suggestions for civ 7

[reddishrecue]

Honestly, civ should get rid of the term "barbarian" completely. My understanding is that it was a pejorative term that the Romans used to describe anyone that was not part of the Roman civilization. I don't think the Gauls considered themselves barbarians.

Instead the game should just have different tribes at the start of the game that each have their own proper name. And these tribes could rise to become full fledged civs or not. So you might encounter a tribe that is still "primitive" or another tribe that has become a city-state. You might encounter a tribe that is aggressive or a tribe that just wants to trade or be left alone.

Nice example with the Gaul. I do recall the Romans calling them barbarians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Honestly, civ should get rid of the term "barbarian" completely. My understanding is that it was a pejorative term that the Romans used to describe anyone that was not part of the Roman civilization. I don't think the Gauls considered themselves barbarians.

Instead the game should just have different tribes at the start of the game that each have their own proper name. And these tribes could rise to become full fledged civs or not. So you might encounter a tribe that is still "primitive" or another tribe that has become a city-state. You might encounter a tribe that is aggressive or a tribe that just wants to trade or be left alone.

The term started with the Greeks, who indeed called anyone not Greek "barbarian." Of course that also meant certain polis thought of other Greeks as barbarian as well, and of course "Greek people" who lived on the outskirts of Greek territory including the Macedonians. By those standards Romans would be barbarians too.

Of course I'd love the idea for every civ to start out as a nomadic tribe. I still think from the main menu you should be able to pick a civilization and then you start out as say the American tribe, or English tribe. Other major ai civs will be similar. Other tribes could still be similar to the "barbarian clans" that can eventually form into city-states, with some being more aggressive, and others being more peaceful, like you mentioned.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Honestly, civ should get rid of the term "barbarian" completely. My understanding is that it was a pejorative term that the Romans used to describe anyone that was not part of the Roman civilization. I don't think the Gauls considered themselves barbarians.

Instead the game should just have different tribes at the start of the game that each have their own proper name. And these tribes could rise to become full fledged civs or not. So you might encounter a tribe that is still "primitive" or another tribe that has become a city-state. You might encounter a tribe that is aggressive or a tribe that just wants to trade or be left alone.

The term was actually originally Greek, and simply meant anybody who did not speak Greek. That, of course, also implied that they were un-cultured varmints, which is where the negative connotations came from that seem to be all the meaning it has left today.

Since Civ requires knowledge of a language and named Leader to include a Civ, there are hundreds of potential historical 'tribal' names that could be applied to in-game groups that have no particular negative or positive connotation left to them, because the original groups have been absorbed or extinguished long ago.
Just for example, here are the 9th - 7th century BCE Greek Dark Age and Thracian tribal names - one era and one small area of potential 'tribal' names for the game:
Greek:
Aetolians
Arcarnians
Atintanes
Chaonians
Eleans
Locrians
Lyncestai
Malians
Minyans
Molossians
Phoceans
Thesprotians
Thracian:
Bessi
Bisaltai
Bithyni
Brygi
Dii
Edones
Getae
Kikones
Moesi
Odomanti
Sapaei
Satrai
Sithones
Thyni
Triballi

So there's no reason to have to resort to generic and perjorative titles like 'barbarian' in the game.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I have suddenly realized that since civ7 is certainly in production for years, and is probably going to be released next year (imo), it kinda makes little point to discuss revolutionary fundamental changes at this stage... They have conceptualized the most important workings of map/economy/warfare long time ago.

I was thinking about this recently as well. While the game could be released within the next year, and is thus unlikely to be open to core changes, it is not clear expansion of those mechanics is set in stone. In the absence of influencing mechanical aspects, this forum in particular seems to concern itself more with the development of norms, for instance, increasing representation of certain groups or deciding the term "barbarian" is inappropriate.

