Nomadic civilization

[Yarco_TW]

With the current level of detail in Civ, I think we should finally develop a nomadic Civ. It should be different from Agricultural, and have its own path.

Nomadic civs are few, but they definitely developed in a different manner. These include Khazars, Chinese Hunns, Turks and Mongols.

Nomadism should
1) disallow native workers untill industrialization
2) allow only foreign nation workers doing irrigation (conquered ones, working at 1/2 speed)
3) allow nomadic settlers (movement speed = 2)
4) allow creating pastures (1 person tiling 3 squares to get 1 square "irrigated" benefits without irrigation)
5) allow creating nice unique horsemen at extremely low cost (or even getting some for free).

Pastures should be possible in plains, grasslands and deserts.

[sabrewolf]

that sounds like a modified barbarian civ

i doubt such a trait could survive. NO workers basically means you won't ever get to industrialisation...

[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.

[sabrewolf]

also, nomadic civs tend to be unorganised (above tribe level) and usually fight each other more than outsiders.

but when they unite, get cheap and powerful horsemen, they become... oh wait... mongolians
so let's bring back ghenghis khan

[GeoModder]

You're kiddin', right?

[Nikolai]

Genghis
As long as it doesn't produce a new Timur Lenk/Tamerlane

[sophist]

Rather than have one category of sedentary civilizations and another category of nomadic civilizations, I think all civilizations should begin as nomads. A civ gives up some things and gain other things to become sedentary. 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).

[Nikolai]

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. A civ gives up some things and gain other things to become sedentary. 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).

I remember this idea from the List for Civ3 and Civ4. I think the general sentiment was that it wasn't what we wanted. Some wanted to start 10.000 BC to portrait this, but most didn't like the idea, as they didn't think it was "Civ".

[sophist]

Bummer. The way I saw it, it would extend the game by about 15 minutes, while unifying the concepts of major civs, nomads, barbarians, and minor civs. It wouldn't take anything away, in that you could play exactly the same way you play now, but you'd also have more options.

[Jonah5]

Originally posted by Nikolai


I remember this idea from the List for Civ3 and Civ4. I think the general sentiment was that it wasn't what we wanted. Some wanted to start 10.000 BC to portrait this, but most didn't like the idea, as they didn't think it was "Civ".

It was a thoughtful idea to start out about 10,000 B.C.E. but I can agree on why the idea wasn't "civ".
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!

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I remember this idea from the List for Civ3 and Civ4. I think the general sentiment was that it wasn't what we wanted. Some wanted to start 10.000 BC to portrait this, but most didn't like the idea, as they didn't think it was "Civ".

IIRC empire earth begins 10'000 BC...

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


IIRC empire earth begins 10'000 BC...

And you call Empire Earth "Civ"?

[FrostyBoy]

The name does not matter.

Civ4 is what you want it to be.

[Nikolai]

I'm not sure I get you. You think of the modding possibilites? Because if you are talking of my Empire Earth comment, I can't see how Civ could be RTS.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I'm not sure I get you. You think of the modding possibilites? Because if you are talking of my Empire Earth comment, I can't see how Civ could be RTS.

Despite the numerous Firaxis quotes stating this game would be very close to one (in some multiplayer modes)?