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

[Mythos_Ruler]

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.

Just because it's a slur in South Africa doesn't mean it's a slur everywhere else in Africa. Nor does it mean "Bantu" is not the correct etymological word to use.

[Unarmed]

I want to take peoples concerns serious, so I thought of some alternatives, but I must say I agree with Mythos.

While it is a fact that Bantu was used negatively in the Apartheid area in South-Africa, and to some people the word may have a negative feeling, it is the right word for these people really. Bantu means people, the Afrikaans wikipedia (partly Dutch language, South African people) does not have something about it being offensive.

I thought the swastika was recieved alright, but I searched and see a small amount of people really concerned. Man these kind of things are tough for a developer. I mean nakedness and too much violence is a no brainer since you want to think of the small kids, but these kind of things where only a small percentage is seriously bothered/affected by it, I would find it really frustrating because I'm someone who doesn't get easily offended. (Not saying I don't understand these kind of things, but since it is in another context, I see little issue)

And note that this is just an idea, it might not even make it in the game ever (though I would like the challenge of creating it partly).

Edited June 25, 2013 by Unarmed

[zoot]

The Afrikaans Wikipedia wouldn't be my first choice for a neutral source on South Africa, if you know what I mean

If it is extremely important to use a word like "bantu", I agree, this is not something that should stop a game from doing so. But like in the swastika discussion, it's like there is an undertone of "these minority people shouldn't be telling us what to do". I don't really perceive anyone telling anyone what to do - it's more like, what is the point in offending people if it can be avoided? IMO, if a work of art steps many people (Germans, black South Africans ... who's next?) on the toes, not to make any kind of point (other than maybe "we don't care about you"), but just for the heck of it, it ends up seeming coarse and a bit crude. Though, opinions obviously vary.

[Unarmed]

The Afrikaans Wikipedia wouldn't be my first choice for a neutral source on South Africa, if you know what I mean

Yeah true, didn't thought of that. (What would be good though? Zulu Wiki?)

If it is extremely important to use a word like "bantu", I agree, this is not something that should stop a game from doing so. But like in the swastika discussion, it's like there is an undertone of "these minority people shouldn't be telling us what to do". I don't really perceive anyone telling anyone what to do - it's more like, what is the point in offending people if it can be avoided? IMO, if a work of art steps many people (Germans, black South Africans ... who's next?) on the toes, not to make any kind of point (other than maybe "we don't care about you"), but just for the heck of it, it ends up seeming coarse and a bit crude. Though, opinions obviously vary.

Well there is not really a good alternative in case of the Bantu. If somebody could find it, speaking for myself, I would be someone to change it.

And now I really need to go to bed.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Unarmed

[Mythos_Ruler]

The Afrikaans Wikipedia wouldn't be my first choice for a neutral source on South Africa, if you know what I mean

If it is extremely important to use a word like "bantu", I agree, this is not something that should stop a game from doing so. But like in the swastika discussion, it's like there is an undertone of "these minority people shouldn't be telling us what to do". I don't really perceive anyone telling anyone what to do - it's more like, what is the point in offending people if it can be avoided? IMO, if a work of art steps many people (Germans, black South Africans ... who's next?) on the toes, not to make any kind of point (other than maybe "we don't care about you"), but just for the heck of it, it ends up seeming coarse and a bit crude. Though, opinions obviously vary.

About the Swastika, there have been dozens of German-language YouTube gameplay videos since that discussion and as far as I know any actual real "controversy" involved was nil.

My opinion on these things, Bantu, Swastika, whatever, is that ownership of these words and symbols should be "taken back" from the corrupted interpretations. in the case of "Bantu," we have the actual name of a people (or linguistic grouping of peoples) whose name was corrupted by some racists in South Africa. But this is localized and it's not all clear that it's an issue elsewhere in Africa or the world. A group of racists may use the word "Jew" as a pejorative, but I don't see anyone suggest we don't use the word in a game.

[Don]

Maybe I overreacted. I find the term Bantu in lists of racial slurs, but I also find it in an article in the NY Times. Surely they pay attention to words at the Times.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Maybe I overreacted. I find the term Bantu in lists of racial slurs, but I also find it in an article in the NY Times. Surely they pay attention to words at the Times.

It's perfectly okay to discuss these things.

[zoot]

About the Swastika, there have been dozens of German-language YouTube gameplay videos since that discussion and as far as I know any actual real "controversy" involved was nil.

