Barbarians in Civ VI

[CivCube]

That's brilliant point, as Gorbles already said.

Personally I'd get rid of barbarians as understood by civ5 (basically critters ) and instead merged city states and barbarians into Minor Factions divided on few types
*City states
*Nomadic tribes (units travelling across the map with no static settlements or cities, periodically 'settling' in some preferred rich lands)
*War tribes (closest to civ5 barbarians, permanent settlements)
*Pirates (anarchic ports or settlements spawning naval or embarked units pillaging coasts for cash)
*Rebels (conditional enemies of a government)

City states, pirates and rebels would advance with ages and change names to more modern ones, while nomadic and war tribes would advance slowly at best and basically be 'natives'.
Each of those type of minor factions would have few types of diplomacy possible. With pirates it'd be paying them ransom or turning them into corsairs or allying with them, with rebels it'd be negotiations regarding their demands, with war tribes and nomads it'd be negotiations regarding their lands and rights (and possible peaceful integration of them), city states would get civ5 functionality minus bribes and with more active diplomacy (capable of fighting other city states on their own, or allying them).

^^^this entire post is of course just my personal dream impossible to materialize

Love this. Civ has been missing individual-level agency and it puts the game at odds with its own themes.

 

[JeszKar]

I like the idea (I had a similar one back then) I would image it like something these

Nomadic like the Huns or the Sioux: They have territories and units but no cities. If you don't anger them they mostly peaceful but every once in a while they can go to war and even take over a civilization.

Non-nomadic tribes: like the Tupis or the Ainus: similar to the nomads but they have villages.

Pirates: Barbarians on the seas. They can be bribed.

Rebels, terrorists: Ideological, religious etc. rebels. Only spawn near cities during unstable situations.

Minor states: Like the civilization but they don't try to win the game or even expand that much.

 

[hugojackson18]

That's brilliant point, as Gorbles already said.

Personally I'd get rid of barbarians as understood by civ5 (basically critters ) and instead merged city states and barbarians into Minor Factions divided on few types
*City states
*Nomadic tribes (units travelling across the map with no static settlements or cities, periodically 'settling' in some preferred rich lands)
*War tribes (closest to civ5 barbarians, permanent settlements)
*Pirates (anarchic ports or settlements spawning naval or embarked units pillaging coasts for cash)
*Rebels (conditional enemies of a government)

City states, pirates and rebels would advance with ages and change names to more modern ones, while nomadic and war tribes would advance slowly at best and basically be 'natives'.
Each of those type of minor factions would have few types of diplomacy possible. With pirates it'd be paying them ransom or turning them into corsairs or allying with them, with rebels it'd be negotiations regarding their demands, with war tribes and nomads it'd be negotiations regarding their lands and rights (and possible peaceful integration of them), city states would get civ5 functionality minus bribes and with more active diplomacy (capable of fighting other city states on their own, or allying them).

^^^this entire post is of course just my personal dream impossible to materialize

This would be absolutely brilliant. I really hope they push the gameplay much further than Civ 5,and these kind of things could really make Civ 6 stand out and truly live to its legacy

 

[Oerdin]

It wouldn't be civ without barbarians.

 

[hugojackson18]

I really hope Firaxis is reading this and seeing how deep we can go with things and how things can be explore past the "just random popping up units on the lap attacking everyone". I really hope Civ 6 is gonna have such a deeper level of gameplay. Come on let's do this!

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

 

[brianshapiro]

*Rebels (conditional enemies of a government)

Like partisan units in Civ2.

 

[Nick31]

Barbs are fascinating because of how they interplay with both the human and the AI. A non-aggressive AI in BNW, like Morocco or Maya often suffers a hell of a lot more to Raging Barbs on High Difficulty than the human. So it's an interesting decision for overall gameplay. Certainly I could see a CVI Expansion play around with them.

As of now, even just BNW raging Barbs could wreck havoc, because you're building wonders Outside your city. I'd you only have a few Archers around your Capital and a Barb Horseman charges from nowhere? Maybe you lose Hanging Gardens! That's a massive mechanic.

As far as mid-game Barb Spawns being actually dangerous as opposed to annoyances/xp farms, I I think they could do a better job of incorporating a Partisan/Pirate Raider mechanic with up to date units/objectives, i.e. a Mission to ransack a Market District. They could even code it with a bit of cheating so it knows through Fog exactly where the richest districts are.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I almost feel like that omission in Civ5 was due to technical limitations as the game had to handle City-States as well. Though it bugged me why they couldn't have a barbarian city-state faction

Wasn't a technical limitation, just wanted to make sure the line between minors and barbarians was clear.

- Jon

 

[dexters]

Wasn't a technical limitation, just wanted to make sure the line between minors and barbarians was clear.

- Jon

Thanks for confirming Jon. Do you feel like Barbarians could have had a 2nd wind in the game? Or perhaps more defined evolution of barbs and their camps (perhaps even venturing into terrorists as a model of late game barbs).
was the use of terrorists discussed at all? (not necessarily saying I want them in game, but it's been a known request since Civ3 )

Unlike previous Civ games, unsettled land in Civ5 is far more common and it's always weird to have to clear out camps guarded by an archer with a destroyer and a galley so that's one area in Civ5 I was never truly happy with.

 

[Lexicus]

That's brilliant point, as Gorbles already said.

