How would you design nomadic Civilizations?

[dagriggstar]

I still rather have something like
Pasture (Improvement) = +0.5 production for each adjacent unimproved tile
Camp (Improvement) = +0.5 food for each adjacent unimproved tile
Trading Post (Improvement) = +0.5 gold for each adjacent unimproved tile
You can have civ specific stuff on top of that if you wish, but anything more complex than that I feel is too complex for the civilization series. You should be able to mix nomad options and sedentary options, if you so choose.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You have got to work on brevity, my dude. My points were:

• separating cultures between sedentary agricultural cultures that don't move at all and pastoralist cultures that move around a ton is a messy, unhelpful dichotomy
• Invoking "nomadism" is imprecise. Notably, it conflates transhumance and other cyclical movements of people with mass migration. Our popular imagination of many historical groups -- what would end up making it into a game like civ -- catches them in tumultuous times of displacement that don't necessarily reflect how those people normally lived.
• Hard rules that disable certain game mechanics for certain cultures is essentializing, often inaccurate, and probably not that much fun anyways. Softer nudges towards wide/tall play that are framed as bonuses are a better way to go.

I also think that game mechanics that depict pastoralism would work best if they are constrained to Pastures, rather than prescribed onto civs at the game setup. If you start next to a lot of pasture resources -- or the game prescribes pasture resources as a starting resource to your civ -- then I guess you're a pastoralist civ. The game could do a better job of making pastures, camps etc. use land differently than farms/pastures, etc. The various improvements are only skin-deep differences, distinguished from each other by graphics, tech unlocks, and yield boosters. The only exception in civ 6 is that adjacent farms boost each other.

Now we're in agreement. Since pastoral nomadism was a choice enabled by a combination of terrain ("pasturable"?) and technology - Wheel, Horseback Riding, NO Civilization should start the game in 4000 BCE stuffed into a Pastoral Niche. Driving and following herds was simply another way to exploit food and other resources compared to agriculture, and traded off a less-concentrated food source with a far more wide-ranging 'footprint' on the terrain which, in almost every case, translated into more contacts for trading, diplomacy, or warfare.

The difference between the game I'd like to see ("My Perfect 4X"), which would have your 'Civ' entirely determined by in-game terrain, events, and starting positions, is that the game to be commercially successful just about has to allow the gamer to choose what Civ he wants to play, and have that Civ act at least vaguely like the gamer's concept of the Civ. No camel-riding Anglo-Saxons, thank you, and no Huns or Mongols without horse archers, herds and pastoralism in some form. For game purposes, then, there will have to be a Pastoral Niche into which some Civs will be hammered from the start - but there should be no set of game mechanics that Force them to stay there regardless of changing in-game conditions.

 

[reddishrecue]

Now we're in agreement. Since pastoral nomadism was a choice enabled by a combination of terrain ("pasturable"?) and technology - Wheel, Horseback Riding, NO Civilization should start the game in 4000 BCE stuffed into a Pastoral Niche. Driving and following herds was simply another way to exploit food and other resources compared to agriculture, and traded off a less-concentrated food source with a far more wide-ranging 'footprint' on the terrain which, in almost every case, translated into more contacts for trading, diplomacy, or warfare.

The difference between the game I'd like to see ("My Perfect 4X"), which would have your 'Civ' entirely determined by in-game terrain, events, and starting positions, is that the game to be commercially successful just about has to allow the gamer to choose what Civ he wants to play, and have that Civ act at least vaguely like the gamer's concept of the Civ. No camel-riding Anglo-Saxons, thank you, and no Huns or Mongols without horse archers, herds and pastoralism in some form. For game purposes, then, there will have to be a Pastoral Niche into which some Civs will be hammered from the start - but there should be no set of game mechanics that Force them to stay there regardless of changing in-game conditions.

That's not a bad idea, sort of like adding colonization to civ 4 bts because civilizations started later than the earlier ones such as America which was independence of UK, Dutch, Spain or France. I mean here you could make other countries that are American such as Canada or Mexico but America starts later on in the game.

 

[Expansist]

Some Days ago I read, in a Thread here, a discussion about Nomadic/Pastoral/Mobile Civilizations/Tribes, like Mongolia and Scythia, with some Ideas on how they could be played in Civ. Tbh, I've never put much thought into this, since I didn't think that Firaxis would put much effort to make a (truly) unique playstile for just 1-2 Civs to have a nomadic start with mobile Cities till they can settle once and for all. I thought it would require a lot of work and Time which are better spent for a Nomadic Neolethic Start. But, that doesn't have to be the case, I mean it shouldn't be difficult to make (at least if you also don't code AI to handle this), and sometimes simple Solutions are the best. Like Maori's unique Start.

