I just played a quick Civ3 game and after being raided by barbarians 3 times before I could get a unit to their source I thought to myself... All that gold they stole from me should be sitting there waiting for who ever kills them first...

I went on knocking off barbarian camps and getting 25g each time and kept thinking... I should be getting every piece of gold they ever stole from ANY civilization. A growing pot that rewards the civilization that removes the threat.

And now, I'm thinking that there needs to be a way for other playstyles to deal with barbarians... Perhaps a builder strategy should be able to absorb the barbarians by paying them join their population or something...

Not fair that ONLY a military playstyle can deal with barbarians effectively... Is it?

Well, you can absorb barbarians when your culture expand. True, units left still attack you..

Very interesting idea that opens the door to onether ideas. Barbarians could be used by other nations to serve their goals , for example you can indirectly hurt another nation by supporting some barbarian against them , and in the same time keep good relationship with that nation (because your relation with the barbarian is not known to other nations). A bonus will be invading the barbarians camps to get the loots they got from that nation.

And, if the Civilization you are bribing the barbarians to attack conquer those barabrians, they could somehow get to know about your treachery, lowering your reputation dramaticly.

Barbarians could be used by other nations to serve their goals , for example you can indirectly hurt another nation by supporting some barbarian against them , and in the same time keep good relationship with that nation (because your relation with the barbarian is not known to other nations).
You mean like a privateer does, but for land? Interesting, and also opens the door for mercenaries and bounty hunters?

Why would barbarians steal money if they weren't going to spend it? That does not compute. Besides, if you could get back all the money they stole from you, they'd be much less of a threat because you'd have a much lower chance of suffering a permanent loss.

It sounds like Barbarians are going to be completely different in Civ4 anyway. It seems that they have actual CITIES which-though they don't create culture-do apparently build in population and units-which might also suggest that they capture, rather than loot, any cities which they overrun. These two factors combined will probably make barbarians much more interesting and dangerous than in previous iterations!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Why would barbarians steal money if they weren't going to spend it? That does not compute...

Exactly, would they be off pissing it away on cheap mead and opium rocks? Hmm, there's an idea: maybe after a barbarians pillage one of your towns they get into the sauce, so the unit stumbles off haphazardly and retches behind a mountain tile? :lol:

Maybe the amount of money gradulaly decreases by 15% every turn?

Why would barbarians steal money if they weren't going to spend it? That does not compute. Besides, if you could get back all the money they stole from you, they'd be much less of a threat because you'd have a much lower chance of suffering a permanent loss.

Ok, well... Maybe not EVERY piece of gold they ever stole from any civilization...

But I think a growing pot of 10% stolen gold would be good.

I disagree with you on the thought that there's no threat from them with this type of thing...

Q - What's worse than losing 100g?
A - Losing 100g that your nearest rival then claims for himself!

Of course with my adjustment to the idea.... It would be losing 100g and the nearest rival claiming 10g from the spoils.

10% is too little and will not make big difference. 50% should be ok.
ALso this percentage can vary with diffculty levels for example:
- chieftain 100%
- Regent 70%
- Monarch 50%
- Deity 10%
- Sid 0%

Getting back to the beginning... I can see why changing the way barbarian gold works would be different, but why would it be better? I see no meaningful difference between the two options beyond the simplicity of the fixed amount in the status quo.

The diffenece is that you can get something like 200+ gold from strong barbarian tribes If you invaded their camps. That will make barbarians an active element in the game rather than a passive one.

Er... that wouldn't make barbarians any more active. It wouldn't give them intelligence. It wouldn't give them diplomatic abilities. It wouldn't give them cities. It wouldn't give them scientific technology. It would just give you more money when you took over a camp.

Apatheist you missed my point...It will give them strategical importance and tactical uses , they will be no more passive in the game from strategy point of view (not techs, more cities ,and other things you mentioned).

If you can support barbarians to attack other nations then they will suddenly be an active tactical tool. For example if you can support 3 barbarian tribes to attack one nation , and then attacking these barabrians to collect the gold they took from that nation , then you indirectly attacked that nation and took their money and in the same time keeping good relationship with them (because they dont even know you are behind those attacks) Plus your reputation will not be affected. So that you attack them and take their money and they still have big smile when meeting you.

Apatheist you missed my point...It will give them strategical importance and tactical uses , they will be no more passive in the game from strategy point of view (not techs, more cities ,and other things you mentioned).

I didn't miss your point, I ignored it. I was talking about the original post starting this thread. Hence the "getting back to the beginning" preface to my post. You're talking about something considerably different.


If you can support barbarians to attack other nations then they will suddenly be an active tactical tool. For example if you can support 3 barbarian tribes to attack one nation , and then attacking these barabrians to collect the gold they took from that nation , then you indirectly attacked that nation and took their money and in the same time keeping good relationship with them (because they dont even know you are behind those attacks) Plus your reputation will not be affected. So that you attack them and take their money and they still have big smile when meeting you.

