New ideas about Barbarians and slavery

[Spiffor]

I usually post on the "ideas for 1.18" thread, but these ideas are too much to be implemented in a patch. But I think them in the Civ3 frame, so I don't post them in the "Ideas for Civ4 ?" thread. I hope they are implementable in an expansion. If you have comments to say, ideas to add etc. please do ; I'd truly like to have interesting Barbarians.
For clarity : titles will be italic, while core ideas will be underlined.
Oh yes, I forgot : Disclaimer : what I will talk about does not exist in Civ3, it is just born from my brain. Although I hope they will be implemented one day, my ideas have currently nothing to do with Civ3. (Sorry, but against the utter stupidity of Infogreed, I'm utterly stupid)

Barbarians

First, I want to say that I love the concept of barbarian encampments. It gives them more credibility than their random attacks as in Civ2. I will talk here about my thoughts on how to make the system even better. As my ideas make them stronger, and not everybody will feel like it, I suggest the "sedentary" setting remains as it is.

Conceptual discussion
If want to go straight to the point, you can skip this whole part. I will here explain how I was led to have these ideas. I felt that "Barbarians" in civ were normal people who gave much less importance to cities than "Civilized" tribes. Historically, the Greeks called "Barbarians" evry people not originating from the Greek culture, especially the Persians. "Barbarians" are not bloodthirsty, savage people, at least not more than "Civilized" ones. In Civ3, many names of barbaric tribes come from true cultures (Celts, Khmers etc.), which were not considered as civs because we cannot have as many civs, leaders, UU and colours as there was on our world.
I thought then that these Barbarians, as normal people who struggle to thrive and survive, did evolve to form new kinds of communities. They were isolated tribes in ancient times, city-states in medieval era, or I assume that "modern-day-Barbarians" are not necessarily the bearers of modern atrocities, but simply small countries in the middle of the struggle of the big ones. For example, Portugal could be a modern-day "Barbaric" tribe, as it is not really powerful. Again, I'm not saying that the Portuguese are cruel, just that they live in a small country.
Back in ancient times, I feel awkward when "Barbarians" attack mindlessly on sight, while "Civilizations" declare peace on sight, when discovering them. I think that Barbarians have the very same nature as the Civilized, and the primal fear of foreigners should strike both equally. The ability to make peace too.
My ideas are here to make Barbarians less mindless (they are currently as dumb as an undead in Diablo), and more interesting to deal with. Then, I consider them as under-nations (no offense in the word), with limited expansion and diplomatic abilities.

No more warriors in the industrial era !
My biggest problem with Civ3 Barbarians is that they are desperately behind in technology, except at the very beginning of the game. Even when you decide to wipe them out of Siberia in the modern age, they can only oppose you with warriors (plenty of them, but you hardly risk to lose a mech. infantry in the process). To make them more challenging, I suggest they should have the techs that every Civ on the continent already knows. When every civ has a given tech, the Barbs should not have them immediately ; I rather suggest it spreads slowly among the land. Concretly, it means they get the tech x turns after it is discovered, where x is the number of tiles between the nearest border and the encampment, plus a minimum (let's say 10 turns).
Let's take a concrete example : I share a continent with the British and the Indians. I trade Bronze Working to the Indians, and the Brits have it already. There is a Hun village 3 tiles away from the Indian border. In 13 turns (3 + the given minimum 10), the Hun will be able to build spearmen rather than warriors. I'm not sure what the minimum should be, I'm not even sure there should be any, that's what I think the minimum should be editable.
I'm saying "on the continent" because I think isolated Barbs on forgotten islands shouldn't profit from the tech of a far away continent. I'm not speaking about Barbs researching techs on their own, because I don't want them to use more of my processing power by making choices.
This way, forgotten Barbs of huge (partly civilized) continents will be a real nuisance when a Civ decides to wipe them out in the modern era. I will come back later to Barbarians needing resources.

