How should slaves be incorporated in Caesar IV

[Thucydides]

This is a straightforward poll about your attitude towards how 'slaves' should be represented in Caesar IV.

[prof786]

i didn't add'em tomy poll and you start a new thread? :mad: without me!!! :mad:

ummm, for the association of slavery, just call them servants. after all both groups experience the same lifestyle. no need to go into more details.

[Thucydides]

i didn't add'em tomy poll and you start a new thread? :mad: without me!!! :mad:

ummm, for the association of slavery, just call them servants. after all both groups experience the same lifestyle. no need to go into more details.

Smile... I realised your thread covered a different aspect, and your poll did not cover the troublesome matter of slavery... so here it is.

[Keith]

Representing slaves in a game doesn't offend me, especially since it is a historical fact.

Since slaves were part of a household for the most part, the only way I can see them represented in the least offensive manner is to just have the be like the "servants" in CotN, except they would not live in external housing.

Slaves were commodities just like anything else back then. And while distasteful to many now, slave markets were common back then. Slave could be captured by the Legions or brought to the city by traders and sold in whatever market TM decides to represent in the game. The upper class and other Roman citizens could purchase their "slaves" and bring them home. In this case they would be like having access to any common or luxury goods in CotN.

In short, having a slave or slaves in a household would make the residents more satisfied. Not having them would cause some level of disatisfaction as if the household had no pottery, etc.

Having a slave would allow the woman of the house to do her shopping more efficiently, or a merchant or craftsman to be more productive and efficient in selling and producings his wares.

[imhotep3147]

I went for the Pleb/retainer route....even though slavery was real and would add a touch of historical accuracy to a game, I don't think it's worth offending people over...at least by calling them something other than "slave" you take away much of the stigma associated with it. :D :p :rolleyes:

[Rusicade]

Any game that portrayed how slaves were truly dealt with in the Classical World would suck the fun out of that game. (At least I hope someone would not find it fun.) Yes, there were household slaves, but 80% of the slaves were male and were the economic engine of that world-- our internal combustion engine. I play the game for fun, not to be confronted how horrible mankind can sometimes be.
Bob

[EmperorJay]

Slavery is only barbaric because it isn't common practise anymore.

During the early conquests of the Romans, slaves were plentiful and a slave had to be quite talented to be irreplaceable. During the Empire, however, a skilled slave was a very valuable commodity and I dare to say that many slaves actually had a better life than the average free plebian. The Romans handed out grain for free, because those without work could not afford it; most slaves were owned by Romans who could afford grain and then some more. Their slaves had cost them a lot, they were skilled and good at what they were ordered to do, so they would be clothed, fed and could sleep inside. Many of the Roman working class actually had no work and had a lower standard of living than many slaves.

Lets also not forget that gladiators have made an appearance in C3 already and gladiators were even lower than slaves. Gladiators were not only not free, but they had to fight until death followed.

Lastly, I do think that not all forms of slavery should be included and that they should be refered to as "servi" (which can be explained as servant, how convenient that those words look alike!). There were three types of slaves: Owned by a Roman to work in the house, gladiators and those on the galleys/in the mines.

The last group didn't live for more than a couple of years and should not be included. You can take it too far as well :) . Gladiators don't have to be linked to slavery, as it was not the case in C3 either. Only personal servi could be included IMO.

[Thucydides]

I do think that not all forms of slavery should be included and that they should be refered to as "servi" (which can be explained as servant, how convenient that those words look alike!). .

You put your finger on it. To serve and servant come from the Middle English serven, from Old French servir, from Latin servre, from servus... and servi. :)

[Schmophit]

I voted to call them "servi", if that's what they were called for real, why not in game? :)

[Lannes]

This is a straightforward poll about your attitude towards how 'slaves' should be represented in Caesar IV.

I voted for calling them "servi". However, that does not mean I think they should be put in as just another class of citizen. I think they should either be included as a "commodity/resource" or not included at all (in which case one has to simply assume they are there).

