Natives (aka. Minor Civs, Barbarians, etc.)

[Mark_Everson]

Hi demipomme:

You may be thinking of hunter-gatherers. Nomadic peoples can IIRC migrate by as much as 1000+ miles from winter to summer areas. That's something like 15 squares at the default size. But for the first implementation we could certainly restrict them to a single square.

We'll probably try the "everyone's a civ" approach first since its easier anyway. I agree that it would be best to have it that way, but there may be issues with AI consuming clock cycles that might make us draw a distinction between certain levels of civ.

[LDiCesare]

I want to explain why I don't like minor civs. Such a thing exists in galciv. They are useful only for taking their planets and making some small trade. I don't think they add much to the game. In fact, when one minor civ has killed all the other civs except you, you win, becuase the most powerful civ in the world is "minor".
All civs can spawn other civs under the current model (check riots model). I just can't see what a minor civ different from a regular civ adds to the game. If you want it minor, give it much less population than the surrounding civs and it will be quite unable to compete, so I don't think it's needed.
I know I am not good at communication, thus the "If you're not coding it, you, your thoughts and your ideas, are insignificant" feeling. But I think I have the right to disagree and not code something a single person wants when there hasn't been a consensus on the subject. Here alms said he wanted minor civs, I said I didn't. Mark hadn't spoken yet when I said this, and then alms decided I was considering his input insignificant. So do I have a right to state my opinion too? On the tech part, why would all civs start with the exact same knowledge level anyway? They haven't in any of the civ game except maybe the ctp series. Ways to do the same thing (low population, not agressive civs) exist without coding a special case in the civ part but ptting this in tech effects.

[alms66]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I want to explain why I don't like minor civs. Such a thing exists in galciv. They are useful only for taking their planets and making some small trade. I don't think they add much to the game. In fact, when one minor civ has killed all the other civs except you, you win, because the most powerful civ in the world is "minor".

Explanations are always good…
I referred to them as “minor civs” only to focus people’s attention on the fact that these are the “filler” population that has been a part of Clash design since day one, as far as I know. But what I’m describing is very different from what galactic civs does (although I’ve never played the game, I know the type of “minor civ” you describe). What they use is effectively normal civs, which have been restricted to the point of being nothing but cannon fodder. These minor civs are mere land (planets in this case) for the taking. As for winning the game if all major civs, but yours are destroyed, that’s just plain ludicrous and I would never support such a thing.

Natives are not that type of “minor civ” however. They are the settled (not nomadic) tribes or independent villages, towns and cities that covered much of the ancient world. To do this with the “everyone is a civ” approach would require thousands of civs, most of which would be 1-tile civs. In effect, they are a civ (or at least a type of civ), with special qualities, much like Barbarians were a civ with special qualities in all civ games to date. You’ve played civ with Barbarians before, haven’t you? Natives are an advanced Barbarian model, if you want to look at it that way.

So, there are really just 3 main points to the “natives” idea:
Natives cover every land tile on the map. (I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that people covered much of the world.)
Natives produce mass migrations. (I don’t think anyone would dispute that this occurred more times than I’d care to cite either.)
When under attack, Natives can form into a cohesive empire (formation of a new civilization).*

*Of the three, this is perhaps the least historical and it’s a bit more game-like than realistic. Without it though, you are left with what you don’t want from Galactic Civs, cannon fodder, or at least large swaths of land for the taking with little to no resistance. With this feature in place, it helps to keep civs from exploding too fast into native lands. It is also the point I least like about the whole model, since it is a band-aid on an otherwise perfect way (at least in my opinion) to model all the 1-tile civs of the ancient world without resorting to thousands of 1-tile civs.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
All civs can spawn other civs under the current model (check riots model). I just can't see what a minor civ different from a regular civ adds to the game. If you want it minor, give it much less population than the surrounding civs and it will be quite unable to compete, so I don't think it's needed.

