Suggestions for Barb Clan mode

[DanQuayle]

1. Many Greek and some Roman governors/leaders paid, essentially, "tribute" to pirates to keep them from raiding their coasts. I believe this was also pretty common in the Far East with the Chinese, Filippine and Japanese pirates and coastal communities. Barbarian Insurance was a real and not uncommon thing.

When barbarians were paid tribute, did they still plunder the trade routes and attack the army of their tributary while keeping away from raiding their coasts? Because this is currently how a bribed barbarian tribe acts in the new game mode...
Is my suggestion of making them completely neutral toward you (as long as you pay the tribute/bribe) going too far in the opposite direction?
I could see a barbarian tribe plunder a trade route from a civilization they are collecting "protection money" from and then denying having any evolvement in the accident...

The Roman Army recruited so many German individuals and groups as Auxilia in the Imperial Army that they ended up both improving their enemies (German veterans going home and teaching Roman tactics and weaponry to the 'wild' Germans) and forming many of their own Elite Units of the late Imperial Army exclusively from Germans (many of the Scholarii units).

One of my next proposal is directly linked to this idea.

3. The hiring of "Barbarians" to help fight other 'Barbarians" lasted a long time, from Classical Era (examples above) to Industrial Era - look at the history of Native American scouts, recon units, and auxiliaries used by the US military against hostile Native Americans, or the 17th century Russian practice of using Cossacks to expand into Siberia, exterminating numerous native cultures as they went. Given that the Cossacks were essentially pastoral Non-City-Builders themselves, this was a clear case of using 'Hired' Barbarians against other Barbarians from the same type of camp. The fact that 'Roman Germans' fought 'Wild Germans' for several Imperial Roman centuries shows that it was not at all hard to get 'Barbarians' to fight their erstwhile Neighbors.

Thank you for clarifying this issue by providing many examples.

1. Change the name to Tribes and Clans and include the Goodie Huts' possibilities in the 'Barbarian' mechanics. That is, each Camp/Settlement, in addition to the'Barbarian' possibilities presented now, could also be Tentatively Friendly and gift you with something Positive: some tribesmen that immediately decide to emigrate as a Builder or Scout, a map of the nearby territory or locations of all the other Non-Discovered Camps nearby, a Tech or even a Civic you don't have yet, some Gold, etc. Along with this, one of the 'Barbarian Bribe' possibilities would be just to pay them X amount per turn to Stay Friendly, resulting in cheaper costs to hire them snd possible future (random?) 'Goodies' from them.

Many of these things where already in CivII !
(if I remember correctly)
ie finding a barbarian in a hut, revealing more of the map, getting free units or techs, etc.
You can argue that now getting free eurekas or inspirations is now the modern replacement of getting free techs, but I miss the map reveal and the occasional "jump scare" of finding a barbarian.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

When barbarians were paid tribute, did they still plunder the trade routes and attack the army of their tributary while keeping away from raiding their coasts? Because this is currently how a bribed barbarian tribe acts in the new game mode...
Is my suggestion of making them completely neutral toward you (as long as you pay the tribute/bribe) going too far in the opposite direction?
I could see a barbarian tribe plunder a trade route from a civilization they are collecting "protection money" from and then denying having any evolvement in the accident...

One problem with Bribing Barbarians is that, almost by definition, they don't pay a lot of attention to Authority. So, Barbarian Young Men are almost always trying to compete in Daring Actions for prestige and, to put it Primately, mating rights. Being told by the Chief that they should not raid the soft civilized types is in many cases more likely to make such raids Absolutely Certain by Wild Young Men who are now defying their own chiefs as well as the civilized army. The current in-game Mode is, for once, pretty close to Historically Accurate.
IF the tribe/clan has a strong leader or leadership institutions, then he/they can enforce compliance and, as a tribe, 'stay bribed'. Introducing this concept could also introduce the idea that the more they Stay Bribed, the stronger their chief/big man leadership is getting, so that you may be speeding up the formation of a Barbarian Kingdom (Attila, anyone?) that will bring Much Grief to everyone nearby.

 

[DanQuayle]

One problem with Bribing Barbarians is that, almost by definition, they don't pay a lot of attention to Authority. So, Barbarian Young Men are almost always trying to compete in Daring Actions for prestige and, to put it Primately, mating rights. Being told by the Chief that they should not raid the soft civilized types is in many cases more likely to make such raids Absolutely Certain by Wild Young Men who are now defying their own chiefs as well as the civilized army. The current in-game Mode is, for once, pretty close to Historically Accurate.
IF the tribe/clan has a strong leader or leadership institutions, then he/they can enforce compliance and, as a tribe, 'stay bribed'. Introducing this concept could also introduce the idea that the more they Stay Bribed, the stronger their chief/big man leadership is getting, so that you may be speeding up the formation of a Barbarian Kingdom (Attila, anyone?) that will bring Much Grief to everyone nearby.