Either way, it is important to me that no character represented as free will ever do jobs that were in reality overwhelmingly done by the most expendable slaves, such as labouring in quarries or mines.

Lannes

[Rusicade]

Again, it's a game, so no I don't want slavery included. But slavery was/is barbaric and cruel. Let's not pretty it up. Rome was an empire built on war and violence. No different than any other empire at the time-- they all knew and played by the same rules. Loosing didn't mean the Victor would spend Billions rebuilding your Cities. You became slaves. I would no more want this part of the game included than I would want crucifixes lining the streets leading into my towns to show want happens when a slave wanted to go home without permission-- but let's not kid ourselves about what went on.

[Amris]

Call it like it is. We don't need to play all warm & fuzzy Politically Correct.

And call them slaves, be honest about it, that's what they were. And don't try to dress it up by using their word for it... we don't use their word for "granary" or for "architect's post" or whatnot. We use words that help us clearly understand exactly what we're dealing with.

Historical fact- the romans kept slaves. Let's keep the game historical to a realistic degree. That realism to be dictated more by gameplay limitations than political correctness, IMO.

[MarkDuffy]

Slaves were a fundamental pillar of the Roman Empire, so yes give me 'slaves'

Slaves as war plunder would be a great way to increase your population instead of just immigration along a Kingdom Road. Then they could move up the social ladder.

It would add something to the game if there was no/little immigration & you had to do this or something else, besides childbirth, to get more people.

[Jimaaten]

I voted "other" because none of the rest seemed to sum up my thoughts on the matter. I don't feel slaves should be included. But its not a no based on philosophical principles about human kind. While I do see the historical and accuracy issues about having slaves, there's a little voice in the back of my head that says it isn't right. Slavery isn't some long-ago, historical concept; it still exists in the world today. That little voice says, if you use it in a game and the concept helps you win the game, it deminishes the issue. I think if you use slavery in a game, it comes with a responsiblity to show the negative side. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[EmperorJay]

One cannot be offended by slavery without being offended by gladiators.

Edit: I would agree with Jimaaten though.

[Thucydides]

Thank you everyone for voting. I was surprised that noone at all voted for having no slaves (noting the answers given in other), but there was also a desire to not call them slaves as such - 17 votes to 13. The vote remains open so please keep registering your views!

[maucat]

I've already stated my viewpoint on another thread. If people are offended by the concept of slaves they perhaps should not be playing a game about the Roman Empire.

[CaitGrey]

What is the real issue here? Do I want a historically correct game or a politically correct one?
I want Roman history to represented accurately in the game, so that means "slaves" (or "servi") as a valuable class of people in my cities.
This does not mean that I endorse slavery or anything remotely like it in my real life or my day-to-day dealings with other people.

[imhotep3147]

What is the real issue here? Do I want a historically correct game or a politically correct one?


Strive for one that balances both. :D :p :rolleyes:

[prof786]

I want Roman history to represented accurately in the game, so that means "slaves" (or "servi") as a valuable class of people in my cities.

that social class should be given it's due credit that it deserves. so yes, keep them in the game. as for the terminology, we can work on that.

[allhailcaesar]

History is what it is, not what some would like it to be. Slaves (and entertainment and revolts...) were an integral part of all roman society. Slaves were a part of almost all ancient civs. If anyone wants a politically correct game, go play San Andreas! Can we preorder this yet??????

[Arkimedes]

The only reason for slaves/not slaves resides on the players target:

Game for all ages = no slaves

Game for teen (or older) = please, yes.

So, my friends, I'm sorry but this is nothing to do with moral values, or historical facts. Its about money, nobody convinces me otherwise...

[Thucydides]

The only reason for slaves/not slaves resides on the players target:

Game for all ages = no slaves

Game for teen (or older) = please, yes.

So, my friends, I'm sorry but this is nothing to do with moral values, or historical facts. Its about money, nobody convinces me otherwise...

