Another Idea

Cía

Warlord
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
109
Location
Sweden
One thing I like with the new Colonization is that the native villages doesn´t have any cultural borders.
And that´s something I think could be used in Revolution. You could let the barbarian and minor civ cities have no cultural borders.
And, as in col, the regular civs should be able to build cities on the tile beside a barbarian/minor civ city.

What do you think?
 
I don't see why you'd want that, especially since in this mod barbarians can spontaneously form new civs in this mod. In plain Civ4, barbarians are intended to be minor civs. In Colonization, barbs are more like extended goody huts, which reflects Colonizations roots in the original Civilization (pre-culture game concpet).

It'd be kind of interesting if barbarians could leave their cities to form camps that had zero culture, but which spawned new barbarians periodically. Barbs would feel more like an infestation that way.
 
I want the barbarian cities to have no cultural borders because those minor civs had no influence on the land as the big civs had. An example is the germanic and celtic tribes. Instead of ketting them havdé camps, they could have small villages with no culture and influence on the land, but they should of course be able do work the nearby tiles.

That way, the game would act more historically correct. The barbarian cities and then minor civs will be as a pre-stage for the big civs.
 
In order to be a "civilization" in real, historical terms, part of the implication is that cities must be involved (of course, there can be cultures without cities). If a permanent settlement exists, it always has some influence on the outside lands (in game terms, it exerts cultural pressure, since the people living there identify/pay tribute to the city, even if they're only hunter-gatherers). Therefore, even the barbarian cities have some cultural influence on the land.

In another thread in this subforum, I suggested a "tribe" mechanic, to enable a simulation of nomadic peoples - this would have no cultural borders. Ideally to me, there would also be something in-between these tribes and full-fledged cities, and that's basically what you're also suggesting. My suggestion would be to have barbarians either spawn full-fledged cities like they do currently, and also spawn some villages. The difference would be that the villages they spawn would only be capable of creating units (no buildings), would be severely limited in growth (since they're not storing food), and would have no cultural borders (and perhaps they would yield a worker and some gold if captured) - so basically a cross between a goody hut and a barbarian city.

I think this (and the tribe mechanic) would be important not just gameplay-wise, but also to add to the immersion, showing that humanity exists all over the globe whether or not they are a part of a civilization.
 
I have to agree with Bob (and I posted in his Tribes thread too :) ).

I have to agree with the logic that Cities=settling down=generating culture.

I don't totally agree that nomadism = lack of culture, but for the sake of the game it's reasonable to say that there relatively less culture and not worth tracking. Using some kind of mechanic to sim sub-city units of barbarians, i.e. 'tribes', makes sense to me; I.e. migrating units that reproduce, but don't exert culture.

From a development perspective, it'd make sense to have barb nomads (no culture) evolve to barb cities (have culture) evolve to minor civs.
 
I'm not trying to say that nomads don't have a culture. In game terms, it would be weird to have a mobile unit generate culture, since it's not clear what would happen to the tiles that once had culture on it if the original unit moved - does the culture stay there, visibly or invisibly, or does it decay as soon as the nomads move away? I guess the best answer would be to stay there invisibly, but decay over a period of 20 turns or so?
 
What I meant was that the none culture barbaarian cities would represent tribes who wasn´t nomadic and also did have a different idea of owning the land.
The native american tribes is a good example. They hunted, farmed and fished in their sorounding areas, but they didn´t control or own the land.
And I think those villages should be able to turn theirselves into nomads and walk around some time perhaps find another place to settle. And If they have their settlement on the sameplace for a long time, it can grow to a city who acn be able to have cultural borders. And then it eventually will turn into a minor civ and then into a regular civ.
 
The Native (North) Americans also didn't have cities (with a few notable exceptions). I think we're both arguing for the same thing here - all I'm saying is that a "tribe" can neither build public buildings nor grow to the size of a city (no food storage) - therefore, the best way to tackle that is create a "village" distinct from a city which cannot build buildings nor grow very large.
 
Yes I think these threads are leading to a consensus, but just happened to have started with a different approach.
 
An Animal Unit that wins combat in FFH becomes a pack/pride that generates more animals of the same unit.

A Barb winning combat with another barb can become a Chief or Warchief. Their men can't become Cheifs or Warchiefs unless they rebel after their own victory (ies)

Chief makes a village that works the surrounding lands and start with 3 units: Chief's Guards, and two warrior/highest Melee unit.

Warchief gets 3 units and a camp unit like gengis khan and can move arround, conquering villages and perhaps making an empire.

Of course, one of the Great Warchief's men might win enough victories to lead an assassination, keeping the lands ununified!
 
Top Bottom