What Barbarian tribes would you like to see in Civ VII?

[Malexander]

Assuming that specific barbarian tribes would be implemented in the game, which tribes would you like to see?

Specific tribes could be added to increase depth to the traditional barbarians or as an alternative playmode to play as a barbarian tribe. Major nations with rich history could have several barbarian leaders to choose from but the the leaders would be from distinct tribes.

I would like to see the following:
1. Vikings, leader options could be pulled from Scandinavian (Norway, Sweden etc.) history.
2. Germanic tribes, leader options pulled German, Dutch etc. areas of historic influence.
3. Greek tribes, Sparta.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Evie]

Oh yeah, because giving the "barbarian" label to actual historical group is not going to lead to an epic public relation fiasco at all.

(And here's how to play "barbarian" mode: load up as any civ. Declare war on every civ the moment you encounter them. Accept no peace. Raze or pillage everything you can. You are now a barbarian.)

 

[Malexander]

I recommend acquiring real problems into your life if you think barbarian tribes in a video game is too much for the world to handle.

I think it would be interesting change to have a barbarian play mode or just having different barbarian tribes in the game with different units and playstyle. Call them tribes if you want to walk on egg shells even in a video game. Just dont call them city states, one of the most boring concepts added into the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think it would be interesting change to have a barbarian play mode or just having different barbarian tribes in the game with different units and playstyle. Call them tribes if you want to walk on egg shells even in a video game. Just dont call them city states, one of the most boring concepts added into the game.

Just call them tribes. In my view there can be peaceful ones too though, so that's another reason why I wouldn't personally use the term "barbarian."

I don't know how I feel about using real names of groups, but I doubt Vikings or Greek tribes will be used. They are usually actual playable civs.

 

[Malexander]

Just call them tribes. In my view there can be peaceful ones too though, so that's another reason why I wouldn't personally use the term "barbarian."

I don't know how I feel about using real names of groups, but I doubt Vikings or Greek tribes will be used. They are usually actual playable civs.

Norway, Sweden would be the civ nations and Vikings the barbarian tribe version of these nations. The overlap is unavoidable in most cases.

Vikings is an actually an ideal candidate, they pretty much made themselves known with raiding and pillaging.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Norway, Sweden would be the civ nations and Vikings the barbarian tribe version of these nations. The overlap is unavoidable in most cases.

Vikings is an actually an ideal candidate, they pretty much made themselves known with raiding and pillaging.

Here's what I would do which is similar to how the Barbarian Clans mode already divides their clans up.

Coastal Tribes: Found adjacent to the coast with large bodies of water. Peaceful tribes when encountered would usually give eureka for Sailing, if not discovered yet. In addition will add food and culture to any resource found in the sea. Hostile tribes would have a unique Raiding Galley that can coastal raid, and mainly spawn naval units.
Nomadic Tribes: Found along grassland or plains tiles near a horse resource. Peaceful tribes when encountered would usually give a eureka for Animal Husbandry or Horseback Riding? In addition will add production and culture to resources usually improved by a pasture, if no pasture is present. Hostile tribes would have a unique Horse Archer unit, similar to the one currently, and mainly spawn cavalry units.
Desert Tribes: Found in the desert. Peaceful tribes when encountered would usually give a eureka/inspiration for Foreign Trade/currency and generate gold and culture for desert tiles. Hostile tribes would have a unique Chariot Archer unit, and will usually spawn a mix of ranged and light cavalry units.
Tundra Tribes: Found in the tundra or snow tiles. Peaceful tribes would add food and culture to snow and tundra and ice tiles. Spawn a unique Dog Sled recon unit, even if not hostile.
Forest Tribes: Found in rainforest or woods tiles. Peaceful tribes when encountered would generate faith and culture for woods/rainforest tiles. Hostile tribes would have a unique Blow Gunner ranged unit and would mainly spawn many ranged units and recon units.
Highlands Tribes: Found on hill tiles, usually grassland and near mountains. Peaceful tribes would generate science and culture for mineable resources. Hostile tribes would have a unique Axeman unit, and mainly spawn a lot of melee units.
Grassland Tribes: Found on flat grasslands or plains. Hostile tribes would spawn a mix of melee and ranged units.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I have mixing feelings about this. Some points...
* Unique "minor civs" with special features and specified identity YES. Name them "Barbarians" NO.

