Studies on Tribal Rebalance

[Autonomous]

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 game actually has a whole branch of culture-gated inventions for Gauls that covers this, it's pretty neat. Difficult for tribes to unlock, of course, though I did manage it before I civilised in my Scordisci game (mostly with trait inventions).

 

[ArchaeoFish18]

Good idea to start the discussion of tribes. Some suggestions of yours I like more than others. Though not as popular as some of the better known tags, migratory tribe starts in particular are really fun and different way of playing the game. I think a tribal rework would pair very nicely with a diplomacy and subjects rework. Here are some thoughts I had, some more well-formed than others.

Migrations

--Migration is a super cool, unique, and fun mechanic, and the current implementation of stability drops means that large migrations often happen in waves, which is really neat, and feels authentic. I wonder, however, whether the incremental stability penalty should decrease as more territories initiate a migration, similar to the way sacrificing to the gods costs increase if you've done it recently.

--I also think the rules are migration and military access (especially for non-migration units), could use another look. It feels off that often you can only send your migration cohorts on long-distance migrations. Surely some of the more elite warriors should be able to accompany the migration. Maybe this could be solved by making the composition of migration cohorts more variable than just light infantry. I like this idea a lot, because it would also contribute to....

--Make migrations more more scary for civilized states. Teutones/Cimbri, Gallic Invasion of Anatolia, Parthians in Persia, the period is full of tribes threatening and even conquering areas to the south. It would be nice to see interactions available for dealing with barbarians (buying off, settling as tribal vassal, etc.) be available for dealing with migratory tribes on the move. Some additional events where disaffected pops from other tribes will join in the migration would also be cool.

--There should be more mechanisms for the breakdown of large empires. I think isolated pockets of territory should rapidly become independent if not connected to the capital by owned land, subject land, or sea. This would also help mitigate the situation with tribes where you get bits of land in the original homeland, far removed from the migration destination. I like the idea of this connection lasting for a time, but later they should go their own way (maybe independent but allied at first).

Regions

--The Eurasian Steppes should definitely be fleshed out. Barry Cunliffe's book The Scythians would be a good place to look for English-language background. By this point the steppes were a highway of connectivity and interaction across Eurasia, with a remarkably sophisticated culture. Christopher Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road gives a nice sense of the importance of this region, and an antidote to Mediterranean-centric (and Middle Eastern-centric, and Chinese-centric) narratives, though it doesn't just cover the Classical period. I don't have a problem with lots of un-owned land, but some attention here would go a long way toward making Bosporan Kingdom, Parni, and Bactria starts more interesting.

--I also feel central Europe needs another look. I like the way that the unowned land encourages southward movement of Germanic tribes, but surely it shouldn't be completely blank. Don't know enough about the region to make more detailed suggestions though.

Diplomacy

--I like the idea of low-level border raids, involving tribes but also "civilized" states.

--Not sure I like the idea of nerfing tribal forts, though I understand why you suggest it. Some of them were seriously massive (check out the Heuneburg and Maiden Castle)--arguably more impressive than your run-of-the-mill Roman fort. They absolutely were used for other things besides defense against urban states to the South.

--This may differ another point where we differ. I think it should be very very difficult to create large, directly owned tribal states without government reform to a monarchy or republic. For instance, this could be simulated by much higher warscore costs for tribes taking lands from other tribes, but lower costs for, say forcing them into your federation. Federations should be far less stable, perhaps involving significant loyalty hits after tribal successions. But, reform of federations could lead to more centralized states.

--In general (both tribal and non-tribal areas) I'd like to see subjects become a much more integral part of expansion, both for tribes and non-tribes. Immediate, total annexation was far from the norm in this period. More common was the installing of a friendly faction or puppet ruler, the creation of leagues with the overlord as hegemon. Full incorporation came later. Imperator does a decent job illlustrating this at game start in the Hellenistic world, but it rarely stays this way. This would feed into imperial breakup mechanics, if the loss of a major war resulted in a loyalty hit among subject states. It would be neat if you could start cultural assimilation/integration in subject states, for instance founding colonies of your culture, or building buildings in their territories.

--For map-painting enjoyment, I'd like to see the colors of subjects be aligned (maybe with slightly different shading--to those of their overlord. This would also help to better see the strengths of different spheres of influence.

