas and have good relations with an African Power that is engaged in the slave trade.

Or

2. Have a high maritime tradition and trade ideas and a colony in the Americas (representing how Sweden got involved)

Or

Be an African power

Penalties

Revolts in the colonies when you are at war; other colonial powers who own Islands or portions of South America gain the "sieze sugar industry" cassus belli against you and coring colonies that produce something like sugar will be free for them if they win. There will be a permanent revolt risk that can never be zero in your colonies; and to simulate local issues you won't know when it is serious or not; you will sometimes send your army and find that the slave revolt has ended before they get there and you start at a disadvantage when attacked in Europe. Events will make you feel like a jerk by showing you horrors of slavery, and to gain any benefit from slavery you will need an agreement for runaway slaves to be returned from neighbors (unless they are also engaged in the slave trade which is overwhelmingly likely); and should you decide to abolish slavery your colonies will suffer so make the decision to engage in the slave trade cautiously.

Benefits

Otherwise poor colonies will bring in an unbelievable amount of profit; and both steering the colonial trade those colonies produce while slave trade is active and african slaves to the colonies are very profitable. Production is also helped in colonies that get slaves.

 

[digital_soda]

It's still a handful of people running our lives. We're still slaves.

 

[Tarasnations]

In other words n ot having the Holocaust in allows players to pick nazi germany without guilt and fails to account for what a lot of Germany's war machine was doing?

Now if we tastefully portray slavery by making somebody engaged in it see some very horrifying pictures in events accompanied by the sound of whips and blood, with a very blunt event message making the horrors of slavery clear

In answer you your question... Yes, I feel that not having the Holocaust allows players to pick Nazi Germany without guilt and without acknowledging either the reality nor the reasoning behind the holocaust. Racial prejudice was institutional, it wasn't like "some people didn't participate so it's safe not to show it". It was codified in law and can not be omitted or worked around without essentially denying the facts and misrepresenting the situation on almost every level(political, strategic, economic, legal).

As for slavery: I don't think you need the visuals, we don't have visuals for the war wounded or dead after a battle, but we do have text descriptions in events, I think descriptively brutal text is more than adequate.
Edit:I would hate to be the programmer who would have to write those descriptions or come up with those pictures... yeesh

 

[Agrippa43]

I think that there are broadly four aspects to this:

1 - Trade impact. This was already in EU3. Slaves were a trade good, and gave bonuses to production of cotton, sugar etc. Presumably the same in EUIV.

I'm hoping it is still represented as a trade good, but if they removed it entirely I will be upset.

 

[pieGEEK]

1. If Slavery is an important part of history it should be part of the game, but not an entire game.
2. You can't directly. obviously. and meticulously, i.e whip slaves now button.
3. It most not remind, that it is bad.
4. It must be engaging, in the "Got to keep them down or they revolt", rather than something that proudly eggs on.
5. Slaves are not happy nor are they rebel crazy. It most be a game of management.

Most of these issues show up because of race, let's be honest. So doing your best to not make game all about or being especially into slavery of a certain race, you will be better off.