SLAVERS!!!

[Lachu]

There my opinion about cities slavers:
1. Slavers always are unhappiness, but he/she isn't counted in civilization size
2. Military units force slavers to be happy in each government
3. Slavers won't disorder if they are just less than 5% of population
4. Happiness of slavers and normal citizens are calculated not together

Ideas about units:
1. Slavers can change site, when there's unit of civilization not accepting slavers by simply moving into direction of this unit; this behavior is only possible, when not military unit are on tile of slavers
2. Slavers cannot move outside of our borders

[Lachu]

Because in freeciv-3 we will had policies, we can allow/disallow slavery depending on personal freedom settings.

[ahfretheim]

Slavery? Yeah, I thought about that. Every form of government has its own advantages and disadvantages. Slavery should be allowed in most primitive (Despotism) or totalitarian (Communism) forms of government. In the other govs, the slavery should be banned.

Both the early American and Roman Republics had slaves. The Vikings were also essentially a slave-owning republic, and actually eliminated slavery at the time they became a Monarchy.

[ahfretheim]

The idea of Republic and Democracy (and, somehow, even Monarchy) is that you can develop science and culture easier, because these are more effective.

The Confederacy did. They even invented submarines, armored warships and light industry over the course of the Civil War. So did the United States prior to the Civil War. So did Rome.

[ahfretheim]

I would actually group Monarch with Communism and Despotism: It's totalitarian.

No monarchy in the history of the world has EVER been totalitarian. HM Abdullah of Saudi Arabia cares not what you ate for breakfast this morning, and even the basic establishment of monarchy (inheritance) requires a fairly sophisticated court system with a very deep respect for law to enforce. Legitimacy and property are everything in monarchy, leading to monarchy actually being a very individualistic form of government. In Britain, even the military was traditionally somewhat individualistic.

It's more civilized than 'despotism' only in that it's better organized. Serfs were essentially livestock, owned by the nobles as part of the property, rather than just anyone owning slaves.

Meh... it was a little more complicated than that. They were treated as livestock sexually (rape was considered a right for noblemen, which in "The Marriage of Figaro" leads to a jealous Countessa forming an unholy alliance with the peasant girl her husband intends on raping) and they had very few political rights, but they did actually have genuine economic rights in a number of ways and things were also owed TO them by the nobles. Further, there's a reason why "keeping the peace" is an obsession for aristocrats everywhere, even centuries after feudalism ended. In many ways the feudal world resembled what you see in Westerns as much as slavery, with lots of lynchings, and not all of them of commoners. The MacRae of Invarinate, the last Laird of the MacRae Clan, vanished without a trace in the 1580's. "Gentlemanliness" was not a romantic notion, it was a practical solution to the problem of noblemen getting killed in gruesome and horrible ways.

It also varied a bit from country to country. In many ways, peasantry survived longer in Russia than in the rest of Europe because their practice of serfdom, which included safety valves (the Cossacks), fairly extensive political rights at the local level and a belief in the obligation of noblemen to personally pay for and aid in the education of gifted peasants, simply worked better than everyone else's.

Likewise, Republic should allow slavery, but it's known that many hated the practice. Thus, slavery should probably cause anger in Monarchy and Republic.

I think in all forms of government, opposition to slavery should grow as technology advances. In Call to Power, there's a wonder that leads to the abolition of slavery worldwide and severe riots in all cities that formerly owned slaves.

So while a city's slave in despotism and communism might cause 1 unhappiness, it would caise 1 anger in Monarchy and 2 anger in Republic. (The peasants are revolting! rule)

I was thinking of handling slave revolts through a separate system entirely from regular happiness rating, maybe more related to susceptibility to spies. Military units wouldn't "keep slaves happy", but they would lower the likelihood of a revolt and also fight revolting slaves to prevent the city from falling in to their hands. Even if they win, however, that portion of the population would be lost, and city walls would not prevent loss of population due to a slave revolt since it is within the walls, nor apply to the defense of military units fighting the slaves. If the city did fall in to their hands, I was thinking it might lead to a civil war, much like the one that created Haiti from former French territory.