I am not sure if this can get properly coded in the game, but maybe reduce the likelihood of getting attacked by each barbarian unit each turn as a function of the number of "points toward civilization" a barbarian tribe as.
For example, each unit of a barbarian tribe that is bribed by you that is exactly half-way to becoming a city-state will only attack you 50% of the time on average outside of your territory if they have the opportunity to do so. (A log scale could also be used.)
Thus, it would completely make sense that once a tribe has "filled its bar", it becomes civilized (ie a city-state) and consequently its units are completely neutral towards you (ie 0% chance of getting attacked by its units if they have the opportunity to do so).

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the three main things that still have to be done to Barbarian Clans include all the real possibilities are:

1. Change the name to Tribes and Clans and include the Goodie Huts' possibilities in the 'Barbarian' mechanics. That is, each Camp/Settlement, in addition to the'Barbarian' possibilities presented now, could also be Tentatively Friendly and gift you with something Positive: some tribesmen that immediately decide to emigrate as a Builder or Scout, a map of the nearby territory or locations of all the other Non-Discovered Camps nearby, a Tech or even a Civic you don't have yet, some Gold, etc. Along with this, one of the 'Barbarian Bribe' possibilities would be just to pay them X amount per turn to Stay Friendly, resulting in cheaper costs to hire them snd possible future (random?) 'Goodies' from them.

We already have “friendly tribes”. This is already in the game. Sometimes they are referred to as “goody huts”

2. Trade with Camps should be possible. There was a lot of important trade between Civilizations and Non-City-Builders, and it was lucrative for both sides. The Chinese Dynasties sent everything from silk to porcelain to marriageable princesses to the "Northern Barbarians" and got furs and (especially) good cavalry horses back - trade Must include both Strategic and Amenity resources. The Romans famously traded with the German tribes for Amber (amenity), Furs, Timber, and Human Hair (there was a fad in Imperial Rome for long blond wigs for upper-class Roman women, and so German girls for a time were earning great dowries by cutting their hair just before marriage and selling it to a Roman trader) and sending back manufactured goods like decorated pottery, glassware, and Wine (more amenities)

One thing that trade with Camps would do is ease the restrictions on Strategic Resources - if you don't have Iron, can't get it from your civilized neighbors and contacts, the fact that an alternative supply might be available from your Friendly Neighborhood Barbarian opens up the potential in-game strategies considerably. Of course, one potential effect of this might be that the Barbarians also learn how to use those Strategic Resources, and you wind up facing Barbarian Swordsmen, Knights, Musketmen, etc.

This basically already exists. The existing city states mechanics covers most of this, just add the already existing trade mechanics to city states.

3. Trade, Religion, Bribery - there should be a lot more possibilities to influence the Camps. One might even allow some limited Diplomacy, similar to what we have now with City States, in that a Camp might have a specific 'mission/task' they want you to perform - beat up Them Other Barbarians or City State or Civ nearby, give/sell/trade them some Resource, etc.

Finally, having 'upgraded' Barbarians, either in Civ VI or in Civ VII City States also will need some work. City States being able to advance to Not-in-this-particular-game-yet Civs the way Camps can now 'advance' to City States would make the game far more dynamic and potentially 'open up' the dull late game considerably.

If you want barbs that can become city states that can do what civs do, reduce the number of city states and increase the number of civs.

Seriously I can create the game situation you want by basically turning barbs off, reducing the number of city states and dialing up the number of actual civs.

Civs build units, can be interacted with diplomatically and trades with, you can bribe them etc

If you want to shake up the late game, which becomes tedious because Civ mechanics tend towards “positive feedback snowball” then turn dramatic ages on.

The more you ICS, the harder the golden age threshold is to hit, and the worse the subsequent civil war is

Dramatic Ages is the only time in Civ6 where the answer to “should I spam settlers” might be “no”

 

[Futumch]

I do think that the religious conversion that Apostles can do (Heathen Conversion promotion) should impact the progress of Barbarians --> City-states.

 

[Tuvok694]

I have to give up about two out of five games due to massive barbarian invasions. In today's lost cause they came from one camp (that I had not even discovered at the time) with three catapults, five eagle warriors and three archers, and there was a second camp that "only" kept spamming archers and normal warriors. They could not take my capital but for too many rounds my city was completely surrounded so no unit could even step outside.
I mean, NO ONE can seriously say that the feature "barbarians" is NOT a total, complete failure of the "developers" of this game. The solution to this problem would be so simple: At least have two different "intensities" of barbarians (like in Civ5 for example), something like "normal" barbarians and "raging" barbarians. In the current and unfortunately last state of the game, you can only have NO barbarians (then the AI goes totally crazy in science and culture) or those insanely aggressive barbarians that ruin any early game strategy except "build units for the first 100 turns" and hope there is one or two places to settle a city somewhere.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Agree re two levels, I would like them to go back to the civ IV method as well:-

Turns 0 - 5: No Barbarians
Turns 6 - 25: Barbarian animals (weak, won't enter your borders)
Turn 26+: Barbarian units can now appear

 

[Thormodr]

Whatever the case, I like the barbs in Civ VI a lot better than the emasculated barbs in Civilization 5. For all the people that complain that the AI provides no challenge, the barbs often do. Lol.