Sorry Arkimedes, I am being thick today and don't quite follow your point.

Are you saying that there should be no word slaves so that the game can earn a "game for all ages" clasification? Hence the main consideration for gaming companies is how the review board will see the game? I didn't know classifications were made "game for teens" automatically if they featured slaves... Even my youngest daughter (5) knows what a slave is.

[wodinoneeye]

Sorry Arkimedes, I am being thick today and don't quite follow your point.

Are you saying that there should be no word slaves so that the game can earn a "game for all ages" clasification? Hence the main consideration for gaming companies is how the review board will see the game? I didn't know classifications were made "game for teens" automatically if they featured slaves... Even my youngest daughter (5) knows what a slave is.



Nerf mode just changes every word 'slave' to 'servant'.

[Lannes]

The only reason for slaves/not slaves resides on the players target

IIRC Europa Universalis had black slaves as a trade resource. It's got an E rating (everyone) in Europe and is noted only to have "mild violence". Don't know about its rating elsewhere though.

Lannes

[Thucydides]

Thanks... so the conclusion is that rating boards will let 'slave' slide by...

and nerfs can go for 'servi' I am sure.

[prof786]

and nerfs can go for 'servi' I am sure.

nerfs? what are nerfs?

[Schmophit]

nerfs? what are nerfs?This could be it :

NERFS:

In the context of computer games, a nerf is a change to the rules of the game that is generally considered to have a weakening or negative effect upon the affected object(s).

Then again, it might not be :)

[prof786]

NERFS:

oh yes. i suggested that too regarding the terminology.

[Thucydides]

nerfs? what are nerfs?

When I think of nerfs I think of the little blue plastic people from Belgium :D

Nerfs are, thus, little people, and it can be derogatory in its meaning

[Schmophit]

When I think of nerfs I think of the little blue plastic people from Belgium :D Weren't they smurfs? :p :D

[Thucydides]

Weren't they smurfs? :p :D

laughing... you are quite right! nerfs were the funny balls in a nerf gun. My goodness, now I don't know what wondinoneeye meant, as it made great sense to me when he was referring to smurfs... :p

[Schmophit]

Sorry, I know its off topic, BUT :

Ah they're so cute! :D

[wodinoneeye]

This could be it :

NERFS:

In the context of computer games, a nerf is a change to the rules of the game that is generally considered to have a weakening or negative effect upon the affected object(s).

Then again, it might not be :)


Its where capabilities to do interesting things to other players (directly or indirectly) are removes because certain people use them intentionally to harm other players. This includes the 'offending' of people which is what this topic's subject hinges on.

In America many years ago they sold Nerf (A soft spongy material) Balls (round and footballs) and Nerf Bats to swing at nerf balls (nerf bullets for nerf guns etc...) These toys could not hurt anyone on impact and usually didnt even have enough mass to break/knock things over if played with inside the house.

The effect of 'nerfing' a game is to water it down, to make it 'safe' for the lowest common denominators....

[Thucydides]

Thanks wodinoneeye for the explaination about nerfs... that makes a sense. I was confused with smurfs... and thought you were referring to little people/munchkins/rugrats.

[Nakia]

Lastly, I do think that not all forms of slavery should be included and that they should be refered to as "servi" (which can be explained as servant, how convenient that those words look alike!). There were three types of slaves: Owned by a Roman to work in the house, gladiators and those on the galleys/in the mines.

The last group didn't live for more than a couple of years and should not be included. You can take it too far as well :) . Gladiators don't have to be linked to slavery, as it was not the case in C3 either. Only personal servi could be included IMO.

I'm not going to quote the whole of EmperorJay's post but I agree with it. I like the term 'servi' but then I would like to see more latin terms used.

[Schmophit]

The effect of 'nerfing' a game is to water it down, to make it 'safe' for the lowest common denominators....That explanation I gave wasn't far off then :)

Was also interested to see the other definitions you gave, I didn't realise that "Nerf" could be used in the context of harming another player.