The idea that literacy makes people hate slavery also wouldn't be linear, as slave-owners would be wealthier, more literate people on average. So while 40% literacy might have -1 love factor, then 60% have -2, and then 80% have -3, and finally 90% have -4.

Is it really that the slave owners or society was ignorant, or that technology changed the world? As the basic necessities of life become easier to produce and sustain, and life no longer becomes an endless battle just to keep your children fed, slavery becomes less justifiable. Furthermore, it actually becomes an enemy of human potential, even in the economic sense, as the ability to produce more by working better through technology, better seed and tools, animal husbandry et cetera allows a person to "discover his own riches" (Benjamin Disreali) and freedom becomes the only way to make people effectively use these tools.

However, this would only come into effect once you yourself have 'emancipation' small wonder(or become Democracy, who would get a happy citizen in every city or something from it). 'Emancipation' might only work under Monarchy, Republic, and Democracy.

I was thinking emancipation might just end slavery altogether, like it does in Call to Power, at least until the discovery of Mind Control (at which point the wonder might obsolete). Are there still a small number of slaves in the world? Yes, but it's statistically insignificant and mostly related to sex trafficking, which is not simulated by any means in Free Civ.

Likewise, an 'emancipation proclamation' wonder should make any nation have an extra unhappy(or maybe angry) citizen for each slave. Possibly negated by civilizations with Radio. (Propaganda rule)

I was thinking it might also increase corruption to be a former slave owning city that has been emancipated, even long after the slaves are gone. Even in a democracy, a city that once owned slaves would still have corruption from it, and in all cases it would add to the overall amount of corruption that the city would otherwise have. Certainly that is the case in real life.

How are you imagining slaves being implemented?

That will be my next post I think.

[ahfretheim]

I know a lot of you are talking about enslaving your own citizens, but in practice, NO historic society actually enslaved its own people, unless you count enslaving domestic nations that were in rebellion. They went to Africa, or Russia, or enslaved native peoples. Slavery in Africa largely started as a result of taking prisoners of war, and later was used to devastate the economies of other tribes at war by enslaving their ordinary citizens as well. Therefore, slavers should be for pilfering OTHER peoples civilizations, and would depopulate foreign cities, enslave settlers or enslave prisoners of war (by being on the same tile as victorious military units) to create slaves for your cities. The cost to do so would be in gold (since it is a commercial cost of transportation) and depend upon the distance of the slaver to his home city, where the slaves would be transported to. Once transported, slaves would work tiles like citizens, but:

1 - They can't be specialists.
2 - They require one food instead of two.
3 - They produce NO trade from the tiles they are working.
4 - Shield output would suffer a penalty of 1 shield for all tiles that produce at least 2 (as opposed to at least 3 for a citizen in Despotism) and 2 shields for all tiles that produce at least 5.
5 - Food output would suffer NO penalties. In despotism or anarchy, slaves will produce more food than citizens working the same tile.

In addition, even after a slave is freed, killed or emancipated, 2 corruption will be added to the city, FOREVER, regardless of form of government. A city in a Democracy that owned 10 slaves over its existence would have, from that point forward, the same amount of corruption as a city in Communism that never owned any.

The likelihood of a slave revolt would depend upon several factors, including the number of military units and spies or diplomats present in the city, the ratio of citizens to slaves, distance from a government center, form of government (it will actually be MORE likely in freer governments because of the property and privacy rights of the slave owners and less gun control and martial law), size of empire and presence of legal institutions such as courthouses. Technologies that increase the quality or availability of small arms (e.g. Gunpowder, Mass Production, Conscription, Guerilla Warfare, 3-D Printing) would also increase the likelihood. Famine will also trigger a slave revolt.

When a slave revolt happens, the slaves become the basic military unit of that era, and attacks the units that are inside the city, but the defending units receive no benefit from city walls or terrain due to being attacked from within (though no_kill_stack still applies). If the slaves win, the city either becomes a barbarian city, or begins a larger slave civil war with other nearby slave owning cities, creating a nation, the likelihood of such being dependent upon the same factors as the original revolt in those cities. If the slaves lose, the city loses one or more slaves, and citizen population from whatever defenders were lost (remember: walls don't apply to slave fights).