How is that any different from allying with an actual nation to fight a proxy war? Don't bother with some special class of game entity called barbarians. Instead, make the standard game options more powerful and more flexible. All civs start as barbarian nomads that can become settled peoples, that can be dealt with just like all other civilizations. You can trade with them, engage in diplomacy, warfare, etc.

How is that any different from allying with an actual nation to fight a proxy war?

Again the difference is that if you want to form an alliance with a nation against another nation you have to declare war, using barbarians you can make indirect wars without declaring wars and in the same time keep good relations and reputation. It is like privateers that can attack other ships without declaring war.

But you will be able to fight proxy wars in Civ4 even without your barbarian idea Deep_Blue. Don't get me wrong though, I am really hoping that 'Barbarians' in Civ4 provide a much more interesting challenge to the major players than they currently do. An ability to perform diplomatic actions with these 'barbarians' would be a fantastic place to start ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

But you will be able to fight proxy wars in Civ4 even without your barbarian idea Deep_Blue.

Exactly.


Don't get me wrong though, I am really hoping that 'Barbarians' in Civ4 provide a much more interesting challenge to the major players than they currently do. An ability to perform diplomatic actions with these 'barbarians' would be a fantastic place to start ;)!

As long as it's clear it's just a start. The long-term ideal is to eliminate built-in, inflexible distinctions between barbarians and nations. Instead of having two things that have somewhat similar characteristics, it would be better to have one thing that can have multiple stages of evolution.

But you will be able to fight proxy wars in Civ4 even without your barbarian idea Deep_Blue.

Maybe Iam missing something about Civ4, how can you make proxy wars (that will not lead to war declaration) in civ4 without declaring war in the first place? as far as I know you cannot do that.

for example :
if we have Egypt, Rome , Germany, and all of them has peace treaty with eachother. then how can egypt make Rome declare war on Germany without declaring war on Germany in the first place.

In civ3 you can't . On that score you are 100% correct. Yet, in one of the few 'bones' the developers have thrown us on the Diplomacy Front, they have stated that in Civ4 there are two new things you will be able to do. One is to negotiate '3rd party peace'-the way you could in SMAC. The other is to be able to ask a 3rd party to go to war with someone-without the need for you to already be at war with them. As I understand it, the old 'war alliance' still exists, but along with the 'please go to war with Civ X for me'.
This also lends strong support to the possibility of unit trades, as you could honestly see Civ Y saying 'well, sure, but I will need a few of Unit A in order to achieve that'. Of course, this last part is just speculation on my part!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Good news, in this case my barbarian idea will be useless :)

Getting back to the beginning... I can see why changing the way barbarian gold works would be different, but why would it be better? I see no meaningful difference between the two options beyond the simplicity of the fixed amount in the status quo.

Ok, you're looking at this as a simple one player vs no one else situation...

Here's how it's different...

I know I get 25g if I go hunt down that barbarian camp I've been hearing about. But I'm ok on money and have more important business to tend to with my military since this barbarian camp isn't bugging me so far.

Now lets flip it so that camp keeps getting richer... The more you hear about the camp pestering your neighbors the more likely you are to think about the pile of gold that must be accumulating there. Then the otherwise nuisance barbarian camp becomes a priority.

You keep on eluding to the fact that you would just be getting back money you lost like as if this game is a SOLO experience where there is no AI or MP being effected by the barbarians aswell as yourself.

Now lets look at another effect of this since there ARE AI or MP to play with... One of your more remote cities is getting needled by barbarians and you keep losing (disproportionate amounts btw) of gold from this little fort in the middle of nowhere. If you're in conflict with a neighbor this 3rd party becomes a secondary objective so to speak, that spices up the events that are transpiring. So you send out a posse to get rid of the problem and recover some of your losses before the money you lost falls into the hands of your much more capable enemy.

This is not more interesting than an annoying camp that may or may not bother you?

And how about barbarians evolving into terrorists. So if there's a dark tile in the world map later on in the game, they can appear as a terrorist camp with stronger units.

This is not more interesting than an annoying camp that may or may not bother you?

No. You haven't taken the idea to its logical conclusion. Why would any of the AIs or other players wait for the barbarian camp to build up that much gold? Either you go after it now and get X gold, or you go after it later for Y gold (where Y > X), but risk someone else getting there first. At some X, it's worth it to you to go after it. Maybe for you, it's pointless to try to take it until it's 21 gold. Maybe your neighbor doesn't see it being worth it until it's 29 gold. That basically means that you'll have to go after it when it's less than 29 and more than 20. Your range isn't from zero to infinity. It works out to be (less than) zero sum. You go after the ones that are nearby and relatively low in gold, because the ones that are further away or have more gold have poor odds associated with them. If you're poor, then barbarian camps near you don't have a lot of money (because there isn't much to steal), so there's no point in going after them. That applies to all actors, AI or otherwise. It results in basically the same thing as the status quo, but with a minor variable factor thrown in. It only differs from the status quo in rare cases, like when you are impoverished and an immediate neighbor is wealthy and yet still gets beaten up by barbarians on a regular basis.