 

[luca 83]

new possible actions for a cold war or undeclared war. diplomatic expulsion : send away foreign diplomats no possibility of direct embassy , worsen relations , embargo of products oil , steel , food , worsen relations and raise prices , kill citizens of your state or others in another country , worsen relations , supply arms , to another country in some cases can worsen relations , if it is at war for example , provide military aid to a country example : cuba 1962 , vietnam , korea , urss , south korea usa worsen relations , of course none of this is possible without a good ai

 

[GeneralZift]

new possible actions for a cold war or undeclared war. diplomatic expulsion : send away foreign diplomats no possibility of direct embassy , worsen relations , embargo of products oil , steel , food , worsen relations and raise prices , kill citizens of your state or others in another country , worsen relations , supply arms , to another country in some cases can worsen relations , if it is at war for example , provide military aid to a country example : cuba 1962 , vietnam , korea , urss , south korea usa worsen relations , of course none of this is possible without a good ai

Sometimes I think you guys just say buzzwords 24/7 as suggestions for Civ 7

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Sometimes I think you guys just say buzzwords 24/7 as suggestions for Civ 7

There is nothing wrong with a little ideation.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have suddenly realized that since civ7 is certainly in production for years, and is probably going to be released next year (imo), it kinda makes little point to discuss revolutionary fundamental changes at this stage... They have conceptualized the most important workings of map/economy/warfare long time ago.

I’m hoping this means we get a more polished version of Civ6 as Civ7

 

[awesome]

Civ7 isn’t going to start off as a game with 2-3 expansion packs, so I don’t really see why we can’t discuss ideas.
That being said, I don’t think that the name “barbarian” is going anywhere, unless it’s just replaced with “small tribe,” or something

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civ7 isn’t going to start off as a game with 2-3 expansion packs, so I don’t really see why we can’t discuss ideas.
That being said, I don’t think that the name “barbarian” is going anywhere, unless it’s just replaced with “small tribe,” or something

I personally wish for something along the lines of dealing with either "hostile tribes" or "friendly tribes". But yeah I can totally just seeing us getting back tribal villages as "goodie huts" and barbarian clans, similar to the game mode, in the base game.

 

[Krajzen]

If I have ever had this vibe of "yeah there is no way they won't radically change it in the next game", I most definitely have it with "barbarians", like... no way, everything else received to much individualism and (attempts at) depth for "barbarians" to remain, and also it really is a relic of very different family friendly notions of history.

I'd love to feel the same vibe with 1UPT, but I dread they are going to retain it for some unfathomable reason, although I am somewhat hopeful that they will shake this system radically, it has too many terrible disadvantages which are unsolvable without changing the entire paradigm. Also, while there are many people who say "1upt is better than doomstacks" (arguably maybe true, though at least with doomstack me and my turn loading waste less time), it doesn't seem to have a super enthusiastic fanbase like "nooo you can't change into something that promises to be better, it it is amazing combat system perfect for civ".

If devs went out and said "yo guys, blabla bla coping diplomatic intro, we were very satisfied with fanbase reaction to blabla, there were some great issues however blabla, we decided to take what's best from 1upt and acommodate it in a system we called Doomwave which has this and this and this much more depth much less micro, look here is battle of Austerliz and Napoleon as general" then I'm sure 90% of people would be more or less happy. Which is much better percentage that (seemingly) initial reaction to civ6 art style for example

 

[aieeegrunt]

Merge the concept of City State and Barbarian, and randomly assign the trait of “aggressive jerk” to some of them each game

 

[luca 83]

another tip on barbarian populations: barbarians can be sedentary, hordes, or populations with ships, if friendly you can trade, sell, buy, let them enter your territory (feudus) or ask for enrollment or help in your army, this is correct and opens up many possibilities

 

[Henri Christophe]

another tip on barbarian populations: barbarians can be sedentary, hordes, or populations with ships, if friendly you can trade, sell, buy, let them enter your territory (feudus) or ask for enrollment or help in your army, this is correct and opens up many possibilities

Maybe if have a lot of barbarians clans, because make peace with all barbarians at once make no sense. This state of perpetual conflit is needed to use military units to exploration of the map. If we trade with barbarians, this more a city state.
And if we will need a lot of clans of barbarians, is needed to give a name to them, what is hard to do.

 

[luca 83]

you do not have to make peace with all the barbarians! only with the peaceful ones. in history there have been barbarian tribes such as the Lombards or Franks, first fought then allies, for names: Visigoths, Vandals, Gepids, Avars, Bulgarians, Ostrogoths, Alans, Kazakhs, Vikings. Saxons, Angles, Gauls, Visigoths, Angles, Bavarians, Huns, Slavs, Russians, Bagaudes, Scythians, Helvetians, Maures, Silingian Vandals, Bretons, Suebi, Asdingian Vandals, Welsh, you could even have them fight for you.