Cities that own slaves, and especially those with a large ratio of slaves to citizens, will also be more vulnerable to spies and diplomats, both in terms of cost and likelihood of success. Spies or diplomats defending a slave owning city would fight at a disadvantage.

[GriffonSpade]

I would actually group Monarch with Communism and Despotism: It's totalitarian.

No monarchy in the history of the world has EVER been totalitarian...

Yes, totalitarian was the wrong word. Dictatorial is more apt. While monarchs generally didn't micromanage, they are rulers, not leaders, and effectively own everything themselves. They really have all the same power as totalitarians, but use it arbitrarily rather than systemically. Mind, in Feudal Monarchy they have to share this power and property with deputies to maintain order, and in Feudalism they outright lose power over the deputies.

It's more civilized than 'despotism' only in that it's better organized. Serfs were essentially livestock, owned by the nobles as part of the property, rather than just anyone owning slaves.

Meh... it was a little more complicated than that. They were treated as livestock... but they did actually have genuine economic rights in a number of ways and things were also owed TO them by the nobles. Further, there's a reason why "keeping the peace" is an obsession for aristocrats everywhere...

To be fair, these things aren't exceptions from being treated like livestock: not being stupid enough to piss off animals that can stampede and trample you is just good sense.

It also varied a bit from country to country. In many ways, peasantry survived longer in Russia than in the rest of Europe because their practice of serfdom, which included safety valves (the Cossacks), fairly extensive political rights at the local level and a belief in the obligation of noblemen to personally pay for and aid in the education of gifted peasants, simply worked better than everyone else's.

Oh, there's no doubt that some were worse thans others historically, the question is can these nuances be viably represented in game mechanics?

Likewise, Republic should allow slavery, but it's known that many hated the practice. Thus, slavery should probably cause anger in Monarchy and Republic.

I think in all forms of government, opposition to slavery should grow as technology advances. In Call to Power, there's a wonder that leads to the abolition of slavery worldwide and severe riots in all cities that formerly owned slaves.

So while a city's slave in despotism and communism might cause 1 unhappiness, it would caise 1 anger in Monarchy and 2 anger in Republic. (The peasants are revolting! rule)

I was thinking of handling slave revolts through a separate system entirely from regular happiness rating, maybe more related to susceptibility to spies. Military units wouldn't "keep slaves happy", but they would lower the likelihood of a revolt and also fight revolting slaves to prevent the city from falling in to their hands. Even if they win, however, that portion of the population would be lost, and city walls would not prevent loss of population due to a slave revolt since it is within the walls, nor apply to the defense of military units fighting the slaves. If the city did fall in to their hands, I was thinking it might lead to a civil war, much like the one that created Haiti from former French territory.

The idea that literacy makes people hate slavery also wouldn't be linear, as slave-owners would be wealthier, more literate people on average. So while 40% literacy might have -1 love factor, then 60% have -2, and then 80% have -3, and finally 90% have -4.

Is it really that the slave owners or society was ignorant, or that technology changed the world? As the basic necessities of life become easier to produce and sustain, and life no longer becomes an endless battle just to keep your children fed, slavery becomes less justifiable. Furthermore, it actually becomes an enemy of human potential, even in the economic sense, as the ability to produce more by working better through technology, better seed and tools, animal husbandry et cetera allows a person to "discover his own riches" (Benjamin Disreali) and freedom becomes the only way to make people effectively use these tools.