--Lastly, a question for discussion: are tribes too weak in battles against non-tribals? Historically, their weaknesses seem more logistical and diplomatic rather than tactical or related to fighting prowess. Indeed Gallic mercenaries were important parts of many non-tribal armies. The relative power of tribal tags has waxed and waned over different patches. What are people's thoughts on how it stands now?

 

[Palando]

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.

Druids were able to 'excomunicate' persons from society, so annoying your druids all too often should have consequences, too. I suppose it could be used as a weapon in a game (excomunicate your rivals or that one weak pretender who'll become chief, etc).

 

[Iosue Yu]

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).

So Tribals should probably have some edges in raw strengths. Right now they don't even have these modifiers and begin with no tech. It'd sad...

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

Threatening War for Claims can only be done when you're already large enough. As for threatening Access... I think perhaps not even the players do this? I have never done this myself as well.

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'.

Yes. I think there should be some natural things going on within Cultural Groups and obstacles across Cultural Borders.

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.

Sorry to disappoint. But Tribes suffer from not having a Capital City. This puts their Pops living out spread thin in many territories, and these territories have a Pop ratio of 5:5. So eventually Tribes require more Pops to get the same size of Levies than a civilised country with a big City which can already hold enough Pops for unlocking the 5th or 6th Levy Unit. I have another post written in analysing this phenomenon.

It's here:

Playing as civilised country, carving up Tribes makes me think how Tribes are really miserable

I somehow have earned a reputation of loving too much the Tribes around this forum. So I'm playing Massalia and carving up the Gauls. Tribes usually have just a handful of Pops. The 4 Pops to always die after defeating the Levied army will...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Chiron]

One of the standout problems is that it's just not expensive or troublesome enough for big empires to expand exponentially through tribes and colonising and very little damage can be done to the big empires by tribes or barbarians.

 

[Iosue Yu]

The game actually has a whole branch of culture-gated inventions for Gauls that covers this, it's pretty neat. Difficult for tribes to unlock, of course, though I did manage it before I civilised in my Scordisci game (mostly with trait inventions).

Tribes don't start with Tech and with the poor Pop composition, it'd really take a while before you have enough points to get strong.

But were the Tribes as weak before centralising into Cities with good Pops to do researches? No. So these flavour perks are somehow wasted since we need to be at least like 100 years into the game to get at just some of them.

Good idea to start the discussion of tribes. Some suggestions of yours I like more than others. Though not as popular as some of the better known tags, migratory tribe starts in particular are really fun and different way of playing the game. I think a tribal rework would pair very nicely with a diplomacy and subjects rework. Here are some thoughts I had, some more well-formed than others.

Migrations

--Migration is a super cool, unique, and fun mechanic, and the current implementation of stability drops means that large migrations often happen in waves, which is really neat, and feels authentic. I wonder, however, whether the incremental stability penalty should decrease as more territories initiate a migration, similar to the way sacrificing to the gods costs increase if you've done it recently.

--I also think the rules are migration and military access (especially for non-migration units), could use another look. It feels off that often you can only send your migration cohorts on long-distance migrations. Surely some of the more elite warriors should be able to accompany the migration. Maybe this could be solved by making the composition of migration cohorts more variable than just light infantry. I like this idea a lot, because it would also contribute to....

--Make migrations more more scary for civilized states. Teutones/Cimbri, Gallic Invasion of Anatolia, Parthians in Persia, the period is full of tribes threatening and even conquering areas to the south. It would be nice to see interactions available for dealing with barbarians (buying off, settling as tribal vassal, etc.) be available for dealing with migratory tribes on the move. Some additional events where disaffected pops from other tribes will join in the migration would also be cool.

--There should be more mechanisms for the breakdown of large empires. I think isolated pockets of territory should rapidly become independent if not connected to the capital by owned land, subject land, or sea. This would also help mitigate the situation with tribes where you get bits of land in the original homeland, far removed from the migration destination. I like the idea of this connection lasting for a time, but later they should go their own way (maybe independent but allied at first).

Regions

--The Eurasian Steppes should definitely be fleshed out. Barry Cunliffe's book The Scythians would be a good place to look for English-language background. By this point the steppes were a highway of connectivity and interaction across Eurasia, with a remarkably sophisticated culture. Christopher Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road gives a nice sense of the importance of this region, and an antidote to Mediterranean-centric (and Middle Eastern-centric, and Chinese-centric) narratives, though it doesn't just cover the Classical period. I don't have a problem with lots of un-owned land, but some attention here would go a long way toward making Bosporan Kingdom, Parni, and Bactria starts more interesting.