Natives are not about spawning new civs…see the three points above…
And, again, in case it hasn’t been clear, Natives are not just a regular civ with restrictions, they are a whole new entity, I guess in a way they are a new type of civ, but at the same time, not really a civ either – they are Natives and really shouldn’t be compared to civs. There is only one “Native” civ in the game. It has no particular name, just as Barbarians in the Civ series. Natives are also not meant to be competition for civilizations, but rather, like Barbarians, a flavor element to the game, though a much more realistic and sophisticated flavor element than Barbarians are.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I know I am not good at communication, thus the "If you're not coding it, you, your thoughts and your ideas, are insignificant" feeling. But I think I have the right to disagree and not code something a single person wants when there hasn't been a consensus on the subject. Here alms said he wanted minor civs, I said I didn't. Mark hadn't spoken yet when I said this, and then alms decided I was considering his input insignificant. So do I have a right to state my opinion too?

Apparently, I’m not as good at communicating as I thought I was either, otherwise I wouldn’t have to explain myself so much after an initial posting. I know I do have a tendency to believe some things to be so blatantly obvious as to not be worth mentioning only to find out later that no one but me found the things to be blatantly obvious. I’m working on that.
Consensus has always been there for this type of thing to be a part of Clash, though there wasn’t consensus on this particular implementation of it.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
On the tech part, why would all civs start with the exact same knowledge level anyway? They haven't in any of the civ game except maybe the ctp series.

A level of 0 implies no knowledge what-so-ever in that tech, whereas starting with a level of 0.1 implies a very low level of knowledge. Given that fact, civs would start with the exact same knowledge level if, as I described elsewhere, a tech level like Agriculture 0.1, for example, was a prerequisite to being a civ in the first place (it would be no fun to attain this prerequisite from being nomadic to settled, therefore everyone should start at a level higher than 0 – the same level). Infrastructure is another example that shouldn’t start at 0. Settled civs can build huts and other small items of infrastructure, therefore they have some knowledge in the field.

The second use for the function would be to set up an evenly matched scenario for multiplayer games, though this could be done using the current method on a civ-by-civ basis, placing the start level in the technology tag simply makes it easier to do. But, perhaps the most important reason to add this feature, especially such an easy-to-add and relatively small feature, is that some scenario designer, sometime in the future will almost certainly find a great use for it (that goes for any feature, not just this one).

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Ways to do the same thing (low population, not aggressive civs) exist without coding a special case in the civ part but putting this in tech effects.

This sentence makes little sense to me. It almost seems you are saying there is a way to model “minor civs” using tech effects.

[LDiCesare]

This sentence makes little sense to me. It almost seems you are saying there is a way to model “minor civs” using tech effects.

That's what I believe. If you put a 'native' civ that spans many squares, but these squares have little population, and you don't give that civ the techs needed to do things important like -growing at a fast pace, - building worthwhile units (by deactivating the techs for them for example), you effectively populate the map and provide enemies for the player to fight, but these can become powerful if you let them build up some tech (through trade or whatever).

Reading your original post again, I think the big misunderstanding is in the 'civ' part of minor civs. They aren't a civ at all, and you even stated it clearly, which proves I didn't read you well but focused on the minor civ term.

[alms66]

So what you're advocating is having minor civs (weak civs, but still civs none-the-less) and major civs. This was something I wanted to avoid personally. If you're just a weak version of other civilizations, you're still a civilization, IMO, whereas what I wanted out of the Natives was to model the masses of tribal peoples that covered the world.

Let's use Gaul as an example.

You're saying that we treat Gaul as a civ, just like any other, only it has very low population density, thus low tech, low economic and military power, correct?

While I say, that Gaul is not a civ. It does have low population density, low tech, low economic and military power, but it is not like other civs.

Using history as a guide, which is more correct, a unified, centralized, civ-like Gaul, or a disorganized, decentralized, native-like Gaul? Well, when the Romans began settling the area what occurred? The Gallic people were either absorbed or displaced. Sound familiar? Then the Romans stepped-up their settling, in Clash terms – state-sponsored settling began, eventually moving in legions to “pacify”, or conquer*, the Gauls. When the pacification began, what occurred? The Gallic tribes united and tried to fight off the invaders, eventually succumbing to Rome. Score 2 for the Natives, 0 for civs.

*Although I don’t think I ever explicitly said it, it has always been my intention that Natives can be conquered as well, which may not have been apparent since I stated that the military units of a civ can freely walk across Native tiles without changing the ownership. This would require a separation of the ‘move’ and ‘conquer’ commands that currently exist as a single ‘Move’ command, because a civ cannot declare war on Natives since they are not a centralized civ.

