A specter haunts the early game of Civilization 6: the barbarian scout. A single glimpse of your burgeoning capital is all it takes to trigger a cascade of violence that can cripple an unprepared empire. But what if this ever-present threat was magnified tenfold? Analysis on forums and in strategy sessions has led to a fascinating thought experiment: what if the barbarians’ rapaciousness wasn’t limited to just Settlers and Builders? What if every civilian unit, from the humble Trader to the most exalted Great General, could be captured and dragged off to a barbarian encampment? This isn’t merely a question of increased difficulty; it’s a paradigm shift that would fundamentally rewrite the strategic DNA of Civilization 6. The player community suggests that such a change would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of early-game priorities, military doctrine, and even the very rhythm of expansion and development.
The New calculus of Risk: Protecting Your Civilian Backbone
In the current landscape of Civilization 6, players often take calculated risks with their civilian units. A lone Builder might be sent to improve a remote resource, or a Great Prophet might embark on a solo journey to a neighboring city-state. The potential loss, while inconvenient, is often deemed acceptable when weighed against the potential reward. However, if any and all civilian units were vulnerable to capture, this risk-reward calculation would be shattered. The consequences of a single misstep would be catastrophic, forcing a much more conservative and defensively-minded playstyle.
The End of Naked Expansion
Many professional gamers suggest that the era of “naked expansion” – sending out an unescorted Settler to found a new city – would be over. The loss of a Settler is already a significant setback, but in a world where they are a prime target for barbarian enslavement, it would be tantamount to suicide. Every Settler would require a dedicated military escort, slowing down the pace of expansion and increasing the production cost of each new city. This would have a ripple effect throughout the game, as a slower rate of expansion would mean fewer cities, less territory, and a weaker economic base.
The Vulnerability of Great People
The capture of Great People would be a particularly devastating blow. These unique units are the catalysts for Golden Ages, the engines of scientific and cultural progress, and the lynchpins of military strategy. To lose a Great General on the eve of a major war, or a Great Scientist just as you are about to unlock a key technology, would be a game-altering event. Players would be forced to treat their Great People like precious jewels, keeping them garrisoned in cities or moving them only under the heaviest of guard. This would dramatically reduce their flexibility and utility, as they would be unable to respond quickly to changing circumstances on the map.
A New Military Doctrine: The Escort Imperative
The wholesale vulnerability of civilian units would necessitate a fundamental shift in military doctrine. The concept of a standing army would take on a new meaning, as a significant portion of your military forces would be dedicated to escort and garrison duties. This “Escort Imperative” would have far-reaching consequences for everything from unit composition to strategic planning.
The Rise of the “Shepherd” Unit
A popular strategy discussed on forums is the development of a specialized “shepherd” unit. This would likely be a fast, cheap, and relatively weak military unit whose sole purpose is to escort civilians. The Skirmisher, with its high mobility and low production cost, would be an ideal candidate for this role. Players would need to produce these units in large numbers, creating a constant drain on their production and gold reserves. The “Shepherd” unit would become a ubiquitous sight on the map, a constant reminder of the ever-present barbarian threat.
The Strategic Importance of Choke Points
The map itself would become a much more important strategic consideration. Players would need to identify and control natural choke points, such as mountain passes and narrow isthmuses, to create safe corridors for their civilian units. The construction of forts and the strategic placement of units would become essential for securing these vital transit routes. The ability to read the terrain and anticipate barbarian movements would become a key differentiator between successful and unsuccessful players.
The Economic and Cultural Fallout
The impact of this hypothetical change would not be limited to the military sphere. The constant threat to civilian units would have a profound and far-reaching impact on the economic and cultural development of your civilization.
The Disruption of Trade
Traders are the lifeblood of any thriving empire, generating gold, food, and production. If they were vulnerable to capture, the entire trade system would be thrown into chaos. Players would be much more hesitant to establish long-distance trade routes, as the risk of losing a Trader would be too great. This would lead to a more isolationist playstyle, with players focusing on internal trade routes and relying less on the global market. The loss of a Trader would not just be a one-time economic hit; it would also sever the trade route, requiring the player to produce a new Trader and re-establish the connection. This would create a constant drag on economic growth and make it much more difficult to maintain a positive balance of gold per turn.
The Stifling of Religious Expansion
Religious victory would become a much more challenging proposition. Missionaries and Apostles, the primary agents of religious conversion, would be prime targets for barbarian enslavement. Spreading your faith to distant lands would require a significant military investment, as each religious unit would need its own dedicated escort. This would slow down the pace of religious expansion and make it much more difficult to achieve a religious victory before another player achieves victory in another domain. The “Debate” and “Proselytize” promotions for Apostles would become even more valuable, as they would allow you to get more value out of each individual unit, but the risk of losing a highly-promoted Apostle would be all the greater.
Adapting to the New Reality: Strategies for Survival
While the challenges of this new world would be immense, they would not be insurmountable. The player community has already begun to theorize a number of strategies for surviving and even thriving in this more hostile environment.
Early Game Priorities: The “Turtle” Meta
The early game would be all about survival. The “turtle” meta, which emphasizes defense and consolidation over rapid expansion, would become the dominant strategy. Players would need to focus on producing a strong military force before even thinking about sending out their first Settler. The first few technologies and civics would likely be dedicated to unlocking stronger military units and defensive buildings. The traditional “Scout, Scout, Settler” opening would be replaced by something more along the lines of “Slinger, Slinger, Warrior, Walls.”
The Importance of Information
Information would be the most valuable resource in this new world. A popular strategy is to invest heavily in scouting and reconnaissance. Knowing where the barbarian encampments are, and where their scouts are roaming, would be essential for keeping your civilian units safe. The use of listening posts and the promotion of scouts to the “Ambush” and “Ranger” promotions would become standard practice. The Great Lighthouse, with its bonus to naval unit sight, would become a much more valuable wonder, as it would allow you to better track barbarian naval units.
The Rise of “Barbarian Farming”
Some professional gamers suggest that it might be possible to turn the barbarian threat to your advantage. By carefully “farming” barbarian encampments, you could generate a steady stream of experience for your military units and even capture civilian units from other civilizations. This would be a high-risk, high-reward strategy, but for those who could master it, it would be a powerful way to get ahead. The key would be to never fully destroy the encampment, but rather to let it continue to spawn units that you can then defeat.
A More Brutal and Strategic Civilization
The introduction of universal civilian capture by barbarians would undoubtedly make Civilization 6 a more brutal and challenging game. The early game would be a desperate struggle for survival, and the constant threat of losing your most valuable units would create a palpable sense of tension throughout the entire game. However, it would also make the game more strategic. Players would be forced to think more carefully about every decision, from the placement of their cities to the movement of their units. The “Escort Imperative” would create a new layer of strategic depth, and the ability to adapt to this more hostile environment would be the ultimate test of a player’s skill. While this may be a hypothetical scenario, it is a fascinating one to consider, and it highlights the delicate balance of risk and reward that makes Civilization 6 such a compelling and endlessly replayable game. The consensus on forums is clear: while such a change would be punishing, it would also be a masterstroke of strategic design, forcing players to engage with the game on a deeper and more meaningful level.