--I also feel central Europe needs another look. I like the way that the unowned land encourages southward movement of Germanic tribes, but surely it shouldn't be completely blank. Don't know enough about the region to make more detailed suggestions though.

Diplomacy

--I like the idea of low-level border raids, involving tribes but also "civilized" states.

--Not sure I like the idea of nerfing tribal forts, though I understand why you suggest it. Some of them were seriously massive (check out the Heuneburg and Maiden Castle)--arguably more impressive than your run-of-the-mill Roman fort. They absolutely were used for other things besides defense against urban states to the South.

--This may differ another point where we differ. I think it should be very very difficult to create large, directly owned tribal states without government reform to a monarchy or republic. For instance, this could be simulated by much higher warscore costs for tribes taking lands from other tribes, but lower costs for, say forcing them into your federation. Federations should be far less stable, perhaps involving significant loyalty hits after tribal successions. But, reform of federations could lead to more centralized states.

--In general (both tribal and non-tribal areas) I'd like to see subjects become a much more integral part of expansion, both for tribes and non-tribes. Immediate, total annexation was far from the norm in this period. More common was the installing of a friendly faction or puppet ruler, the creation of leagues with the overlord as hegemon. Full incorporation came later. Imperator does a decent job illlustrating this at game start in the Hellenistic world, but it rarely stays this way. This would feed into imperial breakup mechanics, if the loss of a major war resulted in a loyalty hit among subject states. It would be neat if you could start cultural assimilation/integration in subject states, for instance founding colonies of your culture, or building buildings in their territories.

--For map-painting enjoyment, I'd like to see the colors of subjects be aligned (maybe with slightly different shading--to those of their overlord. This would also help to better see the strengths of different spheres of influence.

--Lastly, a question for discussion: are tribes too weak in battles against non-tribals? Historically, their weaknesses seem more logistical and diplomatic rather than tactical or related to fighting prowess. Indeed Gallic mercenaries were important parts of many non-tribal armies. The relative power of tribal tags has waxed and waned over different patches. What are people's thoughts on how it stands now?

As I've said, I really don't know too much about Migratories.

My reason to "nerf" Tribal Forts is that I think by removing the Fort of Tribal Capitals, you actually can build a lot more for the Tribes. Tribal Capitals can serve, for example, as half a city, that you can build buildings on and have some better Pop Cap. And I want Tribal Warfare to focus less on capturing these Forts and Sieges.

And lastly, Tribes are extremely weak in every aspect. Smaller Levy size, no additional modifiers and no tech.

 

[Surimi]

Sorry to disappoint. But Tribes suffer from not having a Capital City. This puts their Pops living out spread thin in many territories, and these territories have a Pop ratio of 5:5. So eventually Tribes require more Pops to get the same size of Levies than a civilised country with a big City which can already hold enough Pops for unlocking the 5th or 6th Levy Unit. I have another post written in analysing this phenomenon.

Tribes can still build and have cities. Without certain laws that are unlocked at high centralization, they do pay a lot more to build cities and can't build metropoli, but there are actually tribes in the game which start with cities. They also have a flat 10% penalty to max populations across the board, which makes them slightly worse at buiding megacities. Tribes also generally have lower civilization values, which can affect cities a bit. But none of these things are crippling or prevent you building cities. They're just normal disadvantages which I feel are cancelled out by some pretty huge advantages.

One of the major advantages of centralized tribes in particular is that they have insane promotion speeds and the ability to move tribesman pops around, so you build a city, cram all your pops in it and within a fairly short time they've all promoted to citizens and nobles. I guess it's meant to reflect the social mobility in an evolving tribal society, as opposed to a more established monarchy or republic.

But there's nothing to say you have to spread your pops out as a tribe. Even fully decentralized tribes can push urbanization really hard by just moving all their tribesmen into cites and letting them promote over time.

Add to this, levies are generated from all pops that are not slaves. This includes tribesmen. Civilized countries actually have a higher ratio of slaves in territories (66% instead of 50%). Sure, you can build barracks to increase the ratio of freemen to slaves, but so can tribes. The flipside is that slaves generate a lot of taxes, while tribesmen generate very little. But even here there's a catch, tribes can actually stack an incredible ammount of percentile bonuses to the output of tribesmen, making them extremely viable.

