[SUBMITTED] A Pressing Problem

[Baggieland]

Here's one for slave nations.

[TITLE] A Pressing Problem

[DESCRIPTION] The number of citizens volunteering to join the military continues to dwindle at an ever increasing rate. In order to ensure the defence of @@NAME@@, it has been proposed to enlist slaves into the armed forces.

[VALIDITY] allows slavery, no conscription

[OPTION] "Well, I must say, I'm a bit peeved," declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, a slave owner dressed in a white suit and panama hat, as one of @@HIS@@ slaves fans @@HIM@@. "Enlisting my slaves would leave me quite out of pocket, don't you know? I would have to spend vast amounts either acquiring and transporting new slaves or, Violet forbid, actually hiring free men and paying them a salary! You may call upon my slaves, but I expect considerable compensation for them."

[EFFECT] elite troops are preferred as cannon fodder as slave regiments cost too much to replace

[OPTION] "The idea of using slaves is to increase our military personnel, but at minimum cost," posits @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Finance Minister, as @@HE@@ opens a window and breathes in some fresh air. "Compensating all the slave owners would be a significant burden upon the Treasury. If they refuse to donate their slaves, then we should only enlist ones that have already fathered children. That way compensation won't be necessary as replacement stock is already there."

[EFFECT] naughty children can no longer be threatened with "wait till your father gets home"

[OPTION] "No, no, we can't use slaves," worries Rear Admiral @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, as @@HE@@ whacks your desk with @@HIS@@ parade stick. "Quite simply the loyalty of slaves to the @@TYPE@@ is in question; some of them aren't even citizens of our great nation. If the hoi polloi no longer sees the military as a career choice, then we must introduce impressment. Their 'nights out' will soon become 'lights out'!"

[EFFECT] finding a coin at the bottom of your drink turns out not to be so lucky

[OPTION] "I have a suggestion @@LEADER@@," states the slave who had been fanning @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ the whole time, but now drops the fan on @@HIS(1)@@ head to approach you. "We slaves will be happy to serve in your military, and we will serve with distinction too. However, when we're discharged, show your appreciation to us by granting our freedom, our families as well, and a bit of money to help us start over in life. Now, where do I sign up?"

[EFFECT] wives have never been happier to see their husbands enlist

[TITLE] A Pressing Problem

[DESCRIPTION] The number of citizens volunteering to join the military continues to dwindle at an ever increasing rate. In order to ensure the defence of @@NAME@@, it has been proposed that slave owners award their slaves to the armed forces.

[VALIDITY] allows slavery, no conscription, weak military

[OPTION] "Well, I must say, I'm a bit peeved," declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, a slave owner dressed in a white suit and panama hat, as one of @@HIS@@ slaves fans @@HIM@@. "Taking my slaves would leave me quite out of pocket, don't you know? I would have to spend vast amounts either acquiring and transporting new slaves or, Violet forbid, actually hiring free men and paying them a salary! You may call upon my slaves -- for a fee -- and I would expect considerable compensation in the event of their deaths."

[EFFECT] elite troops are preferred as cannon fodder as slave regiments cost too much to replace

[OPTION] "The idea of using slaves is to increase our military personnel, but at minimum cost," posits @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Finance Minister, as @@HE@@ opens a window and breathes in some fresh air. "Compensating all the slave owners would be a significant burden upon the Treasury. If they refuse to grant us their slaves, then a compromise would be to only conscript ones that have already fathered children. That way compensation won't be necessary as replacement stock is already there."

[EFFECT] naughty children can no longer be threatened with "wait till your father gets home"

[OPTION] "No, no, we can't use slaves as frontline personnel," worries Rear Admiral @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, as @@HE@@ whacks your desk with @@HIS@@ parade stick. "Quite simply the loyalty of slaves to the @@TYPE@@ is in question; some of them aren't even citizens of our great nation. We should use slaves for tasks such as laundry and cooking duties; keep them away from the weapons. If after that, we still don't have enough to fill our ranks, then we must introduce impressment. Their 'nights out' will soon become 'lights out'!"

[EFFECT] finding a coin at the bottom of your drink turns out not to be so lucky

[OPTION] "I have a suggestion @@LEADER@@," states the slave who had been fanning @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ the whole time, but now drops the fan on @@HIS(1)@@ head to approach you. "We slaves will be happy to serve in your military, and we will serve with distinction too. However, when we're discharged, show your appreciation to us by granting our freedom, our families as well, and a bit of money to help us start over in life. Now, where do I sign up?"

[EFFECT] spouses have never been happier to see their loved ones enlist

[Trotterdam]

Slave militaries have existed in real life (example), but I'm pretty sure all of them were of the "the government owns the slaves" variety, not conscripting slaves belonging to private owners.

[Australian rePublic]

All this would lead to a slave revolt

[Verdant Haven]

[DESCRIPTION] The number of citizens volunteering to join the military continues to dwindle at an ever increasing rate. In order to ensure the defence of @@NAME@@, it has been proposed to enlist slaves into the armed forces.