Barbarians : more than tribes, small Nations
Now that the Barbs are able to build more modern units, why have they to be isolated tribes ? As others, they try to expand. However, Civ3 is bound with the processing ability of our computers, and cannot allow 80 or so Civs playing at the same time. That's why the Barbs cannot act as complicated as true civs. I think, however, they should have very simple ways to expand and gain in power, not too much demanding to our CPUs.
The first thing is building automatically one new camp of the same tribe every x turns. This will make Barbs quite challenging at the beginning of the game, when they expand at a comparable pace with the Civilizations, but they will soonly expand much more slowly, as their progression is arithmetic (always one more city), while the civs progress geometrically (every city builds settlers). To build a new camp, Barbs won't need settlers, the new camp will just pop out in the most adapated place when the time has come. More technically, I thought about an equation on how often a new camp should pop out : (n-e)*s/n, where n is the quantity of eras, e the number of the current era (ancient=0, modern=3), and s the cost of a settler in shields. With the standard rules, it means 30 turns in ancient, 23 in medieval, 15 in Industrial, 10 in modern.
Where the Barbs build their camps ? Put simply, at the most devensive tile newt to their borders. Yes, I define borders of barbarian countries : simply the 9 tiles surrounding a camp, like when you just founded a city. But these borders do not evolve with culture : Barbs do not produce any. A new Barbarian camp is right next to the border, i.e 2 tiles away from another camp. If there are several surrounding tiles with the same defense value, the new camp should have a resource in its radius. The next condition is to be the farthest possible from a civ's border. If still several tiles can be considered as the most adapted, well, it should be decided at random between them. Barbs could also build on mountains and any other terrain civs can normally not settle upon. However, Barbs cannot settle within the borders of a civ, and cannot settle on antothr continent if it is farther than their immediate surroundings. When there is no place to create new camps, the tribe simply ceases to expand.
This combination of 3 conditions, occuring after a given time is not too demanding to the CPU : the Barbs do not have to choose if they build a settler or not, they do not have to think thoroughly where to put the city. Nothing common with an AI civ. Barbarians remain dumb, but a bit less.
In my idea, the Barbarians remain militaristic. Thus, they should build militaristic improvements (not wonders). I still don't know if a new military building should be automatically built like new camps, or if they should choose between building units and building improvements. Anyway, all buildings with a militaritic function should be available to Barbarians once they get the tech : land/sea/air veteran producing structure (barracks ...), defense-raising structures (walls), sea or air defense (coastal fortres...). I'm not naming the buildings but the functions, since they can be edited, and I wouldn't like it hardcoded.
As anybody else, Barbarians need resouces to build their units and structures. Unlike anybody else, they do not necessarily need roads to acquire or trade for them. If a resource is within their territory (as defined sooner), it's theirs. I will be also possible to them to trade with civs for resources, I will come back to it later.
As Barbarians give a bit more importance to their camps, and evolve technologically, their camps should have different looks to match the era they achieved, and to show if they are walled or not. But Barbarian camps are not normal cities, and do not demand as much management : population is not the question, the camp produces units regularily (as it already does), there is no happiness, taxes, science or whatever to manage. The barbs have many less options than a normal civ, namely "What unit will be produced next ?".

Waging wars with Barbarians
Ok, Barbarians wage war with Civs, that's the normal way. When you conquer a barbarian encampment, you should be able not to raze it, but capture the Barbarian camp if you want (you have the same choice as when conquering a civilized city). If you choose to keep the camp under your control, it becomes a normal, civilized city, and keeps all improvements you did not destroy while capturing. As it becomes a normal city, you'll have to name it (camps have no name). The population of a conquered city should vary, depending of the era the Barbs have achieved : 1 pop. point in ancient, 4 in modern (editable if possible). The inhabitants should be of a barbarian nationality, and will integrate your Civ normally. I mentioned sooner that Barbarian encampments could be created on "unsettlerable" terrain... If you conquer an encampment on a terrain which couldn't bear a city, the encampment is automatically disbanded (or can be turned into a colony if it lies on a resource).
Barbarians will probably be able to conquer some of your cities. If your they had no culture, the Barbarians turn your city into an encampment, and keep military buildings they did not destroyed while invading. This city will be considered as a berfectly normal barbarian camp, without resistance, unhappiness etc. If Barbarians attack undefended workers/settlers, rather than killing them, they will try to move them to the next camp. If they make it, they create a new camp for each worker they get, as explained before (they do not have to bring the worker to the place they want to settle). The times is not reset, and if they're only 3 turns creating a new camp, they'll still do so in 3 turns... captured workers/settlers are bonuses.
So, in my idea, Barbarian camps are pretty solid. That's why I think they shouldn't be dismantled when inside your borders. If you want to chase the Barbs, you'll have to do it the hard way ! Sometimes, the Barbarians' borders will come into conflict with a Civ's border. The struggle should be treated as a normal one between civs. I don't know how to manage cultural reversion... But as Barbarian camps are not normal cities, and as there is no people-management, I assume there shouldn't be any cultural reversion of barbarian camps.
War between barbarian tribes. For now, Barbarians are agressive with everybody they encounter. It should be the case with rival barbarians as well. If my Huns find a Celt camp, they should be as likely to attack their rivals as to attack a Civ. When a tribe conquers a rival encampment, it becomes his. Having rival Barbarians could raise the problem of team colours : as the Barbarians are competing, shouldn't each tribe have a specific colour ? I don't think so, because war between Barbarians interst mostly themselves : when a Civ wants to make it simple, it comes and conquers with its astonishing troops. I don't know if barbarian borders should be drawn on the map.