You can play a tribe with no cities and just focus on boosting up those tribesmen pops, and I agree that wouldn't be a particularly competitive way to play, but tribes certainly aren't limited to playing that way.

 

[Battlex]

Tribes can still build and have cities. Without certain laws that are unlocked at high centralization, they do pay a lot more to build cities and can't build metropoli, but there are actually tribes in the game which start with cities. They also have a flat 10% penalty to max populations across the board, which makes them slightly worse at buiding megacities, but in general I feel that only matters if you're playing super tall. Tribes also generally have lower civilization values, which can affect cities a bit. But neither of these things are crippling or prevent you building cities.

One of the major advantages of centralized tribes in particular is that they have insane promotion speeds and the ability to move tribesman pops around, so you build a city, cram all your pops in it and within a fairly short time they've all promoted to citizens and nobles. I guess it's meant to reflect the social mobility in an evolving tribal society, as opposed to a more established monarchy or republic.

But there's nothing to say you have to spread your pops out as a tribe. Even fully decentralized tribes can push urbanization really hard by just moving all their tribesmen into cites and letting them promote over time.

Add to this, levies are generated from all pops that are not slaves. This includes tribesmen. Civilized countries actually have a higher ratio of slaves in territories (66% instead of 50%). Sure, you can build barracks to increase the ratio of freemen to slaves, but so can tribes. The flipside is that slaves generate a lot of taxes, while tribesmen generate very little. But even here there's a catch, tribes can actually stack an incredible ammount of percentile bonuses to the output of tribesmen, making them extremely viable.

You can play a tribe with no cities and just focus on boosting up those tribesmen pops, and I agree that wouldn't be a particularly competitive way to play, but tribes certainly aren't limited to playing that way.

Which regions would you reccomend to do a full tribal game/cultures to start as before migrating. And if you want to build mega cities as tribal would you reccomend migratory decentralised tribes so you can more easily uproot all your population?

 

[Surimi]

Which regions would you reccomend to do a full tribal game/cultures to start as before migrating. And if you want to build mega cities as tribal would you reccomend migratory decentralised tribes so you can more easily uproot all your population?

For a full tribal game, I'd recommend trying out southern Arabia. They have a formable nation (Yamnat) with access to the federated tribal government, and they start as Arabic religion, which gives bonuses to tribesman happiness and has events which seem very tailored to a tribal playstyle.

For megacities, you absolutely should go centralized. Being centralized means you can build metropoli, and as mentioned it means really, really fast promotion. You can still move tribesman pops as a settled or federated tribe. Being migratory allows you to convert your pops into armies and move them around that way, it has a bunch of advantages but your can still move pops around internally without it.

One nation I've been meaning to try as a migratory tribe is Karusa, in India. Karusa has Atavi primary culture, which gives 25% of their levies as elephants and the rest as archers. I think it would be pretty funny to be a nomadic elephant riding horde and maybe migrate somewhere weird.

 

[Iosue Yu]

Tribes can still build and have cities. Without certain laws that are unlocked at high centralization, they do pay a lot more to build cities and can't build metropoli, but there are actually tribes in the game which start with cities. They also have a flat 10% penalty to max populations across the board, which makes them slightly worse at buiding megacities. Tribes also generally have lower civilization values, which can affect cities a bit. But none of these things are crippling or prevent you building cities. They're just normal disadvantages which I feel are cancelled out by some pretty huge advantages.

One of the major advantages of centralized tribes in particular is that they have insane promotion speeds and the ability to move tribesman pops around, so you build a city, cram all your pops in it and within a fairly short time they've all promoted to citizens and nobles. I guess it's meant to reflect the social mobility in an evolving tribal society, as opposed to a more established monarchy or republic.

But there's nothing to say you have to spread your pops out as a tribe. Even fully decentralized tribes can push urbanization really hard by just moving all their tribesmen into cites and letting them promote over time.

Add to this, levies are generated from all pops that are not slaves. This includes tribesmen. Civilized countries actually have a higher ratio of slaves in territories (66% instead of 50%). Sure, you can build barracks to increase the ratio of freemen to slaves, but so can tribes. The flipside is that slaves generate a lot of taxes, while tribesmen generate very little. But even here there's a catch, tribes can actually stack an incredible ammount of percentile bonuses to the output of tribesmen, making them extremely viable.