[VALIDITY] allows slavery, no conscription

I would suggest adding the validity of having a mid to low Defense Forces stat, as it wouldn't make much sense for a (for example) top 10% Defense Forces nation to get an issue about dwindling military size. On that subject, I would probably use the American "defense" spelling, not because it's better or anything, but just because that is what the game officially uses, and retaining internal consistency is the main grammatical rule on the subject.

I would also suggest the description text say "conscript" instead of "enlist," to emphasize that you are talking about taking them and forcing them in, rather than simply allowing them. I was a bit confused when I realized the first speaker was suggesting it was more of a seizure than a sign-up.

[OPTION] "Well, I must say, I'm a bit peeved," declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, a slave owner dressed in a white suit and panama hat, as one of @@HIS@@ slaves fans @@HIM@@. "Enlisting my slaves would leave me quite out of pocket, don't you know? I would have to spend vast amounts either acquiring and transporting new slaves or, Violet forbid, actually hiring free men and paying them a salary! You may call upon my slaves, but I expect considerable compensation for them."

[EFFECT] elite troops are preferred as cannon fodder as slave regiments cost too much to replace

I'd make the same swap of "enlisting" to "conscripting" here, for the same reason as above. A thought may be to have the slaveholder offer to "rent out" the slaves (a thing that certainly happened in the American South during that unfortunate period of our history), with the request for major compensation in the event of their death.

[OPTION] "The idea of using slaves is to increase our military personnel, but at minimum cost," posits @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Finance Minister, as @@HE@@ opens a window and breathes in some fresh air. "Compensating all the slave owners would be a significant burden upon the Treasury. If they refuse to donate their slaves, then we should only enlist ones that have already fathered children. That way compensation won't be necessary as replacement stock is already there."

[EFFECT] naughty children can no longer be threatened with "wait till your father gets home"

This option, at least as written, seems a little self-contradictory... "If they don't like conscription, we should use conscription." Nothing in the first option sounds at all like asking the owners to donate the slaves - that individual is upset because they are being taken, so this option just doesn't follow. If the first were to be re-written more as "You want me to donate my slaves? Heaven's no, but you can pay for them." then this would make more sense. In that case, find some other words instead of either "conscripting" or "enlisting" to make things clearer in option 1 and the description, and have this be where conscription gets used. "If they won't donate slaves, we'll conscript them! But we'll only take fathers..."

[OPTION] "No, no, we can't use slaves," worries Rear Admiral @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, as @@HE@@ whacks your desk with @@HIS@@ parade stick. "Quite simply the loyalty of slaves to the @@TYPE@@ is in question; some of them aren't even citizens of our great nation. If the hoi polloi no longer sees the military as a career choice, then we must introduce impressment. Their 'nights out' will soon become 'lights out'!"

[EFFECT] finding a coin at the bottom of your drink turns out not to be so lucky

The difference between a slave and an impressed individual is razor thin, and I don't think it really feels like a valid difference to try and draw a distinction between forcing somebody in to the military through legally-defined slavery, and forcing somebody in to the military through dragging them against their will in to a chained cell on a ship and not letting them out until they are too far from land to escape. The loyalty of an impressed "free" soldier will not be much higher than that of a slave, and impressment only works when the impressed individual can't run away - hence its association with the navy (can't run from a ship in the middle of the ocean!). I think a better position to take with a loyalty concern like this would be to conscript/recruit slaves in to support roles - cooks, porters, laborers, thus freeing up free enlisted individuals to bear arms and fight. That's what the Confederacy attempted to do during the US Civil War, and allows for an argument that mentions the danger of arming slaves.

[OPTION] "I have a suggestion @@LEADER@@," states the slave who had been fanning @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ the whole time, but now drops the fan on @@HIS(1)@@ head to approach you. "We slaves will be happy to serve in your military, and we will serve with distinction too. However, when we're discharged, show your appreciation to us by granting our freedom, our families as well, and a bit of money to help us start over in life. Now, where do I sign up?"

[EFFECT] wives have never been happier to see their husbands enlist[/spoiler]

This feels like a reasonable option, and has some historical basis perhaps. Only thought is on the effect line, it might be better to make it gender neutral. We have matriarchies in the game, and just in general women can fight as well as men, and might want to earn their freedom too.

[Baggieland]

Slave militaries have existed in real life (example), but I'm pretty sure all of them were of the "the government owns the slaves" variety, not conscripting slaves belonging to private owners.

From your link:
While mamluks were purchased as property, their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant. In a sense they were like enslaved mercenaries.

All this would lead to a slave revolt

Both the above comments from Aussie and Trotters would probably make a good consequence issue to this one, assuming this one gets added of course.

[Australian rePublic]

Would slave owners also be conscripted?

[Baggieland]

I would suggest adding the validity of having a mid to low Defense Forces stat

Excellent suggestion.

