Nomads, barbarians, and minor civilizations

[apatheist]

Goal: I want to combine the concepts of nomadic peoples, minor civilizations, and barbarians. Those are all interesting concepts that would add much to game play, but having 4 different types of thjngs each with their own special properties seemed like it would cause more harm than good. Building on ideas I've seen both on these forums and at Apolyton, I have devised a single unifying scheme that combines major civilizations, minor civilizations, nomadic peoples, and barbarians.

Instead of a settler and a worker, each civilization starts with a new unit called a tribe. A tribe is like a hybrid of a city, a settler, and a barbarian village. Multiple tribes can be members of the same nation. These nations have a treasury, technology, and all other aspects of normal civilizations. They can negotiate with other nations (either nomadic or settled) just like other civilizations for right of passage, mutual defense, etc. Tribes generate no trade, however, so they have no regular income and cannot research technology. Since a tribe is not a city, it cannot have improvements or culture either. A tribe has no borders either.

A tribe has a population of 2 initially with a movement of 1 and no defense. A tribe can harvest resources of the tile it is on (furs, iron, etc.) and food in a 1-tile radius. Tribes can grow over time. At size 4, a tribe splits into two tribes. A tribe has a production of 1 per population per turn. This production can only be used to build military units and ships. Each tribe can support 1 other unit per unit of population. No tribe can be within the radius of another tribe.

A tribe can choose to settle in a particular location and build a city. If the tribe building the city has a population of 3, it creates a worker with the founding of the city. A tribe may ask to join another civilization, which means it founds a city that is under that other civilization's administration but is ethnically and religiously whatever it was before (with all the baggage that comes with that).

Sometimes, a tribe can be spawned from an existing civilization's cities. I'll call these tribes "refugees." Unhappy citizens may depart cities as tribes. Relevant Western historical precedents are the Puritans, Huguenots, and Mormons. They may take away some gold and will have some or all of the parent civilization's scientific knowledge. Tribes may also be formed by the conquest of a city. These tribes may become a nation, either new or recreating a vanquished one, and behave independently. They may also become units of the civilization that lost the city. A tribe cannot be built. All tribes are either in existence at the beginning, spawn from another tribe, or spawn from a city. A settled nation may send missionaries to convert tribes, but the reverse cannot happen.

A nation may have both tribes and cities in it, if it delays the founding of its first city long enough for the first tribe unit to spawn another one. Perhaps the initial part of the game can be tweaked so that is a feasible strategy. There may be tensions between the nomadic and settled parts of the civilization, however, and they may separate into two or more nations. A tribal nation's military units may conquer the cities of a settled nation just like any other civilization may do.

Conquering a tribe splits it into some number of workers, just like capturing a settler in civ3. However, it is an atrocity to attack refugees, which causes diplomatic problems and domestic unhappiness, tuned to whatever degree necessary to make you let them go most of the time. Attacking a tribal nation has the same repercussions as attacking a civilization.

All of this only indirectly addresses minor civilizations. A minor civilization would be just like a normal civilization except smaller. Other aspects of minor civilizations are better enabled through diplomacy, corruption (or whatever replaces it in civ4), and other game mechanisms.

In this vision, there are no longer barbarian tribes in the same way as in civ3. If you pop a goodie hut, instead of a settler, it will be a friendly tribe wishing to join your nation.

One implication is making destruction of a nation more complicated. Refugees keep the nation alive. Additionally, as long as members of that nation are still alive as citizens of some other civ, there's always the possibility of rebirth if they become unhappy enough that they want to leave.

Justification: realism, increased strategic depth by modelling barbarians, minor civilizations, nomadic peoples, the transition from nomadism to settled life, fleeing oppression, refugees from wars, etc.

Historical models: Puritans, Huguenots, Palestinians, Huns, Mongols, Native Americans, running away to join the circus, and many more.

Additional possible refinements:
If a tribe stays in the same location for some number of turns (TBD), it automatically becomes a city.

Perhaps tribes could spontaneously appear in empty areas the way barbarian tribes did in civ3, but I intuitively dislike the idea of people appearing out of nowhere.

 

[apatheist]

A completely shameless bump.

Also, I wanted to add that these tribe units should be able to see 2 tiles, not just 1, like an army. That'll help you scope out a good city site, not to mention it makes sense if they're harvesting a 1 tile radius.

 

[Dudedudeyo]

This is a cool version of settlers. This would be a good game version like the capture the princess or the king game. they could call it Tribe Wars or somthing like that (i think tribe wars is another pc game though)

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Instead of a settler and a worker, each civilization starts with a new unit called a tribe. A tribe is like a hybrid of a city, a settler, and a barbarian village. Multiple tribes can be members of the same nation. These nations have a treasury, technology, and all other aspects of normal civilizations. They can negotiate with other nations (either nomadic or settled) just like other civilizations for right of passage, mutual defense, etc. Tribes generate no trade, however, so they have no regular income and cannot research technology. Since a tribe is not a city, it cannot have improvements or culture either. A tribe has no borders either.