If you pick the subset of Germans who find swastikas uncontroversial, and check how many of them find swastikas controversial, you will clearly arrive at the number nil. That seems a bit disingenuous, though, since we had one German on the forum who did find it offensive, as well as FeXoR who at least recognized that such people exist. I personally don't have any reason to believe that these latter two are "less authentic" Germans than anyone who may post on YouTube.

A group of racists may use the word "Jew" as a pejorative, but I don't see anyone suggest we don't use the word in a game.

No, because that is how Jews self-identify. It's similar to how it will be uncontroversial to say "African American", because that is how African Americans identify, while the fabled n-word is not.

[Mythos_Ruler]

No, because that is how Jews self-identify. It's similar to how it will be uncontroversial to say "African American", because that is how African Americans identify, while the fabled n-word is not.

Even "African Americans" is viewed with some derision in some circles of that community. Can't please everybody. Regardless, perhaps we should find out what "Bantus" call themselves nd just use that.

[zoot]

Can't please everybody, but if you don't lose much by it, you can try to piss off the fewest

[oshron]

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.

i'm pretty the gorilla is included for use in some non-historical maps which are set in Sub-Saharan Africa (though they kinda do have historical justification because the Carthaginians circumnavigated Africa, and iirc our first accounts of gorillas actually come from the Carthaginians). i seem to recall reading that a "Cameroon" map is or was planned which is basically 0ad's version of the Black Forest map from AOK. to give a bit of context, there is (or was) another map set at the North Pole, hence the inclusion of polar bears and walruses on the animal listing even though no one lived anywhere near the North Pole except for the Inuit and the predecessors of teh Vikings (both of which fall out of 0ad's timeframe and geographic range). in short, it would just be a map included for fun and have no bearing on the historicity of the civs themselves.

i agree that some Sub-Saharan minifactions would be interesting, the challenge being that we find civs which are distinct enough to justify their inclusion

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.

in general, i think that minifactions should still be at least relatively associated with the playable civs and have the possibility of having been encountered by at least one of them, while also taking into consideration that some of these "minor civs" could have enough going for them that they could be full playable factions later on. for example, the Japanese (specifically of the Yamato period) fall into 0ad's timeframe, as does Han China and the Mayans (all three of which are among my top proposals for later civs to be included). that's why i suggest civs that are already partly included via units for a given civ (Israelites/Judaeans via the Ptolemies, Mauritanians via the Carthaginians, Babylonians via the Persians, etc.) and then considering other civs we know that the various playable factions encountered historically

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.

actually, there could conceivably be only one necessary building per minifaction, quite simply a settlement that resembles several buildings but is actually one big one, about as big on the ground as a Wonder but looking like a few huts surrounding a central building resembling a barracks or fortress, and you can capture or build a trading post/outpost near there to enable the training of mercenary units at your barracks (there could perhaps be a second row of units on top of the current one which consists only of mercenary units, perhaps several arranged by broad region of origin)

Just because it's a slur in South Africa doesn't mean it's a slur everywhere else in Africa. Nor does it mean "Bantu" is not the correct etymological word to use.

you beat me to it Edited June 26, 2013 by oshron

[Unarmed]

i'm pretty the gorilla is included for use in some non-historical maps which are set in Sub-Saharan Africa (though they kinda do have historical justification because the Carthaginians circumnavigated Africa, and iirc our first accounts of gorillas actually come from the Carthaginians). i seem to recall reading that a "Cameroon" map is or was planned which is basically 0ad's version of the Black Forest map from AOK. to give a bit of context, there is (or was) another map set at the North Pole, hence the inclusion of polar bears and walruses on the animal listing even though no one lived anywhere near the North Pole except for the Inuit and the predecessors of teh Vikings (both of which fall out of 0ad's timeframe and geographic range). in short, it would just be a map included for fun and have no bearing on the historicity of the civs themselves.