I would probably use the American "defense" spelling

NEVER!!

because that is what the game officially uses, and retaining internal consistency is the main grammatical rule on the subject.

The rule is to use the language of the original author, despite the inconsistencies that this leaves upon the game. If there are a load of issues written by British authors that use "holiday", then an American comes along and writes an issue using "vacation", then vacation it is, despite the previous precedent of using holiday.

I would also suggest the description text say "conscript" instead of "enlist," to emphasize that you are talking about taking them and forcing them in, rather than simply allowing them. I was a bit confused when I realized the first speaker was suggesting it was more of a seizure than a sign-up.

I'd make the same swap of "enlisting" to "conscripting" here, for the same reason as above. A thought may be to have the slaveholder offer to "rent out" the slaves (a thing that certainly happened in the American South during that unfortunate period of our history), with the request for major compensation in the event of their death.

Reworded throughout.

This option, at least as written, seems a little self-contradictory... "If they don't like conscription, we should use conscription." Nothing in the first option sounds at all like asking the owners to donate the slaves - that individual is upset because they are being taken, so this option just doesn't follow. If the first were to be re-written more as "You want me to donate my slaves? Heaven's no, but you can pay for them." then this would make more sense. In that case, find some other words instead of either "conscripting" or "enlisting" to make things clearer in option 1 and the description, and have this be where conscription gets used. "If they won't donate slaves, we'll conscript them! But we'll only take fathers..."

Reworked.

The difference between a slave and an impressed individual is razor thin, and I don't think it really feels like a valid difference to try and draw a distinction between forcing somebody in to the military through legally-defined slavery, and forcing somebody in to the military through dragging them against their will in to a chained cell on a ship and not letting them out until they are too far from land to escape. The loyalty of an impressed "free" soldier will not be much higher than that of a slave, and impressment only works when the impressed individual can't run away - hence its association with the navy (can't run from a ship in the middle of the ocean!). I think a better position to take with a loyalty concern like this would be to conscript/recruit slaves in to support roles - cooks, porters, laborers, thus freeing up free enlisted individuals to bear arms and fight. That's what the Confederacy attempted to do during the US Civil War, and allows for an argument that mentions the danger of arming slaves.

Right, pressed men were not only the domain of the navy. From Wikipedia:

Starting in 1645, the New Model Army raised by Oliver Cromwell to overthrow Charles I during the English Civil War was largely manned by impressment.[41] After the restoration of the monarchy, impressment into the army was discontinued. During the American Revolutionary War, after the losses at the Battle of Saratoga and the impending hostilities with France, the existing voluntary enlistment measures were judged to be insufficient. Between 1775 and 1781, the regular army increased from 48,000 to 110,000. Two acts were passed, the Recruiting Act 1778 and the Recruiting Act 1779, for the impression of individuals into the British Army.[42] The chief advantages of these acts was in the number of volunteers brought in under the apprehension of impressment. To avoid impressment, some recruits incapacitated themselves by cutting off the thumb and forefinger of the right hand, making it impossible to use a musket or sword.[43] The Recruiting Act of 1779 was repealed on 26 May 1780, and army impressment was permanently discontinued.

Also, the idea that "can't run from a ship in the middle of the ocean" isn't quite true. There were mutinies plus desertion at ports of call.
However, I have reworked that option to address some of your concerns.

it might be better to make it gender neutral. We have matriarchies in the game, and just in general women can fight as well as men, and might want to earn their freedom too.

Done.

Thanks a lot VH for all your input, 2nd draft is up.

[Baggieland]

Would slave owners also be conscripted?

Anything's possible.

[Trotterdam]

Would slave owners also be conscripted?

Anything's possible.

Slave owners being conscripted would lead to questions of "so what happens to their slaves when they're not around to command them?".

In fact, one reason for something like this to come up is slave owners trying to offer up some of their slaves for service as a replacement for having to serve in the military themselves.

[Australian rePublic]

Anything's possible.

Slave owners being conscripted would lead to questions of "so what happens to their slaves when they're not around to command them?".

In fact, one reason for something like this to come up is slave owners trying to offer up some of their slaves for service as a replacement for having to serve in the military themselves.

That, or an extreme shortage of soldiers

[Baggieland]

Slave owners doing military service is probably for another issue. Also, the typical view of a slave owner is that of an old man, beyond the age of service. Also, another typical view is that slave owners are well-connected, and would weasle their way out of service.

[Baggieland]

Bump.

Any more comments on this one?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Great issue, and I love that it doesn't shoehorn in a reversal of the slavery policy.

Effect line 1 is good but unwieldy. The rest work as they stand, and I look forward to picking up this issue.

[Baggieland]

Submitted.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!

[Baggieland]

Good Luck!

Cheers mate.

[Trotterdam]

I noticed that the title resembles #486 An Impressing Dilemma.

[Baggieland]

I noticed that the title resembles #486 An Impressing Dilemma.

It's different enough.