And with that, I'm off to get me a Nerf Gun, there's got to be someone/thing worth shooting round here :p :D

[UglyGuy]

I have not voted as I'm a little conflicted about the choices.

I'm really shocked by this thread. Right or wrong this is something TM would be better off just avoiding. All it takes is Jack Thomson(?) or some other wacko to create a PR nightmare. 'Hot Coffee' has focused a lot of (misguided) attention to stuff like this.

Do we really want to see Hillary Clinton on TV saying 'TM endorses slavery'?

[MarkDuffy]

Do we really want to see Hillary Clinton on TV ...

I love it every time I see our next President on teevee! :)

... saying 'TM endorses slavery'?

Hillary is not a republican. She would never do that.

[sitearm]

It is highly unlikely there will be slavery in C-IV. Someone re-opened the topic after it was closed the first time. :)

I have not voted as I'm a little conflicted about the choices.

[prof786]

It is highly unlikely there will be slavery in C-IV. Someone re-opened the topic after it was closed the first time. :)

actualy it's been reopened so many times even now.
about three threads about slavery lurk in the forums.

[sitearm]

Yep... There was a similar controversial topic "way back when", when Children of the Nile was still in the works. That thread got so bad, Jeremiah had to close it. That was a little before my time here, but I happened to stumble across it once.

These threads here are OK. I just didn't want anyone to get too worried about it. :)

actualy it's been reopened so many times even now. about three threads about slavery lurk in the forums.

[Thucydides]

The discussion seems very balanced so far and I see no point in halting the thread. I don't see why someone would be shocked by this discussion. We are talking about a game that models a historical period where unpaid labour took place. From my perspective it would only be shocking if the gameplayer could torture his/her slaves/servants/minions/servi etc.

What is remarkable is that noone so far has voted for there to not be slaves in the game, although the balance still prefer for slaves to be called 'servi' or something else. There are plenty of games out there that do represent slaves in their games, so it is not as though TM would set a precedent by doing so. If they are called 'servi' (admittedly my suggestion)there would be even less of a risk of it being used in a media beat-up.

[sitearm]

I have no problem with a historical slavery and bondage game being developed and sold for any specialty market interested in it. I will probably not buy it but I know others will.

I like a good, current, general audience game to reflect good, current, general values. I will more probably buy that, and I expect others will too.

[Rudostes]

I went for servi. I consider the subject waaaaay to delicate and (unfortunately) too actual to dive deeper in it (death and taxes?!?).
Besides I fully agree with all the minds here that say the game will benefit including this (important) social class. Not sure about the producers though...

And I prefer to call them "servi" because romans call them so, not because the word "slave" is avoided :p

[wodinoneeye]

Yep... There was a similar controversial topic "way back when", when Children of the Nile was still in the works. That thread got so bad, Jeremiah had to close it. That was a little before my time here, but I happened to stumble across it once.

These threads here are OK. I just didn't want anyone to get too worried about it. :)


Wasn't that the one where some Afrocentrist started calling people racist because they did not adhere to/refuted the theory that Egyptians were 'black' (amongst other things)??

[prof786]

Wasn't that the one where some Afrocentrist started calling people racist because they did not adhere to/refuted the theory that Egyptians were 'black' (amongst other things)??

i don't know. modern egyptians seem to have more of a tan. does it matter?

[Thucydides]

The search for sources of unpaid labour was one of the primary fuels for expansion in the ancient world. The Romans enslaved whomever they could subjugate, including many Celts (my own stock). The dying Gaul and other statues testify that being captured in battle and forced into slavery was a terrible blow and one some preferred to commit suicide rather than endure.

The purpose of the thread was to see how we can represent past practices if at all. I have my dispassionate view and have been delighted that so many others have shared their own views, whether they agree or disagree with my own.

