Good Evening to All!
Tribal nations have unfortunately never been very interesting to play, I feel. It has always been a race to reform and then continue as a “civilized” nation.
IMHO tribal nations should be a more distinctive presence in the game and this would be “my two cents” on how to improve the Barbs
(migratory tribes can be fun, but I find them to be more of a gimmick. Fun for 30 minutes but tedious after. I will not touch on them here)
To achieve that you could start by giving them a very much more distinctive direction in the game. So, in stead of the only choice being either “roaming nomads” or “a civ light”, they should have a third option to develop while staying true to their original culture and lifestyle.
I would propose a more CK based setup with (a) character(s) being the main player gameplay focus. If you looked at the map, in game you would still see the same tribal ‘nations’.
But there would be no abstract concept of a state (senate, offices, bureaucracy, governors, “research” positions, etc.) That would also mean that tax offices, forums, academies, etc. would not be available.
Off course the tribal nations would have a ruling structure, practice their religion, advance their knowledge, and create inventions. The difference would be that this doesn’t primarily manifests itself through ‘a building’ (institution). In stead it would originate from different characters in your realm (family based).
Druids for instance (from wiki): “Druids were religious leaders as well as legal authorities, adjudicators, lore keepers, medical professionals and political advisors”.
Other examples: instead of a government with offices and the legislative body tied to senate or throne room, there would only be a tribal council. More or less like it is now, but now you are “forced” in a nation state of sorts with other tribal leaders/chieftains. In this set-up you can align with as much or as little tribal leaders (in a tribal nation) as you want.
Outside of the tribal council for the different nations there would also by “gatherings” were all the tribal leaders/chieftains of a certain culture group culture group can deliberate about everything from the incursions by civilized nations, to trade route taxation, to ‘I have a daughter/son who is unmarried and looking for a fine spouse’. (maybe even overarching that)
This would be a special sort of alliance. Not one which can be broken with, unless you specifically choose to leave, or you are cast out (excommunication of sorts). That also means you are not obligated to partake or contribute to actions decided on. However, declining everything will lower your standard in ‘the group’. Accepting or proactively helping a fellow chieftain would on the other hand give you ‘favors’ (political power of sorts) which you can spend to get things done.
No inter-tribal warfare then?! Yes, off course! The difference would be that the tribal aristocracy would not “own” the state. In stead they own, sell, buy, lose, win holdings. Holdings in territories which are a measure of your control over a province for instance.
Ideally, 2 holdings per territory could be constructed. Where both structures in one territory could be owned by 2 different tribal leaders. War is not about acquiring provinces, but to acquire holdings. You can acquire or build holdings everywhere. Also, for instance build or try to acquire holdings within civilized nations. Off course this will get noticed...
Holdings?
Farming settlement, hunting grounds, foraging grounds, mining settlement and tribal settlement. These tribal settlements are trade focused: ‘marketplaces’ or fair/festival grounds, where merchant caravans would travel to and through which goods can be imported & exported.
Last but not least there would be a tribal hill fort (town/city more or less) and a tribal oppidum (metropolis of sorts but then less dense off course).
They would be similar to cities in “civilized” nations, but also distinctly different. These two types of holding can be modular build up. Different types of Celtic style fortifications could be added, farms, religious structures, etc. But beware. You are free to build holdings if you so desire, but if your standing with others is ‘too low’ that could spell trouble for you...
What if the Romans invade? The alliance mentioned earlier will motivate most, if not all tribal nations in your vicinity to join in your defense. This will give the player(s) the option to control all units, some units or none. Tactics and fighting style I imagine would also be different, but that is maybe for another time.
Reforming is also possible off course. When you form a despotic tribal monarchy the land which contains your holdings will be part of the new kingdom with abstract state concepts (institutions).
Enjoy your weekend!
Tribal nations have unfortunately never been very interesting to play, I feel. It has always been a race to reform and then continue as a “civilized” nation.
IMHO tribal nations should be a more distinctive presence in the game and this would be “my two cents” on how to improve the Barbs
(migratory tribes can be fun, but I find them to be more of a gimmick. Fun for 30 minutes but tedious after. I will not touch on them here)
To achieve that you could start by giving them a very much more distinctive direction in the game. So, in stead of the only choice being either “roaming nomads” or “a civ light”, they should have a third option to develop while staying true to their original culture and lifestyle.
I would propose a more CK based setup with (a) character(s) being the main player gameplay focus. If you looked at the map, in game you would still see the same tribal ‘nations’.
But there would be no abstract concept of a state (senate, offices, bureaucracy, governors, “research” positions, etc.) That would also mean that tax offices, forums, academies, etc. would not be available.
Off course the tribal nations would have a ruling structure, practice their religion, advance their knowledge, and create inventions. The difference would be that this doesn’t primarily manifests itself through ‘a building’ (institution). In stead it would originate from different characters in your realm (family based).
Druids for instance (from wiki): “Druids were religious leaders as well as legal authorities, adjudicators, lore keepers, medical professionals and political advisors”.
Other examples: instead of a government with offices and the legislative body tied to senate or throne room, there would only be a tribal council. More or less like it is now, but now you are “forced” in a nation state of sorts with other tribal leaders/chieftains. In this set-up you can align with as much or as little tribal leaders (in a tribal nation) as you want.
Outside of the tribal council for the different nations there would also by “gatherings” were all the tribal leaders/chieftains of a certain culture group culture group can deliberate about everything from the incursions by civilized nations, to trade route taxation, to ‘I have a daughter/son who is unmarried and looking for a fine spouse’. (maybe even overarching that)
This would be a special sort of alliance. Not one which can be broken with, unless you specifically choose to leave, or you are cast out (excommunication of sorts). That also means you are not obligated to partake or contribute to actions decided on. However, declining everything will lower your standard in ‘the group’. Accepting or proactively helping a fellow chieftain would on the other hand give you ‘favors’ (political power of sorts) which you can spend to get things done.
No inter-tribal warfare then?! Yes, off course! The difference would be that the tribal aristocracy would not “own” the state. In stead they own, sell, buy, lose, win holdings. Holdings in territories which are a measure of your control over a province for instance.
Ideally, 2 holdings per territory could be constructed. Where both structures in one territory could be owned by 2 different tribal leaders. War is not about acquiring provinces, but to acquire holdings. You can acquire or build holdings everywhere. Also, for instance build or try to acquire holdings within civilized nations. Off course this will get noticed...
Holdings?
Farming settlement, hunting grounds, foraging grounds, mining settlement and tribal settlement. These tribal settlements are trade focused: ‘marketplaces’ or fair/festival grounds, where merchant caravans would travel to and through which goods can be imported & exported.
Last but not least there would be a tribal hill fort (town/city more or less) and a tribal oppidum (metropolis of sorts but then less dense off course).
They would be similar to cities in “civilized” nations, but also distinctly different. These two types of holding can be modular build up. Different types of Celtic style fortifications could be added, farms, religious structures, etc. But beware. You are free to build holdings if you so desire, but if your standing with others is ‘too low’ that could spell trouble for you...
What if the Romans invade? The alliance mentioned earlier will motivate most, if not all tribal nations in your vicinity to join in your defense. This will give the player(s) the option to control all units, some units or none. Tactics and fighting style I imagine would also be different, but that is maybe for another time.
Reforming is also possible off course. When you form a despotic tribal monarchy the land which contains your holdings will be part of the new kingdom with abstract state concepts (institutions).
Enjoy your weekend!
- 1