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

[DanubianCossak]

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).

You people tend to do these things alot lol

Its usually not important, but like last 100 years your language has kind of become quite important for the world culture, so you can probably see how these issues - like you calling Sloveni/Slavyani - Slavs for completely wrong reason - can become a problem XD

 

[Vishaing]

Thinking about the Trade Good aspect, I wonder...
In EU3 having slaves increased the production efficiency in provinces with certain trade goods. I wonder, with the Trade Routes mechanic, will this boost be increased if said province is in a Trade Area connected by a direct route to the Trade Area with the Slaves Province? Will said boost be able to 'spill' out into your provinces even if you don't own a province with the trade good, but simply trade in an area with the Trade Good? If so, will the boost be decreased depending on how much of that Trade Area you control, thus providing an incentive for Europeans with massive Plantation Colonies to compete for trade in Sub-Saharan Africa, or colonize at least one province which can then have its trade good changed to Slaves to represent the province being a major point in the supply chain?

There are a lot of ways I can think of that this system can do a pretty good job of representing the slave trade without too much work.

 

[Sernista]

EU, HOI and the like have always been one thing above all else: They are a series of games. Entertainment products, where the player re-enacts history for amusement purposes. It is not a documentary, it is not an educational tool. The thing about this 'show it how it is' argument is that you are normalizing it as a thing to include in entertainment. I mean, the way colonization, Africans, American natives and other 'uncivilized' peoples are treated in EU and Vicky is uncomfortable enough as it is. We don't need to make slave ships parts of our entertainment. There is no reason to have it. There is no historical mandate, this is not a historical text, this is a game we play to have fun. I certainly wouldn't buy a game that asked me to manage a slave trade as a core gameplay mechanic. Is that honestly a thing you think would be enjoyable? Sending out fleets of slave ships, and building your own little triangle for fun and profit? And I really should hope I don't even need to ask about organizing genocides [not that the 'Attack Natives' and 'Harsh Treatment' features don't seem to have that covered in a more abstract way]. I mean, maybe that is a thing I'm just completely out of touch with the core demographic on - but unless it is a thing you think would actually be enjoyed and fun to put in a product whose end purpose is to be a fun experience, why on earth should they include it in the game?

PS: The posters up-thread talking about the racism they've encountered in MP? They aren't alone - it's not a paradox thing, it's more common than you'd think in this entire subset of gamer culture. I mean, boot a random server of, for example, Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm. See how long it takes for the voice chat to erupt in the first flurry of Nazi slogans (Heil-ing, etc) or horrifically racist, 'ching-chong' level 'imitations' of the Japanese dialog. In my experience, that isn't more than two or three rounds. Bonus points: Attempt to get a single person on said server to agree that there's anything wrong with that. I'm 0 for 3.

 

[Tarasnations]

Thinking about the Trade Good aspect, I wonder...
In EU3 having slaves increased the production efficiency in provinces with certain trade goods.

WHAT?! I've played EU3 for over 500 hours... how did I not notice this?! MIND BLOWN!

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

I don't really see why slavery should be a more sensitive topic than for example war.

Every time one of my armies suffers from attrition I feel sorry for the poor starving, freezing or dehydrated soldiers dying like flies.

 

[Elfryc]

EU, HOI and the like have always been one thing above all else: They are a series of games. Entertainment products, where the player re-enacts history for amusement purposes. It is not a documentary, it is not an educational tool. The thing about this 'show it how it is' argument is that you are normalizing it as a thing to include in entertainment. I mean, the way colonization, Africans, American natives and other 'uncivilized' peoples are treated in EU and Vicky is uncomfortable enough as it is. We don't need to make slave ships parts of our entertainment. There is no reason to have it. There is no historical mandate, this is not a historical text, this is a game we play to have fun. I certainly wouldn't buy a game that asked me to manage a slave trade as a core gameplay mechanic. Is that honestly a thing you think would be enjoyable? Sending out fleets of slave ships, and building your own little triangle for fun and profit? And I really should hope I don't even need to ask about organizing genocides [not that the 'Attack Natives' and 'Harsh Treatment' features don't seem to have that covered in a more abstract way]. I mean, maybe that is a thing I'm just completely out of touch with the core demographic on - but unless it is a thing you think would actually be enjoyed and fun to put in a product whose end purpose is to be a fun experience, why on earth should they include it in the game?

