(Tribal) African minifaction(s) (research and concept thread)

[Unarmed]

I was joking about African pygmies in the gorilla thread. But I did kind of like the idea of African (tribal) minifactions mainly for scenarios, Funny, I was browsing around the forum and saw in a thread Mythos had the same idea.

Though I did see a lot of pictures of more recent tribes, Maasai and Zulu, in Mythos thread. But it's not a bad idea to use those as inspiration, because it is impossible to go hundrend percent (I think 20 percent is already tough) accurate. Though I would like them to be as accurate as possible, so I would personally go for a very generic tribal faction. Let's call them the Bantu, see wikipedia why:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Bantu_peoples

(Other minifactions possibilites (not limited to) could be Congo pygmies and the Nok people.)

I also like the idea of playing as a underdog in a match against AI. The Bantu would be stuck in the village phase (or town phase?), and would have limited units, I would say like this:

-Spearman/spear warrior (spear + shield)

-Warrior (African club or axe + throwing knife)

-Tribesmen/hunter (bow and arrow)

-Female

-Perhaps shaman, but I think no healing building

I wasn't sure if Bantu did have archiculture but yes they did (I dislike that I have such a stereotypical view of Africa, I always think of primative hunter gatherers). So farms are good.

I want to do some research, also for fun. I would love to actually work on this generic tribal faction, but I haven't even started modelling and trying environmental stuff (which I will do when my computer is fully fixed). But yeah, if modelling and texturing goes well and I enjoy it, I would want to create them.

Here is a nice picture of throwing blades:

http://www.ezakwantu...al%20Africa.jpg

I have no idea if they fit the timeframe, but I have a book which says the Bantu were good metal workers. And:

the Iron use, in smelting and forging for tools, appears in Nok culture in Africa at least by 550 BC and possibly earlier.

These are other peoples but I assume the Bantu would learn this technology from the Nok. But iron doesn't mean a particular weapon would be present. The throwing blade could work like the proposed pilum mechanic for the Romans.

Here are African helmets and Bantu shields, no idea what timeframe:

http://www.hamillgal...ntuShields.html

http://www.hamillgal...TE/Helmets.html

EDIT: the Helmets seem to be from medieval period so I would say no to helmets.

Here are African battle axes and war clubs again, again no idea what time frame:

http://www.ezakwantu...ency%20Axes.htm

I guess the hardest part is the look of the soldiers and not the look of the weapons. I found this:

Again no idea what timeframe but to me it looks between the Middle Ages and 19th century. But that's a very wild guess.

I would go for bare chest, something rather boring like this (ignore the pants):

(I would love very flamboyant and unique, but that is the highest change of being inaccurate I think)

Experienced units would get a generic as possible helmet (no helmet see above) and shield. Also perhaps face paint.

Later I will do more research and edit this (not going to bump this).

______________________________________________________________________________________

(ROUGH EARLY CONCEPT)

UNIT DESCRIPTIONS

INFANTRY

• Generic Name: Bantu Warrior
  
• Specific Name: TBD
  
  • Class: Swordsman.
    
  • Hacker Armament: Battle axe or war club.
    
  • Ranged Armament:
    

Basic - None.

Advanced – None.

Elite – African throwing knife

• Appearance: Generic African. Tribal looking. Bald or short hair (?)
  
  • Garb: - bare chested
    
  • Basic - non musclar
    Elite – visual abs (!)
    
  • Helmet: - none
    
  • Shield:
    
  • Basic - None.
    Advanced – Bantu type shield made of wood or hide
    Elite – Bantu type shield made of wood or hide
    
  • Figure(s): -
    

  [*]Garrison: 1.

  [*]Function: -

  [*]Special: -

• Generic Name: Bantu Spearman
  
• Specific Name: TBD
  
  • Class: Spearman.
    
  • Hacker Armament: Spear, maybe with distinct broad head/points.
    
  • Appearance: same as Bantu Warrior
    
  • Garrison: 1.
    
  • Function: -
    
  • Special: -
    

• Generic Name: Bantu Hunter
  
• Specific Name: TBD
  
  • Class: Archer.
    
  • Hacker Armament: Bow and arrow. Shorter range than other archer units. (!)
    
  • Appearance: - same as Bantu Warrior
    
  • Special: - hunting bonus (!)
    

CAVALRY

None.