CIV6s Barbarian Clans mode showed that BC+CS can be turned into unified but more complex non playable entities that can be named Nations (differentiating them from the playable Empires). The name "barbarians" plus their in-game role (pre BCmode) as useless threats to exterminate is not only "problematic" but also boring and a waste of gameplay potential. Meanwhile the use of "Tribes" is not offensive per se but in a game designed around the idea of civilization/progress it could turn into a term related to backwardness, also remember that the BC mode allows tribes to turn into CS, so the use of Nations could include both the pre-urban and urban states of these "minor" non-playable civs.​

* Allow to play in a "more primitive" stage and in heterodox less city dependent way YES. Being an exclusive game mode with factions only for it NO.

What I would like is a new starting era, likely named "Neolithic". This era would allow you to find your first stable flood source that provide you one bonus (Agrarian, Pastorial,Maritime societies) but this not mean is a "nomadic" age, is more a village age. Another key point about this is that all "major" and "minor" civs have Settlers as the unit that found Cities+Districts+Villages (the later are the traditional Improvements), these can turn again to be Settlers under some circumstances. So basicaly the first era you play close to the "Tribes" from BC mode advancing to Ancient Era with the growth of your first proper City.​

For practical reasons is not possible to have every civ as playable because the lack of some historical elements like language and leaders, the time and cost to development them, and the saturation an limitation of in-game designs. BUT "minor" not playable civs can still represented all these interesting cultures that would not be possible to be added as playable in the traditional way.
This links this idea to the use of basic population units "Denizens" with three identitarian values; Class (social caste) Belief (religion) and Heritage (culture). All "major" and "minor" civs would have their unique Heritage that is linked to one Tradition (named special bonus) and an unique (either units, buildings, resources, etc.). Apart from your own civ's Heritage additionals can be gained (in limited numbers by slots and % of representation) under certain circumstances.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Unique "minor civs" with special features and specified identity YES. Name them "Barbarians" NO.
CIV6s Barbarian Clans mode showed that BC+CS can be turned into unified but more complex non playable entities that can be named Nations (differentiating them from the playable Empires). The name "barbarians" plus their in-game role (pre BCmode) as useless threats to exterminate is not only "problematic" but also boring and a waste of gameplay potential. Meanwhile the use of "Tribes" is not offensive per se but in a game designed around the idea of civilization/progress it could turn into a term related to backwardness, also remember that the BC mode allows tribes to turn into CS, so the use of Nations could include both the pre-urban and urban states of these "minor" non-playable civs.

I thought the term "tribe" would work because I still wanted a differentiation between them and more urbanized city-states. I think if we use the names of real life people, I would say maybe use the term "nations." If we use made up generated ones, like how the Barbarian Clans mode does, then I think "tribe" would be okay.

Also, I agree to allow for tribes or nations to eventually develop into cities.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Now these are examples of Nations (minor non playable civs) that I would like to have since release for my ideal CIV7 (some of these could turn into playable in later expansions/DLCs):

Nation/Heritage	Tradition	Unit	Building	Resource
IBERIAN	Tauromaquia	Baleares
ESTRUSCAN	Lautun		Hypogeum
THRACIAN	Draco	Peltast
GAULISH	Bard		Nemeton
GOTHIC	Getica	Gardingus
WENDISH	Drapanki		Gord
HITTITE	Pankus	Gigir
UGRIAN	Ski			Mammoth
SABEAN	SaddMarib			Myrrh
AKSUMITE	Melekket		Hawlit
SOMALI	Beden	Waranle
BERBER	Terakaft		Kasbah
HMONG	Qeej	Hneev
MOLUCCAN	Cakalele			Clove
MAORI	KapaHaka	Waka
HISATSINOM	Kachina		Pueblo
MOCHICA	Tup		Huaca
TAINO	Barabicu		Batey
CARIB	Curare			Cassava

 

[BuchiTaton]

I thought the term "tribe" would work because I still wanted a differentiation between them and more urbanized city-states. I think if we use the names of real life people, I would say maybe use the term "nations." If we use made up generated ones, like how the Barbarian Clans mode does, then I think "tribe" would be okay.