Sorry for that, but I just can't agree with you. Just as a comparison:

This is what we're thinking this game should be: intelligent, not rude, not crude, not offensive but realistic when representing this era of history. Something like this, in fact:

[video=youtube;lqlcjI85gaY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqlcjI85gaY[/video]


And this is what you would suggest as a "decent" representation of this era:

[video=youtube;wHLJDs9jAvk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHLJDs9jAvk[/video]


See the difference? We're not seeking to make slave trade a funny thing, we're thinking about the best ways to have it in game as a representation of reality. Yes, that was harsh, but that was reality.

However, there's one point we totally agree on this subject: historical reality must not be an excuse for people to think slavery is a funny or enjoyable thing. Needed to be said, for the sake of clarity.

 

[Tarasnations]

Wow that trailer you showed for Amazing grace almost uses the Europa Universalis trailer fonts.

 

[unmerged(436497)]

(Keep it tasteful and factual!)

Yeah, not happening buddy.

 

[Cormac]

I think Paradox should be applauded for representing slavery in the game system at all. For all kinds of reasons, many of them absolutely legitimate, the subject is emotional. I think Paradox took a cautious middle ground and included the institution as a resource. The result is hardly perfect, but so is the uneasy mix of history and public opinion. That's not Paradox's fault; and they're a game developer, not a university.

There's an argument to be made for representing slavery, or at least its economic factors, in greater depth. But there are good arguments against it, as well: including, for one, the question of whether a game, however complex, could hope to model the realities of such a vast, sadistic, and racially charged institution well enough to please anyone without insulting many. If you were in the business of making games, would you take that plunge?

Maybe, and good for you. But I think Paradox's approach so far has its merits.

(Wait, is slavery still a resource?)

 

[Agrippa43]

.

(Wait, is slavery still a resource?)

It seems like somebody who has played the game like Quill could tell us?

 

[dosqi]

EU, HOI and the like have always been one thing above all else: They are a series of games. Entertainment products, where the player re-enacts history for amusement purposes. It is not a documentary, it is not an educational tool. The thing about this 'show it how it is' argument is that you are normalizing it as a thing to include in entertainment. I mean, the way colonization, Africans, American natives and other 'uncivilized' peoples are treated in EU and Vicky is uncomfortable enough as it is. We don't need to make slave ships parts of our entertainment. There is no reason to have it. There is no historical mandate, this is not a historical text, this is a game we play to have fun. I certainly wouldn't buy a game that asked me to manage a slave trade as a core gameplay mechanic. Is that honestly a thing you think would be enjoyable? Sending out fleets of slave ships, and building your own little triangle for fun and profit? And I really should hope I don't even need to ask about organizing genocides [not that the 'Attack Natives' and 'Harsh Treatment' features don't seem to have that covered in a more abstract way]. I mean, maybe that is a thing I'm just completely out of touch with the core demographic on - but unless it is a thing you think would actually be enjoyed and fun to put in a product whose end purpose is to be a fun experience, why on earth should they include it in the game?

PS: The posters up-thread talking about the racism they've encountered in MP? They aren't alone - it's not a paradox thing, it's more common than you'd think in this entire subset of gamer culture. I mean, boot a random server of, for example, Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm. See how long it takes for the voice chat to erupt in the first flurry of Nazi slogans (Heil-ing, etc) or horrifically racist, 'ching-chong' level 'imitations' of the Japanese dialog. In my experience, that isn't more than two or three rounds. Bonus points: Attempt to get a single person on said server to agree that there's anything wrong with that. I'm 0 for 3.

I disagree, due to the fact that the enjoyment from Paradox Grand Strategy games in part comes from a (somewhat) realistic portrayal of history. So yes, it is a entertainment product, but one in which historical accuracy is a key factor.
I also believe you could model these things with the appropriate negative/positive balance so they are not glorified.