Thank you for pointing out. Though I still think while it is fine, it is awesome by the way, I would rather do this later until the important biomes are more or less finished. I'm made a list but many animals could be created by modifying existing textures which I'm doing now.

i agree that some Sub-Saharan minifactions would be interesting, the challenge being that we find civs which are distinct enough to justify their inclusion

in general, i think that minifactions should still be at least relatively associated with the playable civs and have the possibility of having been encountered by at least one of them, while also taking into consideration that some of these "minor civs" could have enough going for them that they could be full playable factions later on. for example, the Japanese (specifically of the Yamato period) fall into 0ad's timeframe, as does Han China and the Mayans (all three of which are among my top proposals for later civs to be included). that's why i suggest civs that are already partly included via units for a given civ (Israelites/Judaeans via the Ptolemies, Mauritanians via the Carthaginians, Babylonians via the Persians, etc.) and then considering other civs we know that the various playable factions encountered historically

I totally understand you. Mayans are something I would personally not do (at least not until very later) because to me it makes more sense that they went deeper into Africa than going to another continent. Ironically in history it is the other way around (correct me if wrong).

actually, there could conceivably be only one necessary building per minifaction, quite simply a settlement that resembles several buildings but is actually one big one, about as big on the ground as a Wonder but looking like a few huts surrounding a central building resembling a barracks or fortress, and you can capture or build a trading post/outpost near there to enable the training of mercenary units at your barracks (there could perhaps be a second row of units on top of the current one which consists only of mercenary units, perhaps several arranged by broad region of origin)

you beat me to it

Yes I ment one building per minifaction if we go for the Age of Empires 3 system. But there would need to be a trading post, but I think the outpost would be great for this. No fortress or barracks for the Bantu though, makes little sense to me, they would all be citizen-soldiers. Bantu people while archicultural would be communities or tribes ruled by chiefs. They might have warriors but I don't think they had true fulltime soldiers.

Native Americans were also archicultural and some made big cities but they didn't have true fulltime soldiers to my knowledge or fortresses. Aztecs and Mayans are a different story.

________________________________________________

Back to the Bantu. I could look for the Bantu word for Africans. Easier said than done:

http://language.psy....oup=A&sort=word

Very few words. And I must say I don't fully understand this site.

Village, which is in this database, would be useful to know if we would go for a Age of Empires 3 system. But I don't understand it well.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Thank you Oshorn, you complete my point, is important know how distinguish a faction from mini faction not in game, when a a civilization is proposal to be designed. I believe difference the Faction is very powerful Civilization that construct a complex social economic and military background.

Mini faction are more flexible. They are more a village with mixes of town phase. Can use ladder to climb the walls.(special ) units for them.

Now I don't know how put them in the map, like a settlement, or like static faction.

I'm thinking more like AOE 3, but they can group some medium army to attack when no are allies in the game. And when their settlement is like client kingdom or mercenaries forces controlled by the player.

In Ee 2 are mini faction tribal to be allies, other Ai, in AOE 3 are only to control post trading to serve mercenaries, and even Warcraft 3 have units like that in their maps.

How gain favor of a Mini faction?

InAoE 3 you build a trading post to have this forces.

in Empire Earth 2 The expansion pack introduces an option to have native tribes, who are neutral players. You can leave them alone, ally with them, or be at war with them.

In other games your Destroy army of a settlement and build a military outpost. Or send military diplomatic.

I want to open other post about Diplomacy and Diplomatic units.

And other about new non military units and special unit list.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Unarmed]

Seven Kingdoms had neutral settlements (one building consisting of several tiny buildings would portray this, Seven Kingdoms had very unrealistic scaling). You could build a barracks next to it and if you had a general with high stats (low stat generals do not work that well, and are bad for your soldiers loyality), it would slowly lose it's neutrality. You could also pay them to make this go faster or you could attack the building but when you did that villagers would attack you and the settlement would lose villagers which in Seven Kingdoms are needed to make soldiers.

Seven Kingdoms is a great unique game and since it is free I really suggest to try it out so you can see how everything works.

We could use somethings of the system of Seven Kingdoms to make the Age of Empires 3 system more interesting. Instead of natives instantly becoming available when you build something (the outpost would be great for this!), it could take time before the natives allow you to recruit soldiers. You would be able to speed up this progress by giving them rescources.

I want to open other post about Diplomacy and Diplomatic units.

And other about new non military units and special unit list.

Seven Kingdoms had a very good diplomacy. Let me explain (I only played singleplayer by the way):

In the beginning you are all neutral. You can request to trade, the ai sometimes declines this. You can choose to be friendly, which I believe is needed to trade. You can also choose to ally, then you can see eachother. You can also give eachother technologies (Seven Kingdoms had siege engines which needed to be researched in science labs) and of course money, but also food.