The two are married: Media technology in a large part controls literacy, allowing non-aristocrats to obtain it.(paper, printing press, mass production, etc) However, literacy is probably the more sensible to track, as it generally allows for more production and usage of technology. (It also doesn't require a ton of one-off bonuses/penalties or place undue weight on unimportant techs) As for the 'happy people', I usually view the 'angry' ones as specifically those that are out protesting something or other in their free time, while the 'content' are not celebrating, but neither are they out protesting (if only because they don't want to be brutalized, imprisoned, or killed by soldiers)

Ultimately, there really isn't a good system in place for enabling either military rebellions or civilian(including slave) revolts. I think the way partisans are created might be useful. They'd need to be able to handle different tech level units being created, though. First each side of the revolt/rebellion power would be tallied, including if military units defect, then there would be the in-city battle automatically calculated. If the rebelling forces lose, they'd be forced outside the city and created as units a la partisans, Either X units per Y populations or X population for Y units, (possibly) minus some losses.

However, this would only come into effect once you yourself have 'emancipation' small wonder(or become Democracy, who would get a happy citizen in every city or something from it). 'Emancipation' might only work under Monarchy, Republic, and Democracy.

I was thinking emancipation might just end slavery altogether, like it does in Call to Power, at least until the discovery of Mind Control (at which point the wonder might obsolete). Are there still a small number of slaves in the world? Yes, but it's statistically insignificant and mostly related to sex trafficking, which is not simulated by any means in Free Civ.

Hmmm, a single nation emancipating doesn't have this effect, though. Some way of 'infecting' other nations with a philosophy flag or something enabling this effect with emancipation would do it. (Likewise a totalitarian or otherwise dictatorial government might be able to 'suppress' the philosophy partially or wholly)

Likewise, an 'emancipation proclamation' wonder should make any nation have an extra unhappy(or maybe angry) citizen for each slave. Possibly negated by civilizations with Radio. (Propaganda rule)

I was thinking it might also increase corruption to be a former slave owning city that has been emancipated, even long after the slaves are gone. Even in a democracy, a city that once owned slaves would still have corruption from it, and in all cases it would add to the overall amount of corruption that the city would otherwise have. Certainly that is the case in real life.

It'd be sensible, but like unit deaths causing unhappiness, it's something that'd be complicated to implement.

[ahfretheim]

I would actually group Monarch with Communism and Despotism: It's totalitarian.

No monarchy in the history of the world has EVER been totalitarian...

Yes, totalitarian was the wrong word. Dictatorial is more apt. While monarchs generally didn't micromanage, they are rulers, not leaders, and effectively own everything themselves. They really have all the same power as totalitarians, but use it arbitrarily rather than systemically. Mind, in Feudal Monarchy they have to share this power and property with deputies to maintain order, and in Feudalism they outright lose power over the deputies.

Monarchs did traditionally own the farmland, but in both Civil Law, Sharia and Common Law countries criminal law and most of the legal authority we associate with the police or government fell primarily in to the hands of the courts, who interpreted it either according to precedent (Common Law), tradition (Civil Law) or a combination of precedent and Islamic religious teachings (Sharia). I would argue that this is a direct consequence of making everything about property and rightfulness. Despotism, without involving these things, has no interference from the courts.

Aside from that, I would argue that, because people wouldn't cooperate, totalitarianism is only possible with a totalitarian ideology that a substantial percentage of the population buys in to. Speaking of Despotism though, the implementation of slavery might make Despotic governments desirable later in to the game, as they would have the lowest percentage possibility, due to the lack of any property or privacy rights on the part of the slave owners or any kind of legal limitation on the state, of a slave revolt. Advanced governments, with their extensive property and individual rights, would actually have the highest probability of slave revolts.

To be fair, these things aren't exceptions from being treated like livestock: not being stupid enough to piss off animals that can stampede and trample you is just good sense.

Yes, except that these aren't animals.

Oh, there's no doubt that some were worse thans others historically, the question is can these nuances be viably represented in game mechanics?

With tech's and tech effects, of course. But I'm here to talk about slavery, not serfdom.