One thing that must be addressed in your quote however, is how you actually draw comparisons between enjoying a realistic history simulator (with all aspects portrayed) and enjoying genocide or slave trade. This is absurd, and it seems to me that our disagreement stems from how we look upon these acts when portrayed in a video-game. I find it easy to distance myself from any acts committed in a game, and I do not feel any connection between my CK2 save where my Irish king is crusading against the infidel muslims and how I personally feel about muslims.
History is FILLED with atrocious acts, of which only some are considered sensitive in modern society, and by your argument you should personally feel bad about every casualty of war that were caused by your pointless aggression in a save game.

However as I mentioned in my last post, I have no desire for these controversial aspects of the time period to be portrayed with any more detail than they "deserve", meaning that they should be valued among every other aspect of a nations gameplay in regards to how much of an effect it actually had on the relevant factors in the game. (stability, income, war, etc.).
I am merely advocating against ignoring these aspects in a historical video-game due to personal moral conflicts since it seems absurd to connect a video-game with ones personal life.

In regards to multiplayer abuse, such a thing cannot be avoided in my opinion and no matter how "safe" you make something, people will approach it from their own perspective. It is merely a consequence of their age and/or stupidity coupled with the anonymity of the internet.

 

[Tarasnations]

I think Paradox should be applauded for representing slavery in the game system at all. For all kinds of reasons, many of them absolutely legitimate, the subject is emotional. I think Paradox took a cautious middle ground and included the institution as a resource. The result is hardly perfect, but so is the uneasy mix of history and public opinion. That's not Paradox's fault; and they're a game developer, not a university.

There's an argument to be made for representing slavery, or at least its economic factors, in greater depth. But there are good arguments against it, as well: including, for one, the question of whether a game, however complex, could hope to model the realities of such a vast, sadistic, and racially charged institution well enough to please anyone without insulting many. If you were in the business of making games, would you take that plunge?

Maybe, and good for you. But I think Paradox's approach so far has its merits.

(Wait, is slavery still a resource?)

I agree with you in many ways. This is not a place the typical game company should arrive at. However I think a game called Europa Universalis is already past the point of no return in terms of not portraying all races as equal. I don't think the market demographics for this game coincide with the type of people who are offended by slavery as a historical concept. The people who object to slavery being shown are already refusing to buy this game because it's not 'balanced', Europeans have a clear advantage, and all non-whites outside of Eurasia are pitifully weak and conquest bait. I think the idea of showing it is offensive to a huge number of people, however I would be SHOCKED to find out that any those people are avid EU players.

It's like the evolution debate with religious people. You can't debate it because you've already gone too far by using the word evolution, which in their mind invalidates everything you say afterwards regardless of how much or little accuracy you load your statements with. It's the same for the opposite side of the coin, as soon as you say god, or creation, the debate is essentially over.

Better to pick a side and argue it well then stay in the middle and lose perspective. However, I'm arguing slavery should be included with more detail from the standpoint of logic and historicity, not company policy. Since I love PI I would hate for them to be the victim of controversy or protest. I feel they did do exactly what they should do from the perspective of a game company.

 

[Eilif]

I think a better simulation of slavery would be good to improve the gameplay in both sides of the Atlantic. With the colonizer powers, not engaging with slavery would mean slower colonization of the America and poorer colonies. To the African powers, slavery would mean a way to better weapons and techs and an easy cause for war.
It would be nice also, to portray the resistance against slavery. In Africa, for example, the Nri Kingdom of the Igbo was a strong power in the start of the game, but its strict policy against slavery (freeing every one that entered its territory) caused a decline in relation to the coast states.
In America, slaves revolts were very common, and there were states and cities/villages created by slave revolts. The largest one gave birth to Haiti. But in Brazil there still are more than a thousand quilombos to this day, in colonial times there would be even more (obviously, most too little to be represented in game), with the most famous one being the Quilombo of Palmares.
The game could include interesting choices for both the colonial and African players. Involving colonization, trade, technology, stability and diplomacy.

