Have you tried the "nomadic start proof of concept" of my overhaul ?
short answer:
limited actions in "camps" (including change to caravan to move the camps), collect resources around camps, capture population/resources of other camps, use slaves to create slave workers gathering more resources or set camps action to "integration of slaves into population" to raise population.
once you've reached a threshold of resources/population, you can build a settler or evolve a camps into a city (and end the proof of concept on a list of errors the next turn, as I've never coded the transition)
Have you tried the "nomadic start proof of concept" of my overhaul ?
short answer:
limited actions in "camps" (including change to caravan to move the camps), collect resources around camps, capture population/resources of other camps, use slaves to create slave workers gathering more resources or set camps action to "integration of slaves into population" to raise population.
once you've reached a threshold of resources/population, you can build a settler or evolve a camps into a city (and end the proof of concept on a list of errors the next turn, as I've never coded the transition)
Yes I actually did! And I liked it. All the Tribes with their Unique Names (based on territory I suppose), Vassals, Ethnicity, the way the tribal Camps grow...etc, it's a nice way to make a tribal/nomadic start, and I had fun playing it. I was really curious on how that System will get improved further on, but you stopped working on it right after making the Barbarian Units hiring I think. (But I totally get that, and I think Humankind is a better Platform for your Project anyway. I'm regularly keeping an Eye on what Modders are doing with Humankind, and I really like your TCL Mod (Solves my main issue with the Game), hope I can try it some Day)
But it's much better than Humankind's Neolithic Start tbh, it's more interesting and engaging, but most of all, it's way more immersive and realistic.
How many times can something like that be done before it stops being interesting though? I'd say exactly once... It would fit a lot of civs but it was also what made the Maori novel and unique.
I agree it was unique, and it was only done once in this game. However I don't see why they can't use the same concept for a land-based nomadic civ next game.
I agree it was unique, and it was only done once in this game. However I don't see why they can't use the same concept for a land-based nomadic civ next game.
If CIV7 do not add some common early game nomadic mechanic that could be exploited the better by famous nomadic civs, then of course some civ could use the Maori design but on land instead of sea, but that would limit it to just one civ. So the question is who?
If the later scenario is the case for CIV7 (no significative changes to general mechanics) I would prefer that "nomadic" civ to be the more descentralized and nomadic one, so probably it would be one Native American like Comanche or Lakota.
Let Mongols and Huna had their imperial cities and many conquered cities from Central Asia, plains Native Americans were as a whole more about move around.
If CIV7 do not add some common early game nomadic mechanic that could be exploited the better by famous nomadic civs, then of course some civ could use the Maori design but on land instead of sea, but that would limit it to just one civ. So the question is who?
If the later scenario is the case for CIV7 (no significative changes to general mechanics) I would prefer that "nomadic" civ to be the more descentralized and nomadic one, so probably it would be one Native American like Comanche or Lakota.
Let Mongols and Huna had their imperial cities and many conquered cities from Central Asia, plains Native Americans were as a whole more about move around.
Mongolia being the most urbanized out of all of them, probably wouldn't.
I would assume it would be the other Eurasian steppe civ such as the Huns or Scythia. Though ideally I think the Huns would work best by establishing a capital and using that to only conquer other cities, and not being able to build settlers.
There's always the chance that they do use it for a Native American civ too but it seems less likely considering they could also easily do more tribes that relied on agriculture and permanent structures.
As Boris mentioned, nomadic cultures didn't have urban centers per se, but they did control territory, developed and passed technology, acted as traders, etc.
The best way to represent them, in my opinion, (within the bounds of Civ VI design), is to forego a City Center, and use some kind of Unique District to represent the center of cultural mass for that territory. It should not be able to build the usual CC buildings, but should get other bonuses commensurate with its flavor.
They should automatically gain all contiguous plains and grassland tiles w/o features within 3 tiles of the Center of Cultural Mass UD, when it is established.
The civ should automatically get a free Horse resource when their first CoCM UD is established.
Mongolia being the most urbanized out of all of them, probably wouldn't.
I would assume it would be the other Eurasian steppe civ such as the Huns or Scythia. Though ideally I think the Huns would work best by establishing a capital and using that to only conquer other cities, and not being able to build settlers.
There's always the chance that they do use it for a Native American civ too but it seems less likely considering they could also easily do more tribes that relied on agriculture and permanent structures.
I hope they do not pick the Huns for CIV7 since I want the Hephthalites who in a broader form could be the Huna, and of course the names Huna and Huns are close enough to produce a lot of confusion. They would represent the proper pluri-religious trade cities from Bactria, Sogdiana and the Tarim.
EDITION: By the way for the Pontic Steppe instead of Huns would be nice to have the Khazars, that also would fit better the civ regular design since they had a proper founded capital.
I hope they do not pick the Huns for CIV7 since I want the Hephthalites who in a broader form could be the Huna, and of course the names Huna and Huns are close enough to produce a lot of confusion. They would represent the proper pluri-religious trade cities from Bactria, Sogdiana and the Tarim.
EDITION: By the way for the Pontic Steppe instead of Huns would be nice to have the Khazars, that also would fit better the civ regular design since they had a proper founded capital.
Agree: Attila's Huns have only the advantage of Name Recognition, but his "empire" broke up as soon as he died and left nothing but some Hun Mercenaries in Roman pay as a legacy.
