Source
r/Imperator•
Turklestinian

Anyone else concerned at the power of tribal nations in this game?

Discussion

I get that PDX games aren't necessarily "history simulators", but I feel like I can't be the only one finding it jarring how places like Gaul, Britannia and Hispania tend to get dominated by 1-3 huge tribal nations who can seriously rival the great mediterranean and Asian civilisations of the time. While I haven't played the game it must radically change the dynamic of playing in those areas compared to actual history, and personally I find it pretty immersion-breaking.

Like, Carthage, Macedon or Egypt becoming big empires dominating the mediterranean is one thing, but Dubbonia getting 18th century British borders before the birth of Christ feels...a bit much. Hope there's some kind of patch in the future, but wanna hear what people think

Posted Apr 25, 2019, 10:41 AM UTC

2227
solarisbe•

Well, if you compare it to ck2 tribes, they're pretty much strong for their size while they stay small, but have huge roadblock for growing (like the inability to get out of gavel kind) So I imagine that while it's not impossible to rival big empire in size, they have implemented such roadblock for power, like tech and stability disadvantages

17
swift_USBBarbarian•

Gavel kind?

1
solarisbe•

Inheritance law that basically distribute your personnal holdings to all your sons, dividing your realm with every monarch death

13
Hroppa•

I love how CK2 has taught an entire genre of gamers about obscure medieval inheritance laws

19
EggnogCharlie•

Exactly. Now let's here it for tanistry!

1
swift_USBBarbarian•

Thank

3
solarisbe•

Lol, wierd :)

3
Gullflyinghigh•

My friend, surely you meant 'heirs' rather than sons? I've had some truly despicable (and therefore, brilliant) Queens in CK2.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
swift_USBBarbarian•

You!

1
Benito2002•

If they stay small it would be boaring in the late game

5
TurklestinianOP•

I feel like there's no easy solution to boring late games when you get big, but what if tribes did what they did historically and engaged in mass diplomacy instead of becoming big super-blobs themselves? Like engaging in massive alliance chains with fellow tribes, or allying large ""civilised"" rivals, or both?

12
CrymsonStarite•

Sounds like you’re proposing a federation concept rather than blobbing. I think that would be a fun mechanic to include, have an oligarchic council make decisions to fend off major threats like Rome.

I think a crisis federation would be interesting. Say a tribe in Gaul has been slowly expanding (to avoid AE) and all the surrounding tribes realize they’re a massive threat. A crisis federation forms to defend their independence from the threat.

11
TurklestinianOP•

I adore this idea, and the "crisis federation" sounds like a cool description of the large tribal alliances that historically formed to fight Rome

5
CrymsonStarite•

Right? That’s what I was thinking, because the tribes weren’t stupid, they knew what was coming. But tribute was more important to them than wide expansion. Look at the Arverni, absolute powerhouse in Gaul, but barely grew compared to Rome over the same time period. Tribes valued their autonomy, and were perfectly fine paying tribute if it meant autonomy. Rome didn’t give much autonomy (comparatively) hence why they fought so hard against them.

2
SlaavMacedonia•

I like your idea, it would be a great way to create challenge for a large mediterranean blob that seeks to expand in continental Europe, but the problem with it is that if the player himself is a tribe, the implications of this mechanic are not that great.

If I follow you, tribes shouldn't be able to expand as quickly as the other empires, but they can form a federation if they are threatened. From the point of view of a non-tribal player that makes the game more interesting, but that also means that the tribal player will spend more time doing nothing, without being able to "activate" the federation mechanic - because this mechanic needs an external invader to trigger it. So they'll be forced in a more passive role, because of a mechanic whose only upside they'll have no control over.

If a similar mechanic is to be implemented, tribals should have custom-made mechanics and goals that would allow them to play actively while being unable to expand as quickly as the other powers. In other terms, they should be given additional incentives for playing tall - at least until the moment when they get to form a Federation.

3
CrymsonStarite•

Hm, I see what you’re saying.

I think more of a tributary system would be better for tribes. They focused less on rapid expansion like Rome, and more on creating wealth for themselves. Wars for wealth were more important than controlling territory, because at the time they could often just migrate elsewhere. As they civilize, then the tributary system becomes less rewarding, rewarding more expansion and conquering.

2
Zeriell•

Frankly, there's nothing stopping the game from treating players playing tribals different than AI tribals. You could make the federation formable actively for players only.

1
AzertyKeys•

reminds me of Realm Divide in Shogun 2 which was such a great mechanic

1
CrymsonStarite•

It was frustrating sometimes, but it really did make it feel like you were truly contending for the shogunate. I loved playing as the Hojo during Realm Divide because they just couldn’t siege you out.

2
RunningNumbers•

Well historically it was not just diplomacy. Basically border tribes romanized, got access to wealth, technology, ideas. They became more organized, merged/conquered other tribes, and formed their own states. I don't know how this might be implemented, though much of this stuff occurred after the founding of the empire.

1
Idontwantyourfuel•

If you're that worried just hop over into one of the threads that worries about tribes being to weak.

3
lakapupulaka•

The way I see it every great empire started as a crappy little backwater village, especially Rome. I've got no problem with a few lucky tribes rising to great power in their region.

3
Nemesysbr•

I think you guys are too stuck in your eu4 thinking. This is the classical era.

Little tribes became huge massive empires all the time. Just because it didn't happen in gaul, doesn't mean it couldn't have.

If these niche nations become power way too often, then yeah it's a balancing issue, but it being something that can happen shouldn't be a problem for an alt-history game.

1
DotHobbesSyracusae•

This is what you get when you try to make a map painter game and decide to make every faction playable. People are obviously going to try and play as Gauls and Germanics, so you gotta give them a map painting experience, since that's the main goal of the game.

Ideally, they should have had a limited pool of diverse playable factions that were historically capable of doing such map painting. This means Diadochi, a few city states including Rome and Carthage, Eastern polities such the Mauryans, some nomads and a couple of migratory tribes. Instead we got a huge number of factions that all play the same.

1