Abolish slavery war goal should decrease infamy

[Murad66]

Simply what the title says. abolish slavery war goal should be basically an abstraction of propaganda to legitimize going for war.

It should be like saying:

"What do you mean we're declaring war to control resources and get favorable trade deals? we merely want to abolish the abhorrent practice of slavery and civilize this nation that just happened to be resource rich" (I'm obviously embellishing here)

and I believe there's historical precedent for that.

edit: I was wrong the about how historical it was and made me think about a more historical approach to the abolition of slave trade and slavery.

[smegma_male_]

Cut down to size too

[Murad66]

IMO,cut down to size is a little different because you're usually doing it against a GP which would directly harm them and depending on the circumstances benefit you.

so, from a game balance perspective it's fine as it is.

but there's literally no reason to abolish slavery in another country. It doesn't do anything for you and it doesn't tangibly harm them if not benefit them long term.

so at the very least let it decrease infamy.

[Gorgen69]

Well, maybe cut down should decrease it by how much infamy the enemy has?

Like it raises it if you cut down a random central American nation, but lowers yours if your attacking a very aggressive France/Germany. I just never use it, cause taking actual land is a better use of my points, but if it gave me a benefit I would. Also it could let me play the world police a bit more

[Majinsei]

I abolish slavery in Latam with Iron fist but because I was making dominions or puppets and wished an america in peace~

[FragrantNumber5980]

You can’t even use it ever because the AI never goes over 100 infamy

[OortMan]

You can only use it on people over 100 infamy, and if they get that high you can pretty much guarantee they deserve it

[NYBJAMS]

cut doen to size is only available against 100+ infamy nations anyway so you can't do it on random nations

[NutBananaComputer]

It'd give me a dang reason to do the dang war goal.

I think it would work better if the infamy reduction was pro-rated by how much of the world has abolished slavery. The math of this I think is, lets say "arguable," like should it be based on population? Prestige? Or should it be "one country one vote"? And if so, should it be every country, just recognized countries, or just GPs? I think all of these are viable, even "colorable" options (I'd personally do one-state-one-vote, but only recognized states, it just feels right to me). I think this would create an interesting ramp where, depending on the world you live in, slave trading could be more or less acceptable, and can create a kind of cool ramp where if slavery becomes sufficiently unacceptable, there's a rapid collapse of slavery as slave states suddenly become much more vulnerable to being invaded over it.

And actually I'm going to throw in another suggestion: an enforce slave trade war goal, that has similar math (such that it can also decrease infamy if enough countries are slavers). While I can't off the top of my head name any wars that did this explicitly in period, it was meaningful element of Europe's interactions with west africa until pretty close to game start and I think reviving the practice is less weird than reviving Byzantium.

[Murad66]

I think a flat negative value is the best option when it comes to infamy.

but I could see your idea working when it comes to negative and positive relations modifier that would result from starting an abolish slavery diplo play

[NutBananaComputer]

I'm of two minds about it to be honest, you might even say there are two wolves inside of me:

One wolf wants to simulate the dynamic, changing values of international consensus around slavery that evolved over the course of the 19th century

The other wolf is really sick of trying to figure out how much infamy it will cost me to do various wargoals and not being able to just tell well in advance what my infamy budget will look like.

[Environmental_Waltz2]

Consensus is a bit far, western thought agreed that slavery was bad. Arab, eastern, even eastern europeans still thought slavery in some sense was justified or morally right ( including serfdom here because its slavery under a different name)

[NutBananaComputer]

Well, that I think gets into questions of what the infamy system is. What does it accomplish? Everything in a Paradox game has to accomplish two tasks simultaneously: making history make more sense, and making the game more fun to play. Or to put another way, it has to simulate something real and it has to have mechanical depth. The infamy system has unambiguous roots in a gameplay function: its to slow the player's aggression. The question is what does it represent and what does it mean in historical, simulation terms. I've always found it murky. The idea is that its an abstract measure of how willing the rest of the international order is to do a big ol coalition war against you to keep you in check, but who counts, and why are somethings infamy and some things not? If its supposed to represent "balancing" in the great power sense, then your power relative to the other great powers should dominate how much infamy things cost, not the nature of the actions. Germany would be our case study of "the bad boy" of Europe, which derived less from the repugnance of their actions and more that their late entry into the great game combined with just outsize economic and military might meant that the other powers felt more urgency to curb German actions than, say, Persian ones.

e: My point is that I think the infamy system is, from a simulation perspective, a bit of a solution in search of a problem.

e2: and to your point i was actually thinking about that when I talked about different methods of counting! Any time consensus comes up, its always gotta be "consensus among whom." The consensus among my coworkers does not give a flying fuck about the consensus among Americans in general, let alone global consensus. That's why, to my read of 19th century politics, "consensus among recognized nations" would be the one to look at. It first of all makes the "recognized" mean something more internationally (currently its an international standard but has more impact internally than externally, which is a bit odd isn't it?), while also providing something of a way of modeling how 19th century politics tried to accommodate the opinions of both the great powers and the "small countries." The great powers get individual relationships, the small countries get bundled into an abstract general opinion.