The barbs in cIV were great, too. I miss the early game animals, tbh.
Also, when a lone barb axeman appeared over the horizon out of the fog, it sent shivers down my spine.

 

[Tuvok694]

...and just when I think NOW I have my crossbowman and NOW I have my man-at-arms to FINALLY destroy this camp...
...they spawn COURSERS...one every turn for six turns in a row...ALL districts and ALL improvements around my capital pillaged in less turns that it took me to build one crossbowman or pikeman.
Rage quit again. Someone kill me, please.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Barbs should not be an order of magnitude more dangerous than other Civs

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Barbs should not be an order of magnitude more dangerous than other Civs

Contrary to popular belief, IRL Barbarians were never an existential threat to settled Empires, unless the Empires were already in a lot of trouble. Arminius may have massacred three Roman Legions who were caught marching through a dense forest by supposed allies, but the next year Germanicus marched into Germany and kicked butt from the Rhine almost all the way to the Elbe, and the Romans had guard posts watching the trade routes through Germany well beyond the Rhine throughout the early Imperial period. Han Dynasty China conquered across Central Asia all the way to the borders of the Bactrian kingdoms north of (modern) Afghanistan, crushing one army of Barbarian horsemen after another.

When the western Roman Empire went under in the 5th century CE, it had already been weakened by almost 2 centuries of sporadic civil wars and two major plagues that may have wiped out up to 40% of the Empire's population - and even then the 'fall' of Rome needs to go into quotes: Roman administrative forms and language were still being used by the "Barbarian" Visigothic, Ostrogothic, Lombard and Frankish kingdoms for centuries after the 'fall of Rome' - there was a lot of staying power in the Imperial legal, social, and civic mechanisms. - And there is not as much evidence as people assume for any great loss of population in the 'fallen' Imperial provinces after the Plague Years - the same people seem to have stayed on the same land tilling the same fields "under new management" at the top and with less contact with Far Away Places, but not so much day-to-day disruption as Barbarian Invasion implies at first glance.

 

[pokiehl]

I love the challenge barbarians provide in Civ 6. I hope they dont dumb them down in Civ 7.

 

[Thormodr]

I love the challenge barbarians provide in Civ 6. I hope they dont dumb them down in Civ 7.

Exactly. Agree 100%.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I love the challenge barbarians provide in Civ 6. I hope they dont dumb them down in Civ 7.

The problem for me is that the Challenge should come from the other Civs, but the game's AI is so lame that it has to come from from a deus ex machina of Barbarians that can spawn in impossible places and spawn impossible hordes of impossibly-advanced warriors at random.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The problem for me is that the Challenge should come from the other Civs, but the game's AI is so lame that it has to come from from a deus ex machina of Barbarians that can spawn in impossible places and spawn impossible hordes of impossibly-advanced warriors at random.

This right here. I was playing on one of the TSL Earth maps and watched Russia fall to a mass of Laplander Line Infantry.

This was the conclusion of a war that Russia and Scythia declared on me. I took out Scythia and Russia fell to the Laplanders.

The Laplander horde then proved to be a far more difficult foe than Scythia. They even had a fairly substantial navy, which was an unpleasant surprise once I fought my way north of the Arctic circle

 

[pokiehl]

The problem for me is that the Challenge should come from the other Civs, but the game's AI is so lame that it has to come from from a deus ex machina of Barbarians that can spawn in impossible places and spawn impossible hordes of impossibly-advanced warriors at random.

I don’t quite see what these things have to do with each other. A challenging barbarian setup doesn’t have anything to do with the AI really.

 

[Thormodr]

I am confused about people who say the game is way too easy and yet say it is too hard. Lol.

I like raging barbs. People that love to city spam and play in a narrow fashion, don't.

I had a coastal city I just founded, destroyed by seafaring barbs. That was pretty cool. ^^

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don’t quite see what these things have to do with each other. A challenging barbarian setup doesn’t have anything to do with the AI really.

I have always felt that the "challenging Barbarian set up" - which includes outrageously close Barbarian Camp placement and outrageously fast Barbarian Unit spawning - was required because the AI for the Civs themselves provides no opposition to spak of: it all has to come from the Barbarians.

It goes back to the inability to have an AI for the Civs that can actually handle the game's mechanics and victory conditions.

 

[Thormodr]

Or...it slows down greediness by the player. That's a good thing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or...it slows down greediness by the player. That's a good thing.

It makes the player a little more cautious early in the game, which is indeed a Good Thing. But then the menace from Barbarians quickly falls to insignificance as your Civ grows, and the AI and other Civs never take its place.
If they can't give us a competent AI (and they haven't after X years) then at least they should revive the old Barbarian Horde from previous iteration of Civ that would occasionally thunder out of the Fog of War onto one of your cities. That could realistically last until the Medieval Era, and so keep the game interesting a lot longer than it is now . . .