Please vote whether you think barbarians should be required to be on or optional in the permanent Hall of Fame.

I think barbs should be on. Unlike Civ 3, barbs here require you to maintain some semblance of an army or you cities get sacked, even on settler.

I think barbarians are like gold mines waiting to be exploited!:) Basically, just focus on producing some warriors and allow your capital city to grow to the maximum of size 4 (or even bigger at lower level), producing some workers while waiting for your research on Iron and the Wheel. Once you have iron hooked up, chop some forests to rush some swordmans and send them out to assimilate all the surrounding barbarian towns. You can pretty much jump start your empire shortly after you discover iron. I have played two games so far (one with Russia on a small map and the other one with England on a standard map on Deity level) and they were both happened exactly as I just mentioned.

I have very mixed feelings about this. Barbarians off do make the peaceful/builder type wins far, far easier. There is something that feels inherently worng with turning in a game where you have a single warrior in each of your cities. On the other hand, barbarians cab be a big randomizer (at least for peaceful games - Moonsinger is right - when you have a military, barbarians are like goodie huts). I would prefer not to start 20 different games, just to get the "perfect" one.

If I were forced to choose, I'd say force barbarians on.

Barbarians, while potentially valuable, are really quite arbitrary and silly.

In our history every "civilized" group considered just about everyone else barbarians despite that the so called barbarians had their own cities, culture and civilization.

If you want stupid, aimless and psychotic barbarians turn it on, if you want realistic barbarians just add a couple extra civs to any given map. You can use your apply-swordsman-to-head strategy to those "barbarians" as well and get free gold and cities.

Now, if only one could change that difficulty setting in the custom game for the AIs you could tailor suit different barbarians however you wished.

Not having barbarians means you can go without military for most of the ancient age (assuming you choose your opponents wisely). Which is an incredibly inbalancing advantage compared to the AI. Making it pretty much a necessary tactic to compete with other HOF games.

Therefore, i.m.o. barbarians must be turned on. Otherwise, eventually, people will turn them off by default, to still be able to compete with other, earlier, games.

Not having barbarians means you can go without military for most of the ancient age (assuming you choose your opponents wisely). Which is an incredibly inbalancing advantage compared to the AI. Making it pretty much a necessary tactic to compete with other HOF games.


This is a good point as well. Some people like barbarians but we're absolutely forced not to use them if we want to compete. I think it's extremely unbalancing myself and am extremely surprised to see this poll at 50/50.

If you want stupid, aimless and psychotic barbarians turn it on, if you want realistic barbarians just add a couple extra civs to any given map. You can use your apply-swordsman-to-head strategy to those "barbarians" as well and get free gold and cities.

Sorry, but adding civs is nothing like adding barbarians. Civs don't even attack you unless you provoke them. Barbarians are constantly at war with you. And don't jump on Moonsinger's post as though barbarians are a huge help. That's ridiculous. The advantages you get from turning them off outweigh any cities/gold you get by a substantial amount.

Considering 80% of the replies to this post are for forcing barbarians to be on yet the poll is even, I would like to hear more people who think they shouldn't be forced to reply with their reasons.

edit: Realized you were saying barbarians are unrealistic. I can't agree with that at all. They are very realistic and an important part of the game.

I feel that expansion is too easy with barbarians turned off. You do not have to worry about your settler or worker getting eaten by animals in the early years. This makes it pretty easy to expand quickly.

Barbarians on keeps people honest. They have to build some military to protect their lands. I kind of feel like I am cheating when I have to turn off the barbarians to compete in the Gauntlet.

There are other potential benefit to have barbarians on. I'm now very comportable to play with barbarians turned on all the time. For one thing, it keeps the AIs busy for awhile and off my back. Anyway, I voted for "player's choice"; it really doesn't matter to me either ways.

I voted for Player's choice. Don't kill me :)

First of all, I'm a peaceful player, so I usually don't have much military. A builder game is easier without them, but more important, the tech pace is much faster, because the AI can research faster as well.

It might be useful to remember that the vote we're casting is not so much about how we'd like to play, but about how we'd like everyone else to play when going for the best possible HOF game.

