Diplomacy & Trade with Barbarians?

[Teabeard]

First of all, you should not be able to establish embassies with Barbs, but wouldn't it be nice to negotiate with them to aid you in battle against another civ, or pay them off so they don't attack you? I think it should be possible to trade techs with Barbs also, but only military techs. Barbs do not care about party or reading or writing, but they sure would like to get a hold of the tech of gunpowder. Perhaps you could give it to them for an alliance? I would like to see Barbs be alot more dangerous and interesting than they are now. Maybe if you play your cards right you could get the Barbs to merge with your nation and so their camps become cities under your control?

If you think alliances with Barbs is ridiculous, just look at history where this has happened quite often.

 

[dh_epic]

It's pretty normal, actually. I don't think this is such a bad idea.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Depends on your definition of barbarian.

 

[dh_epic]

I think barbarians need to be overhauled anyway. Most people consider barbarian a term of convenience to describe a gap between the civilized world and those who are "backwards". Civ reflects this duality in the definition through the scenarios.

When you play a regular game, at the end of the ancient/classical age, barbarians are stiking at your from their horses and camps.

When you play the scenario game around Rome, the "barbarians" attacking rome have cities and primitive units with distinct limitations.

When you play the scenario game post Rome, the "barbarians" are more numerous and various. They spread quickly. They control Europe. They become technological rivals to the so called "civilized" world.

And by the time you reach the middle ages, using the term "barbarians" to describe France and Germany seems ridiculous.

I think we can do better.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think barbs as a game concept is fine. They're designed to be small camps of raiders and pillagers. You wipe them out and they appear somewhere else.

Trying to model the progression of civilizations with the historical definition of "barbarians" would require a much more complex system...

 

[plastiqe]

This is a cool idea Teabeard, here is how I picture it.

The barbs would start pretty much the same, but with more warriors right from the start, so when you find them with your first warrior or scout, you won't be able to take out their camp right away and they will stay in their camp for the time being. If the camp isn't destroyed it will eventually start producing better units, so say by 2000 bc they have gone up from the three original warriors to a stack of 2/1/1 barbarian units (they shouldn't ride horses at this point). These barbarian units are then sent out and will try to take your nearest city, which would be a real possibility if your only defending with a couple regular spearmen and no city walls.

Here is where it would get interesting. They still aren't a real civ so they don't need techs or improvements, but now that they control a city you can negotiate with them. That could be anything from gold tributes for peace to an alliance with or against them and another real civ. The longer you leave them in that city the better they get. So if they are still in there in 1500 bc they have developed a 3/1/1 barbarian unit and so on.

Also, there could be the Hun team, a Barbarian horde that invades on horseback. The would show up out of nowhere with a big stack of horseman and run through your territory pillaging and conquering. I would have this happen as a catch up event.

 

[dh_epic]

Not really that much more complex. No need to bite off more than you can chew, the basics are there.

Rather than introducing the barbarians into randomly placed camps, you introduce the barbarians into randomly placed small cities. The barbarians have a special AI that is deliberately lagging behind. It does not build any city improvements. It generates units and builds up its forces, throwing uncoordinated attacks at nearby Civs. Cities don't generally grow. It's basically a single city-state under the control of the dumbest AI in the world, or with the fewest technologies in the world.

What this opens up is an interaction that isn't just war. You can right click on a barbarian camp and negotiate with them, see what you'd need to trade them to buy the city. (They don't have a capitol, so you can buy their only city). You can right click on them and contract their military services. You can spread your culture and assimilate them.

The barbarian constraints could evolve. They could discover farming by the middle ages, and cultural improvements by the industrial age. But nothing that require any serious amounts of development.