This should have to go without saying but all forms of slavery are completely unacceptable in our modern age, as are many ancient practices.

[Arkimedes]

I didn't know classifications were made "game for teens" automatically if they featured slaves... Even my youngest daughter (5) knows what a slave is.

They don't. I am not talking about the word "slave" or "servi" (euphemism?!?). I'm talking about using, trading, killing, punishing, etc slaves in the game (this was what happened in the Roman Empire). I'm sure your daughter knows what a slave is/were (?). She already knows about sex also but with appropriate limitations for her age, isn’t it?

Arkimedes

[King Faticus]

Lets assume for a moment that tm decides to incorperate servi into the game.
how do you suppose they would operate. Do you purchase them as an import (treating them like goods) and distribute them to the rich who purchase them?
would they have their own houses or would they live with their masters? Would they be required for the wealthy houses to be content or upgrade? I know many served as gladiators and ended up doing the worst jobs in the empire so they should be incorperated in the labor pool.

as long as you can't mistreat them, I think servi would add a layer of depth to the game that otherwise wouldn't be possible for example you get two new classes the servi (slaves) and liberti (freed slaves) so i am not against slaves
what do you think

[Lannes]

Lets assume for a moment that tm decides to incorperate servi into the game.
how do you suppose they would operate.

It's quite evident they can't be treated like citizens. Servii would not have the freedom to choose their occupation and residence and would have limited freedom of movement. They would have to be included as an extension to their master's household or business.
The simplest way would be to just assume that a certain number of slaves comes with a given status of a household or with a given type of industry.
Expanding on that, you could consider slaves as a "non-expendable commodity/resource" that is required to run a certain type of household or industry. In that case, you end up with a group of citizens with occupations explicitly linked with slavery (traders, trainers, overseers etc.).

Lannes

P.S. IMHO people who might construe the inclusion of slavery as "support for slavery" really do not deserve to be taken seriously other than as closet revisionists. I mean what's next? Leaving out the Pantheon to avoid being accused of heresy? :rolleyes:

[King Faticus]

their including the pantheon!!!! :eek: :eek: :mad: BLASPHEMY!

just kidding:D

Hmmm I like some of these ideas good job!

[prof786]

what is so special about the pantheon?

[King Faticus]

P.S. IMHO people who might construe the inclusion of slavery as "support for slavery" really do not deserve to be taken seriously other than as closet revisionists. I mean what's next? Leaving out the Pantheon to avoid being accused of heresy? :rolleyes:
This is what is so "special":D
well besides the fact that it was the largest dome in the world till the 1960s i think
and if i recall it is still the largest unsupported dome in the world. (unsupported means no steele wire or bars in the dome for support)

[prof786]

well besides the fact that it was the largest dome in the world till the 1960s i think

many renaissance architects actually worked on a bigger dome at st. peter's.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/340/199/320/rome-st-peters-dome-view.jpghttp://kfumcmusicministry.org/st_peters_basilica250x198.jpghttp://www.robertnyman.com/rome/images/large/st-peters-basilica-inside-view.jpg

[prof786]

sorry king
don't wanna waste more time. here's one more image for the dome of st. peters
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/images/articles/StPetersDome.jpg

[King Faticus]

sorry for going off topic
I Looked it up before I posted and the history channel aupported what I said.
But i also found sites supporting what you said....hmmmm :confused: I really hate getting mixed information :mad:
if sombody can clear this up for me please pm me:D

btw those domes are beautiful

[imhotep3147]

what is so special about the pantheon?