This means that an argument that may be good as an argument for the best enjoyable experience for yourself, may from the perspective of best possible HOF competition be not a very useful argument.

I voted for player choice. When I first started playing I left them on and was able to win but with the strategy that I use to get curtural wins the Barbarians had much higher military technology early on in the game. That is totally unrealistic, nowwhere that civilized cultures colonized met barbarians with higher military technology than themselves. Having barbarians always on forces a warlike game and will penalize a peaceful player. I have wins where the barbarians were turned off and I never attacked a single AI opponent.

I voted for players choice. What I would actually like to see would be Fireaxis to fix it where you could turn wild animals on/off and barbs on/off. I think that having wild animals always on is a must. It adds realism to the early game in the fact the roaming nomads had to compete with wild animals and not until they started settling cities did they gain more protection. The barbs themselves do make the game more militarily oriented. Having barbs on means you will already have a pretty strong military, so it makes it easier to go and sack enemy civilizations, which leads to eventual conquest. Playing for a peaceful win, the barbs will limit growth and city production (tied up in military production) until you have the majority of a continent settled.

I think that Fireaxis could do a lot to improve barbs though. Most "barbarians" in history tended to keep to themselves. In history they may have raided and occassionally sacked border towns but rarely did they try and invade a major city. If the barbarian AI was tweaked a little it could make them much more realistic. Possibly give the barbarians different "tribes" and each could have diff characteristics. Have them raid citys where instead of capturing a city they steal gold and cause unhappiness in a city. I think that having them go hardcore at your capital with technology that is equal or greater than yours is sided too much in their favor.

<offtopic>
I don't really understand why the huts are still present when the barbarians are gone. In Civ III those were linked and that seems to make much more sense.
</offtopic>

My vote is for having barbarians on, for generally the same reasons that have already been covered in this thread.

The logic that its unbalanced is bogus, its unbalanced to play a standard map with only 4 civs, while 6 is the default, but which do you play?

If your victory condition would improve by removing them then why complain about people that remove them and instead just remove them yourself.
You can't honestly be gaining so much enjoyment from attacking weak and poorly directed units that you want the rest of us to "enjoy" this as well.

Forget it, barbarians are a great annoyance to your average game. They are even lamer than in Civ3 where they had a source, now they pop out ANYWHERE. This is completely silly if I happen to have a grey area between two 12 pop cities they can pop out there. Yeah, realistic.

Also this constant hostility is absurd. Its been my experience that the vast majority of small civilizations were mostly peaceful, and as such was exactly why they were remained small, cause Rome or some other civilization came along and conquered them.


Also to those talking about Civ3 barbs, you are wrong. Sedentary placed huts on the map and nothing else. There were 4 difficulty settings for barbs in Civ3, in Civ4 there are only 3, none, some, many.

I voted for player's choice. Turning on barbarians adds randomness, so that skill is less certain to triumph.

Someone said turning off barbarians is unrealistic. Well, Civ has lots of unrealistic aspects, such as conducting research and knowing exactly what you will discover. This game is more about playability than realism.

HOF allows players to make many choices. Whether to allow barbarians is one such choice. If choice or another is better, we should let skilfull players discover and take advantage of what they learn.

If choice or another is better, we should let skilfull players discover and take advantage of what they learn.

Leaving them off is always better so there is either play always with them (if it isnt allowed to turn them off) or play always without them - no choice actually.

Orca, for military strategies, barbarians actually help a lot by giving easy experience.

Orca, for military strategies, barbarians actually help a lot by giving easy experience.

Giving experience: versus loosing units against barbarians; not being able to chop outside of your borders with impunity (!); not being able to capture as many huts; not being able to expand as fast as without barbarians; not being able to expand as fast as AI's (as barbarians prefer players over AI's); having to build military earlier.

--> Personally I'd still turn them off, even if I'd be going for a military strategy. Too many disadvantages. Although I'll admit there's a possibility that in some games it could be advantageous (as I haven't played many games in the HOF with barbarians on).

Orca, for military strategies, barbarians actually help a lot by giving easy experience.

My experience is a different one. I think a good example is gauntlet 2 because this kind of setting should favour babarians with your argumentation - it didnt !