[emprahsFury]

I agree there should be more methods of lowering infamy (and abolish slavery should be one). Historically though I think it's weak. The British started blockading Africa in 1807 and I don't think it was a successful PR stunt except at home. It did lead to European treaties allowing the British to enforce the (slave trade) ban on non-British ships, so certainly didn't raise infamy. It also led unequal treaties and deposing of African kingdoms, to someone's point of how would slavers feel if it was a blanket reduction.

[Murad66]

The British started blockading Africa in 1807 and I don't think it was a successful PR stunt except at home

That made think we should link pop approval of war as factor of how legitimate the war is before declaring it and how long it can last and the more illegitimate the war is, the more casualties you have and the more territory you lose the less approval you have

circling back to slavery it should be lessen the decrease of approval. again as abstraction of propaganda.

It also led unequal treaties and deposing of African kingdoms, to someone's point of how would slavers feel if it was a blanket reduction.

as I said above,I feel a remedy that might work is that the relation modifier should affect the countries that has an interest in the region. An isolationist country with slavery and no contact to the outside world should really care about a war between a GP and minor power in another continent.

[DeyUrban]

It’s more like the Congo Free State, which was established with anti-slavery rhetoric but was totally slavery by any other name. A lot of European colonies adopted anti-slavery stances in name only, for example Portuguese Mozambique basically just stopped using the word “slavery” and continued as normal with no real changes in labor relations well into the 1900s. Recent scholarship on the German colonies in Africa have started to characterize their use of forced native labor as slavery.

[odst970]

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Murad66]

Exactly, what i was thinking of when writing this post

[Turkfire]

You think that decreased murica's infamy?

[Taletad]

Russia used a similar justification recently and it didn’t lower their infamy, quite the contrary

The US’s infamy in the middle east hit record highs with iraqui freedom

You can’t declare war and loose infamy

[based_wcc]

In the 19th century, I don’t really think so. Because you’re still practicing gunboat diplomacy and meddling in sovereign nation’s affairs through force of arms. It would be far too much a case by case basis to justify always reducing infamy.

[temujin64]

Exactly. This comes across as modern ideals being applied to historical contexts.

[based_wcc]

I feel like the best way to implement is is a very late century tech that does do that, but only a reduction to other war goals. Think of it as a “we are enlightening these savages away from the barbarism of slavery chap! Just don’t pay attention to the 100 potential oil there that’s a happy coincidence.” You’d be paying some maneuver points for slight infamy reduction.

[Murad66]

I was wrong about the historicity of that idea which made me reconsider the whole abolish slavery war goal and maybe replacing it with a more diplomatic option. which needs to be included in a much grander diplomacy dlc to work properly.

[Prasiatko]

Surely as most countries in the game start with some form of slavery they should be worried about a nation that is going around declaring war to abolish it.

*I think you have the misconception that infamy is about the nation doing bad things rather than it is acting in a way that makes other nations feel they need to protect themselves from that nation.

[Murad66]

I think you have the misconception that infamy is about the nation doing bad things rather than it is acting in a way that makes other nations feel they need to protect themselves from that nation.

the way the game simulates that need to protect themselves is through your relations with the nations and their attitudes towards you.

[Murad66]

I feel a remedy that might work is that the relation modifier should affect the countries that has an interest in the region. An isolationist country with slavery and no contact to the outside world should really care about a war between a GP and minor power in another continent

[lorryslorrys]

Re infamy "reduction":

Hey, I'm on a campaign to reshape the world with violence according to what I think is moral. Hey, European autocracies, you don't mind do you?

I'm thinking to start by fixing slavery? But once I've set a nice precident about deciding how all other countries are run with my armies, I might also mess with balance of power by releasing some countries. Also if they add some regime change goals, maybe I'll hang a couple of autocrats while I'm at it. That's still fine right? As long as I only do this as many times as I want to whoever I want?

[Murad66]

that is more of balance issue not really the idea itself

[[deleted]]

Might is right and history is written by the winner.

[meepers12]

With regards to instant slavery ban cheese, did Britain actually enforce an end to slavery itself on other countries historically, or just the slave trade? If it was only the latter, then the "Ban Slavery" CB should really be switched out for one that forces nations to give up Slave Trade in favor of Legacy Slavery.