Diplomacy with Barbarian chiefs
I will make it clear : Barbarians are only agessive in Civ, but I think they're normal people who are as warprone and peaceprone as others. So, I think it should be possible to make peace with the Barbarians, I mean each tribe individually. Some other basic diplomacy should be possible with them :
Trade for their resources. The Barbs have no gold, nor techs, but can have resources or luxuries. As they have no need for gold, they can only ask for resources/luxuries/diplomatic agreements in return. As there are 2 resources per Civ on the map, and that now the Barbs do need them, they'll be able to use their resource even if they sell it. This way, they'll still be eager to trade even if they have only one spot of iron.
Side with them : you make an alliance which isn't necessarily oriented against a foe, it's rather defensive. If Civ permits one day to protect foreign cities with his own troops, such a feature could be implemented in a cooperation with Barbs. When the Barbs are attacked by a foreign power you're at peace with, you are prompting before declaring war. Of course, if you refuse, your reputation won't suffer in the eyes of the other Civs. No matter how foul you are with Barbarians, the Civs don't care.
Trade for slaves : slaves are my next big idea, I'll explain it in the next post. Basically, it's bringing new workers to the next city with a special status.
The important thing is that you, as a Civ, have the initiative of the discussion. The Barbs cannot start a negotiation by themselves. Their demands are not negotiable : if they want incense for iron, you accept or not. The other civs can have the initiative of diplomacy with the Barbs too, and can trade with them the same way as you do. As no Barb can initiate diplomacy, there is no hope of peace between Barbarians. Again, I limit them so that their turn doesn't last long.
Now, how to trade with the Barbarians ? As they do not build roads, I think they should trade with near cities. For example, my city of Kagoshima is 5 tiles away of a Maya camp ; we are next to each other, so I can trade with the Maya, without roads between each other ; however, Kagoshima is connected to my trade network, and to the world trade network (I'm at peace with everyone) ; so every Civ can trade with the Maya. Now, the Zulu decide to raze the encampment, and the next one is too far from Kagoshima, so the Maya are isolated again.
In gameplay terms, to discuss with Barbarians, you have to right-click one of their units or encampments. In the contextual menu, all the available propositions (which should be few) would appear. In the medieval era, the menu could look like this with a peaceful tribe : "propose alliance", "trade for saltpeter", "trade for ivory", "trade for slaves", "cancel treaty ->". The Barbarian answer should come in a popup saying what they ask for their resources, with yes/no buttons at the bottom.

Some after thoughts
Well, there are things about which I'm hesitating : should Barbarians be able to build roads and railroads (without workers, but automatically, like for building camps) ? What should they do when conquering a city which has culture ? I thought they could simply loot it and make it lose a pop. point, like they already do, razing it when pop. reaches zero. How can they upgrade their units with a reasonable restraint ? I thought about letting them upgrade a unit every x turns. But my most important problem is that I couldn't define the role and the objectives of "peaceful" Barbarians. Even at peace, they still build only their military power, and they keep their only role of military hindrance against the civ who will want to crush them.
Another thing is that many variables I talked about should be editable. If my ideas were take into account by Firaxis, the editor would need a whole "Barbarian" tab, which would be quite filled.

[Spiffor]

Slavery

What are slaves ?
Slaves are people forced to worked in horrible conditions, with no or little hope for freedom. They were at the core of whole economies, such as the ancient Greek one, or the southern United States. They were in CTP, but are very discreet in Civ3 (captured workers are considered as "slaves").
In my idea, slaves are captured workers or workers bought from Barbarians. They do not need any upkeep while working of the terrains. And when integrated to a city, they should retain their condition of slaves. There are no slaves without master, and no city can hold only slaves. Slaves could be freed (by choosing in the contextual menu of the worker unit or the laborer head) and could only work in the fields, but foreign nationals could also be enslaved. Democracy and communism do not allow slavery (there should be an "allow slavery" box in the government editor). There are

Economic usefulness of slaves
Slaves work 50% slower than normal when they are worker units. When integrated to a city, they produce as much as a free citizen under despotism, but only eat one food. Thus, they are perfect under despotism, but not necessary better than free citizens under Republic or Monarchy. Slaves are the first ones to suffer from the whip. This makes them interesting, because they represent an easy-to-get and easy-to-sacrifice population in ancient times.