 

[ikki]

Now that we do have traderoutes, slaves finally begin to make sense. IE wherever they end up should be getting increased production bonuses and perhaps a population growth bonus in colonies (just like im sure other resources provide other bonuses.. iirc porcelain gave cheaper/better advisors.. pretty sure i saw that somewhere)


...it would be fun seeing slaves shipped to crimea, and getting busy harvesting furs, digging for gold and fishing. Oh and in due time, their progeny end up writing famous books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin

 

[Greenskyguy]

I believe slavery is fine as is. I do fear if Paradox does change up how slavery is managed to include more details then EU4 might become more problematic with some more PC countries.

 

[Cormac]

Better to pick a side and argue it well then stay in the middle and lose perspective. However, I'm arguing slavery should be included with more detail from the standpoint of logic and historicity, not company policy. Since I love PI I would hate for them to be the victim of controversy or protest. I feel they did do exactly what they should do from the perspective of a game company.

This is a very good point. Part of me can't help but agree with you. That's what I would want, too. You're especially right when it comes to "losing perspective" by staying in the middle, which is a real danger in a game like this that flirts with the subject of slavery without going whole hog. But I wonder if it's even *possible* to address the subject intelligently without simply botching so much of it in a game like this.

History isn't a science. Unlike chemistry, we cannot reproduce moments of the 16th century in a laboratory, which is just one of the reasons why we put so much significance in the written experiences of the people who lived through it. History is humanity. It's personal. And like so much of human activity, it reflects experience unequally. It's OK if people get wrapped up in it, because it involves where they came from.

So. Slavery. It existed all over the world for millennia before the emergence of the "triangular" Atlantic slave trade. BUT--and please correct me if I'm wrong about this--race played little to no factor in much of the institution around the world until the early modern European period. It's then that the Portuguese and eventually every other western european power found the African connection too easy to ignore commercially, putting a racial stamp on the development of New World markets. What followed was another of those colossal tragedies that stand out in the imagination--the forced migration by ship hold of countless human beings in chattels. Hardly something that modern human beings, of whatever ethnicity, can look back upon with perfect impartiality, especially as the consequences still resonate today. Things have gotten *a lot* better; but they're far from perfect. Hence the hand-wringing, I expect, over representing something like slavery.

In a game, I'm fine with that. But I also like having this conversation.

 

[Attalus]

This thread reminds me of that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjQAN9ZoxE
Oh and it was viral, not a real game

 

[The Colonel]

It might be interesting if the choice of having slavery or not having slavery was like a faction. Then countries could go to war with the "reinstate slavery" CB. This could represent things like the (American) Civil War and the dependancy of European countries on the production of cotton in the American South.
Of course, being in a different faction would give you a relations penalty with other nations, while being in the same faction would give you a bonus. Maybe we could see something like the slave-war replacing the 30 Years War (that might be a little too far).

More realistically: We could have the slavery factions impact trade and productivity but increased revolt risk (maybe increased stability cost too (+5-10%)) if you're in it, additionally a small relations penalty with non-slaver nations. Maybe a the Enforce Slavery CB against non slavers and Enforce Abolition against slavers. Being a non slaver wouldn't give you the economic buffs but also get -1 revolt risk in provinces and adds the predominant slave cultures of that nation to your nation (Western Europeans would get African cultures and Ottomans would get Christian cultures). These are obviously some rough ideas and I would love some feedback on them.

My main point is to keep slaves as a trade resource that possibly also interacts with the provinces and/or trade regions they are traded in, and add in factions of slavers and abolitionists with different advantages and disadvantages.
BTW I'm completely for the idea of displaying the horrors of slavery and not abstracting it and going around the issue.

 

[Drakken]

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"

Huh, slavery was ok until well into the 18th century. That is just historical fact.

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.

Geez, maybe you are right! Let me think about it while I press to kill Natives in tropical provinces with my conquistadors to secure my Gold and Silver colonies, or loot/pillage the provinces after besieging it for months.

 

[Tarasnations]

Huh, slavery was ok until well into the 18th century. That is just historical fact.

I know Drakken. History as depicted is not something to blindly rail against in the hopes of changing current opinions. Like I said, I could not even bring myself to respond to him.

Not to mention that I don't think a child of 'impressionable age' would even be able to grasp how to play the typical PI game at all. I would say the danger of convincing children of slavery's merits is just about 0% no matter how it's portrayed in the game.