Civs/City-States/Barbarians

[DudewiththeFood]

I was about to post in the City-States will be missed thread when I my idea exploded in my head. Basically relations between City-States, Civs and Barabrians would stay the same with a few differences.

Civs/CS

There are more civs but no city-states. Because of this, leader screens would need to change. However, when the game loads up CS, it chooses from the civs and the capital becomes a CS. Each civ will have a CS character preset (France-Cultural, Spain-Mercentile, Japan-Militaristic).

Barbarians

To compensate for the automatic bonus against them, barbarian units all get a promotion upon being spawned based on their encampment. If the camp is in forest, all units spawned their get a 50% bonus fighting in forests. If in hills, they get a bonus in hills and so on. Barbarian ships spawned from hill tiles get a sight bonus, from desert/grassland/plains movement bonus or from tundra/snow, a 50% bonus on attacks. They will actively raid improvements/steal workers but usually avoid fighting units/cities unless near an encampment, or they can inflict a lot of damage (so more likely in their natural environments).

Aggresive CS

There will also be a new type of city-state - Aggressive. Civs like Zulu/Huns will have a predisposition to these. They don't form like normal CS/Civs at the start of the game but only when conditions are met.

-Time period: When half of the Civs reach the Classical era, the Huns form. When half reach Medieval, Mongols and so on.
-Space: There is an encampment between 5 and 15 tiles from at least a Civ/2 CS with a full strength unit guarding it.
-Other barbarians: There must be at least 5 barbarian units within a 6 tile radius.

After that, the encampment becomes a city and all barbarians within 10 tiles and all adjacent units convert to the CS. In addition to this, it gains 5 UUs (Keshik/Horse Archer/Impi/Jaguar) and declares war on everyone. The city has the population equal to the average of all CS populations and it has techs up to the era and 3 extra depending on prerequisites of the UU. After 25 turns, if it has taken cities with populations totalling 15 before invasion, it becomes a full Civ and has a chance to win the game. Alternatively, if it takes 2 capitals it automatically becomes a full civ. If neither of these conditions, it converts into a militaristic state and its first ally recieves 5 of whatever the UU for the CS was.

For balance, they actively pursue the closest cities and don't suffer strategic resource penalties as a CS.

 

[Alexey86]

The first one is wrong. Way to many civs and thats not good, also it is a lot harder to make so many civs like 70-90 what? They would also overlap that way I think.

The idea is to make civs more cooler and unique and bring different type of experience and mechanics for more civs, like they brought the Venice idea. There were also mentiones of moving camps/citys for the mongols that would bring something new when playing with them, or for the huns to be almost always at war at least with one civ with small peace pauses, that would make a chalenge when playing with them.

The thing is with so many civs like your idea its a lot harder to come with unique abilities and stuff to differente one from another. More civs would just feel like a clone of another.
So its better in quality rather then quantity, and the moders can fill up new civs if some people want to try them out.

I think 20+10+10 is also a good number for Civ6 again, I could be happy with even less as long as more thinking is put anto them.


I like your barbarians idea however, they should be tougher and cause problems. They were more scarier in previous civs because your citys didnt defend by themselves and I hate that now.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Actually it would be better to have every real civ past and present in the game, with no uniques at all. For a better roleplay.

 

[Alexey86]

Actually it would be better to have every civ past and present in the game, with no uniques at all. For a better roleplay.

wtf

 

[Naokaukodem]

wtf

If you meant "I don't understand why no uniques would make for a better roleplay", I will answer you that with 20 civs, you have few chance to have your represented.

By experience, I know that playing with your country is great roleplay, especially when you start near your real neighbours. (cultural start bias)

Unfortunately, with the uniques, even if your country is represented, you can end up by no playing it at all, because its uniques are unsatisfactory for you, either you simply don't like them, they are not your playstyle or they are too specific, or more simple you stick to play other civs with better uniques or that suit your playstyle better.

That's why not only no uniques would be better for a better roleplay, but not once, twice.

 

[Wodan]

That's why not only no uniques would be better for a better roleplay.

Unless those uniques are historically accurate. In which case, removing the uniques makes for worse roleplay.

To rebut your justificiation, if a player has a playstyle that isn't suited to a historically accurate unique, or simply doesn't like them, but wants to roleplay the historical civ (rather than use the civ in an alternate universe storyline), then this is a conundrum that can be solved only by the player changing playstyle or attitude. It's the player's own desire that is incompatible, not the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Unless those uniques are historically accurate. In which case, removing the uniques makes for worse roleplay.

To rebut your justificiation, if a player has a playstyle that isn't suited to a historically accurate unique, or simply doesn't like them, but wants to roleplay the historical civ (rather than use the civ in an alternate universe storyline), then this is a conundrum that can be solved only by the player changing playstyle or attitude. It's the player's own desire that is incompatible, not the game.

Hmm, hmm, feels like I have a new friend ! Welcome.

First I never said that the game was 'incompatible" or such a thing.

Second what happens when your country is not represented ?

As to when it is, the uniques can be objectively too specific, marginalizing themselves in many ways, or the player doesn't like them (in that case he can't do much, right ?), or can prefer other uniques that are, universally or not, more attractive.

My own example is eloquent. I never play France in Civ5, because I stick to Egypt (wondefull combo of UA and UB) or Babylon, and others for variety, but I never end up choosing France, except very rarely or just for the try.

I would add that not only they have specific specs, but also specific flavor. In Civ5 you don't choose a nation, rather a leader. And I just can't identify myself to Napoleon or any other dickhead of the roster. After all, I'm Naokaukodem, the Millenium King.