So here is what I came with:

Nomadic Civs, like Mongolia and Scythia, will have this 2nd Unique Civ Ability:

Nomads of the Steppe:

• Start just like usual with their starting Bias, but with 2 caveats:

1) not being able to settle a City within the first 7 Turns (Normal Game Speed) since they have spawned (even if you start the Game in Industrial Era - Doesn't apply In Modern Era and onwards).
2) Can only Settle Cities on Featureless Tiles (No Forest, Jungle...etc).

• Before Settling any City, you get +2 Science and +2 Culture and +1 Faith.
• After every 3 Turns befor settling any City, get a Light Cavalry Unit for Free that doesn't require any Maintenance. If you start in:

- Ancient Era: you start with Animal Husbandry, Archery and Horseback Riding Techs already unlocked and get a Horseman Unit.
- Classical Era: you start with Horseback Riding Tech already unlocked and get a Horseman Unit (Saka Horse Archer in case of Scythia).
- Medieval Era: you start with Strirrups Tech already unlocked and get a Courser Unit (Keshig in case of Mongolia).
- Early Modern Era: you get a Courser Unit.
- Industrial Era: you start with Military Science Tech already unlocked and get a Cavalry Unit.
- Modern Era onwards: no Benefits.

• When you have settled at least 2 Cities, you can pack up any non-capital Cities and move them elsewhere with a Nomad Settler Unit that has a Melee Strength to defend itself (moved City will get a new Name but all the Population will move with it). If you want to move your Capital City [A] too, you can only do that by moving your Capital to another City (with a Project like Dido's) and then you can move that original capital City [A]. And while moving a City, you get +1 Science and + 1 Culture (Doubled if it had a Campus or Theatre Square, respectively), and +1 Faith if that City had a Holy Site (+1 Science and + 1 Culture in each Era after Ancient Era, and also + 1 Faith if City had a Holy Site).
• When moving a City, get a Free worker when settling that City.

I've actually designed this (specifically for Scythia and Mongolia) around Civ VI's modding Capabilities, because I would really like to make a Civ 6 Mod out of this. I don't know how balanced this all is, and I'm sure the AI won't make full use of this, but it's to be played with not against.

I would like to know what you think of this and how YOU would design a Nomadic Civ.

Nomadic Civilizations were able to settle anywhere from very beginning.
And also any nomadic civilization - Persians, Mongols, Scythians, Somalians, Turks, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Iroques, Khoisan, etc. - settled down and became agricultural and building cities after some time. So, "Nomadic" should refer only to early eras.
Nomadic civilizations did slow scientific research, but couldn't build certain buildings: no walls no castles (Genghis Khan destroyed all walls and didn't allow anything that restrict free movement on horses, but Kublai Khan already built cities with walls and palaces) no amphitheatres aqueducts no banks no customs, no jail - they just killed the guilty, no courthouses, no bunkers etc. - but they have free Gherr / Stable in every city no matter whether founded, conquered, flipped, culturally annexed, traded through diplomacy, etc. - nomadic city can't be without Gherr, nomads have stronger horsemen with additional experience and combat promotions then citizens, horses is their only power. Citizens usually couldn't resist equal number of nomadic horsemen, they were more wild and military stronger because nomads had no other duties then to loot and fight - nomadic hunnes destroyed Roman Empire, nomadic Persians destroyed Babilonia and conquered Egypt and India, nomadic Mongols with Tatars destroyed China and Russia, etc. - so nomadic Civs should have military stronger horsemen then non-nomadic of equal technology. But, this is their only strength! Nomadic civilization can build ONLY horse archers, other mounted unites and settlers during certain epoches and NO other types on units, and they should have especially strong horse archers, nomadic AI should build horse archer as much as possible. Nomadic Civs can build horse archers without any strategic resources, because they migrate and live on horses, they bring horses herds anywhere with them and can't be separated from horses otherwise they are not nomadic anymore. But nomadic Civs can't build any units other then mounted units! During certain epochs, till industrial or renaissance era. They can build Barracks, have free Gherr Stable, maybe mobile forges in tents and mobile markets as caravans - but almost no other buildings! And when they conquer other cities, they destroy most buildings except barracks, gherr stable, forge, harbour, market and grocery. They can build monuments and libraries because they can write on animal skins, but that's it - nomads can't have most building until certain era.
Nomadic civs have less research rates, poor research and poor economy. They are military stronger with same technologies that is why they dominate in early ages, but have poor research and economy, can't build most buildings, can't make siege weapons infantry garrisons or anything else other then mounted units, maybe even can't make workers and improve tiles can't remove forests etc., strong attack but poor defense. They may be more prolific, cheaper settlers and cavalry, but slow research and poor economy - that is why nomads start strong and dominate, but fail later because of slower scientific research - basically nomads become military losing when other civs develop rifling. They beat gunpowder Chinese musketeers and canons thanks to speed and wild masculine courage, but rifles shoot too far too accurate and too fast, not like muskets that take too long to reload. Rifle shoots precisely for 1300+m AK-47, 3000+m sniper rifle. Musket, pistol or shotgun can shoot accurate and strong with high lethality chances to about 100 m. So, with a rifle you start killing cavalry 1000+m away from you, and with a musket - only 100 m away, and think how much time it takes to reload a musket or a cannon, and how much time it takes a light horsemen to halop 100 m on maximal speed? Even if you kill half horsemen by shooting muskets and canons, you won't beat other half of wild maskuline barbarians in melee with comparable numbers
Nomadic Civs might be able to move their cities any time before they stop being nomadic. They have strong cavalry of all types including horses camels elephants etc. without strategic resources, they have no wheel no road no chariot by stronger horse archers and immortal riders instead of chariots, and no other units, unable to build most buildings, might be unable to improve / alter tiles, slow research poor economy. Cities should be movable, taking 1 turn to disassemble a city and it becomes a caravan unit so instead of a settler from zero it unfolds in other place with all population and buildings in 1 turn when commanded to settle a caravan.