Mass Migrations aren’t really a part of Clash’s ‘civ’ definition currently, so I can’t really compare on the third big point. In fact, I’ll concede that they can probably be done just as easily with civs or natives.

**I’d like to bring attention to the term “civ” here as well, which may or may not be a contributing factor to some of the confusion. It is such a loose and malleable term that I really dislike its use, in Clash and other games of this type as well. When I think of what a player in these games does, what he is in control of is an Empire, not a civilization, as a civilization is, by definition, a state of development rather than an entity. So when I say, “Gaul is not a civ” for example, what I’m really saying is Gaul is not an Empire (you can also substitute Nation, State or any other term you’re comfortable with there if you don’t like empire). Try replacing the term 'civ' with 'empire' in the above.

[demipomme]

Originally posted by alms66 Using history as a guide, which is more correct, a unified, centralized, civ-like Gaul, or a disorganized, decentralized, native-like Gaul? Well, when the Romans began settling the area what occurred? The Gallic people were either absorbed or displaced. Sound familiar? Then the Romans stepped-up their settling, in Clash terms – state-sponsored settling began, eventually moving in legions to “pacify”, or conquer*, the Gauls. When the pacification began, what occurred? The Gallic tribes united and tried to fight off the invaders, eventually succumbing to Rome.

The Gaul example could be modelled with one square civs. A few of these are taken out by Roman settlers, then the rest realise what is going on and form an alliance. That alliance is then defeated by Rome. Does this not model what happened to the level of accuracy desired?

The advantages of a one-square civ system are:

-no different rules for natives
-the potential for any one of these one civ squares to take over neighbouring squares, gain momentum and become a powerful empire

The disadvantages of this system are:

-you'll need deep blue for game to run at an enjoyable speed
(this becomes significantly reduced if we make them two square civs)

[LDiCesare]

One thing I'm still uneasy with is calling them all Natives. Why not have different ethnic groups and let them be "uncivilized" then? (this is a very ugly and unfit word I know but I can't find a better one).
I always wanted move/conquests to depend on your relationships with the target civ: If not at war, you just move through. We might even add a "harass" or "defensive war" state which say you want to go through their territory adn fight them but not conquer them. Anyway, if you extended that concept to being at war with natives X, you could in fact conquer them. So we'd have diplomatic relationships with nationalities rather than civs, but nationalities without a civ would be limited to diplomatic options of war/peace only.
But having a "Gaul" ethnic group is not really more satisfying than the "Natives" because Gauls were just celts and didn't feel particularly united before the invasion. Celts from the other side of the Rhine were the same as the Gauls of the west...
Thus changing the proposal, (or understanding it better?), you'd have natives when the square is not owned by a civ. If it gets conquered, the conquered natives take on a new name. This name can spread to the natives around the conquered square. These can then start riotting and forming a new civ if unhappy enough.
The difference here is that the creation of the new eg starts on invasion instead of on riotting. This would let natives being invaded from 2 sides by two civs to spawn a single native civ?
Beware also that ethnic groups migrate from and into provinces notwithsttanding borders (though we plan to put limits on liberty of movement so you can block emigration or immigration), so we'd have mixes of natives and non natives anyway in unsettled squares.

[alms66]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
One thing I'm still uneasy with is calling them all Natives.

Why? I settle on Natives because I didn't like the terms Barbarians, Minor Civs, etc. People who lived in an area before an empire conquered it have almost always been referred to as "The Natives", therefore I think it suits well.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Why not have different ethnic groups and let them be "uncivilized" then? (this is a very ugly and unfit word I know but I can't find a better one).

This is basically what Natives are, an uncivilized EG, the only difference being that I've lumped them all and called them Natives, whereas you seem to want to split them up and call them Native Europeans, Native Asians, Native Africans, etc., for example. I don't see any problem with splitting natives into various groups, but having them as a single entity is much easier to implement, and I was hoping to push this to the top, or near the top, of the list of things to do.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
So we'd have diplomatic relationships with nationalities rather than civs, but nationalities without a civ would be limited to diplomatic options of war/peace only.

