Economy and Cities of the "Barbarians"

[Dontpanic]

I recently asked myself if CA will make the Economy of the "Barbarian" Factions like the German tribes, Britains, Gauls e.c. competitive to the Roman and Creek one and if yes how? i mean there agriculture or Mining for example there cleary not so advanced as the Roman one.

In Rome total war vanilla as a Barbarian faction you had to move asap. to the rich south to even had a chance of winning the Game.

And also do you think the "Bararians" will get stone walls for every city?

sorry for my bad English.. its not my first language.

[rude dude]

I recently asked myself if CA will make the Economy of the "Barbarian" Factions like the German tribes, Britains, Gauls e.c. competitive to the Roman and Creek one and if yes how? i mean there agriculture or Mining for example there cleary not so advanced as the Roman one.

In Rome total war vanilla as a Barbarian faction you had to move asap. to the rich south to even had a chance of winning the Game.

And also do you think the "Bararians" will get stone walls for every city?

sorry for my bad English.. its not my first language.

I think It'd be good if they expanding on how these factions can change in line with their political and geographical standing. I don't want the 'barbarians' to stay as 'barbarians', if i conquer a lot of land with one of these factions and grow to quiet a powerful standing then the sources of income should reflect this (position in vital trade routes), as should the type of faction I am-you can't keep calling a faction with imperial like lands a 'tribe' now can you?.

Edit: Don't worry mate you're English isn't that bad, you want to see terrible English? take a look at this first post:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=549818

Edit.2: Oh and you should check this post out. I know it doesn't specifically talk about the barbarians, but the idea posted talk about another way to control income, which includes the barbarian factions. It's an interesting concept.
Here's the link:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post11701758

[Dontpanic]

you can't keep calling a faction with imperial like lands a 'tribe' now can you?.

Interesting idea. There could be some kind of Event (like the the Realm divide in shogun) at a certain number of provinces where the "Barbarian" factions evolve into something bigger (like an empire) and with this process you unlock new Tech and Buildings like stone walls.

Also thanks for your for the two links.

[Ichon]

Celt farming was arguably just as or more advanced than Roman methods where Celts often were farming in more difficult regions and less monoculture, crop rotation, better iron farming tools and other advancements compared to Romans. Mining I don't know if Romans had any advantages over anyone else until the Imperial era which this game is not likely to cover in much detail given reported eras. I think all the economies will be able to have strengths and maybe a few weaknesses. Any steppe cultures would likely have the weakest economy in my view. Probably the biggest differences would be in population density where northern factions and desert factions present in regions of low fertility might have issues supporting as large cities as those around the Mediterranean. However hopefully that lower urban density might be countered by tech tree that allows more widespread density- IE Italy and Greece has less overall arable land than many other places but better access to other grain sources as well the arable land that does exist is fairly fertile while desert oasis and coastal cities might be similar compared to northern Gaul where growing season is shorter but more land is arable so the regions outside of the provincial capitol might on average support slightly higher populations.

[O'Hea]

I was really unhappy with how they handled the barbarians in the original RTW, so I'm hoping they'll give them decent late-game tech even if they get a weaker start. Having "local" tech rates that work more or less like the Civilization rating in EU: Rome would be nice (with tech being fastest in the great Latin and Hellenistic capitals and radiating outwards over time). It's my understanding that the Celts, and particularly the Gauls, actually had a pretty wealthy and sophisticated society and Republican Rome's only major advantages over them were in statecraft and political unity. They had a number of major cities and produced an enormous amount of gold, besides being known for producing high-quality iron weapons, armor and tools. Hobbling them with a terrible tech tree just because they were historically absorbed into the Roman civilization is pretty unfair and unrealistic.

For the Germans, Thracians, Illyrians, Spaniards and other groups- I don't know how advanced they were at the start of this timeframe, but historically when a warrior-nomad culture conquers an urban one it tends to rapidly acculturate (see: Dorians in Mycenaean Greece; Lombards, Goths and Franks in western Europe; Mongols in China and Korea; Arabs in Egypt and Syria; Turks in India and Persia). There ought to be a way for barbs to acquire "civilized" tech.

[shikaka]

I think the original units composition/building tree of RTW was not bad. I mean it was perfectly possible to win with gauls, britons and germanians against late romans.

There were 2 problems still:

1. happiness buildings: the lack of barbarian happiness buildings (they had only inn, while others had theatres, colosseums, execution squares) meant that you couldn't control big populations. This, with RTW's horrendous city growth rates meant that you will swim in squalor from even early game! Barbarians could keep roman cities in control so this was quite unhistorical and more importantly annoying!