Ah. Even if I would hate it because it just penalizes the peaceful builders like me, I think it should be turned always on. Makes no sense of being in the 1800's with just one soldier per city :)

I kind of feel like I am cheating when I have to turn off the barbarians to compete in the Gauntlet.

You too ? :)

My experience is a different one. I think a good example is gauntlet 2 because this kind of setting should favour babarians with your argumentation - it didnt !

I meant to say can more than does I guess.

I think Barbarians should be on. Yes, it makes it so the game is a titch more random, but it also takes away a MASSIVE advantage the player has over the AI.

Now -- one note. At the moment, I am of the opinion that barbarians at Epic and Marathon speeds are broken. Barbarian axemen seem to appear MUCH earlier than at Normal speed, to the point where I seem to always be few techs *behind* the barbarians.

Once that is addressed, I'm all for Barbs being on all the time.

- Bill

...it makes it so the game is a titch more random, but it also takes away a MASSIVE advantage the player has over the AI.


Do you have any facts to back up this assertion, or are we to guess why this is so?

I've been attacked by barbarians while in AI territory and attacking their cities, but I've also had barbarians kill AI units in my cities (apparently they can select their target as the target in that case was considerably weaker than my city defender). I've played games where I saw hundreds of barbarians, but also none with raging barbarians set.

The normal setting does one thing to a game, requires you to build more military infrastructure (as well as the AI). If you are playing a peaceful game this is wasteful. There isn't anything thats dictating you build peaceful infrastructure when you are playing a warring game, so why try to force that on the peaceful builder?

I think the setting has value in specific cases, but I also feel that barbarians are an annoying enough feature that forcing people to use it all the time really detracts from the game and from HOF.

The normal setting does one thing to a game, requires you to build more military infrastructure (as well as the AI). If you are playing a peaceful game this is wasteful. There isn't anything thats dictating you build peaceful infrastructure when you are playing a warring game, so why try to force that on the peaceful builder?


So why not just allow people to turn the "always peace" option on? I'm sorry but you shouldn't be able to just go through an entire game with no chance of ever fighting at all. It's part of the game, it's part of the challenge. That's why even if you have +15 relations with a civ that doesn't mean he won't declare on you. The game isn't supposed to be a chess match. You're not supposed to be able to predict every last detail of what is going to happen in a game. There are supposed to be random factors. They make it more fun.

So why not just allow people to turn the "always peace" option on?
That's an interesting question. I've been assuming that "always peace" would be unbalancing, but I guess given enough opponents to prevent unlimited expansion that might not be the case.

So why not just allow people to turn the "always peace" option on? ...you shouldn't be able to just go through an entire game with no chance of ever fighting at all. It's part of the game, it's part of the challenge. That's why even if you have +15 relations with a civ that doesn't mean he won't declare on you.


Good question, because the Always War option seems to be allowed, which has the same detrimental effects on the AI as Always Peace would.
This is similar to one of the most amusing things about the gotm "predator" game, most times these disabilities simply weren't. While giving the AI more free units might deter a less skilled player the real effect is that the AI performs better, has more gold available for trade, techs better which can be easily gotten thru trade, etc. The net result is that the human performs better when compared to non-predator players.


Anyway, ignoring the main point for a moment, your statement about the +15 rep is misdirected. The reason the AI still declares at that is because the AI sucks, and they have no honor, or any other moral we would typically see in most humans.
Since there are no "real" treaties between nations the rep system should act as one to some degree, and +15 is well into alliance. Although, I've had no problem maintaining the peace with quite a bit less than that so its really a null point, thus Always Peace would just be a crutch, taking place of game skill. This applies to Always War as well, although it doesn't seem to affect the AI vs AI relations so is just a silly variant not an exploit.
In summation, there can be no trust, just as in Civ3. This is obviously a very bleak worldview, but I'm not really sure who is responsible.



But all this comes down to one point which you and others are not addressing. (Other than why you feel the need to impress your play style on others.) What factor are barbarians adding to the game that we want or need to have present?
As previously stated, "leveling the playing field" and such nonsense is invalid because you can play with or without them based on your own choice. If you have to disable them to compete with a given game or score, then do so. I fail to see any problem there. What I am asking is what makes forcing barbarians on such an attractive option? I'm quite bored by them, they are very predictable, psychotic and their only advantage is they don't require resources or production (and so "cheat").