The two are married: Media technology in a large part controls literacy, allowing non-aristocrats to obtain it.(paper, printing press, mass production, etc) However, literacy is probably the more sensible to track, as it generally allows for more production and usage of technology. (It also doesn't require a ton of one-off bonuses/penalties or place undue weight on unimportant techs)

Media technology isn't the kind of technology I'm referring to, and also in FreeCiv (and in ancient Jewish society in real life, along with arguably the early Christian Church) literacy is/was implemented by building libraries and sharing books rather than making more of them. (This does bring up an important point though: should the Gutenburg Bible be a wonder that builds a library in every one of your cities?) I'm more referring to agricultural and industrial technology that made slavery no longer sensible economically or in terms of maximizing the potential of human individuals, things like tractors and factories. Libraries/literacy have the effect you describe, but the problem is that in certain eras the technologies developed would do more to make slavery ignoble than others, and it would not merely be individual technologies but entire individual eras this would be true of. In game mechanics, this would be best implemented by merely properly simulating the effect of these technologies on society, which is already done.

In game mechanics, I was thinking about having a "Make_Slave_Revolt_More_Likely" flag that will be added to the techs.ruleset file and only used on certain technologies, like "Gunpowder". That would be less about the effect we were talking about though and more about the NRA effect: the proliferation of small arms in the hands of private citizens making the prevention of slave revolts increasingly difficult.

As for the 'happy people', I usually view the 'angry' ones as specifically those that are out protesting something or other in their free time, while the 'content' are not celebrating, but neither are they out protesting (if only because they don't want to be brutalized, imprisoned, or killed by soldiers)

Oh I do too, but the difference is that a citizen has a proper social contract that enables him to rationally make that decision. Slaves, having no standing in society, have no guarantee that they won't be brutalized by their owners at any time for any reason and every guarantee that any expression of their dissatisfaction will be met most negatively, which makes rioting a rather silly implementation of their actions. To put it simply, they would never riot and your city would also produce shields, gold and surplus food regardless of how unhappy they were.

If the rebelling forces lose, they'd be forced outside the city and created as units a la partisans, Either X units per Y populations or X population for Y units, (possibly) minus some losses.

I'm thinking if they lose they just die, reducing the cities slave population, although maybe the availability of machine guns will allow small numbers of run-aways to be an effective combat force. If that is the case, Partisans might make sense once that technological level is reached.

I was thinking emancipation might just end slavery altogether, like it does in Call to Power, at least until the discovery of Mind Control (at which point the wonder might obsolete). Are there still a small number of slaves in the world? Yes, but it's statistically insignificant and mostly related to sex trafficking, which is not simulated by any means in Free Civ.

Hmmm, a single nation emancipating doesn't have this effect, though. Some way of 'infecting' other nations with a philosophy flag or something enabling this effect with emancipation would do it. (Likewise a totalitarian or otherwise dictatorial government might be able to 'suppress' the philosophy partially or wholly)

Over time it does though, so maybe a gray period with possibility of civil wars (like those that ravaged the United States, Mexico and Brazil after Britains emancipation) and severe riots would make the most sense. Obviously, though, this wonder would only be available once the world had become connected enough commercially and academically for such a one nation emancipation to have that effect, but that can be implemented easily through techs.ruleset.

That being said, I was also thinking about having an "Abolitionist" unit that could rescue slaves from enemy cities, adding them to their home city as free citizens, and also could instigate slave revolts which, unlike regular slave revolts determined by a roll of the dice, would lead to that enemy city being yours. Further, I was thinking that, while I don't agree with slaves making citizens unhappy in Republic and Democracy, the actions of abolitionists could make citizens unhappy about military activity content for a certain number of turns, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" effect, so effectively a Republic or Democracy could feed off their enemies enslavement of people to support a larger army and more celebrations at home. Abolitionists would be available in any government type, but Democracies and Republics would benefit the most profoundly from them.

It'd be sensible, but like unit deaths causing unhappiness, it's something that'd be complicated to implement.

Enslaving foreign citizens is something that could only be implemented by way of modifying the source code, since it involves having TWO kinds of people in your cities instead of one and a new kind of unit for taking slaves, so we could find the city object and add a counter variable, that for every slave every added to the city, increases by one, and factor in that counter to the calculation of corruption. (Although actually, unit deaths causing things can be implemented in LUA script).