You can play a tribe with no cities and just focus on boosting up those tribesmen pops, and I agree that wouldn't be a particularly competitive way to play, but tribes certainly aren't limited to playing that way.

In theory, true to a certain point. The biggest difference is the size of Capital.

For a civilised country with a City as Capital, you can get your 5th or 6th Levy Unit by putting everyone into your Capital. If you happen to have some Tribesmen inside your City due to migration, then they would jam the Demotion Gauge so you would get enough non-Slaves for 6 Units in Levy for just 1 City of around 50 Pops.

For a Tribe, their Capital is the only place with a good Pop ratio. But due to better Mobility, they don't get the Tribesmen Jam of Demotion. And your Capital probably can only hold 25 Pops. Say we count 20 Pops in your Capital and all other Territories will have 50% Slaves. So you may need to get as high as 60 Pops to get to your 5th Levy Unit (20/25 in Cities and 20/40 in non-Cities). So you need a much larger number of raw Pops than civilised folks in comparison. The only way out is to centralise to 60 and enact the Law to reduce City price and get yourself a City. Or finish your generic Mission to get one free City.

But I doubt the AI does that.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

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.

This is so true.

I'll just add for the sake of illustration that the chain mails the Romans wore, instead of the linothorax that the Hellenistic armies used at the time, are a Gallic invention. That the latin words 'carrus' (chariot), gladius (sword), etc. were borrowed from the Gaulish language is a sign that the Romans, as well as other Italic peoples, learned a few thing from the Gauls.

 

[Battlex]

For a full tribal game, I'd recommend trying out southern Arabia. They have a formable nation (Yamnat) with access to the federated tribal government, and they start as Arabic religion, which gives bonuses to tribesman happiness and has events which seem very tailored to a tribal playstyle.

For megacities, you absolutely should go centralized. Being centralized means you can build metropoli, and as mentioned it means really, really fast promotion. You can still move tribesman pops as a settled or federated tribe. Being migratory allows you to convert your pops into armies and move them around that way, it has a bunch of advantages but your can still move pops around internally without it.

One nation I've been meaning to try as a migratory tribe is Karusa, in India. Karusa has Atavi primary culture, which gives 25% of their levies as elephants and the rest as archers. I think it would be pretty funny to be a nomadic elephant riding horde and maybe migrate somewhere weird.

I know you could still move pops as a settled or federated tribe, but isn't there a stab hit based on level of centralisation?

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

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.
...
I truly believe Tribes deserve their own designs.
...
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.

I think the core issue is rather the opposite: people over-emphasize the way that so-called "tribes" (I really hate that term) differ from so-called "civilized" (that one too) folks and just start concocting a bunch of arbitrary limitations to "tribes" that don't really make any sense. Oftentimes the reason one civilization did something and another didn't boils down to context; one civilization found itself in a situation where that thing was a reasonable and viable option for dealing with a specific issue, the other didn't. Standing armies is a good example of this; Rome didn't adopt standing armies because they were better and cooler and more powerful; it adopted standing armies as a solution the the very specific problem of a dwindling smallholder population creating a huge manpower shortage for the levy, which was itself a culmination of several compounding factors stretching back decades and even centuries that were related to things specific to Rome's history. State-provided equipment and training was a solution to the specific logistical problems of a standing army that's drafted primarily from the poor who can't afford to train and equip themselves. Standardized equipment and training was a solution to the problem of ballooning cost since now the state and generals have to foot the bill rather than the soldiers themselves.

My suggestions:

• 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.

This is just completely wrong. I suggest you read up on the background of the sacking of Rome by the Senones a little over 80 years before the start of the game. Below are some excerpts from the Wikipedia page, emphasis added:

When the Senones appeared, the Clusians felt threatened and asked Rome for help. The Romans sent the three sons of Marcus Fabius Ambustus, one of Rome's most powerful aristocrats, as ambassadors. They told the Gauls not to attack Clusium and that if they did, the Romans would fight to defend the town. They then asked to negotiate a peace. The Senones accepted a peace if the Clusians would give them some land. There was a quarrel and a battle broke out. The Roman ambassadors joined in. One of them killed a Senone chieftain. That was a violation of the rule that ambassadors had to be neutral. The brothers had taken sides and one of them had also killed a Senone. The Gauls withdrew to discuss what action to take.