Also, I agree to allow for tribes or nations to eventually develop into cities.

About city states. My idea is that as factions for players to interact with CS(+BC) are replaced by the Nations entities, so in the diplomatic window you have a list of nations (indistinctly if they are in village or city stage) with the portrait (picture not animated 3D model) of a "generic" leader of that culture (not an specific historical figure).
Still the City States are relevant, but now they are Wonder-like special Cities Center possible to be created only by Nations (of course you can control them later by conquest or diplomacy). These CS have unique visuals and buildings to upgrade, for example

- Florence with the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, the Palazzo Vecchio and the Museum of San Marcos.​

- Venice with the Basillica and the Campanile of San Marco, the Doge´s Palace and the Marciana Library.​

- Milan with its Duomo, La Scala and the Galleria Vitorio Emanuele II.​

So each City State have their distictive features and BONUSES, like any city that are a World Heritage Site. Nations would still have wonder-like unique city as capital and interact like a CS. This is an additional element that encorage the player to keep "tribal" Nations around to found a "CS".

 

[reddishrecue]

Barbarians was a term used by the Romans which was non Roman and wasn't part of their ways. Heck, even the native tribes who had missionaries sent to them were called Barbarians by the missionaries themselves.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I would like to see the following:

1. British Tourists
2. Soccer Hooligans
3. Emily in Paris

Fixed that for ya.

I'd like to see something like Barbarian Clans or @Alexander's Hetaroi ideas. There's also possibilities around the ideas that when you meet another civilization you don't immediately meet there leader. You might not know if they are a civilization or are barb or city state.

 

[Patine]

Norway, Sweden would be the civ nations and Vikings the barbarian tribe version of these nations. The overlap is unavoidable in most cases.

Vikings is an actually an ideal candidate, they pretty much made themselves known with raiding and pillaging.

Aren't you the one who thought having Hitler and Stalin in the main game would be a swell and no-controversy idea, too?

Barbarians was a term used by the Romans which was non Roman and wasn't part of their ways. Heck, even the native tribes who had missionaries sent to them were called Barbarians by the missionaries themselves.

Yes, and, "Yue," by the Imperial Chinese, "Gaijin," by the Japanese, "Chichimeca," by the Aztecs, and, "Savages," by Victorian British had similar uses and conotations.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Aren't you the one who thought having Hitler and Stalin in the main game would be a swell and no-controversy idea, too?

Well now that you mention it, if we were going to have named barbarians might as well call them Nazis and Soviets.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Norway, Sweden would be the civ nations and Vikings the barbarian tribe version of these nations. The overlap is unavoidable in most cases.

Vikings is an actually an ideal candidate, they pretty much made themselves known with raiding and pillaging.

The original 'barbaroi' meant Anybody Who Does Not Speak Greek: the original Greek definition included the Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians and anybody on a horse: technically, every Civ except Greece, Byzantium and sometimes Macedon - the Greeks themselves were not too sure about them nekulturnyi northerners. That alone makes 'barbarian' a dubious term to use in the game: it is either perjorative or so broad as to be meaningless.

Likewise, assuming 'Vikings' meant entirely and only One Who Pillages is simply Ignorant. Go read River Kings for an introduction to the Trading Vikings, the river and oceanic merchants who hauled a lot of Middle Eastern and Silk Road merchandise/goods to northern Europe by way of the eastern European rivers and Gibraltar passage to the Mediterranean. The author of the book makes a good case for the Norse/Dane/Swedish traders being far more influential on countries from Russia to Byzantium to England and France than their raiding neighbors were.

And, yes, traders and raiders were frequently the same group: you traded or raided depending on which worked best in the circumstances, pretty much the same dynamic that applied to every maritime group from the Phoenicians to the Haida to the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English 'traders' that entered the Indian Ocean from the 15th century on: 'pirate' and 'merchant-adventurer' were virtually identical to the Mughuls, Arabs, and Southeast Asian peoples that encountered them. Both the Dutch and English East India Companies could be translated into the native languages as "If it ain't nailed down it's mine. If I can pry it loose, it wasn't nailed down."