 

[Teabeard]

I think that, if Barbs do capture enough of your cities and they hold onto those cities for enough turns then there should be a chance that those conquered cities form into a new Civ. Maybe these break away civs should be culturally related to the Civ they break away from? Say a Barb invasion conquers a huge swath of Germany... perhaps then the Barb holdings could call themselves France (assuming France doesn't already exist) and become a new CIV which is at war with Germany. If Barbarians are made strong enough to capture cities and hold them long enough then this could make the game real interesting and be a better way for long dead Civs to reemerge. Later in the game Barbs could be replaced with Partisan movements/Rebellions (probably with the discovery of nationalism).

 

[North King]

I agree with the above posters, and I also think that barbarians should be more sophisticated-have them fight each other, have their camps develop into larger camps, and have nearby camps be of similar tribes. Like the Gauls might have ten camps, three of them minor fortress-camps, say, and you could conquer these and incorporate them as cities.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah. Let barbarians be just really slow, simple, small Civs. That way if some sequence of events changes, the barbarian city-state can start to resemble something more civilized.

That's the way of history. And I think that's more strategic, too, than just goodie huts and unit stacks.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, much of this has been discussed in DH_epics discussion of AI strategy. I personally feel that major civs and 'barbarians' should start on an equal footing, but that the latter should be, on average, less competitive. If your 'barbarians' are 'restless' then they will stay nomadic, just wondering around the map getting what they 'need' from more settled civs. If they are sedentary, then they will settle down into a town quite quickly, but will be mostly non-expansionist, growing slower than major civs, limiting their city building to less than around 4 (space permitting), and developing improvements units and techs at a slower rate than major civs. A 'barbarians' aggression level will determine how much of a nuisance they are-peaceful 'barbarians' will tend to keep largely to themselves, but be happy enough to engage in trade with other civs-be they major or minor-and might even consider becoming a member of another civs nation if they think its in their interest. Aggressive 'barbarians', OTOH, will send their military units out to be a major nuisance to other civs in the region-attacking units and pillaging cities and surrounding infrastructure. They will also attempt to take cities on occasion and, if they pass a certain city threshold, then they ought to become a major civ-by the same token, a major civ that, after a certain point in the game finds itself whittled down to fewer than X cities or finds itself X techs behind the average level of the game, might find itself attaining the status of 'minor civ', or barbarian, and treated accordingly. This would help to keep the game in a greater state of 'flux', much as history so often is!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the essence of barbarian AI is short-sightedness. They play each turn as if they don't even realize the world may change. Thus, they don't bother trying to build city improvements or research techs, or even expand into new territory. They simply try to generate units.

Although I think a barbarian city that manages to conquer one or two cities (ending up with a 3-city area) ought to become defined by an official leader and an official Civ name. Just throwing that out there.

 

[sir_schwick]

How about this, barbarians inheret techs from the major civlizations around them. Remember, barabarian was originally a Roman term for those who did not speak Greek or Latin.
Imagine that Barbarian A is influenced by Civ A. Barbarians B are influenced by Civ A and Civ B. Once a tech has existed for, lets say 30 turns, in that sphere of influence, the barbarians inherit it. Barbarians will 'instantly' build certain structures, such as temples and tribal courthouses. If either society has access to a needed resource, the barbarians are assumed to have it. So naturally barbarians are way behind on tech, but the evolution is jsut that, behind.
Once they inherit Fedualims, they become a proper kingdom. not expansive, but developing infrastructure like a single-city state. They might even raid or eventually decide to expand. Of course now they can be dealt with like a full civ, mercenary and all. Also, they would develop the land.
Once they inherit Nationalism, they would be a full Civ. Of course by then their cultural roots were the antionas around them, but unique itself. Conqeuring them might be easy, but control would be very very difficult, like England and Scotland.

 

[dh_epic]

If the tech-inheretence can be pulled off based on neighbouring civs, that would be pretty cool. A nice addition to a solid improvement.

 

[sir_schwick]

As a bonus, maybe barbarians near a super-advanced power would be more advanced then some other neighbor of them. This would be really interesting, being invaded by advanced barbarians.

 

[NewWaver]

Hmm, kinda like a mercinary squadron. Not bad at all.

And at the same time, it would be rather interesting if the barbarians had up-to-date equipment as well.