How crazy are the barbarians in raging barbarians at noble level? Are they capable of taking down AIs?

Their crazy but not impossible to deal with, and yes they can take down civs... Even yours if you don't build a proper military. I like this option I'll rush up the Great Wall and let my rivals take the brunt of it. I'll also rotate units into the hinterlands to toughen them up before a nice war.

who gets great wall, who is likely to develop much quicker..

Wait, there are people that don't play with raging barbs?

Raging barbs are stupidly implemented to start with. I'd rather see the raging barbs lift the unit type restriction, including the siege and all UU's and have them spawning and merging in "free time" into stacks. It's not like every barb unit would be a UU, but there would be a chance to have so, barbs represent after all also bandits, renegades and rouge mercenaries from far lands. On the other hand have the XP and GG restrictions lifted, so that a civ that encountered a barb stack is not too discriminated.

Are they capable of taking down AIs?

I've seen the barbs take down a civ just with normal settings on several occasions so they certainly can on Raging.

Certainly glad I get GW in my SP games, Raging is something you can deal with, but why spend all that time rebuilding when the AI is more than happy to do it haha

I've noticed a random event where there's a barbarian uprising bent on destroying the very essence of civilization!! :eek::eek:

Quite fun when I have the Great Wall :lol: otherwise quite a challenge to see a large stack of Axes, Swords, etc.. vs. my lowly 1-2 unit defended cities. But I agree with a comment above. If you're playing with raging barbarians, the XP limit should be removed. I'll oftentimes find the barbarians to be my biggest military challenge during the early/early-mid game when raging barbarians are on, especially on a large map with not too many civs present. The barbarians will have A LOT of undiscovered map in which to generate.

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor

That's true. I did that once and my goal of the game was to protect everybody else from extinction while also having the game set on Always War. That was an interesting challenge to fight my enemies for the right to protect them.

rouge mercenaries

Not to mention the mascara musketmen and the cold cream cavaliers.

On epic/monarch, you need to get bronze/axes or at least chariots to defend yourselves against the barbs. One usually has to go has to go for archery fairly early as you need at least 3 techs (mining, bronze working and wheel) to get bronze. I find that unless it is your home city, as by the time you get it hooked up, the AI will come to pillage it.

Protective becomes useful early game with Raging Barbs, as an unpromoted archer (City Defense 1, Drill 1) can hold out against 2 archers easily and can get to city defense 2 very quickly. You can also pick up Cover1 with 2/2 experience to help protect copper/horse until you get the it hooked up.

At epic speed, the main problem is if bronze is not nearby. In that case, you need more units and a barracks can help as well. Axes don't derive the same benefit from the promotions, since they get them anyway.

I play with 2 more civs than the default on a large map which makes things similar to a standard map. Barbs tend t0 be more of a problem when I am further away from other civs or when I start in the middle (they can come at you from any direction).

No bronze means you need to find iron, which means that getting the Oracle can be quite difficult with 10 other civs. No bronze with jungle nearby is the most difficult start since you need at least iron, and often math and calendar as well, to make the city productive.

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor
Not necessarily. If you play with a lot of Civs you run the risk of not being the first to build the Great Wall. Plus with all the Cheesy things the AI does in this game to gain an edge? I find it fair play. I've seen hoards of barbs walk through other civs and not even attack them while trying to get to me. I call it Justice!
:)

I've seen hoards of barbs walk through other civs and not even attack them while trying to get to me.
I couldn't believe my eyes when the Vedic event spawned 5 or 6 barb archers at my borders.
Next turn they moved away in the dark and later I got the message the American civlization has been destroyed
and they where at my continent, because I had met Lincoln.

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor

But you still have to work to build the wall, sacrificing whatever else you could be building instead. There's also a chance you won't be first, and then you'll have to deal with the consequences, sometimes until you research satellites LOL. If you always build a huge army, are you also stacking the game in your favor?

LM

There is a really quite unreasonable 'random' event that seems to have happened in every game of BtS I've ever played using Bhruic's patch. Around 2800BC four archers spawn somewhere on the map, either killing me or destroying some other civilization. There's no way in hell to prepare for this event and it happens far too often. And this is with 'raging barbarians' switched off. :(

Why does Firaxis always leave the Civ games for PC in a state of total disrepair?

How crazy are the barbarians in raging barbarians at noble level? Are they capable of taking down AIs?

After 3.13, I've started seeing barbarians taking down AIs early in the game... As I understand it, this is because of a change in AI behavior in that patch. Apparently they take more risks.

And that's with your average mildly angry barbarian on Noble.

But you still have to work to build the wall, sacrificing whatever else you could be building instead. There's also a chance you won't be first, and then you'll have to deal with the consequences, sometimes until you research satellites LOL. If you always build a huge army, are you also stacking the game in your favor?

