[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[8housesofelixir]

Just your monthly (?) reminder that, according to Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese, every single non-Greek/Roman/Chinese culture is "barbarian", their society organized in "tribes", and their leader is titled "chief".

Among these "barbarians" there were Carthaginians (who had complex socio-political structure and rich cultural traditions), Germanic peoples, (who already established kingship-based confederations with a deliberative body, but still being called "tribes"), and then-newly-established United States (who was being described as "United Tribes" that led by a "General Chief" in mid-Qing sources).

Camps develop into City States, which was already implemented in Civ IV in the past, is an okay idea on its own - these people may not be full Civs due to various reasons, but they were not "barbarians" either.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

While perhaps interesting from a gameplay perspective, markets, even if transient, have simply been part of human society for as long as one person has had something another one didn't. Even in gift societies (which arguably is still a form of trade), strangers trade.

you can move your commercial hub every 15 turns for a bonus on the adjacency for 10 turns, or something?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Camps develop into City States, which was already implemented in Civ IV in the past, is an okay idea on its own - these people may not be full Civs due to various reasons, but they were not "barbarians" either.

So while we're on the subject of City States vis-a-vis 'developments' in game, how about Upgrading them a bit while we are talking about potential developments from Tribal Camps?

Right now, City States are extremely Passive. They have no active diplomacy, are merely recipients of Envoys and influence. They initiate only 'generic' trade, no specific Resource trading and haggling. Their armies, although large for the early game, are completely defensive - they will go after nearby Barbarians, but only attack other Civs if Suzereigned, never initiate conflict. They do no research, develop no Religion (they are utterly passive in that aspect of the game, too) and appear to have no cultural interactions at all.

Using the new system of Upgrades from Camps to City States, if we aren't for the foreseeable future going to get Upgrades from City State to Not-In-This-Particular-Game-Yet Civilizations, how about 'lesser upgrades' of City States into, say, Minor Powers?

There are a number of potential actions/activities these could have:

1. They have diplomatic interactions - maybe a generic Audience Room instead of a fully-animated Leader - so that you can demand/request/beg for specific actions from them - intervention, for example, against a specific Hostile Camp nearby, or a Trade Agreement for a Resource, or to establish a Trading Post early in their City. They might request things specifically from you: trade us some of X Resource, pay us X Gold.
2. They should have their own Technologies/Civics. They may not have separate Research (that could get very complex very fast) but a simple 'osmosis' mechanic could allow them to acquire technologies from nearby Civ or Civs they trade with (similar to how they acquire the ability to Upgrade their units now, but expanded). That might also allow you to acquire Technologies from them (and an expansion of Peter's UA)
3. If we can now 'hire' Tribe/Barb units, why not be able to hire individual units from City States instead of, as soon as the Camp becomes a City State, be limited to an All Or Nothing 'hired army' mechanic? Add a collection of City State Specific UUs for militaristic City States, and we're on our way to a real Mercenary system in the game, which is also Long Overdue.
4. If you can Suzereign a City State, and gain Cultural Influence over them, and spread your religion to them, why can't you absorb them? In other words, at some point why doesn't the City State decide to join your civ?
5. And, why don't City States cooperate with each other? Why not diplomatic relations among City States, so that attacking one of them may involve you in More War Than You Wanted with that state and several of its neighboring City States? Or find that the City State that you've Suzereigned is going to war with another City State and is requesting your help - and that other City State is part of the 'sphere of influence' of another Civ and you may get dragged into a Major War you don't really want (right now, anyway). It is probably too much to have a little graphic Archduke getting assassinated in a City State, but the idea and concept should be there . . .

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Oh yeah - this is no shade on you at all! Just explaining my thinking here on why non-historical names! That word - "barbs" - is too associated right now.

So then to my mind the problem is still that a mechanic which could be evolved and humanized is still labeled "barbarians." Seems like a natural space for the game to evolve players' understanding of tribalism and less structured cultures instead of just othering them as nameless "savages." In fact, not be rude, but I was quite surprised that for trying to be as woke as VI wanted to be, that it even still had barbarians and not something more sensitive.

Which, @Andrew Johnson [FXS] , if we actually got such a full barbarian overhaul in a season 2 DLC, I would buy the whole season, no questions asked.

 

[SirMediocrity]

5. And, why don't City States cooperate with each other? Why not diplomatic relations among City States, so that attacking one of them may involve you in More War Than You Wanted with that state and several of its neighboring City States? Or find that the City State that you've Suzereigned is going to war with another City State and is requesting your help - and that other City State is part of the 'sphere of influence' of another Civ and you may get dragged into a Major War you don't really want (right now, anyway). It is probably too much to have a little graphic Archduke getting assassinated in a City State, but the idea and concept should be there . . .

I'm just gonna add this to the fifth point: I think it'd be cool for city-states to form confederations/leagues sort of like the Greek or Italian city-states.