Because it's intention was for people to feel free to worship any gods as opposed to one God. Therefore many overenthusiastic monotheistic (dare I say .. christians .. ) people might be offended at it's inclusion. :D As far as the slavery issue, I couldn't care less whether or not they are included, nor what they are called, my main concern is that I don't want to see TM get negative publicity and a "racist" label just for trying to be more historically accurate than what seems necessary.....that would just suck. :D :p :rolleyes:

[Azeem]

Because it's intention was for people to feel free to worship any gods as opposed to one God. Therefore many overenthusiastic monotheistic (dare I say .. christians .. ) people might be offended at it's inclusion. :D

This has happened before where a few individuals complained about the polytheism aspect of the city builders from Caesar III to Emperor. They always appear, repeat the same complaint, and then just disappear fom the forums. It's almost tradition. :)

[King Faticus]

Originally Posted by Azeem
This has happened before where a few individuals complained about the polytheism aspect of the city builders from Caesar III to Emperor. They always appear, repeat the same complaint, and then just disappear fom the forums. It's almost tradition.:)




Maybe it's the same person:D :p :D

but seriously we're off topic so why should slaves be incorperated in c4?
just to get somewhat back on topic

[imhotep3147]

why not? :D Because the idea of slave is still a negative, hurtful concept. But to have a less harsh version of slavery incorporated into the game (ie: no selling block, slave ships, child slaves...etc), and have said slaves be referred to as a term that is somewhat more neutral...the vast majority of people (at least on this forum...so it seems) would be happy. :D :p :rolleyes:

[King Faticus]

why not? :D Because the idea of slave is still a negative, hurtful concept. But to have a less harsh version of slavery incorporated into the game (ie: no selling block, slave ships, child slaves...etc), and have said slaves be referred to as a term that is somewhat more neutral...the vast majority of people (at least on this forum...so it seems) would be happy. :D :p :rolleyes:
dont forget no abuse twards slaves. as per a neutral name i like the pre suggested servii (servent)

[prof786]

Because it's intention was for people to feel free to worship any gods as opposed to one God.

maybe slavery and the pantheon might be connected.
since the slaves captured from the once barbaric lands worshipped various dieties, was the pantheon intended for them?
and was it also built to supposedly mock the early christians?

[Keith]

I've already mentioned this about a week or so ago in this or another thread on the "slavery" subject, but the only way I can see them representing slavery is if they are treated in a similar manner to the way they used "servants" in Children of the Nile, but instead of living in their own huts, they lived in their owner's home.

Having a slave would require going to a market and buying one. The slave would be a "satisfaction" or "prestige" item of the household. They would shop for their owners and so other work. More slaves would be more prestigous for the household.

I don't think they want to get into slave labor, the kind involving whips and chains. Even though Trajan used some 30,000 Jews for his construction projects in Rome.

Many slaves were freed when they reached the age of 35. It was seen as an incentive to keep the rest of the slaves in line and for them to work hard.

BTW, the Pantheon Dome was the largest dome in the world until 1436AD when a larger one was built. (It's part of my Roman History and Culture quiz.;) )

[King Faticus]

It still doesn't clearify in fact it adds to the mud...
Now I have three reputable sources that say three different things:confused:
but thanks anyways. Ill try to do a little more digging to find out

[Kiya]

It really is a difficult question should there be servants, servi ot slaves in C4. I voted for slaves, but I don't want to see slave markets, chains or anything like that.
Then where would they come from, out of thin air.

Here is an interesting piece of news from UK. It is no more Snow White and Dwarfs but now they must be called gnomes for political correctness. :p :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/4349726.stm

[sitearm]

off topic, but it does trigger in my mind from these slavery threads, that...

1. It is arguably correct that being "politically correct" has gone, or can go, too far in the US.

2. But not so long ago, being "feministly correct" was a big issue and fiercely argued, defended, and ridiculed in the popular arena. Yet over time, it settled in, and women in the US have a LOT more respect and economic opportunity, to pick just one example.

So much so that women immigrate to the US for it.

So much so that it is statistically demonstrable that the US economy is stronger and more robust despite troubles, BECAUSE women have entered the workforce at all levels of ownership.

3. So perhaps being "politically correct", for all the arguing, defending, and ridiculing, over time will finish "settling in", and people of more different styles than mere gender, will also have more respect and opportunity here.

