Barbarians in Civ VI

[stealth_nsk]

Barbarians are generally early game feature only to encourage having some early military. In Civ5 this was expanded as you may play with defensive-only early military or actively hunt the barbarian camps. But it's still just early-game feature.

It would be good to have some later game targets for using military without full-scale war. City-states could fill this role, but in Civ5 diplomatic impact of wars with City-States was too big. I assume it could be lowered if some system for appearing City-states back will be in place. I.e. they could appear on empty spaces or could emerge from larger empires on special conditions.

This may allow much more hated city-state types, like pirate city-state, etc.

 

[Nixalo]

I would love for simple barbarian amps upgraded into "barbarians states" if you left them alone too long, let them pillage too many districts, or if they attacked a city or city state. Encampments would get ranged attacks and raise the the barbarians spawn rate.

Leave them alone too long and barbarians could form full on hordes and "fund" barbarians camps all over the map.

 

[Novu]

The way CiV games handled barbarians is very inaccurate from any kind of historical perspective.

Barbarians are just proto-civilizations.

They should evolve into city states after they become civilized. Players should be given a multitude of choices to let them develop into competition as potential allies or conquer them.

3000 years ago all of Europe was "Barbarian" but they slowly evolved into civilized states and eventually nations.

 

[ZTZaorish]

There are quite a few interesting suggestions here. I think the one thing that most posts don't seem to mention though is how much will these barbarians challenge the player, and ensure that they don't fast expand without consequences.

I personally recently started playing with raging barbs, and felt the enjoyment of having to push back these barbarians constantly. It really felt like they were there, at gates challenging my nation constantly. I think that whatever they do with barbs, they need to at least give you a fair challenge, especially in the early game.

I'm loving all of these idea though.

I personally would like to see different tribes, that would have different statistics, and total threat levels.
Ex: Mongolian barbs would have the highest threat level and attack with big hordes, regularly, and grow at an even pace. ( 10 attack strength + 5 attack regularly + 5 Growth = 15 Threat Level)
Visigoths - somewhat weak (3), grow quickly (7), attack sometimes (3) Threat level = 13

These are just examples, but this would help the player take into consideration his environment when making decisions. Because right now with Civ V, without raging barbs you barely need anything to defend, let alone consider how strong the barbs might be.

 

[Lexicus]

I would always play V with raging barbs on, much more fun that way. More stuff to do in the early game.

 

[dexters]

The way CiV games handled barbarians is very inaccurate from any kind of historical perspective.

Barbarians are just proto-civilizations.

They should evolve into city states after they become civilized. Players should be given a multitude of choices to let them develop into competition as potential allies or conquer them.

3000 years ago all of Europe was "Barbarian" but they slowly evolved into civilized states and eventually nations.

Well accuracy is only part of it. It's immersion. As I mentioned to Jon earlier, it's jarring to clear out camps in the later half of the game guarded by legacy units like archers and warriors with a Destroyer sitting on the coast

I do tend to agree after a certain amount of time on the map , barbarian camps, whose sole purpose in the early game is to slow down expansion, should evolve into cities, where interactions will change to a more city-state footing but they remain barbarians in that they will pillage your trade routes and attack your ships. Whether they become full fledged city-states or not is a matter for game design or balance.

As once they become settled cities, these barb comes must either be dealt with diplomatically or absorbed or eliminated.

The barbs can have their own tech tree, with their progress determined by proximity and contact with another Civilization. Contact in this sense will be a lot of pillaging of their land/trade routes/battles fought with their units.

A game design twist is they could even build the UUs of a Civ they are close to and had a lot of contract with.

 

[Redaxe]

Not sure how to implement this but the exploration era could have some buccaneer activity centered around rogue city states - perhaps Tortuga? It could be a 'barbarian citystate in the ocean that has a 'barbarian' fleet that patrols the waters nearby that attacks shipping. Presumably it would last until it is cleared out by a larger navy. Could be a nice easter egg. Maybe even a global citystate quest.

 

[zarakand]

Could be a inresting way to represent people that never had maybe settled cities, like the aborigines, San people, inuit, Huns maybe and so on.