SUPPORT UNITS

• Generic Name: Bantu Woman
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Appearance:
    
    • Garb: bare chested but with something covering her twins
      
    • Helmet: none
      
    • Shield: None.
      
    • Figure(s): -
      

    [*]History:

    [*]Garrison: 1.

    [*]Function: -

    [*]Special: -

• Generic Name: Bantu Healer
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Healer.
    
  • Appearance:
    
    • Garb: TBD
      
    • Helmet: -
      
    • Shield: None.
      
    • Figure(s): -
      

    [*]Garrison: 1.

    [*]Function: -

    [*]Special: -

• Generic Name: Merchant
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Appearance:
    
    • Garb: TBD
      
    • Helmet: TBD
      
    • Shield: None.
      
    • Figure(s):
      
    • Mount: None. Walking.
      

    [*]History:

    [*]Garrison: 2.

    [*]Function: -

    [*]Special: -

NAVY, SIEGE, CHAMPION UNITS, HEROES

None. Though maybe fishing boat (?)

NEW UNIT TRAITS

TBD.

CIV CENTRE UNITS

• Melee Infantry: Bantu Spearman (Spearman) + Bantu Warrior (Swordsman) (!)
  
• Ranged Infantry: Bantu Hunter (Archer).
  
• Healer: Bantu Healer (!) (Healer)
  

FORBIDDEN CLASSES

• Cavalry
  
• Slingers
  
• All city phase units
  

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTIONS

VILLAGE

• Generic Name: Hut
  
• Specific Name: TBD
  
  • Class: House.
    
  • Appearance: wooden hut or and perhaps clay and animal hide (TBD)
    

• Generic Name: (?)
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Farmstead.
    
  • History:
    

• Generic Name: Field
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Field.
    
  • History: Early Bantu speaking people cultivated oil palms but more importantly yams.
    

  [*]http://glencoe.mcgra...07_724300_5.pdf

• Generic Name: (?)
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Corral.
    
  • History:
    

• Generic Name: Mill (?)
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Mill.
    
  • History:
    

TOWN (YES OR NO?)

• Generic Name: Civic Centre
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Civic Centre.
    
  • History:
    

• Generic Name: Market
  
• Specific Name:
  
  • Class: Market.
    
  • History:
    

FORBIDDEN STRUCTURES

• Tower
  
• Outpost
  
• Walls
  
• Docks (?)
  
• Barracks (all Bantu warriors would also be farmers or hunters)
  

CIV BONUSES

TBD or not needed (?) Something to reflect the migration of these people? (?)

TEAM BONUS:

Not needed (?)

TECHNOLOGIES

• Infantry: Weak but do not lose the ability to gather (!)
  
• Cavalry: Not available.
  
• Naval: Non existant.
  
• Siege: Non existant.
  
• Economy:
  
  • Farming: Avarage.
    
  • Mining: Average.
    
  • Lumbering: Average.
    
  • Hunting: Average
    
  • Land Trade: Average.
    
  • Naval Trade: Non Existant.
    

  [*]Architecture:

  • Defenses: Non existant.
    

SPECIAL TECHNOLOGIES

Symbols:

(?) means I'm not sure

(!) means it's something I made up and want opinion about

Edited June 22, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Hmm Many things to fill. Check civilization profile example.

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Carthaginians

[plumo]

I (personally) really like minifactions, to be put on the map as 'settlements' (cfr. Age of Empires III) that provide unique units and technologies.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The trading post idea. Is one of my favorites, control a settlement and train mercenaries. Support that.

[Unarmed]

I (personally) really like minifactions, to be put on the map as 'settlements' (cfr. Age of Empires III) that provide unique units and technologies.

Something like that would be awesome.

Hmm Many things to fill. Check civilization profile example.

http://trac.wildfire...A_Carthaginians

Note that it's supposed to be a mini faction not a full faction. I first thought of making them gaia or something like that, but I like the idea of playing them for a challenge.

But yeah I need to fill a lot. And information on them is rather rare so don't expect me to make a detailed concept in a few hours.

Going to do some research again and fill up the first post.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Is like barbarians in empire earth 2. But can work better with trading post. And may be a group in settlement like bandits. Like AoE 3.

[Unarmed]

Is like barbarians in empire earth 2. But can work better with trading post. And may be a group in settlement like bandits. Like AoE 3.

Village phase is a bit of a problem. They need a market I agree (that's what you mean with trading post right?).

Town phase seems necessary. Also shaman is not a good regular name I think it's more something for Asian or Native American I believe.