HOF is all about getting the highest scores and the earliest times. To achieve that, people go to a great lenghts to find the best maps (for civ3 a special program called mapfinder was created), find the best suited leader and the right kind of AI to suit the goal.
All in line with the possibilities the game provides. Turning on or off barbarians is just another possibility to optimize the game settings for your purpose. It does not matter that the game becomes "easier" (or more difficult). The "optimal" map and the "optimal" opponents do that as well.

This is why I vote players choice.

HOF is all about getting the highest scores and the earliest times. To achieve that, people go to a great lenghts to find the best maps (for civ3 a special program called mapfinder was created), find the best suited leader and the right kind of AI to suit the goal.
All in line with the possibilities the game provides. Turning on or off barbarians is just another possibility to optimize the game settings for your purpose. It does not matter that the game becomes "easier" (or more difficult). The "optimal" map and the "optimal" opponents do that as well.

Which is along the same lines of my votes for requiring the default number of opponents and disallowing all the "weird" maps. When you can use these settings to make the game ridiculously easy and not fun to play, then it's detrimental to the hall of fame. I'll get bored of civ4 more quickly if I'm playing games with too few AI's and no barbarians all the time. But if I don't play my games with those settings then I can't compete in the HoF at all. Along your line of thinking, why don't we just not have a minimum number of opponents? Let's just play all our games against 1 opponent on a huge map with barbarians off. Or why do we not let people choose what team settings they want? All they're doing is optimizing the game for their victory condition, right? No, they're unbalancing the game to make it ridiculously easy and not conducive to fun gameplay, and in effect, forcing everyone else to play with those unbalanced settings.

Regardless of whether this poll effects the HoF rules or not, the HoF site DEFINATELY needs a little checkbox so that you can search by "Barbarians On" games.

Right now games with barbarians on are just lost among the crush of the higher-scored, faster-timed games with barbarians off. Kinda depressing, given the increase in difficulty that the barbarians represent.

- Bill

.. No, they're unbalancing the game to make it ridiculously easy and not conducive to fun gameplay, and in effect, forcing everyone else to play with those unbalanced settings.

This depends a lot on the difficulty you select. Playing settler difficulty with all the restrictions you ask for (default number of AIs, no weird maps, barbarians on, ...) will become very boring for an excellent player like yourself.
Going for domination on a huge map with the minimum allowed civs on immortal should be already a formidable challenge even without barbs.

This depends a lot on the difficulty you select. Playing settler difficulty with all the restrictions you ask for (default number of AIs, no weird maps, barbarians on, ...) will become very boring for an excellent player like yourself.
Going for domination on a huge map with the minimum allowed civs on immortal should be already a formidable challenge even without barbs.

Good point. But in my humble opinion if I turn off barbarians then I'm not playing civ4 the way it was meant to be played anymore. It's like allowing us to turn specific victory conditions off. It's taking a whole aspect of the game away.

...in my humble opinion if I turn off barbarians then I'm not playing civ4 the way it was meant to be played....


Even when using phrases like "meant to be" its still only your opinion.

The existance of the options kind of justifies a more varied approach to what was "meant".

The fact that the data is XML and much of the game logic is python should show that the game was "meant" to be modified.

Back in 1.09 before the No Cheating option the game seemed to be "meant" to be modified at will with the worldbuilder.

Even when using phrases like "meant to be" its still only your opinion.

I think he knows that. You even quoted the bit that said "in my humble opinion"! :mischief:

Some of these options *do* seem to be pretty controversial. Playing with barbarians on definitely makes the game a lot different, especially when you suddenly get 3 barb axemen approaching your capital (happened to me last night).

The hard part for the HOF is that we don't want to limit players from trying out all aspects of the game, but at the same time we want games in a table to be comparable. One thing I'm wondering about is maybe allowing barbs to be player choice, but make a selection of the gauntlets require a particular setting for barbs. It doesn't really solve the problem for the HOF tables, but at least would encourage gauntlet players to try out a variety of settings...