EDIT: It could make for an interesting dynamic where some city-states band together while others give into outside influence.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

4. If you can Suzereign a City State, and gain Cultural Influence over them, and spread your religion to them, why can't you absorb them? In other words, at some point why doesn't the City State decide to join your civ?

You can absorb them. Trust me. I played enough games as Eleanor where I accenditally gobbled up city-States I wanted to let alive for their suzerainty bonuses.

So then to my mind the problem is still that a mechanic which could be evolved and humanized is still labeled "barbarians." Seems like a natural space for the game to evolve players' understanding of tribalism and less structured cultures instead of just othering them as nameless "savages." In fact, not be rude, but I was quite surprised that for trying to be as woke as VI wanted to be, that it even still had barbarians and not something more sensitive.

Which, @Andrew Johnson [FXS] , if we actually got such a full barbarian overhaul in a season 2 DLC, I would buy the whole season, no questions asked.

I think it's also important to look at the game with gameplay perspectives and not only historical perspectives. Tribal huts are supposed to be small boons you encountered at the beginning of the game; city-States are supposed to be small player you must bend your diplomacy around; and barbs are here to have a permanent enemy to fight against. As a peaceful player who doesn't like war, I'm still attached to having a permanent, impersonal threat over me, like natural disasters. Keeping a permanent enemy roaming around (opposed to having tribes that can be dealt with diplomatically) is for me something necessary for the game.

 

[Zegangani]

You can absorb them. Trust me. I played enough games as Eleanor where I accenditally gobbled up city-States I wanted to let alive for their suzerainty bonuses.

You mean with Loyalty Pressure?
That's an Effect that can affect practically any City, but you also need RnF or GS for that to happen. I think It would be nice if CS could join your Civs without having to have X DLC, something like: if you have been their Suzerain for a strait number of turns (15? 20? depending on Game Speed?). But some more diplomatic actions should also affect the conversion, like certain CSs prefering certain Governments, and depending on all your actions towards a CS that happened in the Past (Trade Deals, Settling too close to them...etc).

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

So while we're on the subject of City States vis-a-vis 'developments' in game, how about Upgrading them a bit while we are talking about potential developments from Tribal Camps?

Right now, City States are extremely Passive. They have no active diplomacy, are merely recipients of Envoys and influence. They initiate only 'generic' trade, no specific Resource trading and haggling. Their armies, although large for the early game, are completely defensive - they will go after nearby Barbarians, but only attack other Civs if Suzereigned, never initiate conflict. They do no research, develop no Religion (they are utterly passive in that aspect of the game, too) and appear to have no cultural interactions at all.

Using the new system of Upgrades from Camps to City States, if we aren't for the foreseeable future going to get Upgrades from City State to Not-In-This-Particular-Game-Yet Civilizations, how about 'lesser upgrades' of City States into, say, Minor Powers?

There are a number of potential actions/activities these could have:

1. They have diplomatic interactions - maybe a generic Audience Room instead of a fully-animated Leader - so that you can demand/request/beg for specific actions from them - intervention, for example, against a specific Hostile Camp nearby, or a Trade Agreement for a Resource, or to establish a Trading Post early in their City. They might request things specifically from you: trade us some of X Resource, pay us X Gold.
2. They should have their own Technologies/Civics. They may not have separate Research (that could get very complex very fast) but a simple 'osmosis' mechanic could allow them to acquire technologies from nearby Civ or Civs they trade with (similar to how they acquire the ability to Upgrade their units now, but expanded). That might also allow you to acquire Technologies from them (and an expansion of Peter's UA)
3. If we can now 'hire' Tribe/Barb units, why not be able to hire individual units from City States instead of, as soon as the Camp becomes a City State, be limited to an All Or Nothing 'hired army' mechanic? Add a collection of City State Specific UUs for militaristic City States, and we're on our way to a real Mercenary system in the game, which is also Long Overdue.
4. If you can Suzereign a City State, and gain Cultural Influence over them, and spread your religion to them, why can't you absorb them? In other words, at some point why doesn't the City State decide to join your civ?
5. And, why don't City States cooperate with each other? Why not diplomatic relations among City States, so that attacking one of them may involve you in More War Than You Wanted with that state and several of its neighboring City States? Or find that the City State that you've Suzereigned is going to war with another City State and is requesting your help - and that other City State is part of the 'sphere of influence' of another Civ and you may get dragged into a Major War you don't really want (right now, anyway). It is probably too much to have a little graphic Archduke getting assassinated in a City State, but the idea and concept should be there . . .

I think 1-3 already exist just fine with the suzerainty mechanic. You do quests/spend envoys instead of using the trade screen or gold. Hiring individual units seems overly complex.

I also don’t know about mechanic 4. It’s easy enough to conquer a city state if you want it in your empire- i think you’re a historian, but are there really lots of examples of independent polities joining nearby empires and giving up sovereignty without the use of force or a strong threat of force?