They could have their own special units and be appeased by gifts or military might, and if They join you, you would get a UU .

Skickat från min GT-I9195 via Tapatalk

I wish they'd do more to incorporate nomadic tribes that caused major problems for settled civilizations. For example, as you said the Huns, the Mongols (prior to the Mongol Empire with Ghengis Khan, and then various splits), the Massagetae, etc.

I love the Civ games, but they focus only on settled civilizations and nomadic civilizations had a major impact on the world. It'd be great to see a nomadic civilization playable with a very different game play style kind of like how Venice was a one city state - but here you wouldn't be able to build cities just take them.

 

[dexters]

I wish they'd do more to incorporate nomadic tribes that caused major problems for settled civilizations. For example, as you said the Huns, the Mongols (prior to the Mongol Empire with Ghengis Khan, and then various splits), the Massagetae, etc.

I love the Civ games, but they focus only on settled civilizations and nomadic civilizations had a major impact on the world. It'd be great to see a nomadic civilization playable with a very different game play style kind of like how Venice was a one city state - but here you wouldn't be able to build cities just take them.

Well its hard when said nomadic tribes are Civs of their own in the games (Huns/Mongols) were considered barbarians and caused serious damage to the the existing geopolitical empires of the day.

The Huns are credited with the destruction of the western Roman empire. The East barely just survived and went on to become the Byzantine empire.

 

[mattspoker]

Barbarians should function to make sure you can't just skip a military, gain some unit XP, and maybe some gold. I know it was great to absorb a city, but what made barbarians barbarians was the pull of a rich land and their own poverty/hardship/calamity. Especially on higher difficulties, a spare city without a settler seems too much imbalance. I was much more fond of the German(V) ability to maybe turn a defeated foe. Perhaps not historical, but that seems the most balanced boon from fighting barbs.

 

[m15a]

The way CiV games handled barbarians is very inaccurate from any kind of historical perspective.

To me, Civ barbarians make historical sense in a sort of "noncausal" interface to what your civ encounters. By noncausal, I mean that the barbarians you encounter are from civilizations (or communities or whatever) that you won't end up having longterm diplomatic relationships with later on in the game - if you will, then they'd be city states or other civs. And they're just an "interface" because they don't describe the whole group of people, but only the part that affects your civ, which is the combat. Those non-civ groups of people might become parts of your civ or another civ or a city state, and they might remain independent and have diplomatic relations, but they don't affect the game that much.

That might just be some concept I'm imagining that has nothing to do with what's intended, but it works for me (as a non-historian). One of the things that makes my version of the story of barbarians unconvincing is that the way you interact with other civs in the early game doesn't resemble the way you interact with barbarians - you don't kill each other on sight. A Civ game could be made that way (and I think some mods are like that?), but it might just not be fun to be attacked by everyone from turn 1. My story also makes less sense the later you get in the game.

All that said, camps turning into cities or just cities popping up after turn 1 to simulate that could be interesting, especially if the city states/minor civs have some sort of memory, like, they'll hate you if you conquered nearby "goody hut" villages in the past. That could add an interesting tradeoff and add some awareness of the consequences of conquest.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Well its hard when said nomadic tribes are Civs of their own in the games (Huns/Mongols) were considered barbarians and caused serious damage to the the existing geopolitical empires of the day.

The Huns are credited with the destruction of the western Roman empire. The East barely just survived and went on to become the Byzantine empire.

This is why I take issue with the way Barbarians are represented in Civ. The game doesn't give an accurate representation of who barbarians were. The game implies that barbarians were warmongering brutes instead of civilizations that were resisting imperial rule.

The Huns and the Mongols were warmongering people but they had an identity and a complexity and a culture. Barbarians would make more sense if we just called them Warmongering Clans. But maybe I'm overanalyzing this.

 

[dexters]

This is why I take issue with the way Barbarians are represented in Civ. The game doesn't give an accurate representation of who barbarians were. The game implies that barbarians were warmongering brutes instead of civilizations that were resisting imperial rule.

