Studies on Tribal Rebalance

[Iosue Yu]

Yes I love my Tribes. Should every player love the Tribes, too? Perhaps. But having Tribes at least some form of capable would make the game more fun. I want to throw this thread out for everyone to discuss and see what concrete suggestions are within acceptable consensus, so that we will consolidate into a single Suggestion post and get voted.

The basic root cause of the underutility of the Tribes now is that Tribes right now are based on civilised folks. They do not have a different technological progression, economic model or even form of government. We can even conclude that Tribes are just handicapped Monarchies.

Each update bringing "upgrades" to the civilised folks will give Tribes a little more distance from them. As we can always see, the extra juice added to each update is focused on the civilised folks, while the Tribes receive none or a reduced amount of juice at the same time.

I truly believe Tribes deserve their own designs.

Due to the limitation of my own experience and knowledge, my contribution here would put an emphasis on Settled Tribes, as they are right now on the extremely weakened side.

My first attempt to approach the problem is to first define the questions to ask.

1. Should Tribal Warfare obey the same fair Rules, like Blacks and Whites on Chess? (Claims, Casus Belli, Wargoals)
2. Should Tribal Cities have the same defense to the Greeks and Romans? (Forts)
3. Should Tribal Retinues (or Levies) obey the same rules to the Greek Citizen Soldiers? (Levies)
4. Should Tribes have the same Diplomatic Relationships with others? (Diplomacy with same and different Cultures)

Tribes are weak because they obey the same "Yes" for the above questions in our current game. But they have their terrible Civilisation Values, Happiness Values, Pop Ratios and basic sizes, making them absolutely miserable.

My suggestion is to view these 4 questions in a Gestalt (as a whole) way. We should give "Yes" to all 4 and have them remain handicapped Monarchies, or we should give "No" to all 4 at the same time because just changing 1 without changing the other 3 would make things really bad.

My suggestions:

1. Tribes should not follow the same Rules of Wars.
   1. They should not really need Claims against same Culture Group.
   2. There should be a Tribal Warfare CB, like in EU4.
   3. Wars against different Culture Groups should be unlocked when you have formed a Confederated Tribes Country. Then you can extend your claws towards others using Claims.
   4. There should be an Expel Invaders CB against any country who occupies land of your own Culture or of your own Cultural Group. This applies to against Massalian Colonies and Carthagenians as well.
   5. Wargoals should not be occupation. War Scores should mainly be given to defeating Armies.
   6. Sacking Cities is not allowed against own Culture.
2. Tribal Cities should be like Half a Fort. They should also not give Area of Control.
   1. Tribal Forts, and other lands, shouldn't even be occupied by other Tribes. Forts are there to defend against the civilised folks.
   2. War Scores are only contributed by winning a fight
   3. When it's a war with Tribes against civilised, well the civilised Rules should apply, in short:
      1. Tribes against Tribes: No occupation, no sieges, War Score mainly by fighting
      2. Tribes against civilised: Regular occupation and sieges
3. Tribal Retinues should have completely different rules to Levies
   1. Tribes Retinues are drawn from the country sides instead of from mainly Cities. Each Territory should give 1 single Unit regardless of Pop Numbers, but
   2. Clan Chiefs should be similar to the Senate System instead of the Great Family System. You have 100 virtual Seats among all the Clans. Some would be loyal to you and some would not be. When Retinues are raised, you get at least 1 Unit in every Territory, and some extra Units for places with more Pops. The Retinue Ratio should be around 33% (3 Pops 1 Unit) instead of 12.5% (8 Pops 1 Unit); and then
   3. Your total size gets discounted by the disloyal Clans.
   4. May be further balanced, but you get the idea.
   5. This is to imitate how the Clans are providing "Bannermen" to the leading Clan (who's the Tribal Chief). Think of it like when the North agreed to provide men for Winterfell in Game of Thrones.
4. Tribes should have some changes in Diplomacy.
   1. Tribes should have a free (no Diplo Slot) Half-Defensive League with all other Tribes with the same Culture. Tribes may accept to enter a Defensive War or reject, according to Opinoins, when invaded by a foreign Culture
   2. They also should be able to sign Non-Agreesive Packs with civilised folks. This is used to secure trading relationships. Also balancing the Massaliot colonies
   3. Diplomacy across same Cultural Groups should be what we have in Diplomacy now
   4. Diplomacy across different Cultural Groups should really be limited, this should also apply to the Greeks. Some Tech should allow them to make relationships with Italics (for Greeks) and Greeks (for Italics)
   5. (Optional) Joining wars may also be reviewed. Perhaps just giving 1 Legion or 1 Levy Band, similar to EU4 Condottieri, but without the pay and stuff. So some Tribes "who have obtained protection from the Romans" may just receive some "Roman Condottieri" of a small band to help fight instead of the whole Rome going into Total War in their behalf.