I am all for having barbs in a gauntlet. I would like to see two back to back gauntlets, everything the same except one with barbs and one without. Non-conquest victory would be the best. Just to see how the times compare.

One thing I'm wondering about is maybe allowing barbs to be player choice, but make a selection of the gauntlets require a particular setting for barbs

Decent idea imo, this would be better as playing always with or without them.

I have submitted 17 games in the current interval between updates and was bored so ran a quick test on barbarians. I turned them off back in version 1.09 when I had a great starting position that was very far away from any AI. This was on a huge map with 6 AI. With the strategy I was using of going for all the religions before researching anything else it was very late before I could build even archers. I played this start 3 or 4 times before I realized what was wrong with it. Since the start was well inland and there were no other civilizations to help control barbarians I would be overwhelmed as they came for me from all sides. I couldn't build warriors fast enough to defend myself from archers and axemen.

Now for the results of the test. I ran two different setups both at Noble difficulty. The first was on a small Pangaea world with myself as the Japanese and only Washington as the single AI. The second was on a huge Pangaea world with myself as Gandi. Washington, Victoria, Hatshepsut, Mansa Musa, Genghis Khan, and Cyrus were the AI as this was the setup I was playing when I turned off the barbarians. All I did was record the earliest date I saw the first animal, barbarian warrior, and either barbarian archer or axeman. I tested each game speed three times for these tests and noted when the very earliest I ever saw each of the different catagory of barbarian.

It became obvious that the appearance of the barbarians was set to turn and not date. The earliest turn I ever saw an animal was 7 turns after 4000 BC and I think this is the limit as I had 8 and 9 turn appearances in some tests as well as 11, 12, and 13 turn appearances. This isn't really an issue with me because for the most part I think animals are modelled correctly. They still need to be improved though. The barbarian animals attack the human player at almost every opportunity and I have yet to see them attack the AI. I think they do but given a choice they always attack me so I don't get to see it. My issue with this is it is very unrealistic. It would be very rare for an animal to attack an armed military unit even if it were only a warrior unit. Animals attacking a lone settler or worker makes much more since. The scouts are supposed to get a 100% advantage against animals but I think this is broken. I lose most of the fights with fortified scouts in forests against lions and panthers.

The main issue I have with barbarians is in the wild man catagory. In all the tests the dates for the first appearance of barbarian warriors was extremely variable due to them being popped from huts. The earliest I popped one was 3760 BC and there was no way for me to tell when I came accross one whether it came from a hut or out of the FOW. I don't have a problem with the warriors anyway, it is the archers and axemen that I have an issue with. In the small world tests I saw archers as early as 1600 BC on marathon, 1150 BC on epic and 400 BC on normal. In the huge world tests I saw archers as early as 1750 BC on marathon, 840 BC on epic, and 625 BC on normal.

The bottom line is the modelling of barbarians is currently broken and shouldn't even be considered to be forced upon HOF players until they are fixed.

Finally I have an issue with barbarians attacking at every opportunity with the latest technology. Are there people who have behaved this way in the past or even now? Absolutely, even today there is an island in the Andaman Islands called North Sentinel Island where if an outsider were to land the locals will attack. The official position of the Indian government is to leave these people alone. Anyone who behaves in this manner never advances because if it isn't invented there you can't trade for it. To my knowledge anytime civilization has ever met any culture that hehaves like the Civ 4 barbarians they are very primative and stay that way until they learn to be more hospital and can trade for more advanced technology.

Pizarro with a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers managed to conquer the Incas (barbarians?) even though he was opposed by an army of 80,000. How?, better technology.

What I'm saying is if the Civ 4 barbarians are going to behave like savages they should be equiped like them and not have the latest technology when there is no way for them to aquire it without lots of trading and education. That means diplomacy, so if you want the Civ 4 behavior of barbarians we need the ability to interact with them diplomatically or have the option the turn them off.

Finally I have an issue with barbarians attacking at every opportunity with the latest technology. Are there people who have behaved this way in the past or even now? Absolutely, even today there is an island in the Andaman Islands called North Sentinel Island where if an outsider were to land the locals will attack. The official position of the Indian government is to leave these people alone. Anyone who behaves in this manner never advances because if it isn't invented there you can't trade for it. To my knowledge anytime civilization has ever met any culture that hehaves like the Civ 4 barbarians they are very primative and stay that way until they learn to be more hospital and can trade for more advanced technology.