 

[Henri Christophe]

you do not have to make peace with all the barbarians! only with the peaceful ones. in history there have been barbarian tribes such as the Lombards or Franks, first fought then allies, for names: Visigoths, Vandals, Gepids, Avars, Bulgarians, Ostrogoths, Alans, Kazakhs, Vikings. Saxons, Angles, Gauls, Visigoths, Angles, Bavarians, Huns, Slavs, Russians, Bagaudes, Scythians, Helvetians, Maures, Silingian Vandals, Bretons, Suebi, Asdingian Vandals, Welsh, you could even have them fight for you.

You still giving name to barbarians, what I believe is wrong, but you just give europeans names, if barbarian should have name, it should be diverse as all game. Maybe change the name "barbarian" should be a solution to your propose, because barbarian have a bad meaning. Maybe we can called nomadic civilizations, it's works as city states but don't settle their cities in early game, but, even without a city they can spawn units and make trades with the players.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You still giving name to barbarians, what I believe is wrong, but you just give europeans names, if barbarian should have name, it should be diverse as all game.

Last time I checked the Khazaks, Huns, and Scythians weren't European, or at least didn't originate in modern day Europe.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

You still giving name to barbarians, what I believe is wrong, but you just give europeans names, if barbarian should have name, it should be diverse as all game. Maybe change the name "barbarian" should be a solution to your propose, because barbarian have a bad meaning. Maybe we can called nomadic civilizations, it's works as city states but don't settle their cities in early game, but, even without a city they can spawn units and make trades with the players.

I agree more or less with the core concept that moving past the term "barbarian" ought to include diversifying the pool of names we would draw on to describe those groups. Just as Henri points out, it ought to reflect at least the extent to which non-European cultures and peoples have been represented through expanded civilizations, city-states, and great people, among other elements. Perhaps we need a new thread to diversify the candidates for tribes and non-state actors, acknowledging that these groups may need their own representation or may be overly controversial, as with those approaching modern times.

Last time I checked the Khazaks, Huns, and Scythians weren't European, or at least didn't originate in modern day Europe.

Agreed, but aside from the Kazakhs (from what I can tell), all the other names evoke a sense of European or Mediterranean civilization under threat from the outside. I think this reflects an underlying sentiment I believe Henri would agree with that moving past the term "barbarian" would feel hollow if it meant being confined to or dominated by a European context.

 

[luca 83]

I agree more or less with the core concept that moving past the term "barbarian" ought to include diversifying the pool of names we would draw on to describe those groups. Just as Henri points out, it ought to reflect at least the extent to which non-European cultures and peoples have been represented through expanded civilizations, city-states, and great people, among other elements. Perhaps we need a new thread to diversify the candidates for tribes and non-state actors, acknowledging that these groups may need their own representation or may be overly controversial, as with those approaching modern times.


Agreed, but aside from the Kazakhs (from what I can tell), all the other names evoke a sense of European or Mediterranean civilization under threat from the outside. I think this reflects an underlying sentiment I believe Henri would agree with that moving past the term "barbarian" would feel hollow if it meant being confined to or dominated by a European context.

wrong! the huns, francs, visigoths, are people from east mongolia, russia, therefore not european or not mediterranean people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agreed, but aside from the Kazakhs (from what I can tell), all the other names evoke a sense of European or Mediterranean civilization under threat from the outside. I think this reflects an underlying sentiment I believe Henri would agree with that moving past the term "barbarian" would feel hollow if it meant being confined to or dominated by a European context.

I mean I'd also expect if they give them historical names then the Xiongnu, Manchu, Uyghurs, Yakuts, Ainu, Lakota, Shawnee, Guarini, Tupi etc. would possibly appear too, if they don't become full fledged civilizations.

Either way whether they stick with historical names, or those similar to the barbarian clans mode, I'd just simply call them "tribes", which all could start out as nomadic and then some eventually live in settlements, which then could develop further into city-states depending on how hostile or aggressive they are.