Please help me polish my ideas, adding your owns, and try to estimate a potential time frame for these changes.

With the unbalanced state of the Tribes now, I really don't want to wait for half a year to get a tribal update.

 

[Vlad3fr]

Wars against different Culture Groups should be unlocked when you have formed a Confederated Tribes Country. Then you can extend your claws towards others using Claims.

I think this is a problem, take exemple of the Venetian. They are italic, with gaulic and illyrian neighboor.

For the rest i totally agree

 

[Iosue Yu]

I think this is a problem, take exemple of the Venetian. They are italic, with gaulic and illyrian neighboor.

For the rest i totally agree

Italic Tribes would be difficult to handle, I agree. I should take a look at their situations.

 

[Vlad3fr]

Maybe two types of CB, A tribal CB against tribe and a CB anti-civilization like monarchy or republic. With different war goals

 

[Battlex]

Maybe two types of CB, A tribal CB against tribe and a CB anti-civilization like monarchy or republic. With different war goals

EU4 does this with one CB for steppe nomads vs settled and one for steppe nomads vs steppe nomads

 

[Hannibal_theCannibal]

I agree that Tribal warfare needs a healthy boost in order to stay even marginally competitive in 2.0 (as well as their economy and technology to a lesser extent). Tribes should definitely use much larger levies than civilized folk, as they are typically fighting with cheaper equipment and are drawing from mostly populace. It's way too easy in 2.0 to crush the Dahae, Avernia, Iberians, etc. Additionally, I think Tribal vassals should be allowed a bit more leeway in their interactions. They should be able to make claims on other tribes, send insults, and go to war to some extent. Maybe give them -80% claim speed fabrication or something like that so it's rare.

 

[stratigo]

The issue is that the idea of tribe has come to be associated with poor technology, poor culture, and all sorts of negative connotations when it really is just a term to describe a societal structure based around extended kin groups.

The gauls were, indeed, more advanced technologically in several key ways when caesar invaded the region and were a settled agrarian society.

 

[Todie]

My first attempt to approach the problem is to first define the questions to ask.

1. Should Tribal Warfare obey the same fair Rules, like Blacks and Whites on Chess? (Claims, Casus Belli, Wargoals)
2. Should Tribal Cities have the same defense to the Greeks and Romans? (Forts)
3. Should Tribal Retinues (or Levies) obey the same rules to the Greek Citizen Soldiers? (Levies)
4. Should Tribes have the same Diplomatic Relationships with others? (Diplomacy with same and different Cultures)

This is a neat take. I’d prefer discussing these more broadly in reference to existong game mechanics than to discuss your particular suggestion in the other half of your post.

Also, I once again see ”tribes” being lumped into one, although settled // migratory have similarities and differances that can be helpful as referrences for the discussion.

 

[Iosue Yu]

The issue is that the idea of tribe has come to be associated with poor technology, poor culture, and all sorts of negative connotations when it really is just a term to describe a societal structure based around extended kin groups.

The gauls were, indeed, more advanced technologically in several key ways when caesar invaded the region and were a settled agrarian society.

Yes. This is also what I lack, as I don't study history. Please give us really some concrete examples of the Gauls that can be relevant in the game. I look forward to it. After all, this is a "Study" thread.

This is a neat take. I’d prefer discussing these more broadly in reference to existong game mechanics than to discuss your particular suggestion in the other half of your post.

Also, I once again see ”tribes” being lumped into one, although settled // migratory have similarities and differances that can be helpful as referrences for the discussion.

Yes, please. I don't have much experience in handling the Migratory Tribes so I really couldn't contribute much to them.

 

[stratigo]

Yes. This is also what I lack, as I don't study history. Please give us really some concrete examples of the Gauls that can be relevant in the game. I look forward to it. After all, this is a "Study" thread.

Yes, please. I don't have much experience in handling the Migratory Tribes so I really couldn't contribute much to them.