So, Civs have full relations available, but Natives only have war/peace? I was originally thinking there was no need for explicit war/peace, since Natives aren't unified until they spawn a civ, then they start out at war, but have full options open to them.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
But having a "Gaul" ethnic group is not really more satisfying than the "Natives" because Gauls were just celts and didn't feel particularly united before the invasion. Celts from the other side of the Rhine were the same as the Gauls of the west...

'Gauls' is just the Roman term for 'Celts'. The two terms are fairly interchangable IMO.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Thus changing the proposal, (or understanding it better?), you'd have natives when the square is not owned by a civ. If it gets conquered, the conquered natives take on a new name. This name can spread to the natives around the conquered square. These can then start riotting and forming a new civ if unhappy enough.

I think you're understanding it better. Originally I was thinking that the Natives that are conquered would either seek to move in with other Natives nearby or be absorbed through cultural assimilation by the conquering EG (Civ), though not instantly. Treating them as a "Native EG" would be vastly simpler than naming them as they are conquered, though forcing them to riot to spawn a new civ would allow the reuse of an existing game element rather than coding a new one.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Beware also that ethnic groups migrate from and into provinces notwithsttanding borders (though we plan to put limits on liberty of movement so you can block emigration or immigration), so we'd have mixes of natives and non natives anyway in unsettled squares.

When a civ's population migrates to a square with Natives, then that square is changed to the ownership of the civ in question. You could put some sort of limitation on it, such as the civ must outnumber the natives in order for ownership to take place. You also show another good aspect here, by showing that Natives will migrate into a civ's territory. Natives by their nature will be "uncivilized" and "uneducated" compared to the civs on the map, and this will therefore pose a problem for the civs (at least it should lower the overall education level, and thus RP output).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Why? I settle on Natives because I didn't like the terms Barbarians, Minor Civs, etc. People who lived in an area before an empire conquered it have almost always been referred to as "The Natives", therefore I think it suits well.

Call them Indigenous Tribal-based Homosapians.

So, Civs have full relations available, but Natives only have war/peace? I was originally thinking there was no need for explicit war/peace, since Natives aren't unified until they spawn a civ, then they start out at war, but have full options open to them.

Starting out at war seems bad, unless they are given some immediate benifits, like free units and money.
Some level of hostility should be determined based on how they are being pushed back. Basically the speed, the method (peaceful expansion though settling or aggressive expansion through conquest) should be the most important.
I would also say some things should be modeled in some way easily understood and used for players with these groups, mainly access to their land for exploration or farming, paying off to stop raids, exhcnaging goods, etc.
If we aren't allowing these groups to be played, then these can all be one-sided diplomacy that will help determine when the group forms a civ, what culture they are, their relationship, etc without having to do an even stripped down diplomacy model for them.

I think you're understanding it better. Originally I was thinking that the Natives that are conquered would either seek to move in with other Natives nearby or be absorbed through cultural assimilation by the conquering EG (Civ), though not instantly. Treating them as a "Native EG" would be vastly simpler than naming them as they are conquered, though forcing them to riot to spawn a new civ would allow the reuse of an existing game element rather than coding a new one.

Well it would certainly help for when two groups are being pushed closer together how they'd react to each other as well as their own civs. IE would they start attacking one another or join together?
Also the EG could help in whether and how much they liked the civ(s) pushing them closer together and how easily they are assimilated.

When a civ's population migrates to a square with Natives, then that square is changed to the ownership of the civ in question. You could put some sort of limitation on it, such as the civ must outnumber the natives in order for ownership to take place. You also show another good aspect here, by showing that Natives will migrate into a civ's territory. Natives by their nature will be "uncivilized" and "uneducated" compared to the civs on the map, and this will therefore pose a problem for the civs (at least it should lower the overall education level, and thus RP output).

Well this is another reason to model their own EG, culture, religion and perhaps even some tech levels.
As to owning a space, i think a certain hard number would be good as well as a percentage of population, thus before you reach this, you could have multiple civs competing in areas, until one has a recognizable claim that would be hard to dispute and could be used for colonization as well.