Pizarro with a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers managed to conquer the Incas (barbarians?) even though he was opposed by an army of 80,000. How?, better technology.

What I'm saying is if the Civ 4 barbarians are going to behave like savages they should be equiped like them and not have the latest technology when there is no way for them to aquire it without lots of trading and education. That means diplomacy, so if you want the Civ 4 behavior of barbarians we need the ability to interact with them diplomatically or have the option the turn them off.


Good point!:goodjob: I totally agree.:) However, on my many journeys in Civ4, once in awhile, I have encountered a hut which the local villagers willing to teach me a secret of Iron Working or Writting. Have you wonder how these locals know the secret to such advance tech? This is probably where the barbs get their technology from.;)

It became obvious that the appearance of the barbarians was set to turn and not date. The earliest turn I ever saw an animal was 7 turns after 4000 BC and I think this is the limit as I had 8 and 9 turn appearances in some tests as well as 11, 12, and 13 turn appearances. This isn't really an issue with me because for the most part I think animals are modelled correctly. They still need to be improved though. The barbarian animals attack the human player at almost every opportunity and I have yet to see them attack the AI. I think they do but given a choice they always attack me so I don't get to see it. My issue with this is it is very unrealistic. It would be very rare for an animal to attack an armed military unit even if it were only a warrior unit. Animals attacking a lone settler or worker makes much more since. The scouts are supposed to get a 100% advantage against animals but I think this is broken. I lose most of the fights with fortified scouts in forests against lions and panthers.

The main issue I have with barbarians is in the wild man catagory. In all the tests the dates for the first appearance of barbarian warriors was extremely variable due to them being popped from huts. The earliest I popped one was 3760 BC and there was no way for me to tell when I came accross one whether it came from a hut or out of the FOW. I don't have a problem with the warriors anyway, it is the archers and axemen that I have an issue with. In the small world tests I saw archers as early as 1600 BC on marathon, 1150 BC on epic and 400 BC on normal. In the huge world tests I saw archers as early as 1750 BC on marathon, 840 BC on epic, and 625 BC on normal.

The bottom line is the modelling of barbarians is currently broken and shouldn't even be considered to be forced upon HOF players until they are fixed.

Finally I have an issue with barbarians attacking at every opportunity with the latest technology. Are there people who have behaved this way in the past or even now? Absolutely, even today there is an island in the Andaman Islands called North Sentinel Island where if an outsider were to land the locals will attack. The official position of the Indian government is to leave these people alone. Anyone who behaves in this manner never advances because if it isn't invented there you can't trade for it. To my knowledge anytime civilization has ever met any culture that hehaves like the Civ 4 barbarians they are very primative and stay that way until they learn to be more hospital and can trade for more advanced technology.

Pizarro with a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers managed to conquer the Incas (barbarians?) even though he was opposed by an army of 80,000. How?, better technology.

What I'm saying is if the Civ 4 barbarians are going to behave like savages they should be equiped like them and not have the latest technology when there is no way for them to aquire it without lots of trading and education. That means diplomacy, so if you want the Civ 4 behavior of barbarians we need the ability to interact with them diplomatically or have the option the turn them off.


It should be set to turn, not date. The dates between game speeds do not correlate to how far into the game you are whatsoever. Take a look at DaveMcW's graph in the beta gauntlet 3 thread for evidence. Now I'm not saying they should show up on the same turn number, but they should show up on the same % of game completed. I don't know how to convert your dates to turn numbers so I can't say if that's the case or not myself.

As for the technology issue, the barbs do not have the most up to date techonology. The only time that may be the case is when they have axemen. But that's not unrealistic at all. It doesn't take a smart man to wield an axe. I have never seen a barbarian tank. Also, in a normal game there will be no barbarians left once you're halfway through the game and the entire world is settled, just like the planet earth. If you conquer the world and leave just one other civ and lots of unsettled land, I can make some very valid and realistic arguments for there being a lot of barbarians.

As for the technology issue, the barbs do not have the most up to date techonology. The only time that may be the case is when they have axemen. But that's not unrealistic at all. It doesn't take a smart man to wield an axe.