It is not here yet. But it is a possibility that would be a blessing and a benefit to us all.

[end reflect]

[Azeem]

As far as political correctness goes, I don't really feel strongly about it either way. Everyone has their own views and sensitivities, which should be acknowledged.

I voted for the "slaves" option because I think that cutting out slaves completely would also sort of deny those people who were enslaved by the Romans a piece of their history. Of course, I wouldn't want to see any of the more "darker" stuff such as violent abuse or slave markets.

[Thucydides]

I wouldn't want to see any of the more "darker" stuff such as violent abuse or slave markets.

Thats much the same way I feel about the matter, and I find myself negative about the merit of including slave markets and slave trading (although, of course, these did exist). And there should definately be no means by which the gamer abuses their servi. Perhaps servi should simply be one class of people in the game, and their upkeep/cost is the lowest of all, but their involvement is integral to the success of your city economy.

[prof786]

yeah i think that going on with slave markets is a bit too far. besides that would be another thing we would have to worry about. it would be simpler to carry over the cotn concept of servants.

[Lannes]

yeah i think that going on with slave markets is a bit too far. besides that would be another thing we would have to worry about. it would be simpler to carry over the cotn concept of servants.

How about including slavery in such a way that it encourages the player to diminish their city's dependency on it? Imagine Servi as a lowest class of people, who will always do what your citizens want them to do. All you have to do to get them is to build servant's quarters (thus neatly avoiding the necessity of actually representing slave markets).

However, there should then be some form of penalty on relying on servi too much or a bonus for relying on free citizens. Perhaps, the ratio of slaves vs free citizens could be used as a limit on the ability to build/upgrade some structures. It's not too far fetched to say that reliance on slaves would hold back innovation and enterprise as a whole.

What remains then is a way to effect a transition between the two. One way would be for your citizens to free their slaves. They might do that once their level of prosperity rises and the bonuses of relying on the superior qualities of services of free citizens exceed the extra cost of hiring them.

There would of course be some industries where you'd have to be excessively wealthy to be able to afford freed men instead of slaves. It should cost a lot to convince free people to work in mines and quarries or to row galleys.

Lannes

[EmperorJay]

What about capturing enemy soldiers? I always wondered why the description of the Cavalry in C3 said that they were good to chase fleeing soldiers as there was no benefit in chasing fleeing soldiers!

Let's agree to not include slave markets and trade (which I'm not opposed to myself, I set the limit at abuse), but would it not be interesting in a militarical (sp?) way as well to be able to capture the enemy?

[Shadow-Imperator]

I saw this thread and I realised just how important slavery was to the Roman Economy. In its early history, the industry of Rome was powered by its Pleblians, its freemen. They worked by their own accord to put bread on the table and earn their keep and that is how they lived.

I am not sure of the origins of slavery however it would appear that as Rome began to flex its diplomatic and military muscle, it was able to defeat its neighbours. Thus these defeated and captured people would serve as slaves for the Senate and People of Rome.

Now Romans often used captive soldiers as slaves, for instance, Caesar apparenty provided Rome with 1,000,000 slaves as spoils of war from Gaul. So it is obvious that these slaves were often obtained by military means.

I don't know if many of you guys have ever played Medieval Total War, but one nifty feature which didn't make it to its sequal Rome Total War, was that once units started running away and routing, if you chased them down you could often capture as many enemy troops as you killed. So maybe such a slave capturing system could be implemented for C4.

Maybe this could provide a number of possibilities, such as releasing them, releasing them into population as freemen for the more benevolent rulers, other options could be slavery in the city, export slave to Empire or lastly, execution to deter dissident and rebels.

Lastly, maybe we could better control or economy as being able to choose whether they are more 'freeman/pleblian/peasant' based economy with no slavery and then a more slave orientated economy...

[Janmeryet]

I didn't know about the terminology difference prior to this poll. If 'servi' were what they were called, then I quite like that in terms of the game. You learn something new every day.