The Huns and the Mongols were warmongering people but they had an identity and a complexity and a culture. Barbarians would make more sense if we just called them Warmongering Clans. But maybe I'm overanalyzing this.

Right and from a historical perspective, barbarians were groups of people, tribes and nations in the periphery of a polity that is often less advanced but not necessarily devoid of culture, identity or organization.

The Greeks considered Macedonians 'barbarians' and yet it is Alexander who represents the Greeks in Civ

In the context of the game, Barbarians are simply 'the other' ;peoples who don't conform to your rule.

A mechanic that ties their evolution to your empires would be interesting. You could then have barbarians spawn cities that eventually incorporate into your empire. And nothing will ever stop me from calling the Huns barbarians even if they sit on the big table with the rest of us.

 

[AriochIV]

Barbarians and Minor Tribes were abstractions for very straightforward gameplay mechanics. There's no need for anyone to get their inner social justice warrior all riled up over it.

It would be neat if the barbarian and goody hut mechanics were more elaborate in Civ VI and warranted greater detail, but if they aren't then I don't think there's any need to get all wound up about the political correctness of the term "barbarian."

 

[Nixalo]

What if barbarians could grow and evolve into proper civ. Like if a barbarian unit manages to take a city state, it absorbs the citystate and it's old encampment turns into a city as well. Then BAM! Now Ghandi is in your game.

Surprise! The barbarians were Indians all along. That's why they had elephants.

 

[Nick31]

Barbarians and Minor Tribes were abstractions for very straightforward gameplay mechanics. There's no need for anyone to get their inner social justice warrior all riled up over it.

It would be neat if the barbarian and goody hut mechanics were more elaborate in Civ VI and warranted greater detail, but if they aren't then I don't think there's any need to get all wound up about the political correctness of the term "barbarian."

Indeed. I'll reiterate my thought at the beginning of the thread, which is that it'd be nice if barbarian spawns (particularly as the game goes on and on higher difficulties) have "missions" where when they spawn with an assigned goal, i.e. if on coast, to make a beeline for Cargo ships, or if on land, to make a beeline for a certain District type. A spawn with a goal of taking stuff (and not just as rogue units), would be fun.

 

[dexters]

Barbarians and Minor Tribes were abstractions for very straightforward gameplay mechanics. There's no need for anyone to get their inner social justice warrior all riled up over it.

It would be neat if the barbarian and goody hut mechanics were more elaborate in Civ VI and warranted greater detail, but if they aren't then I don't think there's any need to get all wound up about the political correctness of the term "barbarian."

I don't see anyone getting wound up,or trying to be politically correct. just discussing the term barbarian as used historically applies to any culture said culture deems as inferior. The Greeks applied to everyone else but themselves.
The Chinese also used the same model, describing people outside their polity (non Han chinese) as Barbarians, but those being described as Barbarians, including white westerns certainly were not.

It's just interesting to note this when discussing how barbarians can be improved as it was suggested upthread the game simulate the Huns' rampage in Europe and central asia as a barbarian mechanic, but whoops, are already a Civ in Civ5. Maybe they'll be demoted again next game.

I get that you want to say it's an abstraction and that point was made. I'm with you on that as I'm generally not the one demanding simulation of history in Civ mechanics, but all the other stuff seems passive aggressive for not a good reason.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I never liked something from nothing in the middle of nowhere. It's abrasive (not in the social justice sense, but in the freaking nuisance-in-game sense). Barbs are best represented by something like "minor civs" in Civ IV, akin to an always-hostile city state in V that goes on raids or occasionally tries to conquer outright.

That kind of implementation would scale for game speed better, too, and could make military-oriented early choices more viable.

Spawn-move in V is asinine too. I hate getting telefragged by barbarian camps off screen, horsemen are the worst offenders. Once experienced you can account for it and do counter-intuitive stuff like camping the camp, but getting blasted by units from off screen that spawn + move out of nowhere is fake difficulty.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Hey, reality wise it beat the heck out of having your entire troop of settlers eaten by a lion (?!?).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Given that the game apparently begins in a state of conflict, it could very well be that the City-States are the ones launching one-unit raids on your territory rather than barbarians.