True! Even a monkey can wield an axe. However, it does take a smart man to mine the raw materical (such as copper or iron), then to forge those raw matterial into an axe. I don't know about you but I have never seen a barb's mine before. Where on earth did the barbs get their raw material from?

I have never seen a barbarian tank.

May be you should check out this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153891

Although they don't have steath bomber, tank, or battleship, they do have a lot of powerful unit. If you are playing at Deity, the barbs usually have riffleman before you have yours.

Good point!:goodjob: I totally agree.:) However, on my many journeys in Civ4, once in awhile, I have encountered a hut which the local villagers willing to teach me a secret of Iron Working or Writting. Have you wonder how these locals know the secret to such advance tech? This is probably where the barbs get their technology from.;)


When any people behave like the Civ 4 barbarians, which is don't trust anyone and either run from or attack strangers there is no chance for any exchange of information. That is why there are still 'uncivilized' people left on Earth. They either run from or attack strangers and are still in the stone ages. The Auca from Equador still use wooden spears on people and blow guns for small game but these are very primative people and will attack strangers much like the Civ 4 barbarians. Any stone age people that would peacefully trade with invading cultures quickly learned their technology. That is what happened with the American indians. That doesn't mean that the former stone age people don't get angry at times and attack the invading culture. That happened all the time but if all a stone age people are going to do is attack and ask questions later they stay in the stone ages.

It should be set to turn, not date. The dates between game speeds do not correlate to how far into the game you are whatsoever. Take a look at DaveMcW's graph in the beta gauntlet 3 thread for evidence. Now I'm not saying they should show up on the same turn number, but they should show up on the same % of game completed. I don't know how to convert your dates to turn numbers so I can't say if that's the case or not myself.


I'll have to go back to convert the turn numbers but what I think I'll find is that on turn 7 animals can show up. It doesn't matter if there are 1200, 660, 460, or 320 turns total. I looked at the huge world dates and 1750 BC for marathon is turn 125 out of 1200 so 10.42% of the game has been played. Turn 840 BC for epic is turn 98 out of 660 so 14.85% of the game is complete. Turn 625 BC for normal is turn 90 out of 460 so 19.57% of the game is complete. It looks like they tried to adjust it but why they didn't do the same thing that they did for building and researching is beyond me. I think it needs to be fixed. If archers should show up at 19.57% of game complete then the marathon game would have them showing up on turn 234 instead of turn 125.

Not having barbarians means you can go without military for most of the ancient age (assuming you choose your opponents wisely). Which is an incredibly inbalancing advantage compared to the AI. Making it pretty much a necessary tactic to compete with other HOF games.

Therefore, i.m.o. barbarians must be turned on. Otherwise, eventually, people will turn them off by default, to still be able to compete with other, earlier, games.

This just isn't correct. Moonsinger dominates the deity table right now and she plays with barbs on. Forcing barbs on just creates one more advantage for military style vs. management style and right now military style already has way too many advantages on higher levels. If you really want to be restricted in your choices force barbs on and watch every slot fill up with Praet rush games.

When I understood that barbs off meant animals off, I started to send settlers and workers unescorted. It was a very sad thing to do, I prefer to force them.

Moonslinger dominates the deity table right now and he plays with barbs on.First, it's Moonsinger, and second, it's a she.;)

But I agree with your point. If you try to go extreme science or cultural way, you'll get overrun by barbs. So you build military, and while you already have military, why not use them on your neighbours when the barbs are not a threat anymore? And that really favours Conquest and Domination victories.

First, it's Moonsinger, and second, it's a she.;)


Ooops. :) Just went and fixed that. And damn, that's means I'm getting beat by a girl! :blush:

Ooops. :) Just went and fixed that. And damn, that's means I'm getting beat by a girl! :blush:
Well at least you've got something in common with the rest of us. :D Have you ever looked at the III Hall of Fame and the Quartermaster's Challenge? She practically danced on the heads of everyone in one big cerebral conga dance...

EDIT: And she's not a girl. She's a goddess.