I generally like #5 though- if you declare war on a CS, all the CS that you’re not suzerain of would then start to treat you like a hostile entity. The problem is that AIs seem more likely than players to attack CS, while players would probably be much better at diplomatically isolating a CS prior to attack- and so it’s just another hurdle to the AI

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think it's also important to look at the game with gameplay perspectives and not only historical perspectives. Tribal huts are supposed to be small boons you encountered at the beginning of the game; city-States are supposed to be small player you must bend your diplomacy around; and barbs are here to have a permanent enemy to fight against. As a peaceful player who doesn't like war, I'm still attached to having a permanent, impersonal threat over me, like natural disasters. Keeping a permanent enemy roaming around (opposed to having tribes that can be dealt with diplomatically) is for me something necessary for the game.

I think the only solution for Civ VII then is to have us start an era earlier in a "Nomadic Age" and have our initial enemies be sabertooth tigers, bears, and mammoths, similar to Humankind, while various groups of people, called "tribes", have to find food to survive.
From there the playable "tribes" will eventually found cities and enter the Ancient Era becoming full fledged civilizations, but it might take longer for various tribes to reach city-state status.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

So while we're on the subject of City States vis-a-vis 'developments' in game, how about Upgrading them a bit while we are talking about potential developments from Tribal Camps?

This sounds really cool! But knowing how much art, QA, design, etc., work go into such a thing... man, this is almost expansion pack-level work!

Seems like a natural space for the game to evolve players' understanding of tribalism and less structured cultures instead of just othering them as nameless "savages." In fact, not be rude, but I was quite surprised that for trying to be as woke as VI wanted to be, that it even still had barbarians and not something more sensitive.

Agree! To San Montuoso's point, it's my role at Firaxis to be the historian and to leave gameplay to the designers. So I'm always going to take the historical perspective because that's my job, but sometimes there's gameplay concerns or other issues that take priority, or simply that seven or however many years ago people were focused on other aspects that would change from CivV. I wasn't in the room then, but I would have made something similar to your point, above. But ultimately, the point of Civ is to steal your precious waking hours and put them in a vault under Baltimore to fuel our real-world transdimensional domination schemes.

Oops. I meant to say the point of Civ is to be fun.

Which, @Andrew Johnson [FXS] , if we actually got such a full barbarian overhaul in a season 2 DLC, I would buy the whole season, no questions asked.

Understood!

 

[SirMediocrity]

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the barbarian game mode was a step in the right direction. I'd love to see an upgraded version of it implemented into the games in the future.

An important point here (in relation to a thread about possible leaders) is that they can also serve as a way to include leaders and civs who are tribal in nature and/or would not fit into the game.

 

[Zaarin]

But ultimately, the point of Civ is to steal your precious waking hours and put them in a vault under Baltimore to fuel our real-world transdimensional domination schemes.

Oh, dear, is letting that slip going to result in your being sealed away in a time box and replaced with a duplicate like Ed Beach was after the Civilopedia incident?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the barbarian game mode was a step in the right direction. I'd love to see an upgraded version of it implemented into the games in the future.

An important point here (in relation to a thread about possible leaders) is that they can also serve as a way to include leaders and civs who are tribal in nature and/or would not fit into the game.

Possibly my favorite Game Mode as of now, I concur with this statement.

Also, considering that the devs didn't use the names of actual peoples on this earth for Barbarian Clans... If there's a second pass at all, is there a chance that we get a Khazar or Manchu Civ?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But ultimately, the point of Civ is to steal your precious waking hours and put them in a vault under Baltimore to fuel our real-world transdimensional domination schemes.

So does that mean every time Baltimore appears in a game I should conquer it, to fulfill my wishes of getting things that I want in the game?
Because Sparks definitely isn't going to show up.

Also, considering that the devs didn't use the names of actual peoples on this earth for Barbarian Clans... If there's a second pass at all, is there a chance that we get a Khazar or Manchu Civ?

I thought we weren't calling groups of people barbarians?

Except the Huns.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Oh, dear, is letting that slip going to result in your being sealed away in a time box and replaced with a duplicate like Ed Beach was after the Civilopedia incident?

It's fine. We'll use some of your stolen hours to travel back in time and change these forums.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I thought we weren't calling groups of people barbarians.

Hopefully, they'll just start calling barbarians tribes instead and make it so that they have the capacity for passiveness or aggressiveness.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Because Sparks definitely isn't going to..

Sparks Civ confirmed
UI: The stripmall with the Chipotle and Peet's Coffee
UU: The Game Designer Cluster (we've got at least two other big studios just nearby).

 

[SirMediocrity]

Also just realized that giving tribes names would let us technically have the Scythians, Parthians, and Huns in the same game. Worth it.

 

[Potworny]

This sounds really cool! But knowing how much art, QA, design, etc., work go into such a thing... man, this is almost expansion pack-level work!

Well, the results of expansion pack-level work are always really cool

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It's fine. We'll use some of your stolen hours to travel back in time and change these forums.

you know what woudl steal even more hours? if civ was a gacha game, and you’d have to roll to get the civs/leaders you want