Perhaps we can take some inspiration from the Azande, they are from the 19th century but look quite generic.

As you can see they do have some unique features like the hair and the hat. Imagine these without the hats and with the Bantu shields.

We could do different types of haircuts including these.

Ok I'm going to copy a civilisation profile and edit it to the Bantu mini faction. And do research.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Not, trading post is a building in Aoe3 to reclute mercenaries from a tribal village. You must capture the village or settlement to train these units.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I like the idea of minifactions, if only to act as wildcards in scenarios and campaigns and such. If someone wanted a challenge they could even be playable. Though I don't think we'd make any effort to include them until at least after the Seleucids are done, I'd see no harm in actually creating and researching their civ profiles.

For a particular "African" minifaction like the Bantus, like you said, we could probably only be 20% accurate with the references and resources we have available, so I think it's okay to incorporate texture ideas (like for shields and such) from other nearby peoples.

[Lion.Kanzen]

That way we can put some other, numidians, Samnites, pirates(Cilicians ), Maccabees, Arabs and desert people, bandits, rebel gladiators, thracians. cimbrians. Nubians, Ethiopians.

[Unarmed]

I like the idea of minifactions, if only to act as wildcards in scenarios and campaigns and such. If someone wanted a challenge they could even be playable. Though I don't think we'd make any effort to include them until at least after the Seleucids are done, I'd see no harm in actually creating and researching their civ profiles.

Let me be clear. I have no intention of pressuring the team into making something. But like you said, it can be no harm in researching and thinking of a concept. And if I am capable, I would like to do this (partly) myself.

For a particular "African" minifaction like the Bantus, like you said, we could probably only be 20% accurate with the references and resources we have available, so I think it's okay to incorporate texture ideas (like for shields and such) from other nearby peoples.

Yeah. And I was thinking, too generic isn't that much fun and unique. It's a game. Though something like helmets is too inaccurate.

But some Maasai features and Zulu features would be fine as long as it isn't too obvious and I think lots of people would enjoy it, if not, than they should give us detailed information how they should look.

Here some of my favorite tribal warriors (some weren't allowed on the forum):

(The spear)

I think I'm going to draw some concepts in flash, mainly for the purpose of fun.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

First you must make a structure about the units and buildings.

UNITS

Infrantry:

Cavalry:

Support:

Navy:

Champions:

[Unarmed]

First you must make a structure about the units and buildings. UNITS Infrantry: Cavalry: Support: Navy: Champions:

Check out the first post again if you haven't done so. I updated it. I have somethings marked with (?) and (!). I need opinion on (!) and information on (?)

I found something interesting:

"By the Bantu migrations, I assume that you mean the expansion of the Bantu language speaking peoples from the region near modern Nigeria and Cameroon both south and east.

This movement of peoples and culture (including agriculture and metalworking) happened in waves and took place over many centuries. Prior to their movement, all of Africa south of the equator was peopled by neolithic hunting and foraging tribes.

Prior to the migrations, the Bantu were hunters and gatherers, but seemed to have the ability to link several villages and tribes into a larger group based upon trade and language. These Kinship groups coupled local autonomy into wider political structures that are not considered States or Nations in the typical meaning.

Barkcloth, rather than fabric was typically used until the introduction of cotton many years later. They lived in beehive houses which were made with stones, mud, poles, and often cow dung.

Food was typical of most hunter/gatherers and included small animals and possibly bananas. Later migrations spread agriculture and domestic animals."

The houses information I could really use.

About the migration, to reflect that, I think they should have cheaper civil centers. Ok, I made some unit concepts, here they go: (also shown are generic weapons and my references)

[oshron]

i think if any "minifactions" are going to be included, the first ones should be ones which are already presented in the game, such as all the different mercenaries that the Carthaginians get being a bit more fleshed-out with some extra units that we know they employed, but only the actual mercenaries that are part of the Carthaginian civ are trainable (e.g., if there were, say, Numidian infantry that aren't already avaiable to the Carthaginians, then they aren't trainable by other civs which may establish a trading post at a Numidian settlement)

[Lion.Kanzen]

For game balance in AOE, the heavy units that are powerful, like Elephants that you can use are limited to few, the light units or weak can be limited by your resourced and may be pop limit.

See AeE 3 : The Asian dynasties to see what I mean and compare with normal game and Native American units that serve as mercenaries.

The point to do it ifs for historic and reality, and strategic.