When the ambassadors of the Senones arrived in Rome and demanded for the three Fabii brothers to be handed over to them, the Senate was pressured by favouritism not to express opinions against the powerful Fabia family. To avoid being blamed for a possible defeat if the Gauls attacked, they referred the matter to the people. Livy wrote that "those whose punishment they were asked to decide were elected military tribunes with consular powers [heads of state] for the coming year." The Gauls were enraged that those who had violated the law of nations had been honoured and marched on Rome, 130 km (81 mi) from Clusium. Livy wrote that "in response to the tumult caused by their swift advance, terrified cities rushed to arms and the country folk fled, but the Gauls signified by their shouts wherever they went that their destination was Rome."

The Celts here actually appear very level-headed and diplomatic. They are justifiably incensed by a violation of diplomatic norms (diplomats violating neutrality) and seek only that the violators be turned over to them for punishment. It's only after the Romans respond by elevating those diplomats to high offices that the Celts, rightfully livid, then proceed to take up arms against Rome. The war was entirely based on a diplomatic insult. Does that sound like a group that doesn't have any rules of war to you? And this plays out constantly throughout history amongst so-called "tribes". Also warscore should generally be based mainly on defeating armies rather than occupation, not just for tribes. A Tribal Warfare CB was a silly idea in EUIV and it would be a silly idea here. Everyone should need claims of some kind to go to war; in fact, tribes should be more reliant on war justifications because their force projection capabilities should be highly reliant on convincing their people to fight for them because they have few-to-no institutions that give them the ability to induce or coerce populations to fight for them.

• 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

In some few cases, I'd like to see the free level one fort on capital removed, but without the ability for armies to garrison settlements a few erroneous free forts on the margins are a perfectly reasonable abstraction. Also, there would be very few cases where it would apply; keep in mind that this time period coincides with a significant rise in fortified and walled settlements in Northern Europe. So pass on this.

• 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.

This is the one area where I kind-of agree with you. I don't like anything past "tribal retinues should have ... different rules to levies", and I wouldn't really say they should be completely different. Keep in mind, there's virtually no information about "iron age Northern European conscription systems" to speak of, so this is conjecture on my part, but I imagine the conscription system would look more-or-less like how the Greeks in the Iliad formed their army - on the basis of a complex chain of personal relationships and ad-hoc oaths. The end result would probably look fairly similar to a levy-based system: the army would be formed primarily of smallholders who could afford to arm and train themselves and headed by the wealthiest and their well-equipped, well-trained personally-employed warriors.

• 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.

I would just get rid of diplo slots entirely. I think it's a terrible mechanic. Also, everyone should be able to sign non-aggression pacts with everyone. Hard pass on limiting diplomacy amongst different culture groups; in fact, I think diplomacy should be made even less restrictive for everyone and it should be balanced by actual balance-of-power mechanics and actually reasonable and realistic limitations to growth and conquest. Definitely passing on this condottieri idea.

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

This I agree with, but - as evident by the OP - there are so many misconceptions about the topic, and it's already an extremely niche academic topic with little information to go on, and Paradox has a rather annoying habit of just going by popular misconception with no critical analysis whatsoever that whenever they do get around to reworking tribes they probably won't do them any justice whatsoever and we'll be back at square one until the next rework, eternally and ad infinitum.

 

[Jiben]

One thing i'd like to see is disloyal clans (maybe just on clan chief death?) split off from a tribe and form their own tribe, stealing some pops from areas where they held holdings as migratory units. Tribes really should have some organic way of splitting.

Some ck2 style raiding perhaps? as in not taking land but moving into another countries land and stealing food/slaves and wrecking shit, could give a massive opinion hit, a cb for the other party and some minor ae.

Some federation/confederation mechanic but tribes are not the only ones who would like this.

 

[Battlex]

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.

They were a settled agragarian society, and in the south had some republics, but the north still just had lots of tribes with opidums and hill forts not fully cities yet. The recurve bow was a steppe invention but they still lacked great cultural works as other settled societies did at the time

 

[Todie]

One thing i'd like to see is disloyal clans (maybe just on clan chief death?) split off from a tribe and form their own tribe, stealing some pops from areas where they held holdings as migratory units. Tribes really should have some organic way of splitting.