[GriffonSpade]

Monarchs did traditionally own the farmland...
Aside from that, I would argue that, because people wouldn't cooperate, totalitarianism is only possible with a totalitarian ideology that a substantial percentage of the population buys in to...

Ah, it effectively just boils down to the more organized and systemic communism having a much higher 'Fuck Authority' tolerance than monarchy, allowing them to screw over pretty much everyone rather than cherry picking who they screw over. Rebellion and Revolution aren't allowed by government, after all.

Yes, except that these aren't animals.

Unfortunately, according to a great many people who were told that they're better their entire lives on account of being born, they are.

Media technology isn't the kind of technology I'm referring to, and also in FreeCiv (and in ancient Jewish society in real life, along with arguably the early Christian Church) literacy is/was implemented by building libraries and sharing books rather than making more of them. (This does bring up an important point though: should the Gutenburg Bible be a wonder that builds a library in every one of your cities?)

Hmmm. As a thought, I kinda wonder if libraries should actually cost more to maintain prior to the printing press instead. Books had to be written one at a time, by hand, after all. I do see your point about the huge effect the sociophilosophical situation creates. The tech certainly makes it easier and cheaper, but if they really wanted it, they could have very high literacy. Another thought: Shouldn't electricity greatly improve the effect of libraries and literacy? The light bulb is kind of a huge deal, since it lets you cheaply read at night, especially during the long winter nights where there is generally less work to be done.

I'm more referring to agricultural and industrial technology that made slavery no longer sensible economically or in terms of maximizing the potential of human individuals, things like tractors and factories. Libraries/literacy have the effect you describe, but the problem is that in certain eras the technologies developed would do more to make slavery ignoble than others, and it would not merely be individual technologies but entire individual eras this would be true of. In game mechanics, this would be best implemented by merely properly simulating the effect of these technologies on society, which is already done.

Ah, so you're more referring to a mobile, unskilled work force you can hire and fire at whim. Which requires peasants, rather than slaves. I'm not actually convinced that maximizing potential is all that important to it, though. It's not like the majority of the population need be slaves of any kind for there to be slavery.

In game mechanics, I was thinking about having a "Make_Slave_Revolt_More_Likely" flag that will be added to the techs.ruleset file and only used on certain technologies, like "Gunpowder". That would be less about the effect we were talking about though and more about the NRA effect: the proliferation of small arms in the hands of private citizens making the prevention of slave revolts increasingly difficult.

Hmmm. As a tangent, this 'NRA effect' actually sounds interesting. It could increase the defense of units in cities while at the same time making riots or civil war more likely.

...they would never riot and your city would also produce shields, gold and surplus food regardless of how unhappy they were.

I concede the point. Unless they were actively revolting, in which case they'd likely be killed or take over.

I'm thinking if they lose they just die...

Ah, I concede the point. It would be likely that they'd either start outside the town, or they'd be hunted down and killed. Otherwise they'd wind up with a force that is too strong compared to what should be left over, and might paradoxically be able to beat the remaining defenders.

Over time it does though, so maybe a gray period with possibility of civil wars (like those that ravaged the United States, Mexico and Brazil after Britains emancipation) and severe riots would make the most sense. Obviously, though, this wonder would only be available once the world had become connected enough commercially and academically for such a one nation emancipation to have that effect, but that can be implemented easily through techs.ruleset.

Ah, that's what I was getting at. It shouldn't have any effect on nations that haven't established contact yet. Hence the 'infection' where other nations who have had contact would learn about it. Something like knowing Democracy or Economics should probably create the effect with anyone else you know who also knows democracy/economics. Statue of Liberty/Emancipation Proclamation could extend it to everyone you know even if they don't know democracy/economics. And being despotism/monarchy/communism could reduce the penalty by varying amounts. Likewise Radio (Propaganda) and Mind Control could further reduce the effects.