-they are for some maps not all.

- they are allies only the player can make a diplomatic movement, that mean no are a single way to can allies. And they can betray your faction.

- they can be helpful to balance your faction weakness or can destroy your settlement.

-they can mix their technology knowledge with your faction(bonus map).

- For some faction can be more easy than other make this mini faction as allies, may be the civilization Compatibility.

- they can they own Ai less economic and more aggressive.

Obviously the Carthaginian and Greek mercenaries can be superior to units of a mini faction.

Many of user can disappoint for have the old gameplay like Aok. But can be alternative. And I vote for this idea because is one a few gameplay that a was enjoy in a RTS and is complete compatible with this style.

[Unarmed]

You make good points Lion.K

i think if any "minifactions" are going to be included, the first ones should be ones which are already presented in the game, such as all the different mercenaries that the Carthaginians get being a bit more fleshed-out with some extra units that we know they employed, but only the actual mercenaries that are part of the Carthaginian civ are trainable (e.g., if there were, say, Numidian infantry that aren't already avaiable to the Carthaginians, then they aren't trainable by other civs which may establish a trading post at a Numidian settlement)

I agree partly.

Because I would like to see other minifactions, and it's good to start with things already in the game.

On the other hand, a African faction is much more unique, and it is a minifaction since they did not have a "real nation".

But yeah I get you. For example I do not get why the gorilla was made (I like a gorilla but that's not my point), as it is not in the current biomes or the existing factions would not get into contact with them. The gorilla also justifies in my opinion this African minifaction.

Also, I would like to try and make this faction myself. If the developers would want to make it, I would suggest doing first the more important factions/mini factions.

[Lion.Kanzen]

How Many civilizations were placed between Numidians and North African civilization and Bantu?

Is fair place many of them in the game if you can add because is weird Romans invading Cameroon or Other civ.

many people talk about Bactrians, Han Empire, even the Kush, the Bantu can be interesting, but is doesn't Mayans, Aztecs, Quechua, Iroquies, Lakota, Skythians? Japan ? Those are exotic. That my only point against Bantu. And I don't think about be the only one in see that.

But time to do mini factions, that I believe is possibly to do. This a contributor project this ideas can die easily. And vote for your idea. Because is mine too. I wanna see all humanity in a game. Sound huge but is fascinating think about that.

[Unarmed]

How Many civilizations were placed between Numidians and North African civilization and Bantu?

Is fair place many of them in the game if you can add because is weird Romans invading Cameroon or Other civ.

many people talk about Bactrians, Han Empire, even the Kush, the Bantu can be interesting, but is doesn't Mayans, Aztecs, Quechua, Iroquies, Lakota, Skythians? Japan ? Those are exotic. That my only point against Bantu. And I don't think about be the only one in see that.

You make fair points. By the way, what I was trying to say, when full factions are done, I would go for the most unique mini factions. Minifactions that are already incorporated somehow are to me personally (Note: my opinion does not reflect those of the developers! Just stated my view!) not that interesting to do, even if it is easier as you already have some units. Though I think you know I would love the Scythians. My opinion on animals is the opposite; I feel like (common) animals from the main factions areas should be done first, hence I don't understand why gorillas and rhinos are on the official animal list.

America is very interesting, but not in the timeframe. Another problem is you have to make new animals and environment to make it feel authentic.

There is a Serengeti biome and central African animals (while I think it's awesome, I don't fully understand the decision to make the Serengeti and especially the central African animals, which where also on the official animal list) so those additions makes the game scream for African people in some way.

But time to do mini factions, that I believe is possibly to do. This a contributor project this ideas can die easily. And vote for your idea. Because is mine too. I wanna see all humanity in a game. Sound huge but is fascinating think about that.

That's something I would love too. The thing is with me possibly making this minifaction, I'm still a noob with blender and I want to do other stuff like flora. On the other hand some stuff seems rather easy to me.

I could make reskins of models to make them look like Africans, weapons seem not that hard to make and headwear also. Most animations can be reused.

The biggest challenge I think would be making the buildings. I don't think I can learn that very quickly unlike weapons and headwear, though the African buildings are rather simple (maybe edit the Briton buildings?).

Another issue could be the throwing knifes and their animation (maybe the javelin animation can be edited? Still seems hard.).

I almost forgot about coding. I would think I could use other factions code and edit it. Seems easier in theory than in practice.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think their civil center should be called chiefs hut or something like that, since Bantu were ruled by chiefs, which I think would have a bigger house (no idea if that's true).