 

[Zaarin]

And also any nomadic civilization - Persians, Mongols, Scythians, Somalians, Turks, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Iroques, Khoisan, etc. - settled down and became agricultural and building cities after some time. So, "Nomadic" should refer only to early eras.

Your list of peoples who are nomadic span all the way to the present day (Khoisan) and every era along the way. So no, it should not refer only to early eras. Nomadic and seminomadic pastoralists presented a challenge to settled civilizations from the earliest cities until the Industrial Age; it would be nice if Civ could find a way to represent that. You do have a point that nomadic civilizations had a strong tendency to conquer a settled civ and then settle down. Also, at least two of your civs I would not describe as nomadic (Persians, Iroquois--the Haudenosaunee moved their cities every five years or so when they exhausted local resources, but they lived in fortified settlements and relied on both hunting and garden agriculture for food, and they never moved very far.. The Persians gave up nomadism by the time they entered the historical record, though you may be thinking of the Parthians).

 

[Expansist]

Your list of peoples who are nomadic span all the way to the present day (Khoisan) and every era along the way. So no, it should not refer only to early eras. Nomadic and seminomadic pastoralists presented a challenge to settled civilizations from the earliest cities until the Industrial Age; it would be nice if Civ could find a way to represent that. You do have a point that nomadic civilizations had a strong tendency to conquer a settled civ and then settle down. Also, at least two of your civs I would not describe as nomadic (Persians, Iroquois--the Haudenosaunee moved their cities every five years or so when they exhausted local resources, but they lived in fortified settlements and relied on both hunting and garden agriculture for food, and they never moved very far.. The Persians gave up nomadism by the time they entered the historical record, though you may be thinking of the Parthians).

Khoisans live in the desert - they probably need to learn whole Permaculture to make viable agriculture there.
There are still even today stone age civilization, bronze, iron, feudal, and all other stages from most primitive till modern - but that doesn't mean that today's stone age civilizations, or 500 years ago native classical age civilizations wouldn't proliferate the world grow population & develop all the modern technologies, if they were given enough time & NOT destroyed or enslaved by those civs that developed faster. I mean, even those Khoisans, or Tupi, or Maori, or whatever primitive societies - are genetically same humans and have all the potential to develop to the level of most advanced today's civilizations & go interplanetary, if they had enough time. It is all about speed - those who proliferated expanded developed even a bit faster, gets competitive advantage more resources workforce etc. thus more warriors scientists etc., conquers enslaves others, thus speeds up himself even more, while slowing down the conquered looted enslaved civilizations... Even small speed up in Expansion long ago, gives runaway positive feedback.
Regarding nomadism - it prevails for civilizations that have a lot horses animal husbandry thus always need to change place for their livestock as it eats the grass around, go elsewhere until new grass grows. But when agriculture becomes bigger source of food then animal husbandry - then civilizations settle down. It doesn't mean the nomadic adaptation is gone - we can notice many nomadic patterns even in european cowboys colonizing Americas.
Nomadism vs settlement mainly shows if animal husbandry or agriculture is their main source of food, is NOT fixed to a group of people anyhow - groups of people can switch between more nomadic or more agricultural lifestyle many times, even inside same civilization you can have many agrarians & many nomads, for example poorest people eat beans thus attached to farmland, while nobelity rides horses & loots everybody, carrying kinda nomadic lifestyle. Nomadism is very flexible & depends on environment, it is NOT fixed genetically and NOT preventing ANY civilization from further development when environmental conditions allow. What is more, the start of Civ4 game says: for millions of years you people were nomads, but now 4000 BC they are finally ready to settle down & found your first city. We all were hunters-gatherers & nomads most of our history, and only relatively recently became agrarians, which lead to cities & civilizations - because any link in trophic chain has less than 10% efficiency (Lindeman Pyramid), thus agriculture allowed much higher population densities then nomadism, and more people - more power in science, industry, economics, military, etc. - every dimension of power. Any group of homo sapiens can develop agriculture, cities & civilizations over time, it is just natural result of population growth, enabled by agriculture.