Barbarian of City State?!

[Lake n Bake]

So one night I tried to load a mod without the internet, and it crashed the game. When I reloaded and started a new game I noticed I was teamed up with a civilization I had never seen before, Barbarian of City State! So I played the game for a little bit, but this is as far as I got before it crashed the game and i could'nt play anymore. Enjoy

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Intresting, for one, I'm surprised the colour scheme isn't thet raditional Red/Black, (not tha tit looks nice, it looks horrendous, I tried setting that colour for Askia in one of my fun-to-play scenarios).

 

[Aaron90495]

I have a theory: remember when everyone found those files to an as-of-yet-unreleased Civil War scenario? I think you mistakenly found one of its civs. The capital is Cherokee, and another city is Anasazi (a Pueblo town, by the looks of it on Google). Plus, the icon is for George Washington, and the scenario presumably contains the USA. I'm a bit confused by the misspelled "Teoihuacan," though...

Anyone else have thoughts?

 

[filli_noctus]

Did the mod add civs? If so my guess is that when the crash occurred the advanced set up screen saved with the ID of the modded civ. When the unmodded game was launched it pulled the default details for that ID, and as the ID for unmodded civs +1 is for barbs and city states that's where the name and leader come from. The leader icon would be because Washington is first in the list, the cities not having models is because they aren't defined - barbs not having cities and CSs being defined in a different way. As to the city list, not a clue but I'd guess it's pulling them from CS names in a scenario (New World would be my first bet but the unreleased
ACW is possible) or if the mod was a native Americans civ then it may somehow have saved the city list.

 

[Lake n Bake]

the mod i tried to load was the Faerun mod for G&K by Framedarchitecture. And i think the reason it used the Washington icon is because i normaly team myself up with Washington. I noticed that the icon would change to the last person i talked to. So after i talked to Suleiman, Barbarian of City States icon was Suleiman.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That is interesting. Some sort of vestigial code for an idea that they dropped or the beginning of one they will put in later? I suspect the former.

I think the Washington icon is probably a placeholder.

I would actually like to see a Barbarian-type City-State. It would periodically generate barbarians like a camp does, but it would be a city. The other city-states wouldn't care if you conquered it. In fact, that could give you influence in nearby city-states for doing so. This would give the Mongols' UA some actual usefulness.

Being allies with a Barbarian City-State would not yield any benefit beyond access to their resources. However, the Barbarian City-State would be programmed to keep a larger military force (non-barbarians) and to be more aggressive when at war, so you could use them as a tool against your rivals.

 

[Biologist]

I would actually like to see a Barbarian-type City-State. It would periodically generate barbarians like a camp does, but it would be a city. The other city-states wouldn't care if you conquered it. In fact, that could give you influence in nearby city-states for doing so. This would give the Mongols' UA some actual usefulness.

Being allies with a Barbarian City-State would not yield any benefit beyond access to their resources. However, the Barbarian City-State would be programmed to keep a larger military force (non-barbarians) and to be more aggressive when at war, so you could use them as a tool against your rivals.

That would be very similar to the independent cities that appeared in Civ IV. Somewhere between a barbarian camp and a Civ V city state, they would build units and attack if approached, and could not be engaged in diplomacy. They could grow quite large, however, and even build world wonders. I always found it funny to capture an independent city and get the Hanging Gardens as a bonus.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That would be very similar to the independent cities that appeared in Civ IV. Somewhere between a barbarian camp and a Civ V city state, they would build units and attack if approached, and could not be engaged in diplomacy. They could grow quite large, however, and even build world wonders. I always found it funny to capture an independent city and get the Hanging Gardens as a bonus.

Yes, I'm well aware of the barb cities in civ IV. I loved grabbing their cities.

The difference this time being that you can interact with the barbarians to a certain extent and unleash them upon your foes.

 

[Ricardo_]

Is there a way to reproduce this?

 

[askia53]

Is there a way to reproduce this?

Yea, got any auto saves so we can play alongside them?

 

[Lake n Bake]

Unfortunately the only save I have is the turn right before it crashes, so there is really nothing to play.
Askia53, I believe the word you are looking for is “Ximicacan”.

 

[ImperatorBird]

This seems to mesh quite well with the findings in this thread. The city list is from Civ IV, but the fact that there is a mechanism for a barbarian civilization to exist and build cities alongside other civilizations suggests that Firaxis may have intended for barbarian cities to make a return early in V's development, or, it could simply be vestigial code from IV.

 

[seanflokstra7]

I would actually like to see a Barbarian-type City-State. It would periodically generate barbarians like a camp does, but it would be a city. The other city-states wouldn't care if you conquered it. In fact, that could give you influence in nearby city-states for doing so. This would give the Mongols' UA some actual usefulness.

Being allies with a Barbarian City-State would not yield any benefit beyond access to their resources. However, the Barbarian City-State would be programmed to keep a larger military force (non-barbarians) and to be more aggressive when at war, so you could use them as a tool against your rivals.

The Huns are technically barbarians, but not a city-state

 

[TPangolin]

If anyone is curious, here is the full Barbarian city list:

Spoiler :

CHEROKEE


ANASAZI


TEOIHUACAN


OLMEC


ZAPOTEC


CHINOOK


APACHE


CHEHALIS


ILLINOIS


NAVAJO


CARIB


SAXON


VANDAL


GOTH


ANGLE


MAGYAR


KHAZAK


BULGAR


ALEMANNI


BURGUNDIAN


GEPID


HUN


JUTE



PHEONICIAN



ESTRUSCAN



THRACIAN



PHRYGIAN



GAUL



MINOAN



MYCENIAN



CIMMERIAN



LIGURIAN



NUMIDIAN



SARMATIAN



SCYTHIAN



VISIGOTH



ASSYRIAN



HITTITE



HARAPPAN



MAURYAN



PARTHIAN



HARAPPAN



NUBIAN



BACTRIAN



CIRCASSIAN



CUMAN



HURRIAN



KASSITE



BANTU



KHOISAN



LIBYAN



SHANGIAN



YAYOI



ZHOU



AINU



POLYNESIAN



ARYAN



AVAR



GHUZZ



HSUNGNU



KUSHANS



YUECHI


SAKAE



UZBEK


TARTAR

 

[PhilBowles]

This seems to mesh quite well with the findings in this thread. The city list is from Civ IV, but the fact that there is a mechanism for a barbarian civilization to exist and build cities alongside other civilizations suggests that Firaxis may have intended for barbarian cities to make a return early in V's development, or, it could simply be vestigial code from IV.

I don't think Civ IV's code used the term "City State", so it's not from Civ IV. It's evidently from early in Civ V's lifetime, though, since it includes Polynesian and Hun as city names.