The Ai would sometimes ask for some money (and food and technologies). In Seven Kingdoms it seemed like AI had different personalities, because some did not ask, they were demanding that you give them lots of money or else they would .... you up!. Sometimes AI would also ask you to have a trade embargo (rescources were very different in Seven Kingdoms and were rather scarce, but very important to generate money) or declare war to a faction (Seven Kingdoms had a reputation system something I don't see happening in 0 A.D, low reputation ment your troops became less loyal and would go to another kingdom, and villagers would rebel if reputation was low. You can't just go to war in Seven Kingdoms because that means you'll have angry people and unloyal soldiers).

Back to the AI. If you did not give them money they requested or demanded, they would break alliances with you or break trade with you and in extreme cases declare war to you. Though some did not seem to care if you did not do it.

I would love to have a better diplomaticy system similar to Seven Kingdoms, but without things that could not be done (reputation and loyality that kind of stuff can't be done)

Many of the features (reputation, loyality, generals) of Seven Kingdoms do not fit in 0 A.D, but it's worth to take a look at and take inspiration from it. I recommend to take a look at it. It takes some time to get used to but it's great.

I'm not talking about the disgrace called Seven Kingdoms: conquest, but the old game Seven Kingdoms. Gamespot gave this game a 9 out of 10, and it has a user score of 8.4, I think the user score is lower because it is not beginner friendly (I got this game as a kid, and it took me 5 years to get used to the game and then I loved it).

I want to open other post about Diplomacy and Diplomatic units.

And other about new non military units and special unit list.

I would like it if you did this. And in name of the holy spaghetti monster, check out Seven Kingdoms everybody!

Edited June 26, 2013 by Unarmed

[Mythos_Ruler]

Can't please everybody, but if you don't lose much by it, you can try to piss off the fewest

We can't make decisions like this from one source. And we don't even know if any real Bantu people would actually be upset.

[Unarmed]

We can't make decisions like this from one source. And we don't even know if any real Bantu people would actually be upset.

True. And I would think an African with Bantu heritage could tell us what would be a good alternative. If this faction would ever be made, we could always see afterwards if it would be a problem.

And I wonder if South-Africans would be bothered by it if they knew that Bantu was used differently in historical context.

[serveurix]

We can't make decisions like this from one source. And we don't even know if any real Bantu people would actually be upset.

Some of the Bantu people will probably not be upset. "Bantu" comes from the Kongo language and means "Humans". So I guess at least the Kongo people would not find it offensive. But maybe Bantu people from other ethnical groups than Kongo would take it bad.

That's what happens with Inuits. Thay don't want to be called "Eskimos" because they don't want to be put in the same basket than any other people from the Far North. Even though we don't mean to insult them when we say "Eskimos".

[Unarmed]

Some of the Bantu people will probably not be upset. "Bantu" comes from the Kongo language and means "Humans". So I guess at least the Kongo people would not find it offensive. But maybe Bantu people from other ethnical groups than Kongo would take it bad.

That's what happens with Inuits. Thay don't want to be called "Eskimos" because they don't want to be put in the same basket than any other people from the Far North. Even though we don't mean to insult them when we say "Eskimos".

Well, I though Eskimo ment raw meat eater and hence is offensive. Bantu does indeed mean people like I said.

[zoot]

We can't make decisions like this from one source. And we don't even know if any real Bantu people would actually be upset.

Sure, I'm not suggesting it should be a considered a showstopper. Just that, IMO, Don made a valid point, even though he maybe didn't document it quite well enough. Until he or someone else does come up with more solid documentation, we'll just take it easy.

[serveurix]

Well, I though Eskimo ment raw meat eater and hence is offensive.

It's one hypothesis but it's disputed. I think noone really knows in fact.

The Yupik people of Alaska and Siberia are said to accept the word Eskimo quite well, because it differentiates them from the Inuit people who reject it.

Well, this is complicated.

[oshron]

Mini faction are more flexible. They are more a village with mixes of town phase. Can use ladder to climb the walls.(special ) units for them. Now I don't know how put them in the map, like a settlement, or like static faction.

I'm thinking more like AOE 3, but they can group some medium army to attack when no are allies in the game. And when their settlement is like client kingdom or mercenaries forces controlled by the player.

In Ee 2 are mini faction tribal to be allies, other Ai, in AOE 3 are only to control post trading to serve mercenaries, and even Warcraft 3 have units like that in their maps.