So, if you want to play as or model the raiding and pillaging, fine, but every such group also Traded - there were always a variety of interactions between 'settled' and tribal groups. To accurately model them, you have to include all the options, not just the Hollywood version of Oafs With Oars.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

i don't want any barbarian tribes, unplayable minor civs.

i want all of the principles that make a civilization to be programmed into the game (cultural authority, etc) so you could mix and match different values (high authoritarianism, high collectivism) to create any civilization theoretically possible, not limited to those that had already existed. use GPT-4 to make conlangs for the civilizations that didn't exist. give players the opportunity to create their own civilization or plop them in a geographical area that matches the earth-existent civilization they chose (if you pick Chinese civilization, it puts you in a river valley surrounded by inhospitable wasteland and mountains)

this would make every premade civ as complex as the civs in civ v or vi btw or even moreso

go FAR and BEYOND with this in advertising. 'CIV ULTIMATE, EVERYONE IS HERE' on a poster with every single leader type in every cultural outfit and every ethnicity imaginable

 

[Patine]

i don't want any barbarian tribes, unplayable minor civs.

GPT-4

What is this in reference to?

(if you pick Chinese civilization, it puts you in a river valley surrounded by inhospitable wasteland and mountains)

What???

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

What is this in reference to?

i played 300 hours of civ IV, olmecs, harappans, etc, are all barbarian cities. i was thinking 'hey, what if those civs are playable too'? and then i sat down and thought 'hey, what if we manage to make any possible civ playable through distelling the formation of civs and their workings and their culture to many principles?'

What???

Chinese civilization was shaped by the fact it was surrounded by

-Mountains

-Desert

-Sea

effectively limiting most of the population to the fertile region

under my 'principles' method of game design, the game forces you into a region similar (but not the same) as the historical region of China to push you into developing in a similar (but again not the same) fashion

 

[Patine]

i played 300 hours of civ IV, olmecs, harappans, etc, are all barbarian cities. i was thinking 'hey, what if those civs are playable too'? and then i sat down and thought 'hey, what if we manage to make any possible civ playable through distelling the formation of civs and their workings and their culture to many principles?'

I haven't played Civ 4, but who, oh, who, would be the leaders of the Olmecs or Harappians, where would there city lists come from, and what would be their UA, UU, or UI? Who knows (quite literally)?

View attachment 667858

Chinese civilization was shaped by the fact it was surrounded by

-Mountains

-Desert

-Sea

effectively limiting most of the population to the fertile region

under my 'principles' method of game design, the game forces you into a region similar (but not the same) as the historical region of China to push you into developing in a similar (but again not the same) fashion

It's not quite that simplistic of a situation - in reality, or on most Civ Earth maps.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I haven't played Civ 4,

heretic!!!! (obvious sarcasm)

but who, oh, who, would be the leaders of the Olmecs or Harappians,

Randomly gen leader names for every state that the Olmecs or Harappians or whatever are divided in (civilization and state separation, remember) according to the rules of the language, which could in theory account for 100+ ingame cities. The thing the Civ player plays is the 'spirit of the Civilization', represented by a historical figure as in civ that sorta pushes the civ into acting a certain way that can be swapped out at any time. Make it very clear that this leader representative doesn't exist in universe and is just a face to make playing the civ easier. Still keep the funny interactions between civilizations (states are just automated, this would be for when you meet other civilizations entirely)

where would there city lists come from,

look through the historical city list, if you can't, try to figure out their language and name cities based off of that, city names are usually things like 'river city'.

and what would be their UA, UU, or UI? Who knows (quite literally)?

that's something the player makes on their own. the premade civilizations just give them a geographical and cultural basis to nudge their civilization into producing distinctive units or buildings or whatever. full custom civilizations have no basis.

It's not quite that simplistic of a situation - in reality, or on most Civ Earth maps.

it isn't. but geography still plays a massive role in terms of how a state is formed and persists itself. If greece were geographically flat, then it would have been united. There would be no stories of greek city states as opposed to greek kingdoms popping up one after the other.

for instance I would like there to be tectonic plate simulation to simulate how the Chinese preferred wood over stone because of the earthquakes their region experienced. Earthquakes destroy stone buildings but destroy wooden buildings slightly less.