That being said, I was also thinking about having an "Abolitionist" unit that could rescue slaves from enemy cities, adding them to their home city as free citizens, and also could instigate slave revolts which, unlike regular slave revolts determined by a roll of the dice, would lead to that enemy city being yours. Further, I was thinking that, while I don't agree with slaves making citizens unhappy in Republic and Democracy, the actions of abolitionists could make citizens unhappy about military activity content for a certain number of turns, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" effect, so effectively a Republic or Democracy could feed off their enemies enslavement of people to support a larger army and more celebrations at home. Abolitionists would be available in any government type, but Democracies and Republics would benefit the most profoundly from them.

Sounds kinda like this 'abolitionist' could just be a diplomat/spy. Battle Hymn also runs into the same problem as the slave-city corruption and unit-death unhappiness: I don't think there's any kind of object to hold effects like this for cities or nations.

,,,could only be implemented by way of modifying the source code, since it involves having TWO kinds of people in your cities instead of one and a new kind of unit for taking slaves, so we could find the city object and add a counter variable, that for every slave every added to the city, increases by one, and factor in that counter to the calculation of corruption. (Although actually, unit deaths causing things can be implemented in LUA script).

[/quote]

To be fair, if it didn't require source code edits, we'd be discussing how to implement the effects . I was actually thinking that it be done by simply holding a value of how much of the population is slaved. Rather than being a separate type of citizen, it would be a limiting variable on existing citizens. (and having any slaves not working would just emancipate them at the end of the turn). As for the unit deaths causing things, sure they can do immediate things, but can they keep a city unhappy for say, 3 turns, the amount depending on which government it is?

[ahfretheim]

Hmmm. As a thought, I kinda wonder if libraries should actually cost more to maintain prior to the printing press instead. Books had to be written one at a time, by hand, after all. I do see your point about the huge effect the sociophilosophical situation creates. The tech certainly makes it easier and cheaper, but if they really wanted it, they could have very high literacy. Another thought: Shouldn't electricity greatly improve the effect of libraries and literacy? The light bulb is kind of a huge deal, since it lets you cheaply read at night, especially during the long winter nights where there is generally less work to be done.

Sounds about right.

Ah, so you're more referring to a mobile, unskilled work force you can hire and fire at whim. Which requires peasants, rather than slaves. I'm not actually convinced that maximizing potential is all that important to it, though. It's not like the majority of the population need be slaves of any kind for there to be slavery.

Except that, as Edmund Burke pointed out, when you do it to any of the population, you really do it to all of it since the laws own protections are compromised. Also, you actually could not fire peasants at whim. While serfdom existed, they were considered to have as much of a right to the land as you did (unfortunately, the land also had a right to them).

Ah, that's what I was getting at. It shouldn't have any effect on nations that haven't established contact yet. Hence the 'infection' where other nations who have had contact would learn about it. Something like knowing Democracy or Economics should probably create the effect with anyone else you know who also knows democracy/economics. Statue of Liberty/Emancipation Proclamation could extend it to everyone you know even if they don't know democracy/economics. And being despotism/monarchy/communism could reduce the penalty by varying amounts. Likewise Radio (Propaganda) and Mind Control could further reduce the effects.

The whole idea of Wonders in Civilization, and the reason why any of them exist or have worldwide effect and you can only build one, is you have a sort of limited contact with all the other civilizations on the map WITHOUT FORMAL DIPLOMACY. This is also why you're able to get formal reports on the largest cities in the world, wonders under construction, et cetera.

To be fair, if it didn't require source code edits, we'd be discussing how to implement the effects . I was actually thinking that it be done by simply holding a value of how much of the population is slaved. Rather than being a separate type of citizen, it would be a limiting variable on existing citizens. (and having any slaves not working would just emancipate them at the end of the turn). As for the unit deaths causing things, sure they can do immediate things, but can they keep a city unhappy for say, 3 turns, the amount depending on which government it is?

But you don't enslave your own population, you enslave other peoples. You would raid someone elses city, and end up with one of their citizens. No nation in the history of the world has ever made a regular practice of enslaving their own except to a very modest degree related to imprisonment. Such a society would destroy itself very quickly. America went to West Africa to take our slaves.