Slaves and unhappiness
Slaves' unhappyness is separated from the normal citizens' unhappiness. In history, slaves were considered as Untermenschen, and the poor among the free citizens didn't show any solidarity towards them. So, a slave uprising is different from a civil disorder. Every slave is potentially discontent, and the only way to calm him is through military pressure. The number of slave-calming units is not limited : if you want 7 slaves in your city, you'll need 7 units to calm them, whatever the regime. Units can cumulate their role as military police for free citizens and slaves : if you have 2 hoplites in a despotic city with one free unhappy and 2 slaves, the hoplites will be enough to calm the free citizen, and the two of them (who calm slaves separately) will be enough to calm the 2 slaves. Your city won't go into disorder / uprising.
When freeing a slave, they will be unhappy for x turns, reflecting their bitterness of their past and their difficulty to find a new place in the society. When you enslave a foreign national, they will count as 2 discontent slaves rather than one (negative unhappiness is possible among the slaves). When making a communist or democratic revolution, all slaves are freed, making your civ risk major trouble for several turns.

[player1]

For slavery:

Nice mix of CTP1 & CIV3

I would suggest 2 suppresed slaves for 1 miltary unit.
1 for 1 is just too much.

[Mr. Blaze]

hmm.. some very good ideas... my like!!

i also agree 1 military should calm 2 slaves

[Spiffor]

Ok, this was pretty long, so I sum up my ideas :
- Barbs get the techs every Civ already has, to make them more challenging
- Barbs "create" camps as time passes by. They create camps also when they capture workers / settlers. Under some conditions, when they win a civlized city, they changed it into their camp.
- Barbarians can use some resources, if they have them within their borders.
- Barb camps can have some militaristic improvements.
- Barbs may have some basic diplomacy and trade.
- Barbarian tribes wage war with each other.

Slaves :
- Slaves are foreign citizens, who work as good as a normal citizen under despotism
- Slaves eat one food less than citizens
- Slaves can only be maintained content through force. But you can have as many units to maintain them content as you need (no police cap)
- Discontentment for slaves is separated from discontentment of citizens
- Slaves are the first to get killed by the whip
- You can free a slave by right-clicking on him. He'll be unhappy for some turns, but this unhappiness can be dealt with normal ways.
- Some governments don't allow slaveray (communism, democracy)

[Shadowlord]

Sounds really good - I hope Firaxis does something with it.

[Nym]

Interesting ideas indeed, but I think diplomacy and trade with barbs will however be quite difficult to implement.

Truly, it would be cool if Firaxis implements the expansion principle for barbs

[Tarquinius]

Can you explain what a barracks would do for babarians? Would it produce regular, or even veteran units? Or just faster healing?

And do you want to keep the babarian penalties against the player on lower diffulties or not?

In general: I think your ideas about barbarians and slavery are really good ; I hope Firaxis implents them in the next patch or the expansion pack

[dunk]

Why should the barbarians be civs? It makes no sense. There are already other entities to trade with and make war with. They're called the civilizations.

Slavery... I could take it or leave it. Optional if implemented.

[Spiffor]

Tarquinius : I thought barracks would let Barb encampments produce regular units. We shouldn't forget they're small fry compared to a true civ.
I think the bonuses should remain the same... They're editable anyways.
I suppose my ideas could come with a new difficulty setting for the Barbs... After "sedentary", "roaming", "restless" etc., we could have "developed" or something like that

[Panag]

hi ,

okay , now , lets tell firaxis , ...............

maybe in a mod , hmmmm , Gramphos , could maybe make something out of it , ......


have a nice day

[x-zentric]

Fireaxis won't implement it cause they don't like giving the community what they want

Cough*Multiplayer*cough

Send your ideas to them, they never look at these forums etc

good luck, i like ur ideas

Also they should bring back the Celts!!!!!!!

Cheeky sods bring back the Celts

[Panag]

hi ,

well firaxis , huh , some members are online , from time to time , wheter or not they read the forums , remains to be seen , .....

as for the rest , multiplayer , well , yeah , .......i am sure they shall need a patch for it , and that proves that they are fixing some details , .... , ahem , "details" , that the players have to accept , if they like it or not , ..... , maybe they can start to include "options" , i like this , you like that , enable this or that , ....

of course , one could always start to fix things himself , ....like JimmyH and Gramhos , and you can bet that sooner than later they shall do so , .....please say some prayers , ........

have a nice day