Well the gauls burned rome to the ground some 70 years before the game start, handing the romans probably their most stinging defeat in history until Rome would be sacked once more almost 800 years later. Indeed a celtic people that would become known as the galatians would invade macedon and sack much of the kingdom shortly after the game begins, and it is defeat in battle that allows demetrius the legitimacy to claim the throne of macedon for the antigonids after numerous defeats by the other diadochi. They would later settle in asia minor and be a notable power in the region until the Romans defeat them decisively later.


But technologically, the gauls were notable for their ironworking, and were superior in the crafting of iron goods, in particular armor, than the romans.

The celtic peoples (as defined by a material pottery culture, which includes the gauls, though there is scholarly debate that I am sadly not well versed in on the commonality between the various peoples in the spread of this material culture) were widespread and notably skilled in war in the period the game was set, defeating romans and macedonians alike shortly before, and during the period of the game.

That they later found defeat at the hands of the romans isn't a mark of backwardness. The Romans beat the macedonians and Carthaginians too, and no one considers them barbarians or backwards (well, I mean, the contemporary greeks would consider Carthage barbarian. And the romans. Barbarian meaning simply not greek to them).

 

[Decius]

Many good points raised from the op! I personally would also like to see the governor assignment of tribes reworked -> e.g. somehow related to the clan chiefs to better reflect their position within the whole tribe ("nation"/"faction"). Just a vague idea, don't know how it could be implemented properly in the game and credit for this idea to @Bovrick as he raised it in another thread some time ago, but I really like the background of it.

Also, I once again see ”tribes” being lumped into one, although settled // migratory have similarities and differances that can be helpful as referrences for the discussion.

I sometimes forget about federated tribes as third tribe form. I think a stronger differentiation between this three types has a lot of potential to lead to more different playstyles (even if it's just to a certain extent).

Improving and enhancing tribes really should be a large main feature of a future update. I'm not a big tribes player myself, but I know a lot of people like to play as them, so I really hope the devs adress the tribal governments. Maybe the result is so interesting and fun, that I'll play a couple of tribal campaigns. Tribes have for sure a lot of potential to provide a very different game expierence in comparison to republics and monarchies.

 

[Todie]

Yes, please. I don't have much experience in handling the Migratory Tribes so I really couldn't contribute much to them.

I can get back to this when I'm deeper into my current migratory run. For now, though, even tribes that start as settled can decentralize into migratory relatively quickly if they so choose. (though the AI seems to not do much with their tribal laws at all, idk).

At a glance, migratory tribes can do a few unique things that will be to your liking:

• They can use migratory units during wars, forward-settling on occupied land, resulting in instant annexation
• They can Pillage cities and province capitals, for PI and gold. raze the civ level of province capitals or cities, giving tech progress dependent on how many techs ahead the victim is.
• They can settle migrants on the border to any country that borders uncolonized land, enabling trade and diplomacy , including war declaration through free claims fro the tribal council.
• They can quickly concentrate many pops in particular areas, through their high enslavement efficiency
• They can raise very large levies if they have many intergrated pops in a region, as the levy size multiplier is 2x+ higher than that of the civilized.

Edit: Settled tribes can also do razing - and they can also do it without being at war - but it can cause opinions to deteriorate to the point of war!
("pillage" is the ability that is specific for migratory tribes - this gives PI and gold, based on civ level and number of pops?)

 

[stratigo]

Many good points raised from the op! I personally would also like to see the governor assignment of tribes reworked -> e.g. somehow related to the clan chiefs to better reflect their position within the whole tribe ("nation"/"faction"). Just a vague idea, don't know how it could be implemented properly in the game and credit for this idea to @Bovrick as he raised it in another thread some time ago, but I really like the background of it.
I would like to see more influence or a new role for the high priest (currently an office) aswell, because the high priests played a larger role in most tribes (like the druids for celts)


I sometimes forget about federated tribes as third tribe form. I think a stronger differentiation between this three types has a lot of potential to lead to more different playstyles (even if it's just to a certain extent).

Improving and enhancing tribes really should be a large main feature of a future update. I'm not a big tribes player myself, but I know a lot of people like to play as them, so I really hope the devs adress the tribal governments. Maybe the result is so interesting and fun, that I'll play a couple of tribal campaigns. Tribes have for sure a lot of potential to provide a very different game expierence in comparison to republics and monarchies.

The high priest played no larger a role in tribal societies than they would in Rome or any greek city state.

Modern people associate the idea of secularism with civilization and progress and project that ideal back into the past to the great 'civilized' empires, when in reality the romans and greeks were a deeply deeply superstitious peoples that paid great head to omens and portent they thought of as from the gods. Priests in rome were extremely important, particularly those dedicated to seeing and interpreting omens, like the augers.