Another thing...i was wondering if we were going to model more peaceful tansitions to civilization level as they reach certain technoligies, most notably a level with agriculture

[alms66]

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Call them Indigenous Tribal-based Homosapians.

You’re kidding, right?

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Starting out at war seems bad, unless they are given some immediate benifits, like free units and money.
Some level of hostility should be determined based on how they are being pushed back. Basically the speed, the method (peaceful expansion though settling or aggressive expansion through conquest) should be the most important.

When the civ is created, a large amount of population is automatically drafted into the military (I think I forgot to mention that), money shouldn’t be that extreme of an issue as many empires have run red economies in history - especially in times of war.

Even “peaceful” expansion involves settlers of a different EG taking over land the natives believe is theirs (and actually *is* theirs), that’s why I didn’t differentiate.

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
If we aren't allowing these groups to be played, then these can all be one-sided diplomacy that will help determine when the group forms a civ, what culture they are, their relationship, etc without having to do an even stripped down diplomacy model for them.

I can live without diplomacy with natives otherwise you’re left modeling 1 tile civs again, which is a bad thing IMO, as historically any diplomacy done with independent tribes on the frontier had little to no real lasting effect.

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Another thing...i was wondering if we were going to model more peaceful tansitions to civilization level as they reach certain technoligies, most notably a level with agriculture

I hadn’t considered this for Clash, yet anyhow. I did do it in EIT, but I had a vastly different tech system there which made it easy since it didn’t require any sort of special fiddling for natives. Education Level was a part of the population itself (thus natives had it) and was the basis for technological growth (with a host of variables as modifiers). This left natives gaining breakthroughs at a very slow rate, though some would manage to get Agriculture and become a civ (that was my requirement).

[demipomme]

Originally posted by alms66

modeling 1 tile civs again, which is a bad thing IMO

What is the problem with 1 tile civs?

[alms66]

There would be far too many civs than we could ever hope to model if we covered the world with them. I actually hope that in the final game a 1 tile civ could be viable and thrive (Singapore?), but to have so many at the beginning of the game is out of the question.

[demipomme]

So it's more of a practical consideration that an ideological one?

[alms66]

Originally posted by demipomme
So it's more of a practical consideration that an ideological one?

Yes. It's impractical to model the thousands of "civs" that would exist in the ancient world before empires started to form.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by alms66
You’re kidding, right?

Yes. I meant Indigenous (Semi-)Nomadic Homosapians.

Originally posted by alms66 When the civ is created, a large amount of population is automatically drafted into the military (I think I forgot to mention that), money shouldn’t be that extreme of an issue as many empires have run red economies in history - especially in times of war.

Well that is good to know, though still, this new civ won't have much in the way of infrastucture. Only those nations that had such were able to really operate to any good degree in the red for long without collapsing.

Originally posted by alms66
Even “peaceful” expansion involves settlers of a different EG taking over land the natives believe is theirs (and actually *is* theirs), that’s why I didn’t differentiate.

Yes and no. This should be modeled carefully because if the society is actually absorbed culturally into the expanding civ, such expansions aren't really biewed as such and may even be welcomed if they bring about an increase in the standard of living.

However if its just moving in and using the land while not really doing well at integrating the population into the system, that's another story.

Originally posted by alms66 I can live without diplomacy with natives otherwise you’re left modeling 1 tile civs again, which is a bad thing IMO, as historically any diplomacy done with independent tribes on the frontier had little to no real lasting effect.

I think you missed my point. My point was, just like a your non-barbaric natin, you don't have diplomacy with all his indivisual tiles, except perhaps under extreme circumstances, ie he's a conderation of fedual lord, so the same goes with these groups, if you intend to model them as multi-squared entitiies rather than single-squared ones.

Originally posted by alms66 I hadn’t considered this for Clash, yet anyhow. I did do it in EIT, but I had a vastly different tech system there which made it easy since it didn’t require any sort of special fiddling for natives. Education Level was a part of the population itself (thus natives had it) and was the basis for technological growth (with a host of variables as modifiers). This left natives gaining breakthroughs at a very slow rate, though some would manage to get Agriculture and become a civ (that was my requirement).

Agriculture of what level? Even those that don't use it eventually learn of it, and thus some knowlege of what it is. Some use it, but not as a primary source of food.