Nomadic civilization

[Nikolai]

No, it's the interface and such that is RTSish. Sid wouldn't dare to face the wrath of Apolton's United Forces of Turn Based Strategy for World Domaination(AUFTBSWD(tm)).

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Nikolai
And you call Empire Earth "Civ"?

it's the closest that RTS can come to Civ

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by GeoModder
A "nomad" civ could basically only survive if the cities it conquered would "give" it the resources needed to get into industrialisation in the first place... and unless vast plains or steppes are put aside for its encampings/settlements, its way of life would be overwhelmed by the very own conquered citizens anyway in due time.

That is exactly what I had in mind.

While it would be a challenge to play such Civ in the game, it is exactly what Mongols or White Turks or Hunns were in their time. And this eventually led to their near-destruction. In reality, only Kazakhstan, Mongolia and some part of China now geographically supports this style of life.

However, the Civs of this type were modded in Civ2 (colonisation by Mr.Ellis) to simulate Sioux (there settlers were available, but at awesome cost). The same mechanics is needed for any early mediaeval scenario (i.e. Rise of Islam), where they will occupy steppe (they should occupy steppe anyway), will research slowly (no roads) and fight extremely aggressively. Sort of civilised barbarians.

I fully agree with you on facts, but in my opinion they are interesting.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by sophist
Rather than have one category of sedentary civilizations and another category of nomadic civilizations, I think all civilizations should begin as nomads.

No, wrong. Incas started with maize and potatoes, Arabs with camels and wheat, and Mongols with horses and horses. Not all civs should start as nomads. Mesopotamia had agriculture 7000 BC, and was pretty sedentary in neolithic times.

[SIZE=1] A civ gives up some things and gain other things to become sedentary.

This ia another way to go, which is also interesting.
But I am for some "initial" specialisation. Under which you can start only agricultural or only nomadic. Later you can "research" both, but not immediately.

[SIZE=1] They can interact with other civs (settled or otherwise) by being mercenaries, extorting booty, etc. There would be no built-in difference between these nomads and barbarians. You might choose to remain a nomadic tribe if the area you inhabited wasn't suitable for large-scale settlement (due to terrain, technology, etc.). I haven't thought through why a player would want to remain a nomadic or semi-nomadic civilization into the medieval age, but I'm sure there are ways to make that interesting while also making it possible to catch up in a hurry once you decided to settle down (like the Goths, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, etc. did).

Agree. However, for some reason steppe in Eurasia was nomadic till the end of 19th century !!! Way past industrialisation.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Jonah5

The term "civilization" comes from the Latin root word for city, "civitas" from which the words "civic, civilian, and citizen" come from, and nomads don't live in cities. Might be a good mod if it could work. Just a little history lesson here!

That's true. But somehow, those folks had states, engaged in politics, and conquered vast areas, which were more civilized. How did that happen?

Do they not deserve to have a proper modelling in the game? Nomads were independent till 19th century !!!

From 4000 BC toll 1850 AD.

IMHO nomadic village, where one nomad tiles 3 squares (for the benefit of one, but without any irrigation) is a good model of Karakorum, or Sarai Batu, or some other nomadic place. It cannot grow above size of 6, but it can quickly expand and conquer.

IMHO, if Mongols, Turks and Uighurs are to be modelled as barbarians, then barbarians should be remodelled. In Civ3 they cannot survive past 1000 BC, not to speak about 1850 AD.

[Drakan]

Originally posted by Nikolai
No, it's the interface and such that is RTSish. Sid wouldn't dare to face the wrath of Apolton's United Forces of Turn Based Strategy for World Domaination(AUFTBSWD(tm)).

AUFTBSWD !!

[Maniac]

Now that we know pillaging gives money, a Nomadic civic which doubles the amount of gold you get from pillaging those sedentary people would be neat.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW Agree. However, for some reason steppe in Eurasia was nomadic till the end of 19th century !!! Way past industrialisation.

Now, If I'm mistaken forgive me, but:

Anyone remember "The Revolt in the Desert" by T.E. Lawrence? Weren't the Bedu a nomadic people? That was 1916, When Lawrence went to Arabia.

They survived into the Early 20th century and managed to fend off a major power (The Turks!) with the help of thegreatestempiretogracetheearth Britain.

Anyone remember that movie? 1962 Academy Award winner of "Best Picture".

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Verenti

Now, If I'm mistaken forgive me, but:

Anyone remember "The Revolt in the Desert" by T.E. Lawrence? Weren't the Bedu a nomadic people? That was 1916, When Lawrence went to Arabia.

They survived into the Early 20th century and managed to fend off a major power (The Turks!) with the help of thegreatestempiretogracetheearth Britain.

Anyone remember that movie? 1962 Academy Award winner of "Best Picture".

This is true. However, Saudi Arabia and Yemen were not conquered by UK merely because UK had no interest in this country. Overall the territory held by nomads by 1850 was still large, but it was rapidly shrinking thereafter. China, Russia, England and France all made their contribution to elimination of Uighurs, Mongols, Kazakhs and Arabs. They ceased to exist as nations with the exception of Saudi Arabia.