Some ck2 style raiding perhaps? as in not taking land but moving into another countries land and stealing food/slaves and wrecking shit, could give a massive opinion hit, a cb for the other party and some minor ae.

Some federation/confederation mechanic but tribes are not the only ones who would like this.

So, some kind of iteration of this one?

I tried this today. they settle the province that their retinnue (=levy) is currently in, so you can raise levies, move them where you wan, then revoke holdings or something to make them disloyal, then use this interaction, creating a tributary of the province

 

[Iosue Yu]

I think the core issue is rather the opposite: people over-emphasize the way that so-called "tribes" (I really hate that term) differ from so-called "civilized" (that one too) folks and just start concocting a bunch of arbitrary limitations to "tribes" that don't really make any sense. Oftentimes the reason one civilization did something and another didn't boils down to context; one civilization found itself in a situation where that thing was a reasonable and viable option for dealing with a specific issue, the other didn't. Standing armies is a good example of this; Rome didn't adopt standing armies because they were better and cooler and more powerful; it adopted standing armies as a solution the the very specific problem of a dwindling smallholder population creating a huge manpower shortage for the levy, which was itself a culmination of several compounding factors stretching back decades and even centuries that were related to things specific to Rome's history. State-provided equipment and training was a solution to the specific logistical problems of a standing army that's drafted primarily from the poor who can't afford to train and equip themselves. Standardized equipment and training was a solution to the problem of ballooning cost since now the state and generals have to foot the bill rather than the soldiers themselves.

This is just completely wrong. I suggest you read up on the background of the sacking of Rome by the Senones a little over 80 years before the start of the game. Below are some excerpts from the Wikipedia page, emphasis added:

The Celts here actually appear very level-headed and diplomatic. They are justifiably incensed by a violation of diplomatic norms (diplomats violating neutrality) and seek only that the violators be turned over to them for punishment. It's only after the Romans respond by elevating those diplomats to high offices that the Celts, rightfully livid, then proceed to take up arms against Rome. The war was entirely based on a diplomatic insult. Does that sound like a group that doesn't have any rules of war to you? And this plays out constantly throughout history amongst so-called "tribes". Also warscore should generally be based mainly on defeating armies rather than occupation, not just for tribes. A Tribal Warfare CB was a silly idea in EUIV and it would be a silly idea here. Everyone should need claims of some kind to go to war; in fact, tribes should be more reliant on war justifications because their force projection capabilities should be highly reliant on convincing their people to fight for them because they have few-to-no institutions that give them the ability to induce or coerce populations to fight for them.

In some few cases, I'd like to see the free level one fort on capital removed, but without the ability for armies to garrison settlements a few erroneous free forts on the margins are a perfectly reasonable abstraction. Also, there would be very few cases where it would apply; keep in mind that this time period coincides with a significant rise in fortified and walled settlements in Northern Europe. So pass on this.

This is the one area where I kind-of agree with you. I don't like anything past "tribal retinues should have ... different rules to levies", and I wouldn't really say they should be completely different. Keep in mind, there's virtually no information about "iron age Northern European conscription systems" to speak of, so this is conjecture on my part, but I imagine the conscription system would look more-or-less like how the Greeks in the Iliad formed their army - on the basis of a complex chain of personal relationships and ad-hoc oaths. The end result would probably look fairly similar to a levy-based system: the army would be formed primarily of smallholders who could afford to arm and train themselves and headed by the wealthiest and their well-equipped, well-trained personally-employed warriors.

I would just get rid of diplo slots entirely. I think it's a terrible mechanic. Also, everyone should be able to sign non-aggression pacts with everyone. Hard pass on limiting diplomacy amongst different culture groups; in fact, I think diplomacy should be made even less restrictive for everyone and it should be balanced by actual balance-of-power mechanics and actually reasonable and realistic limitations to growth and conquest. Definitely passing on this condottieri idea.

This I agree with, but - as evident by the OP - there are so many misconceptions about the topic, and it's already an extremely niche academic topic with little information to go on, and Paradox has a rather annoying habit of just going by popular misconception with no critical analysis whatsoever that whenever they do get around to reworking tribes they probably won't do them any justice whatsoever and we'll be back at square one until the next rework, eternally and ad infinitum.

This is a good plot twist, one I actually have aimed for. People sometimes shy away with criticism when you're not wrong enough. Luckily, I have been wrong enough. I applaud you for your outspeaking and knowledge.