2. some barbarian factions like Dacia, Spain or Thrace had thrown together unit rosters made with little care or imagination. A tiny bit of research would have made these into interesting factions, unfortunately CA never did that.


If CA makes some research to avoid 'generic barbarian units' factions, AND makes it possible for barbarians to hang on to former roman cities, I don't mind a shorter tech tree or lesser build options. (britons didn't build racetracks, aquaducts or paved roads after all)

[Ichon]

Hopefully 'barbarian' factions will have options to become more 'civilized' but lose some of the perks of barbarians (relatively cheap decently strong infantry armies) to be replaced by larger political institutions and infrastructure that supports larger urban areas but armies become either more professional or the better units became more rare and expensive. Maybe easier is just to keep most 'barbarian' factions on a separate development track with chance to borrow a few things from other cultures just as Rome borrowed from cultures it met.

[Fireright]

Lest we not forget the curse of the original RTW whatever the faction:

Squalor Get it sorted for Rome 2.

[rude dude]

Hopefully 'barbarian' factions will have options to become more 'civilized' but lose some of the perks of barbarians (relatively cheap decently strong infantry armies) to be replaced by larger political institutions and infrastructure that supports larger urban areas but armies become either more professional or the better units became more rare and expensive. Maybe easier is just to keep most 'barbarian' factions on a separate development track with chance to borrow a few things from other cultures just as Rome borrowed from cultures it met.

The following idea work well with what you propose:

It would have been great if you had the chance to decide the level of "Greekness" of your faction.
Builiding gymaniums, liabraries, theatres, forums, Greek god temples, Greek schools, auditoriums would enhance hellenization and "Greek percentages"
Building local deities temples, palaces-satrapian manors, allowing locals to enter administration, bazaars, etc would have enhance the local character pf your state and increase "Local Percentages" (+5% Greek settlers +10% -%5 locals etc)
Thus you would have a military path which according to the proportions would have gave you a balanced roster with Hellenistic and local units
This would make Hellenistic rosters different every time you play according to your choices!!!

He focus's is on the Hellenic factions in this idea, but the concept could work equally well with other cultures including the 'barbarian cultures'.

[Krieglord]

Roman and Creek

That damned creek economy threatening all the Europeans

[AMW]

The barbarian should be more like scartered villages without a central city region. The economy should be based on farming, mining. As the game goes on the barbarian should be able to adapt to conqured lands technology and culture.

[TuranianGhazi]

The barbarian should be more like scartered villages without a central city region. The economy should be based on farming, mining. As the game goes on the barbarian should be able to adapt to conqured lands technology and culture.

Why the necessity to "adapt" where there is nothing wrong with "barbarian" culture in the first place?

In ETW's Warpath campaign, I liked the feature where Natives had to tear down European buildings to get their building tech started and going. It made losing regions hard but at the same time it was changing the landscape of the region as well. At the same time, the Natives could keep the European buildings or erect some European buildings as a way of incorporating the region's tech/resources but at a price of discontent which they had to manage then with a larger garrison or use of agents.

Instead, I think that each barbarian culture should be carefully thought out and their tech trees, even late-game tech trees fleshed out. So a barbarian force that conquers a city gains higher revenue but risks local discontent or can go the route of razing the city down to erect their own buildings from their own separate tech tree thus start off economically weaker but having little to no discontent or fear of rebellion.

Also a nomadic tribe should be able to move its cities with buildings, ideally.

[Ichon]

Why the necessity to "adapt" where there is nothing wrong with "barbarian" culture in the first place?

In ETW's Warpath campaign, I liked the feature where Natives had to tear down European buildings to get their building tech started and going. It made losing regions hard but at the same time it was changing the landscape of the region as well. At the same time, the Natives could keep the European buildings or erect some European buildings as a way of incorporating the region's tech/resources but at a price of discontent which they had to manage then with a larger garrison or use of agents.

Instead, I think that each barbarian culture should be carefully thought out and their tech trees, even late-game tech trees fleshed out. So a barbarian force that conquers a city gains higher revenue but risks local discontent or can go the route of razing the city down to erect their own buildings from their own separate tech tree thus start off economically weaker but having little to no discontent or fear of rebellion.

Also a nomadic tribe should be able to move its cities with buildings, ideally.

Probably something like this would be most practical adoption. Building some many cultural buildings to produce a blended culture and army would be very difficult and could end with weird results. I don't see why if Celts had won just a couple more battles they might not have moved into Latium and fused with Etrusacan/Roman culture which doesn't mean Celts adopt wholesale but only borrow where Romans had an advantage, looking at it from modern perspective the main advantage Romans had that I can determine was in political institutions which is something the can be borrowed but its much more difficult to implement in a different culture than a new materials technology or weapon system.