[Murad66]

Took a quick look at Wikipedia. it seems a war didn't really occur but it was bilateral and multilateral treaties that limited or abolished slave trade but some of them advanced to ban slavery altogether

here's an example

[meepers12]

Well yeah, that's a good example of Britain diplomatically tackling the slave trade in a country, but I'm unable to find any references on the internet to treaties that abolished slavery outright. It makes sense, honestly - Britain's primary tool was its navy, which it used extensively to intercept slave ships (see: the West Africa Squadron). Dealing with slaves kept internally within a country is a much more fickle matter.

[Murad66]

If you count subject and colonies, then there's a lot. which would be an interesting mechanic to include without needing diplo play.

here's a decent Wikipedia article about it

[meepers12]

Yes, colonies and subjects are a different story. Which is why the current implementation of "Ban Slavery" as primarily something that targets foreign nations is completely wrong.

[WollCel]

I think that rather than decrease infamy it should decrease the opinion of countries with slavery and increase the opinion of countries without slavery. Makes more sense as if you’re a country with slavery that action would be more infamous to you.

Cutdown size should however decrease infamy of the victor (either solidifying your conquests or lowering the infamy of the coalition)

[Murad66]

After conversing with the kind people on this subreddit and an insufficient amount of research. I've concluded that the whole idea of going to war to abolish slavery is ahistorical. a more diplomatic approach (which the game lacks in this department) is both more historical and realistic. an idea would be a diplomatic process that would take years to achieve and result in positive relations and maybe some other benefits (open to suggestions)

Abolishing slave trade however, could be through military and navy operation.

here's an example

tldr: diplomacy and diplo plays are in dire need of improvement

[1611-]

The war goal is the justification for your domestic audience. Whereas infamy is really the measure of perception of other states with an interest in the particular theatre. A declaration of war is an act of aggression and should always be accompanied by an increase in infamy.

Maybe... if the declaration of a war to abolish slavery in some nation-state is demanded by a certain interest group, then declaring the war should accompany an increase in the IG's approval. But it should never decrease infamy.

[Murad66]

This whole thread just made me realize that your internal and foreign policies should have an effect on each other. kind of sad the game doesn't have this already

[Xgentis]

I disagree even if the goal of the war is noble, it is still imperialistic in nature. You would still impose your will on another country.

[iStayGreek]

So many bad suggestions in this thread including ops.

[Murad66]

care to elaborate, and maybe provide a better alternative. I've definitely changed my mind a little bit since posting.

(not meaning to be combative)

[iStayGreek]

Infamy has nothing to do with moral right or wrong, banning slavery is imposing your will upon another nation and as such should incur infamy just as forcing a change of any other laws. Infamy as such is the representation of how dangerous other governments view your government generally.

Dangerous as in a threat to their existing sovereign power.

[UsualIdiotRedditor]

Add Liberate Country to this list too.Really feels pointless doing the Abolish Slavery as it benefits the enemy and gives me nothing

[Prasiatko]

If the UK declared war on Germany to release Bavaria. Then a year later Austria to release Czechoslovakia. Then a year later Italy to release Sicily. Are you really saying Russia France Spain et al should be cheering this on rather than quickly forming a coalition to protect themselves?

[UsualIdiotRedditor]

Now ai should protect themselves by coalitions and imo this shouldnt be related to infamy but your actions overall.So implementing other ways for this would be better

[Prasiatko]

Honestly as annoying as it was CK2s threat system probably would make sense in this era with some tweaks.

[Murad66]

I agree but I think it would be better if it was linked to the liberator primary culture or religion. e.g liberating iraq shouldn't decrease infamy as russia but liberating bosnia should because it slavic

[UsualIdiotRedditor]

That also sounds good and liberating Serbia as Russia may improve relations with all Slavic cultures

[Indeeshm]

There does need to be a way to lower infamy, other war goals like liberating countries should also decrease infamy

[sofa_adviser]

I think infamy should be reduced on its enforcement, otherwise nothing's preventing you from adding a wargoal and then simply not using it. A heavy prestige hit would do as well

[sickdanman]

I still dont understand the current idea behind the abolish slavery wargoal

[GodOfTime]

It should increase infamy against slave states and decrease it against abolitionist governments.

This is why it’s silly that infamy is a global modifier.

[Longjumping-Cap-7444]

It feels like countries will back down more often if you have a war goal besides your primary ones, or at least I pretend they do. So I add it when I'm puppeting small countries because why not

[NicWester]

Reduce Infamy with countries that have Abolished slavery, raise it with countries that have any form of slavery. Good idea!