Falling back to the starting point of my thread, I asked the 4 basic assumptions because I understood how everything should be build on foundations. The foundations of the Tribes as of now are severely biased, so the stratum of scope I set was at least correct. It's just I was asking in the wrong areas.

You see, I simply have an analytical mind. I only work on existing knowledge that I have access to. So I only raised the questions by analysing the game without actually drawing historical accounts.

So the answers to the 4 questions are:

1. Should tribes follow the same rules of wars? Yes.
2. Should tribes have Greek forts? No.
3. Should tribes have the same Greek Citizen soldiers? No. Although what they used, we don't know.
4. Should tribes follow the same basic diplomatic rules? Yes. But Diplomacy of the game needs an upgrade as well.

This would conclude the answers to these 4 initial questions for my first attempt. In the second attempt, I'd invite you, dear gentleman, to ask 4 other fundamental questions that you think should be looked at.

Let's see where we get after some backs and forths.

 

[Arthrodira]

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.

1.1: Great idea
1.2: Great idea
1.3: I'm going to have to strongly disagree here - the tribes should be raiding and sacking cities in Italy, Macedon, and Anatolia during this timeframe. Wars with civilized states should be about acquiring fast wealth, not territory.
1.4: Why should tribes be unique here. It's a good idea, but it should apply to every country in the game, not just tribes. Arguably the civilized states would be MORE upset than the tribes about this, not less.
1.5: Good wargol for tribal cb.
1.6: Why should tribes be different from anyone else here? Again, arguably they'd be more likely to sack a settlement, not less.

2.1: The Celts had very impressive fortresses, so I think it's fair they stay - the better control would be affordability; so this way maybe rich Celtic tribes in Gaul can afford forts, but poor ones in Germania cannot. The bigger problem is free forts for capitals, which I think is a fair thing to remove for tribes.
2.2: I mean occupations should count for SOMETHING
2.3: How would this work in practice?

3.1: Levies take from all pop, regardless of city or not. It sounds like what you really want is artificially inflated tribal levies, which seems like a stretch. Why would tribes better mobilize their pops than civilized states? The way to get larger armies is migrating, and so mobilizing your entire population.
3.2: No, that's too many power brokers. Tribes were not quasi republics. They were more like quasi monarchies. The system could be reworked fine, but not along the republic model. Again, why should tribes be better able to mobilize pops than non-tribes. That doesn't make any sense.
3.5: Yes that's sort of the idea that tribes should follow. But they weren't feudal realms, they're more like coalitions of clans.

4.1: Invasion prompted defensive leagues are a good idea, but this should be broadly implemented for everyone, not just tribes - think the Greek city states in the face of Macedonian and Seleukid aggression. I don't think there is any reason for the league to follow special rules for tribes.
4.2: Non-aggression pacts should be available to everyone, not just tribes. It would better simulate the Seleukid-Mauryan situation, and make their initial agreement a better deal - that truce is far too short for the amount of land forfeited.
4.3: Huh?
4.4: No. This is a terrible idea without any historical precedent. Why? The opinion bonus of same culture and malus for different culture is all you need.
4.5: That's not a terrible idea, but it would take a lot of thought to make this work well in practice

 

[Arthrodira]

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.

This is true, but the Druids did have an unusually outsized role in society. The whole ban on writing was a big deal, and a huge way of consolidating power in the hands of the Druids. They were also very multinational, like the Delphic Oracle (and unlike Rome).

 

[stratigo]

They were a settled agragarian society, and in the south had some republics, but the north still just had lots of tribes with opidums and hill forts not fully cities yet. The recurve bow was a steppe invention but they still lacked great cultural works as other settled societies did at the time

What are great cultural works to you?

This is true, but the Druids did have an unusually outsized role in society. The whole ban on writing was a big deal, and a huge way of consolidating power in the hands of the Druids. They were also very multinational, like the Delphic Oracle (and unlike Rome).

The druids as revealed by... who?

I don't recall any contemporary druidic people leaving any documentation of the druids for us to learn from. The only contemporary sources of the druids are from the people who exterminated them, eg, the romans. The romans were not particularly inclined to glowing descriptions of them.

But I can tell you, roman priesthoods (I come back to the augers here) Had extreme amount of power and specialized knowledge they horded to themselves.