Though I agree with the general idea, I think tribes, if implemented in this manner (Which I greatly support, I think it's a great idea having read over it, so take what I say as entirely constructive crticism.) should have the capacity for trade. However, this would be only on the single tile they exist upon, thereby reducing it to a reasonable level, whilst still allowing a nomadic tribe to function, though obviously not as a rival to a major civ.

A tribe can choose to settle in a particular location and build a city. If the tribe building the city has a population of 3, it creates a worker with the founding of the city. A tribe may ask to join another civilization, which means it founds a city that is under that other civilization's administration but is ethnically and religiously whatever it was before (with all the baggage that comes with that).

This sounds like an interesting idea, but couldn't it be exploited by sending tribes off and either asking or, if it's not in player hands, engineering a situation where your tribe joins an enemy civ, so that you can steal tech/gold, and so forth? Of course, another part of me says "That's not an exploit, that's tactics, that is!" so I suppose it's up in the air.

Sometimes, a tribe can be spawned from an existing civilization's cities. I'll call these tribes "refugees." Unhappy citizens may depart cities as tribes. Relevant Western historical precedents are the Puritans, Huguenots, and Mormons. They may take away some gold and will have some or all of the parent civilization's scientific knowledge. Tribes may also be formed by the conquest of a city. These tribes may become a nation, either new or recreating a vanquished one, and behave independently. They may also become units of the civilization that lost the city. A tribe cannot be built. All tribes are either in existence at the beginning, spawn from another tribe, or spawn from a city. A settled nation may send missionaries to convert tribes, but the reverse cannot happen.

I think the idea of refugees is one of the strongest aspects of this idea; it would allow a lot of attemps at making a comeback, and it would further add to the feeling of being part of one world, where events in one place can affect others. A war between Persia and Greece could affect Rome as Greek refugees flood in, and India might recieve a lot of Persian culture. Or India might grant some land and protection to a Persian refugee trube, in return for technology or something. All sorts of possibilities, and I know I'm only scratching the most superficial of surfaces.

A nation may have both tribes and cities in it, if it delays the founding of its first city long enough for the first tribe unit to spawn another one. Perhaps the initial part of the game can be tweaked so that is a feasible strategy. There may be tensions between the nomadic and settled parts of the civilization, however, and they may separate into two or more nations. A tribal nation's military units may conquer the cities of a settled nation just like any other civilization may do.

Perhaps if a tribe goes too far away for too long from your settled lands, it will become independent and you will lose contact? Then centuries later you might launch expeditions and find the trive, now a settled nation maybe; this could open up a lot of fresh possibilities at the negotiating and cultural tables.

Justification: realism, increased strategic depth by modelling barbarians, minor civilizations, nomadic peoples, the transition from nomadism to settled life, fleeing oppression, refugees from wars, etc.

That all sounds like very reasonable justification, and as I said I support the idea.

Historical models: Puritans, Huguenots, Palestinians, Huns, Mongols, Native Americans, running away to join the circus, and many more.

A civil war between the tribe of clowns, and the tribe of mimes!

Additional possible refinements:
If a tribe stays in the same location for some number of turns (TBD), it automatically becomes a city.

Maybe this could be the only way to build a city from a tribe? To represent the aforementioned transition from nomads to settlers.

Perhaps tribes could spontaneously appear in empty areas the way barbarian tribes did in civ3, but I intuitively dislike the idea of people appearing out of nowhere.

Actually, I think between seccession and refugees there would be sufficient mid-to-late game production of tribes to make this unecessary.

 

[Crayton]

This thread was dead for almost a month.
Thanks!
I like the idea. I made a game somewhat like this, for all the reasons given.
My game had tribes on every tile at the onset of the game. The tribes were less secure and mixed indiscriminately. They could war amongst themselves to give themselves land, population, and resources. I like the idea of granting tribes a city to join a civilization, (was that yours or mine?) and of course all of the other tribal-facets?
Wow! I'm glad I found such a similar idea in these forums.

 

[apatheist]

Though I agree with the general idea, I think tribes, if implemented in this manner (Which I greatly support, I think it's a great idea having read over it, so take what I say as entirely constructive crticism.) should have the capacity for trade. However, this would be only on the single tile they exist upon, thereby reducing it to a reasonable level, whilst still allowing a nomadic tribe to function, though obviously not as a rival to a major civ.

Tribes should definitely be able to engage in trades as in the diplomatic sort with other tribes/civilizations. As far as generating commerce double-arrow thingies that turn into gold, science, or luxuries, well, I lean slightly against that idea, but I don't feel strongly against it. I left it out because I thought there needed to be advantages to building cities. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a nomadic tribe can do much science beyond stone age stuff, which you would start with anyway. Nor do I see how luxuries make sense in such a society. I also figured that such a tribe wouldn't have an internal economy; they'd do everything on some kind of barter system, or a Big Man system. But, as I said, I don't feel strongly about it.