 

[Todie]

Should Tribal Warfare obey the same fair Rules, like Blacks and Whites on Chess? (Claims, Casus Belli, Wargoals)

To this point - They already don't. Anyone can threaten war for military access and any tribe can raze others land if they are allowed to acess it (or infilitrate it with migratory cohorts, without formal access) ... Razing can of course cause war.

 

[Decius]

The high priest played no larger a role in tribal societies than they would in Rome or any greek city state.

Modern people associate the idea of secularism with civilization and progress and project that ideal back into the past to the great 'civilized' empires, when in reality the romans and greeks were a deeply deeply superstitious peoples that paid great head to omens and portent they thought of as from the gods. Priests in rome were extremely important, particularly those dedicated to seeing and interpreting omens, like the augers.

True, while Druids for example were part of the nobility and played therefore a role in politics, the same is true for the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. So it's not really that much of an unique idea for tribes. I remove it from my post above.

 

[Battlex]

To this point - They already don't. Anyone can threaten war for military access and any tribe can raze others land if they are allowed to acess it (or infilitrate it with migratory cohorts, without formal access) ... Razing can of course cause war.

Agreed, but I think his point is the AI rarely does this, so needs to be given even more ways to be able to expand themselves

 

[Iosue Yu]

True, while Druids for example were part of the nobility and played therefore a role in politics, the same is true for the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. So it's not really that much of an unique idea for tribes. I remove it from my post above.

Actually I find the lack of religious importance right now troubling. I'd rather we also discuss religions and producing suggestions for Romans and Greeks as side products, instead of not discussing at all.

(Will try to respond to more other comments when I come back to the PC.)

 

[Bovrick]

Agreed, but I think his point is the AI rarely does this, so needs to be given even more ways to be able to expand themselves

Honestly I really would like to see this flexed a little more for everyone, political borders should only be mattering insofar as you're defending them and/or actual treaties on access.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

I am still on my first ever game (tutorial as Rome) so please correct me if I suggest things that are already in the game.

But there are three things that I have come across in my reading that I think the game could model.

The first is the importance of literacy. As @stratigo argues above, 'tribal' societies did have particular areas where they were more powerful/'advanced' than 'civilized' societies like the Romans. But literacy is important because it enables people to permanently record and easily exchange ideas, inventions, etc. At a minimum I think permanent alliances (of the kind that the game already has) should require a literacy invention. Writing down a pact does not guarantee that it will be kept (I guess the Nazis' aggression against the USSR is the most infamous example), but it does help avoid accidental misunderstandings about what each side has committed to. I would suggest that 'tribal alliances' would only take effect if the ally has positive opinion of the defender at the time of the call to arms. There should be more ways to improve opinion, like feasting and hunting together.

Secondly, there is a lot of discussion in the late Antiquity literature about how settled ethnic identities were amongst 'tribal' groups, especially steppe nomads. It seems that many groups were very loose confederations drawn together by a particularly charismatic leader. Your father called himself a Hun because he owed allegiance to one leader; you call yourself an Avar because you follow a different one. I can't see any reason for thinking it would be different in mid-Antiquity. So the game should give options for especially charismatic leaders to very quickly (peacefully?) integrate other tribes into their 'states', especially if the leader is victorious in battle. 'Integration' here means both integrating states and cultures.

Thirdly, charisma was vital on the battlefield too. All war is about persuading (mainly) men to risk their lives even though most of the benefit probably goes to someone else. Today, that persuasion is largely done through institutional means (regimental loyalties, ethnic identities, promises to take care of veterans and their family members). In ancient times, it was often a matter of one man standing in front of a line of other men and quite literally leading them forward into battle against the enemy, step by step until weapons clashed. So leaders' charisma should be critical to the morale of tribal levies and 'legions'.

 

[Surimi]

As someone who also loves tribes, I actually think tribes are pretty strong, and competitive with other government forms until at least the late game. The main obstacle they have is that they're completely locked out of getting legions, but legions are themselves kind of situational and come with a big cost, so I don't actually think it's a huge deal. Tribal levies can be so strong, especially for decentralized tribes, that you can punch above your weight even with basic levies.

The really huge issue I have with tribes is the quality of life issues of raising and organizing those levies. I understand why you can't merge the levies of different tribes, but there really needs to be some tool for forming cohesive armies from multiple tribal levies without having to keep track of 16 different stacks. It's not underpowered or weak, but it is very annoying and could stand to be improved.