By the way, nomadism can be useful even now in areas, where you cannot irrigate altogether (raindeer herding in tundra and taiga, nomads in Sahara and in Tibet). So the concept is more accurate than the ability to farm desert in Civ3 and tundra in Civ2.

What percentage of taiga, tundra and desert is actually irrigated? Farmed?

And Bedu people existed till 1950, and probably exist now. The discovery of Oil before WW2 made many of them to move to the cities. Today's age is the age of skyscrapers.

[Senethro]

Nomadic civs?

How about beginning with the ability to make horse units and nomadic camps, nomadic camps capped to 3 population, not permitted to make workers/settlers/cities, all units cost 1 population, all units can establish camps, all units gather 1 of each resource from the tile they finish their turn on (if not fighting), bonuses from pillaging, don't capture cities; instead steal gold/hammers/population, ummmm.......

Oh yeah, building a palace somewhere irreversibly ends the nomadic era and establishes your capital city. Nomad camps over size 2 become size 1 cities.

I don't know, those are just some random ideas for a possible non-settled Civ to still gather resources and still be in the game.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW

Not all civs should start as nomads. Mesopotamia had agriculture 7000 BC, and was pretty sedentary in neolithic times.

Depends on how far back you look. Every group was a nomadic tribe at some point. So you push back the start of the game to 10000 BC. Then you make the turns 200 years until 6000 BC and 100 years until 4000 BC or something like that. That gives you a little time to explore your surroundings and establish a couple of camps in decent locations. Instead of starting with just one city, you might have two or three camps that emerge as cities in 4000 BC, or you could put all your eggs in one basket and found a single settlement in 7000 BC.

Originally posted by Yarco_TW

Agree. However, for some reason steppe in Eurasia was nomadic till the end of 19th century !!! Way past industrialisation.

Then it's worth understanding the reasons for that pattern in the real world and figuring out how to model it in-game.

Originally posted by Senethro

How about beginning with the ability to make horse units and nomadic camps, nomadic camps capped to 3 population, not permitted to make workers/settlers/cities, all units cost 1 population, all units can establish camps, all units gather 1 of each resource from the tile they finish their turn on (if not fighting), bonuses from pillaging, don't capture cities; instead steal gold/hammers/population, ummmm.......

I was thinking that all civs would start with a 'Tribe' unit. This would be a hybrid of a settler, a city, and a barbarian village. A Tribe has a population of 2 or 3 (your first one has a population of 2). The Tribe can harvest resources from whatever tile it is on and food from that tile and neighboring ones.

A Tribe has a production of 1 hammer per population unit per turn. That production can only be used to produce military units or ships. Horses might be tricky, but I want to change how Horses work anyway so that you can breed them wherever you want rather than having to get them like Coal. Tribes can build no city improvements nor do they have commerce. As such, they have no income or science. I'm on the fence as to whether they have culture.

When a Tribe is population 3 and grows, it splits into 2 Tribe units. These Tribes are all units in the same civ. That is the only way you can create a new Tribe; it's not a buildable unit.

Nomads can make money by extortion, selling resources they control, or renting their military units to other nations. They can acquire and sell technologies just like regular civilizations, but they cannot discover them on their own.

Originally posted by Senethro

Oh yeah, building a palace somewhere irreversibly ends the nomadic era and establishes your capital city. Nomad camps over size 2 become size 1 cities.

I was thinking that 'found city' could be an action that a Tribe unit could take. A Tribe of size 2 would just found a city of size 1 (like a Settler), while a Tribe of size 3 would found a city of size 1 and spawn a Worker.

There are more details to work out, but that's my thinking so far.

[GeoModder]

An alternative for trading could be that such a 'tribe' can trade/build things according to the tile it is 'established' on. ie a tribe on horses could easily train a horse army, and one on fur or dye or whatever could trade such things with other civs.

The special thing could be that tribes don't need roads then to have the special resources they own for being able to construct/use those for their whole civ.

[Willem]

Re: Nomadic civilization

Originally posted by Yarco_TW

3) allow nomadic settlers (movement speed = 2)

Kind of a contradiction isn't it? The whole idea of nomadic cultures is that they don't settle, they just keep moving. So there'd never be a nomadic city, and they wouldn't stand a chance in the game.

[GeoModder]

Since tiles represent a rather large amount of territory, technically a band of nomads could be roaming their land (tile). You could as well state that they have a home camp which can produce/spawn basic units and could break up and leave when a big enough threat comes over the horizon.

[Jonah5]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW


That's true. But somehow, those folks had states, engaged in politics, and conquered vast areas, which were more civilized. How did that happen?

Do they not deserve to have a proper modelling in the game? Nomads were independent till 19th century !!!

I am not dissagreeing that (i.e)the Mongols should have a different/unique type of modelling, maybe civ5 you will get what u want! Then again there are so many aspects of the world and its history/future that can not accurately be put into a game.

1 more turn please!