I voted for barbarians, even though i am a peaceful player(usually). I am somewhat dissappointed because unless I set the game to raging barbarians I don't get that many

imo its called Hall of Fame! only the best should get a place there, dont they?
barbs should be turned on anytime. it makes the game harder and requires a different strategie. turn em on. always.

i also think there should be some more rules regarding settings in games like:
No City Razing Any
No City Flipping From Culture OFF
City Flipping after Conquest ON
No Barbarians OFF
Raging Barbarians ON
Aggressive AI ON
Random Personalities OFF
No Technology OFF
Permanent Alliances OFF
Always War ON
Always Peace OFF
One-City Challenge MAYBE (for duel size ON)
Permanent War or Peace OFF
New Random Seed on Reload (1.52 only) OFF
No Cheating (1.52 only) ON

just my 5 cent

I vote no. It should be the player's choice. If turning them on support your strategy do that, if turning them off support your strategy do that.

I vote no. It should be the player's choice. If turning them on support your strategy do that, if turning them off support your strategy do that.

Yep I agree. :agree:

Seems like it paid off. Barbarians will be the player's choice in permanent hall OF.

Seems like it paid off. Barbarians will be the player's choice in permanent hall OF.
I think the issue was debated heavier in public than amongst the staff, which is somewhat unusual. :lol:

I do understand the idea that requiring barbarians makes games achieve more respect and status, but we try to formulate rules that forment a fair yet fun environment. Mandating barbs didn't really seem like it was needed in order to ensure a level playing field, yet would perhaps hurt the fun element.

On the other hand, having barbarians enabled will result in extra points and standing in the Quatromaster's Challenge, so there is a bit of compromise on the subject. :D

Well, its irrelevant really. If its decided they should be on, then fair play, that makes sense, but equally, if its decided they can be off... then theres also benefits and disadvantages from that as well... If the official rule of the HOF is that barbs must be on, then theres no area to complain - thats just the rules. But until that is the case, then its totally up to the individual - its just different play styles.

I have to go with the "not forced on" theme...

They are very usefull for certain types of games, but nice to not have them for other types, and if you don't know how to utilise them then that's your loss if you always turn them off.

The player should have the choice - not dictated as so many other issues are.

I'm for off for a simple reason: I've just been attacked by a stack of 5 Archers and 7 Axemen in a Settler game on Marathon. I hadn't even selected raging barbarians. :confused: Those barbarians are stronger than all of my opponents together and don't even bother to attack them for a change. Something is terribly wrong with those guys.

This one is easy for me. For MP and HOF games barbs must be turned off. This is because we are playing against humans, not the AI. In other words, we all can minipulate a map to get the best start we can, but theres no way we can know if we are in in the middle of a barb stronghold. Just look at the Earth map, some civs have tons of barbs have none. I'd hate to play a better HOF than someone, but lose on points because he had 5x less barbs than I had. Barbs off levels the playing field.

If you are playing for personal enjoyment, then barbs shoudl be on.

Players' choice.

The deck is already stacked way, way in favor of aggressive strategies. Already, it is utterly impossible for a peaceful builder to compete in score or fastest finish time in relation to aggressive games. Forcing all of us to play with barbarians on just further loads the deck for aggressive strategies. And when Warlords get released, I have a feeling the deck will be stacked that way even further.

Plus, the GOTMs are all already "barbarians on." This balances things a little and preserves a place for "no barbarians" games.

Would I would be in favor of -- and what I propose as a compromise -- is more Gauntlets that require "babarians on" -- and even "raging barbarians." That would add some cool variety. But HOF should remain players' discretion.

Would I would be in favor of -- and what I propose as a compromise -- is more Gauntlets that require "babarians on" -- and even "raging barbarians." That would add some cool variety. But HOF should remain players' discretion.
We might eventually stipulate specific barb settings for Gauntlets, but we wouldn't require them very often. As you said, the HOF is the barb-optional refuge.

The working compromise right now is that barbs are optional for general HOF play (and that's not going to change) but the various barb settings will be a factor in weighting games once we unveil the Quattromaster's Challenge.

The working compromise right now is that barbs are optional for general HOF play (and that's not going to change) but the various barb settings will be a factor in weighting games once we unveil the Quattromaster's Challenge.

I like that, superslug.