[Lion.Kanzen]

We creates a Mod with bronze civilizations. If you want can join to use. Is for learning. Check our sub forums.

May be actually developers can bring whole cultures put they can help, and the new players with skilled mod powers..

I love Batue helmets remember me various kind of European models.

[Unarmed]

We creates a Mod with bronze civilizations. If you want can join to use. Is for learning. Check our sub forums.

May be actually developers can bring whole cultures put they can help, and the new players with skilled mod powers..

Might be a good idea to start. I shall think about it.

[Unarmed]

Bump.

I want to get back to the Age of Empires 3 idea for mini factions. I played the Age of Empires 3 demo, and I must I like that system. It seems easier to implement.

The positive

-less buildings would need to be made (only houses bunched together)*

-less units could be made, instead of lots of boring units

-together with the territory sytem this could be really interesting

-seems like more mini-factions could be made this way

The negative

-I don't like how the Age of Empires 3 natives just sit there doing nothing - no gathering, no attacking (building is not necessary really)

-*Every existing faction would need a trading post

-very important: this system conflicts with the current mercenary system

Negative number 1. I have no idea how the natives would gather or attack. Maybe it's better to not have it. It's a game, somethings are better left simplified.

Negative number two. Instead of the trading post, the outpost could be used. I think this brings interesting features:

-outpost becomes more valuable

-you would not have to gain territory which seems better, but outpost needs to be repaired to have control over the natives

Negative number three. It does not have to conflict. Some units would be allied to existing factions or in futher away lands. Seems like less of an issue than I first thought.

Also, like Age of Empires 3, there could be specific upgrades which you wouldn't normally have.

This way we only have to do Bantu houses and can do the most interesting of the units. The Scythians could also been done this way perhaps.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Unarmed

[Don]

Read to the bottom of the Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples#Use_of_the_term_.22Bantu.22_in_South_Africa The term "Bantu" has some racist freight, and we shouldn't be using it. I'd say it has about the same status as the word "negro" has in the United States, which is to say that I don't use it, and would object to someone else using the word to describe a black person.

[Unarmed]

Read to the bottom of the Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia...in_South_Africa The term "Bantu" has some racist freight, and we shouldn't be using it. I'd say it has about the same status as the word "negro" has in the United States, which is to say that I don't use it, and would object to someone else using the word to describe a black person.

Hmm, that's very problematic. Since their is no other good way to describe these peoples. They spoke Bantu and even in my history book they are called Bantu.

Also I think you mean the other n word. Negro is not that bad or is it?

[Don]

"Negro" isn't considered as vicious as "@#$%," but both are considered racist and unacceptable (except in a historical discussion of racist speech, like this exchange). I might give my grandma a pass on "negro," but she's 100. Younger than that, you should know better.

There was a time when the word "Bantu" didn't carry a racist connotation, just as there was a time when a swastika wasn't a racist symbol. Using either of them in an innocent way would require a lot of explaining. Obviously not everyone will wait to have it explained.

Perhaps there is a subgroup not named Bantu?

[Unarmed]

"Negro" isn't considered as vicious as "@#$%," but both are considered racist and unacceptable (except in a historical discussion of racist speech, like this exchange). I might give my grandma a pass on "negro," but she's 100. Younger than that, you should know better.

There was a time when the word "Bantu" didn't carry a racist connotation, just as there was a time when a swastika wasn't a racist symbol. Using either of them in an innocent way would require a lot of explaining. Obviously not everyone will wait to have it explained.

Perhaps there is a subgroup not named Bantu?

Mind you I come from the Netherlands, and I don't have many people descended from Africans here. We have a word similar to the n word, but instead of g's it has k's, which is considered offensive. Though some appearently do not like the word Negro (the Dutch version, same word though), I had to look that up. I had no idea it was considered hurtful. Wiki said some wanted to erase this word from the dictionary. But I've seen descriptions saying "searching negroid man" on a Dutch government site, so I though if they used it it must not be okay.

The swastika is actually in the game.

I shall do some research and I did some. But the problem is that most ethnicies only came into existance far later. If we didn't have that problem it would be great to go for the specific ethnicies so we can have several interesting African units. Like Kongo clubmen.

They could be called native central-Africans, but I dunno, that sounds bad to me.

Bantu means people in Bantu language. Maybe I can do something with that, though I have to be really creative.