Personally I'd get rid of barbarians as understood by civ5 (basically critters ) and instead merged city states and barbarians into Minor Factions divided on few types
*City states
*Nomadic tribes (units travelling across the map with no static settlements or cities, periodically 'settling' in some preferred rich lands)
*War tribes (closest to civ5 barbarians, permanent settlements)
*Pirates (anarchic ports or settlements spawning naval or embarked units pillaging coasts for cash)
*Rebels (conditional enemies of a government)

City states, pirates and rebels would advance with ages and change names to more modern ones, while nomadic and war tribes would advance slowly at best and basically be 'natives'.
Each of those type of minor factions would have few types of diplomacy possible. With pirates it'd be paying them ransom or turning them into corsairs or allying with them, with rebels it'd be negotiations regarding their demands, with war tribes and nomads it'd be negotiations regarding their lands and rights (and possible peaceful integration of them), city states would get civ5 functionality minus bribes and with more active diplomacy (capable of fighting other city states on their own, or allying them).

^^^this entire post is of course just my personal dream impossible to materialize

You beat me to it. I'm hoping for more...perhaps fluidity would be the right word? There needs to be more interaction between "barbarians" and civilizations, and I would also hope for some dynamic system where the boundaries between each of these categories aren't fixed, but different groups can move around, perhaps starting as city-states, becoming a nomadic tribe to move across most of the map, and then settling down again as a city-state.
Basically, I would hope for some Rhy's and Fall-type stuff going on, with civilizations collapsing into nomadic tribes or clusters of city-states, and nomadic tribes becoming civilizations or city-states uniting into a civilization or...you get the idea.

Won't hold my breath for any of this though (not saying that in a mean-spirited way, I imagine that it would be virtually impossible to actually implement any of this in the epic game).

The funny thing is, probably the quintessential barbarians (Germans, Huns) are already in V as major civilizations.

"Barbarians" originally is just a cultural conceit that meant "anyone not a Greek."

 

[Xandinho]

It is interesting that they receive names: Alans, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Visigoths...

And each tribe appears in specific places on the map. For example, the Vandals appear in the north of the continent, while that the Franks appear in the south of the same continent. They could have specific characteristics.

 

[Hail]

Fighting barbarians have been mentioned as a way to help your military technology develop.

from what I gathered: promotions are "reworked" and any gained combat experience goes toward researching a military tech.

 

[Haig]

It looks like the vanilla Civ VI will have the biggest amount of features for a brand new Civ game, so that definately leaves room for expansions to think more about the barbarians.

I don't recommend anyone to expect them going wild with them just yet.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

It looks like the vanilla Civ VI will have the biggest amount of features for a brand new Civ game, so that definately leaves room for expansions to think more about the barbarians.

I don't recommend anyone to expect them going wild with them just yet.

I was thinking the same thing. An in depth barbarian overhaul would make for a great expansion.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Thanks for confirming Jon. Do you feel like Barbarians could have had a 2nd wind in the game? Or perhaps more defined evolution of barbs and their camps (perhaps even venturing into terrorists as a model of late game barbs).
was the use of terrorists discussed at all? (not necessarily saying I want them in game, but it's been a known request since Civ3 )

Unlike previous Civ games, unsettled land in Civ5 is far more common and it's always weird to have to clear out camps guarded by an archer with a destroyer and a galley so that's one area in Civ5 I was never truly happy with.

It's tough because there's not a direct lineage between ancient era "barbarians" and later-era rebels, terrorists, etc. I think there's definitely potential there, but it's not quite as simple as just extending things forward. I think you need a lot of new mechanics, which would probably add a lot though to be honest. The late game has never been all that great in Civ, as everyone here is already aware.

- Jon

 

[Le Sage]

I'm hoping there will be some more effort put into Barbarians as well. The Barbarian camps of antiquity could develop and spawn into more interesting features as time goes on; like become Pirate havens during the renaissance or rogue states (like North Korea or whatever) in later eras. Make them a real and updated threat to the civilized nations of the world as they should be throughout.

 

[brianshapiro]

It's tough because there's not a direct lineage between ancient era "barbarians" and later-era rebels, terrorists, etc. I think there's definitely potential there, but it's not quite as simple as just extending things forward. I think you need a lot of new mechanics, which would probably add a lot though to be honest. The late game has never been all that great in Civ, as everyone here is already aware.

- Jon

Adding terrorism would definitely bring in an element of the modern world to the game which is currently absent. Partisan type units would fill the space between barbarians and terrorists. I've also suggested chemical warfare, which can start in the WWI era, later be employed by terrorists and terror states, and then extend into further bio-warfare in future tech.

 

[shaglio]

I'm hoping there will be some more effort put into Barbarians as well. The Barbarian camps of antiquity could develop and spawn into more interesting features as time goes on; like become Pirate havens during the renaissance or rogue states (like North Korea or whatever) in later eras. Make them a real and updated threat to the civilized nations of the world as they should be throughout.

Barb camps already do spawn naval units. They will start popping more advanced units to match the times (I've seen Barb Paratroopers once). The problem is that, isolated camps (such as those at the poles) will still have their original Warrior/Archer/Horseman long into the later eras if they're not killed. My suggestion is, once the camps are able to pop more advanced units, all existing ones should be automatically upgraded to make them more comparable to rebels/terrorists/what-have-you.

 

[Nikolai II]

Making some changes to the barb system would be nice, I think.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I'm not sure why you would want a barbarian faction. This makes no sense from a historical perspective. What you are calling barbarians were actually other civilizations that were viewed as obstacles by major civilizations.

Would a fluid continuum between City-States and unsettled Barbarian spawns be the best recreation, then?

But the best thing about City-States is watching them get bullied by Barbarians...