Hopefully RTW2 offers a chance to migrate culturally- from a 'barbarian' warband/chieftain culture to a Monarchy and than possibly to a Republic or Imperium. In these examples the 'barbarians' wouldn't necessarily become mirror of Greek or Roman cultures but simply borrow perhaps some political infrastructure which enables larger urban areas, more professional armies, and better diplomacy(since the faction is speaking more with one voice than 200 chieftains disagreeing).

[Shaggy1973]

Why the necessity to "adapt" where there is nothing wrong with "barbarian" culture in the first place?

In ETW's Warpath campaign, I liked the feature where Natives had to tear down European buildings to get their building tech started and going. It made losing regions hard but at the same time it was changing the landscape of the region as well. At the same time, the Natives could keep the European buildings or erect some European buildings as a way of incorporating the region's tech/resources but at a price of discontent which they had to manage then with a larger garrison or use of agents.

Instead, I think that each barbarian culture should be carefully thought out and their tech trees, even late-game tech trees fleshed out. So a barbarian force that conquers a city gains higher revenue but risks local discontent or can go the route of razing the city down to erect their own buildings from their own separate tech tree thus start off economically weaker but having little to no discontent or fear of rebellion.

Also a nomadic tribe should be able to move its cities with buildings, ideally.

ooh this sounds close to the kind of thing we want!

[O'Hea]

The barbarian should be more like scartered villages without a central city region. The economy should be based on farming, mining. As the game goes on the barbarian should be able to adapt to conqured lands technology and culture.

What kind of technology do you think the Romans and Greeks had? Their economy was still overwhelmingly agricultural. In just about every pre-industrial society at least 80% of people were directly involved in fishing, farming, or herding livestock, and the Romans were certainly no exception.

[Deadly Rabbit]

Definately a fact that the Main advantage Rome had was political unity and statecraft, not to mention discipline. Celts in Spain, Gaul and Briton were far from technologically disadvantaged; the celts had much influence on roman weaponry for instance. They lacked political unity and that was why Rome was able to repeatedly divide and conquer, and fend off uncoordinated attacks from numerically superior barbarian hordes. I think this ought to be reflected by the Celts and germans having a good tech level, but comparative difficulty in maintaining political stability. Big tribal confederations ought to be difficult to maintain a grip on.

[O'Hea]

Definately a fact that the Main advantage Rome had was political unity and statecraft, not to mention discipline. Celts in Spain, Gaul and Briton were far from technologically disadvantaged; the celts had much influence on roman weaponry for instance. They lacked political unity and that was why Rome was able to repeatedly divide and conquer, and fend off uncoordinated attacks from numerically superior barbarian hordes. I think this ought to be reflected by the Celts and germans having a good tech level, but comparative difficulty in maintaining political stability. Big tribal confederations ought to be difficult to maintain a grip on.

What I hope they'll do is divide the barbs up into lots of small factions- I don't need to see every single minor clan in there, but for example Gaul should at least have five or six different factions in it. Same goes for Iberia and Britain, maybe Germania doesn't need quite as many.

Basically, I think the biggest problem with RTW was that it was a foregone conclusion that the Romans would squash the barbarians. So the barbs were designed to be interesting enemies (they're so crazy! your units have high defense and low attack, and theirs are the OPPOSITE!), but basically they weren't meant to be powerful or have as much of a shot as the Romans or Egyptians.

[Shaggy1973]

I hope barbarians are either not playable, and more of a hording raiding threat on borders, or they strip out much of the campaign map higher levels of development.

we don't want huge barbarian cities with libraries and aqueducts.

similarly, if they ever take rome, they don't get all the higher level buildings bonuses etc.

needs a lot of careful thought.

[Yomamashouse]

Lets be honest, the barbarians of RTW were absolute garbage. They looked like caveman who had stolen swords from dead enemies. Their economies were simplistic and minimal at best. Their troops had awful discipline and moral as well. Anyone who has played Europa Barbarorum (the poster-child for what realistic mods that make full use of the game engine's latent potential should look like) knows that the barbarians were far more advanced and complex than the technologically-declined cavemen we see in RTW.

You may be saying - "Hey Yomamashouse, why are you always bringing up EB in this forum?" I am doing it because Europa Barbarorum has more history in one unit card than RTW and its expansions had put together. One might consider historically accurate depictions of different cultures as being important in a game that revolves around history and realism.

But many here seem content with hollywood cinema-style Roman-bias combined with a high school level of knowledge about other factions.

Roman Ninjas and tree-stump wielding giants....... nuff said.

[Deadly Rabbit]

I'm with you, Yomamashouse!