Barbarians become civilized?

Mojotronica

Mojotronica

Expect Irony.
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
3,501
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
The barbarian functions as a 32nd Civ in the game, but without the cultural unity to found cities and develop technology, and no central leader.

What if the barbs had their own research pool, a small number added to it each turn per settlement on the map.

When the number adds up to a certain amount (average approx every 40 or 50 turns) one barbarian settlement somewhere in the world (determined at random) becomes a full-fledged Civ (using one of the unused Civs -- if all are used, it doesn't happen.) Then the barb research pool drops back to zero again.

The new civ starts at a tech level determined by the units the barbs are using at the time (Warriors, Horsemen etc...)

This is a way that new civs could be injected into the game after the start.
 
Thanks to player's use of Barbarian settlements as Worker farms using Conquest's enslavement rules, this would be much more likely to occur.
 
it is a different idea, and deserves its own thread, i do really like the idea, although i think tech level should be set to zero in the ancient era, and in the next 3 eras they would have the first row techs of the ancient ers, and 2 techs determined by what civ they become. also, nations should have the ability to not reconize them as real nations, and be at a constant war w./ them, and not be able to trade until they do so. doing this would cause a small rep hit with those civs that have reconized it, although this would not be as big as one would encounter when going to war with them. that way, if the player wanted to bo to war with them right a way they could justify thier actions by calling them barbarians instead of a fellow people.
 
I had a similar thought in the other topic...
Denarr said:
...
Barbarian upgrades makes sense, and the ability to use a captured city, even if only for resources, makes more sense. If nothing else, cities captured by barbarians should be able to conscript military units, and/or, build their own units, depending on the barbarian's equivalent level of technology. Maybe even upgrading units they already have, if appropriate city improvements survive the capture, and the barbarian's tech level justifies unit upgrades. Even American Indians managed to switch from bows to rifles when they successfully raided a settlement.
Click to expand...
The Barbarians already are a sort of extra civ, and in Civ II, they were able to use a city they had captured, at least for the purpose of making military units.
Having the added ability to expand, as a new Citied Nation would add a new dimention to the game, and to the Barbarians as rivals.
 
Civilized only means city dwellers... I would like to see Barbarians be broken down into Nomads and Minor Tribes
 
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
Civilized only means city dwellers... I would like to see Barbarians be broken down into Nomads and Minor Tribes
Click to expand...
Err...they already are.

Civilized means: has achieved a culture as a particular people, nation, government, etc., in reference to the game.

And Barbarian is a relativistic term that refers to a civilization regarded as primitive, usually without further connotation.

I'm thinking that when we use the term civ, we are referring to one of the Citied Nations, which is what the game does, but the Barbarian Nations, historically, have taken cities, and even have become Citied Nations, themselves, on occasion.
 
Instead of having the barbarians evolve into their own distinct civilization, i think it would be interesting to have barbarians spawn pre-existing civilizations depending on their proximity to other exisiting civs. Something like the culturally linked starting positions i guess. For example, maybe when a group of barbarians deafeats a certain number of Persian units or pillages their cities or improvements, their encampment could turn into a Babylonian city (if the Babylonians didn't already exist in the game, in that case a different culturally-linked civ). From that point, those barbarians would be the Babylonians and would be dealt with as a regular civ. Sure, they'd be behind technologically and such, but it would give you a new neighbor to deal with in whatever way you say fit.
 
The barbarians function as a Civ factory in this model, belching out Civs that once spawned are no longer barbarians. This would simulate the late rising Civs of the New World, for instance -- the Mayas, Incas and then Aztecs each spawning late in the game rather than existing from 4000BC along with the more ancient Civs.
 
It would be useful for simulating the New World Civs (Iroquois, Aztecs, Mayans and Incas) and African Zulus disadvantage relative to the European invaders. These Civs would add flavor to the game, opportunities for players and the AI, and some additional challenges. The level of challenge, admittedly would not be great for an established Civ -- but I think it would be a cool addition.

It's possible that a Civ could rise out of nowhere, quickly gain technological parity and beat up on a struggling medium-sized Civ, like the Mongolians with China, and eventuially dominate the world. Even if it's unlikely I think the possiblity is compelling.
 
Mojotronica said:
The barbarians function as a Civ factory in this model, belching out Civs that once spawned are no longer barbarians. This would simulate the late rising Civs of the New World, for instance -- the Mayas, Incas and then Aztecs each spawning late in the game rather than existing from 4000BC along with the more ancient Civs.
Click to expand...
This is a complete tangent, bu very few of the "old world" civs were around in 4000 BC either, for that matter. France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. etc. Even the Roman Republic wasn't founded until 509 BC. The earliest major mesoamerican civ was the Olmec, who rose to prominence around 1150 BC (long before Rome!).
 
VERY TRUE -- the New World Civs all developed from pretty ancient cultures. But this is tough to model in the game.

The "modern" European Civs were extensions of Rome, and Rome owes a lot to the Greeks, for instance. I sort of think of them as the product of a rebellion. The New World Civs developed independently of the older Civs, but this is not well-modelled in the game.

The purpose of the couple of rule changes I've posted here recently is to more accurately model the historical rise and fall of Civs, or at least to capture the felling of that. This one is more of a bell & whistle type change, but I think it would be fun.
 
As I have bene saying in the thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1842055 I am very much in favour of the idea of barbarians becoming their own civs.

I think it would greatly improve the game of civ :)

I reckon a good way to do it would be that every so often a barbarian camp could produce a settler unit (maybe every 30-50 turns? This could increase in number as the number of camps decrease).
Then, once they have established a city (and thus become their own civ!) they could only produce their own settler units slowly. This could be done bt limiting them (if possible) to only having one settler in the field at a time, and/or making it so that settler units are difficult to build (like double the number of shields it would take a normal civ to build one). To prevent them expanding to much they would have something like a 3/4/5 city limit (this could vary depending on the barbarian civ).
Improtant note: each time a barbarian civ produces a settle runit it would be from a different tribe, so that way you get a few 'little' barbarian civs scattered around the place.
 
The problem is that human players already exploit barbarian camps. If they generated settlers then they would be exploited even more to gain free workers...
 
Dell19 said:
The problem is that human players already exploit barbarian camps. If they generated settlers then they would be exploited even more to gain free workers...
Click to expand...
Well if a settler unit was only generated rarely then that tatic wouldn't really have much benifit.
 
However if you could predict when it would appear, or even roughly when, then it was still be a valid tactic.
 
Well maybe, but I don't see that happening much. Plus if Mojotronica's idea of camps becomign cities was implemented as well then it would make it alot more random (and risky because all of a sudden you migh have a barbarian city on your borders instead of just a camp).
 
At which point you would just send a few units over, take the city and have a free city. Worse than being able to capture the occasional Barbarian Settler.
Unless the new city spawned a couple dozen units when founded. Still....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Boris Gudenuf
Gimme dat (Only) Exploration Age Religion
Replies
2
Views
626
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
D
Future Civ Changing Mechanic Suggestion
Replies
0
Views
372
desk
D
K
Full Victories for every Age (and tweaks to the Modern ones)
Replies
0
Views
467
Krikkit1
K
Bast
I think the game should get back to some realistic history
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
luca 83
luca 83
T
Assymmetric/Feature Breaking Civ Factions (Ex. Edo Japan)
Replies
3
Views
652
Uberfrog
Uberfrog
Back
Top Bottom