• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Expansion idea: Rise of the Barbarians

CYZ

Toileteer
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,376
This idea is largely based on this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=442049

I will explain every part of the idea and note a few questions yet to answer below.


Barbarian strongholds

Barbarian camps can evolve into strongholds. Strongholds are much the same as camps except that they give increased defense on the tile. So they're basicly a barb version of the fort. The main difference is that the one tile it occupies gains become a cultural border (like the CS colour). All barbarians inside or next to the camp also belong to this colour now. They will patrol the area and not stray too far from the stronghold. They are still barbarians however and will try to steal workers and settlers.

When the barbarians belonging to a stronghold bring back a worker two things can happen: a) a new barbarian unit spawns b) the culture grows into one of the adjacent tiles.

The culture growth also happens naturally albeit slowly. If all six adjacent tiles have been taken over (which should take very long without stolen workers) the stronghold becomes a CS with a population of 1.

What will define when a camp becomes a stronghold?
I think it should eiter be bringing home a stolen worker or just existing for a long enough time without being destroyed. However, in the first case barbarian strongholds won't come into existance in the new world. In the second case the new world will be filled with them and CS. Probably it is best to do both: stealing a worker and keeping it for 10 turns turns a camp into a stronghold. But there's also a very very small chance to become a stronghold without the worker (so small it should happen not more than a dozen times in a game).


Outposts

Outposts can be build by CS. They are build outside of their territory and function like forts. If the CS connects them to their capital with a road their culture grows into the outpost tile. Very slowly (1 culture per turn) the outpost will grow it's culture in adjacent tiles. If all 6 adjacent tiles are filled it will turn into a 1 population city. In this way the CS can very slowly gain new cities, they will have to protect their outpost since it's an improvement and can easily be razed.

What I'm going to suggest next is purely an idea and I'm not sure it's optimal or preferable. But perhaps when a CS reaches a certain amount of total population (all cities combined) or a certain amount of cities they turn into a Civilization. This would create a chain: barb camp -> barb stronghold -> CS -> CS with outposts -> civilization.


Forts

The last idea is largely taken from another thread. Basicly it allows civs to build forts outside of their territory. If they hook them up with a road to the tradenetwork the fort gains a cultural radius of 1 (giving you all adjacent tiles). You are allowed to build improvements there and gain the resources. Units may also heal, ships may go into the fort tile (if next to the ocean obviously) and you may upgrade units into this area. It doesn't expand further though.


All these things combined would make for a much more interesting and dynamic game. Not just for expanding, but also for warring (there will be barbarian strongholds, but also strategic forts and outposts placed by civs and CS). And for exploring (new world with large CS's, backwards civs (evolved from a CS and thus a techdelay) but also large empty areas with barb camps and strongholds.
 
I don't have a strong opinion about the specific mechanism, but I do think barbarians should be more capable. In general, I agree with the basic principle that barbarians should have a chance to become city-states. Perhaps a better mechanism would be that they capture a settler (not just a worker) and bring it back to their camp. A second possibility is that barbarians should be able to capture cities, with the first captured city becoming the capital of a new city-state.
 
I don't have a strong opinion about the specific mechanism, but I do think barbarians should be more capable. In general, I agree with the basic principle that barbarians should have a chance to become city-states. Perhaps a better mechanism would be that they capture a settler (not just a worker) and bring it back to their camp. A second possibility is that barbarians should be able to capture cities, with the first captured city becoming the capital of a new city-state.

I think the second part of your post is very good. Although I still really think the stronghold should be the stepping stone between a barbarian camp and a CS.

So if they bring back a worker (or settler, which rarely happens) and they become a stronghold. Then it is a matter of time before they become a CS (capturing more workers will speed this up though).

If barbarians capture a city (belonging to a civ or CS) they will start razing it. Once razed a stronghold will also emerge there. And again, over time and by capturing workers this will become a CS.
 
I think it's an idea in the right direction, CYZ. Entities should definitely be more "morphable", and even interchangeable.

For example, an idea of mine :

* An SP finisher allows you to build settlers. (normal civ)
* An SP finisher allows you to double any kind of production in your capital (City State) (incompatible with first ?)
* An SP finisher allows you to pay 0 maintenance for your armies (barbarians)
* Etc...
 
I think it's an idea in the right direction, CYZ. Entities should definitely be more "morphable", and even interchangeable.

For example, an idea of mine :

* An SP finisher allows you to build settlers. (normal civ)
* An SP finisher allows you to double any kind of production in your capital (City State) (incompatible with first ?)
* An SP finisher allows you to pay 0 maintenance for your armies (barbarians)
* Etc...

So basicly you want CS and barbarians to also have policies... And barbarians to also have upkeep?
 
So basicly you want CS and barbarians to also have policies... And barbarians to also have upkeep?

I don't know what you mean by "upkeep", but in this idea, barbarians, civilizations and city states (and ultimately goody huts, too) would be the same kind of entities, only differenciated by social policies.

Oh, yes, I think i got it. You think that barbarians would have military upkeep ? No they wouldn't, because the time a given entity would pay the upkeep, it wouldn't be yet a barbarian. (need SP finisher) Once it gets the barbarian status (with the SP finisher), it precisely do not need to pay unit upkeep anymore. But that's just an idea.
 
I don't know what you mean by "upkeep", but in this idea, barbarians, civilizations and city states (and ultimately goody huts, too) would be the same kind of entities, only differenciated by social policies.

Oh, yes, I think i got it. You think that barbarians would have military upkeep ? No they wouldn't, because the time a given entity would pay the upkeep, it wouldn't be yet a barbarian. (need SP finisher) Once it gets the barbarian status (with the SP finisher), it precisely do not need to pay unit upkeep anymore. But that's just an idea.

Hmmm... So the only difference between barbs, CS and civs is social policies? Does this mean they all have their own tech tree, trading, diplomacy etcetera?

I don't understand what you mean with the second part of your post.
 
Hmmm... So the only difference between barbs, CS and civs is social policies?

Yes, but policies here have a lot more deep consequences than now.

Does this mean they all have their own tech tree, trading, diplomacy etcetera?

Nope.

I don't understand what you mean with the second part of your post.

Barbarians would not have unit upkeep. They would have building maintenance though.
 
Yes, but policies here have a lot more deep consequences than now.



Nope.



Barbarians would not have unit upkeep. They would have building maintenance though.

I'm not saying you're an idiot. But so far your posts don't seem to make sense and are pretty contradictory.

I'm not sure if you are confused, but I'd like it if you wouldn't post unless you have something sensible to add.
 
I'm not saying you're an idiot. But so far your posts don't seem to make sense and are pretty contradictory.

I'm not sure if you are confused, but I'd like it if you wouldn't post unless you have something sensible to add.

Here I don't understand very well what you are on.

I'm just answering your questions, I'm not confused, although I think you are. Sorry for that, but if you do not want anwers, simply do not post questions. :)
 
I love this idea! :D
Very good. Hopefully it will be implemented to the game at some point.

Reminds me a little bit how Native Life/Xenofungus worked in Alpha Centauri. Slowly spreading and growing from small "mushrooms" to bigger and more powerful ones.

What will define when a camp becomes a stronghold?

I think it should eiter be bringing home a stolen worker or just existing for a long enough time without being destroyed. However, in the first case barbarian strongholds won't come into existance in the new world. In the second case the new world will be filled with them and CS. Probably it is best to do both: stealing a worker and keeping it for 10 turns turns a camp into a stronghold. But there's also a very very small chance to become a stronghold without the worker (so small it should happen not more than a dozen times in a game).

Yes, in my opinion it should work exactly like this.
 
Top Bottom