This sounds like an interesting idea, but couldn't it be exploited by sending tribes off and either asking or, if it's not in player hands, engineering a situation where your tribe joins an enemy civ, so that you can steal tech/gold, and so forth?

Not sure I understand. You can't send a tribe off of your own volition because you don't build tribes. Any tribes that spawn from your own cities are going to be by definition out of your control, as they are people fleeing your tyranny. Alternately, they may be refugees from a city of yours that was razed, but in that case, you're probably not going to pursue a subtle offensive strategy like the above if you're fighting for your life. You may still have some tribes left over from the early game, but if they join another civ, they come under that civ's control. Since the citizens sort of have free will (happiness, religion, ethnicity), they would only revolt if treated badly. And that revolt would be as a city, not as a tribe, and nothing says they would join you again.

Perhaps if a tribe goes too far away for too long from your settled lands, it will become independent and you will lose contact? Then centuries later you might launch expeditions and find the trive, now a settled nation maybe; this could open up a lot of fresh possibilities at the negotiating and cultural tables.

Sure. I glossed over the things that would lead to a nation dividing, but just the division between nomadic and settled would cause tensions. Too much physical separation would certainly compound that. This would be a semi-random occurrence: actions that you take increase or decrease the likelihood of this happening, but you don't have direct control over it.

A civil war between the tribe of clowns, and the tribe of mimes!

Can I have a hit off that?

Maybe this could be the only way to build a city from a tribe? To represent the aforementioned transition from nomads to settlers.

6 of one, half a dozen of the others. After all, the city you found first isn't going to be very powerful. I don't see a substantial difference between sitting in one place for 5 turns and building a city immediately, then having to deal with numerous turns as the city grows at a glacial pace.

Also, turns in the early game at 50 years long. Anything that takes a turn is going to be gradual.

Actually, I think between seccession and refugees there would be sufficient mid-to-late game production of tribes to make this unecessary.

Quite possibly. That's the sort of thing you can only know by trying it out, though.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Tribes should definitely be able to engage in trades as in the diplomatic sort with other tribes/civilizations. As far as generating commerce double-arrow thingies that turn into gold, science, or luxuries, well, I lean slightly against that idea, but I don't feel strongly against it. I left it out because I thought there needed to be advantages to building cities. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a nomadic tribe can do much science beyond stone age stuff, which you would start with anyway. Nor do I see how luxuries make sense in such a society. I also figured that such a tribe wouldn't have an internal economy; they'd do everything on some kind of barter system, or a Big Man system. But, as I said, I don't feel strongly about it.

Ah, I was thinking that because a tribe would only work it's own tile resource-wise - and wouldn't get much, if anything other than food, from others - there wouldn't be much scope for research anyway, indeed any civ which tried to research anything as a tribal state would fall behind very quickly, so in my eyes it would be more to simply give the implication of research than doing anything productive.

Not sure I understand. You can't send a tribe off of your own volition because you don't build tribes. Any tribes that spawn from your own cities are going to be by definition out of your control, as they are people fleeing your tyranny. Alternately, they may be refugees from a city of yours that was razed, but in that case, you're probably not going to pursue a subtle offensive strategy like the above if you're fighting for your life. You may still have some tribes left over from the early game, but if they join another civ, they come under that civ's control. Since the citizens sort of have free will (happiness, religion, ethnicity), they would only revolt if treated badly. And that revolt would be as a city, not as a tribe, and nothing says they would join you again.

Gah, gah, and thrice gah! I apologise, I misinterpreted or misread something that made me think I would be able to have tribes under my control with more ease. Consider the worry retracted.

Can I have a hit off that?

I must confess I am not familiar with that term.

6 of one, half a dozen of the others. After all, the city you found first isn't going to be very powerful. I don't see a substantial difference between sitting in one place for 5 turns and building a city immediately, then having to deal with numerous turns as the city grows at a glacial pace.

Also, turns in the early game at 50 years long. Anything that takes a turn is going to be gradual.

Yup, fair points all around there. I more considered the possibility so that a tribe which settled for a while would automatically become a city (Generations have settled, permanent buildings have been erected, so on and so forth.), but that would like irritiate anyone who wanted to move on.

 

[apatheist]

I must confess I am not familiar with that term.

You sounded like someone who was, ahem, engaging in pharmaceutical entertainment.

Yup, fair points all around there. I more considered the possibility so that a tribe which settled for a while would automatically become a city (Generations have settled, permanent buildings have been erected, so on and so forth.), but that would like irritiate anyone who wanted to move on.

On further thought, I could go either way. It's not a big difference either way. To make it easy to understand, it should be either "found a city on command" or "found a city after staying still X turns," but not both.