There are several Central Asian 'pastoral' groups that both established longer-lived political organizations and had 'fixed' Capitals:
Xiong-Nu - capital at Longcheng
Kushan Empire - capitals (summer and winter) at Begram and Malthura
Hephthalite Huns - capital at Kunduz
Khazar Khanate - capital at Balanjar
Golden Horde - capital at Sarai (or Batu Sarai)
Some of these capitals, of course, were conquered or taken over from earlier non-pastoral peoples, but it does give a much broader 'pool' from which to draw a Central Asian pastoral Civilization.
I have left out groups like the pastoral Turkic Seljuks and Ottomans or the Parthians who quickly grabbed capitals for themselves or took over existing settled Civs, or the Mongols who are already established in the game as having 'Karaquorum' as a capital
Problem with the Xiongnu is that we have no idea who they were, ethnically or linguistically. Para-Mongols is probably the safest bet, but that's very far from certain (and anyway, the Khitan/Liao are a better candidate for a para-Mongol kingdom). Because the Yuezhi became the Kushans, they would also be a conceivable candidate for inclusion--except that their later form as the Kushans is a better one.
I hope they do not pick the Huns for CIV7 since I want the Hephthalites who in a broader form could be the Huna, and of course the names Huna and Huns are close enough to produce a lot of confusion. They would represent the proper pluri-religious trade cities from Bactria, Sogdiana and the Tarim.
EDITION: By the way for the Pontic Steppe instead of Huns would be nice to have the Khazars, that also would fit better the civ regular design since they had a proper founded capital.
And this, as I hope the discussions in the Forum have shown, is only one little aspect of the pastoral Civilizations. Far more important was their role as trading partners and middle-men, conduits for the spread of Technology, Religion and Culture as well as trade goods, and source of Mercenaries for the 'settled' Civs (which some times ended up running those Civs: here's looking at you, Turks!)
Far more important was their role as trading partners and middle-men, conduits for the spread of Technology, Religion and Culture as well as trade goods, and source of Mercenaries for the 'settled' Civs (which some times ended up running those Civs: here's looking at you, Turks!)
To be honest, I'm hoping that baby steps such as this (and the possibly forerunner-of-a-mechanic-for-land-nomadic-Civs Maori) are signs that they are seriously considering some alternative to the hoary old One City-Building Civ Model Fits All that has been used since Civ I.
Pastoral/Nomadic and City State Civs: get decent models for both of those, and I think it would be a Giant Leap for Civ the game and the franchise.
It would be nice if there were a separate nomadic paradigm for civs whom it would apply to. It could merge with the urban-centric paradigm in the Industrial Era perhaps.
It would be nice if there were a separate nomadic paradigm for civs whom it would apply to. It could merge with the urban-centric paradigm in the Industrial Era perhaps.
Exactly. The pastoral Civs had different sources of power than the city-builders. Contrary to popular belief, smaller and semi-mobile settlements could develop advanced metal working, exploit ores, and build imposing monuments like the Kurgans, Tumulae and Dolmens. In addition, by the nature of their wide-ranging herding economy, they controlled far more territory per population than any settled group, and so bordered more different peoples - hence their activity as trading middle-men and conduits between other Civs for all kinds of influences. Some (Kushans, Crimean Tatars, Turks) settled down and seized or built (or both) cities as early as the late Classical Era, which, as stated, is the model for keeping them relevant in the late game: having hordes of cheap, effective horsemen only gets you so far when the other side is fielding machineguns and artillery . . .
The City State Civ problem is a little different: they will normally have the same economy and culture as other 'normal' Civs, but they suffer from an utter lack of central direction. The trick is representing that without making them so splintered that they cannot compete with directed Empires. That's at least as difficult as keeping horse nomads relevant in the late game, because in both cases the Civs hae major weaknesses compared to the 'normal' Civ Empire with all resources under central control and all Cities available as sources for technology, Gold, Production, etc
If "City States civs" means the ones that historically were not unified in a centralized state, I would like one part of the Government section to by like this:
> Government STRUCTURE
- Unitarian, the traditional CIV style where you have absolute and direct control of each city representing a Province that could assing one Minister for some bonus.
- Federal, each non capital city is a Member with their own Elector as a "mini-leader" with simplified and not so demanding requeriments, a happy Elector mean huge bonus from respective Member city.
- Hegemonic, this is intended for early agressive CIV than want to growth more by conquer of proper city states (the minor civs), in this structure instead of absorb the direct control the conquered city turn in a Tributary and their leader a Vassal with some diplomatic actions to gain different kind of tributes.
When player by AI each civ would have their favorite government structure and many times even related bonus/mechanics, for example Chinese Empire for Unitarian, German Empire for Federal and Aztec empire for Hegemonic.
Are other leaders, governors or envoys complicated?
Option 1 is literally the regular civ model of CIV6
Option 2 is cities that gives you better bonus in return of time to time do what they want (like build someting or pass a policy).
Option 3 is basically CIV5 Venetians.
Most player could pick the option 1 anyway for complety control of your civ, while the others two need more micro but in a level that is in no way beyond what we already had.
I wouldn't. I don't think a nomadic gameplay mechanic would be very good in a game about building and developing cities. I've never seen a good nomad mechanic in these games.
I wouldn't. I don't think a nomadic gameplay mechanic would be very good in a game about building and developing cities. I've never seen a good nomad mechanic in these games.
It's always been a game named "Civilization" that was about developing individual Cities while at the same time being a really bad City Builder compared to games that were from the start Real City development games like Caesar IV, the Anno series, and many others.
It's well past time for Civ to become a real Civilization Building game and not try to do a mediocre job of City Building. Expanding the game mechanics to include the varieties of Culture/Civilization development that have been tried IRL would at least be a start.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