And how about barbarians evolving into terrorists. So if there's a dark tile in the world map later on in the game, they can appear as a terrorist camp with stronger units.

I wouldn't call them terrorists because that's not how terrorism works. I'm not sure what I would call them in more modern times. I don't think they should exist, anyway, because after the ancient era, all land should be occupied by someone, be they nomads, a minor nation, or a major civilization.

How about terrorist camps in modern day Lebanon (Bekaa Valley); Northern Iraq (Zagros Mountains); Afghanistan (Tora Bora); Indonesia (Aceh region) and so forth.

I just played a quick Civ3 game and after being raided by barbarians 3 times before I could get a unit to their source I thought to myself... All that gold they stole from me should be sitting there waiting for who ever kills them first...

I went on knocking off barbarian camps and getting 25g each time and kept thinking... I should be getting every piece of gold they ever stole from ANY civilization. A growing pot that rewards the civilization that removes the threat.

And now, I'm thinking that there needs to be a way for other playstyles to deal with barbarians... Perhaps a builder strategy should be able to absorb the barbarians by paying them join their population or something...

Not fair that ONLY a military playstyle can deal with barbarians effectively... Is it?

Money is made to be spent... I rather want barbs strenght to raise after a loot. Now not only they would do a loot, but they would become stronger.

How about terrorist camps in modern day Lebanon (Bekaa Valley); Northern Iraq (Zagros Mountains); Afghanistan (Tora Bora); Indonesia (Aceh region) and so forth.

Terrorists didn't spawn there; they went there because those anarchic regions served as useful hiding places. I guess in Civ terms, that's the same thing, but terrorists and barbarians behave in completely different ways. Barbarians would raid or fight battles, while terrorists sneak in and attack civilian targets. Terrorism is just a tactic, after all, while barbarian is a smug and superior term for "uncivilized" peoples.

Adding them would still be cool, terrorist might be stealth units instead.

it would be cool that assimilation to be more difficult than civ3(like real world) and increased difficulty to make other ethnic groups happy.for example;two luxuries produce one happy face instead of one luxury.and increased unhappiness produces terrorists every turn if some harsh decisions didnt taken.
terorists that kill great leaders can make them more dangerous.

I have read a lot of threads...

but this is the most interesting of them all!!!

i would also like them to be terrorists it would make the game more life like.
maybe if a city is in civil disorder for let's say 5 turns ,1 or 2 of the population might become terrorists and kill less than a quarter os the town and maybe destroy an improvment or a foreign embassy.

That would be cool.

Yes, let's turn Civ into an advertising campaign for terrorists. "Look, play this game and you can learn how to do your job better, little Usama"

There's nothing your "terrorists" can do that can't be done better by civil unrest or espionage (and a little application of imagination - you've still got one, right?), so how about we stop beating this particular drum, ok? Those bastards get enough glorification as it is, we don't need their supposed enemies glorifying them too.

I don't think including terrorism in a game will convince people to become terrorists any more than including war and fascism makes me want to become a warmonger fascist. I was like that before, due to other circumstances.

who cares???

those terrorist S.O.B.'s won't have a f****ing computer. even if they do they wont have civ4!!!

all bad words were taken out by me. not by an administrator

we're supposed to be talking about how barban look should stockpile...

i think it should -to an extent. the stolen money HAS to be somewhere, but if they build lots of units, then well they've spent it. theyre like a mini-civ now

All the loot needs to go to paying the ransom for their leaders' getting captured way back in Civ I. :D

I also really like the idea of barbarians as more sub-organized civilizations. Personally I feel this would be a way to get a lot more nations into the game and give them all distinct characteristics. Some of these sub-civs would behave like the old-school barbarians and have names that correspond with real-world "barbarian" tribes (Huns, Visigoths?, etc). Have encampments here and there that just spew out raiding units. Others would have more domestic characteristics and basically represent smaller tribes, with 1-3 cities perhaps. They would function as regular civs but with next to 0 cultural growth and severe production penalties for military units and settlers (would vary depending on the tribe) to keep them from getting out of hand, to represent a small people with little military capacity. Here is where you can have civs like Serbs, Finland, et al :). You can overrun these smaller civs militarily, or establish a symbiotic relationship with them by offerring defense of their cities for gold, until you overwhelm them culturally.