How gain favor of a Mini faction? InAoE 3 you build a trading post to have this forces.

well in some games (i'm thinking of AOM specifically) it's possible to program map scripts and randomly include units and buildings which belong to the Gaia player and are neutral/aggressive to all players indiscrimniately. for example, the inclusion of Settlements in AOM that you can build new Town Centers over, the random bands of Skraelings on the Vinlandsaga map, and Bandit Migdols (Egyptian Fortresses) on some maps which are specifically spawned near gold mines, adding a little challenge to early expansion.

for teh purposes of gameplay, regular player units (like hoplites) could be treated like aggressive animals when controlled by the "gaia" player, meaning that they'll ignore your units for a while but will attack if you hang around for too long. i know the animla comparison could have racist connotations, but i think that's just the easiest way to handle this. basically, a gaia-controlled hoplite represents a native of a given region who sees one of your gatherers and thinks "Hmm...I don't like the looks of that guy" but leaves the guy alone for a while, but eventually gets uncomfortable and thinks "that guy has overstayed his welcome. time to kill 'im!" and attacks.

as for actually "converting" a minifaction, i'd say a new interface would be needed, perhaps a second diplomacy window applying only to minifactions that you've built an Outpost next to, allowing you to give and receive tributes with the tribe and, after you tribute them a collective amount of resources (let's say 1000 altogether from all three resources, in any combination) which then allows you to train their mercenary units at your Barracks, Fortress, Embassy, etc.. going on the idea of basing the first minifactions on units already included, those mercenary units could be specifically banned for training by their "home" civs because doing it otherwise would be superfluous.

[Spahbod]

One way to include these "mini-factions" would be capturing their "settlement". When capturing is implemented, we can place some gaia buildings around the map that train those faction-specific units. There could be some defenders too. It'd be up to the player to decide if he wants to capture the building, or destroy it. Maybe gaining some resources by doing the latter. This could add a new layer to the game in which the player has to decide if he wants to be able to train some new units, or he's going to pillage a settlement for a quick gain of resources.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Good point, I love spahbod. If thay don't unit to I kill them and take the money and women. Like real life warfare. Very strategical.

Oshron, yeah is very important make new diplomacy upgrade. And design a mini faction template. And later select the biomes where we must placed and what cultures can be chosen and work fine with gameplay and 0 ad concept.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Unarmed]

Of course in case of minifactions, I think it should be optional either through options or by maps. I think it would offer more strategy, but some might not like this.

One way to include these "mini-factions" would be capturing their "settlement". When capturing is implemented, we can place some gaia buildings around the map that train those faction-specific units. There could be some defenders too. It'd be up to the player to decide if he wants to capture the building, or destroy it. Maybe gaining some resources by doing the latter. This could add a new layer to the game in which the player has to decide if he wants to be able to train some new units, or he's going to pillage a settlement for a quick gain of resources.

I like your idea.

My first idea of having minifactions just like regular factions but seriously handicapped I don't like anymore. Besides your idea I also like my second idea based on Age of Empires 3 though, of having the outpost work as a tradepost. And the idea inspired by Seven Kingdoms; giving resources before the settlement becomes ally.

How about this:

You have two options:

1. destroying the settlement, when destroyed it leaves some resources or you gain resources automatically when the settlement is destroyed

2. you first build a outpost inside the settlement (like Age of Empires 3 but with a outpost)

You can choose again (idea is from Seven Kingdoms):

-attack but people will defend

-give them resources but this costs you resources

-by time it will be allied to you, this takes much longer than the options above, however it is free. Will not work if outpost is destroyed.

Whatever you choose, the settlement will become allied to you, unless the outpost is destroyed. You'll be able to train mercenaries and have upgrades (similar to Age of Empires 3)

As you can see no capturing. I prefer the idea of capturing enemy buildings (I assume though capturing means the building will be yours but you cannot build the units the enemy made in this building).

It makes sense to me a enemy building would be captured. But a native village would be subdued by force, "bought" by giving them valuable materials or they would allow mercenaries over time.

Your idea seems simpler though if the capturing is done.

Oshron, yeah is very important make new diplomacy upgrade. And design a mini faction template. And later select the biomes where we must placed and what cultures can be chosen and work fine with gameplay and 0 ad concept.

It's a good idea to already design these things, even if it would be added in a very late stage.

This sounds kind of arrogant, but I really like my idea, it is a mixture of Praetorians, Age of Empires 3 and Seven Kingdoms (1&2). I would think it would appeal to people.

But let's see what everyone thinks.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Right Unarmed, but what say the developers and Project Governance discussion. And the defender of the settlement must be 7 warriors and 4 settlement max per map.