LM

It depends on whether or not the AI will prioritize the great wall more because of the raging barbarian settings. If it doesn't, than it is in fact stacking the game in your favor.

It depends on whether or not the AI will prioritize the great wall more because of the raging barbarian settings. If it doesn't, than it is in fact stacking the game in your favor.

Even if it's not technically cheating, it still feels cheesy to set Raging Barbs and rush the Great Wall.

How is it cheating, it just make you prioritize making the great wall over something else. If you dont make it you can get screwed.

How is it cheating, it just make you prioritize making the great wall over something else. If you dont make it you can get screwed.

In MP (Multi-Player) it's not, because everyone is aware of the conditions.
In SP (Single Player) if the AI doesn't know, you get a huge advantage.

Welcome to the Forums Bonescorpion. :beer:

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor

Nonsense!

If you use the Worldbuilder to get the Great Wall for free, that is stacking the deck.

But making intelligent strategic decisions about what to build is merely playing the game. The AI is welcome to do the same, and race to the Great Wall. I am keeping nothing secret from the AI!

The phrase "stack the deck" implies cheating. This is more like memorizing the probability tables for poker... it gives a concrete advantage, but it is appropriately on the game board and your opponents should be neutralizing your advantage by doing likewise. You can't neutralize a stacked deck, right?

==============

Blame the devs for a weak AI, don't call me a cheater!

I have to admit I am a great wall fan, especially on raging barbs and having only recently moved to Monarch I can live with the guilt of building it!

It also has disadvantages in that you sacrafice lots of early military to build it and also those first 1-2 great spies are great but after that it gets dull, even with other wonders in the city I had 5 in one game and it probably was overall more of a disadvantage than advantage. I should have controlled my specialists better I know but sometimes you can't stop them. I think as I am guilty of relying on the great wall a bit, to steal techs at least as much as fight the barbs, I end up weak militarily early on and then get trounced as my power graph is not good, time to break the habbit I guess....

GW allows you to develop your economy at time when others producing archers to deal with barbs. it's always more paying to develop at first and to build military and go to war at second.

The AI is welcome to do the same, and race to the Great Wall.

unfortunately the AI doesn't recognize the added value of the GW with that option on and won't do anything more than it usually does to rush it. So it makes no sense to say the AI can do it, when you already know it won't.

The AI is welcome to do the same, and race to the Great Wall.

unfortunately the AI doesn't recognize the added value of the GW with that option on and won't do anything more than it usually does to rush it. So it makes no sense to say the AI can do it, when you already know it won't.

This is only partly true. While the AI does not recognize ADDED value, it certainly values GW high enough normally. If there are any civs on the map who like to build wonders, or at least are not adverse to it, you have a high chance of being beaten to. I've seen it numerous times built so early that the civ had to either beeline to masonry from the start (or popped it from a hut). Hammurabi in particular seems addicted to it, but he is certainly not the only one who goes after GW.

On the topic of raging barbarians, what exactly is the difference from normal ones. Do they just appear more often? I'm considering switching the option on because about a third of the games feel like raging barbs are on anyway.

Eh ... Am I missing something here? Some seems to make the Great Wall sound easy. In Beyond the Sword doesn't it require you to have 6 Walls before you can build the Great Wall? That means 6 cities and having that before the AI (Noble and up) is no small feat.

Honestly I gave up on that requirements since having 6 cities in a timely manner to get the Great Wall cost me more than the benefit it brings, 6 cities means my production and research can really take a hit due to maintenance cost, and I have to protect 6 cities before the GW up, and who know, if the AI (civilization) decides to attack me during this time, I'm pretty much death.


I always find having a group of mobile Axeman is a much more efficient way to deal with Babarian, unless someone can let me in to their secret of having 6 cities early. To those who can, I say good kudos to you guy, it's no cheating if you have that level of management skill.

Wherever did you get the idea that you need 6 walls? It reminds me of CIV2, though I'm no longer sure if the requirement was so high even than.

Eh ... Am I missing something here? Some seems to make the Great Wall sound easy. In Beyond the Sword doesn't it require you to have 6 Walls before you can build the Great Wall? ...

No city walls are required to build the Great Wall. Having quarried stone connected to a city does build it 50% faster.

Welcome to the Forums satthukaraoke. :beer:

Wherever did you get the idea that you need 6 walls? It reminds me of CIV2, though I'm no longer sure if the requirement was so high even than.


Eh ... because it says so? Could be a Next War thing though, I remember when I played the original Civ4 I always get the GW up, but ever since I got BtS I always play Next War as far as I remember, and for some reason I never got the option build the GW. I open the city window and I saw the icon there, grayed out, with a red line saying "requires 6 Wall". And I was just like "screw this".


Even then, like I said, I have always found having 2 or 3 mobile Axeman much more effective than the GW, back in the time I got those, it was not really to keep our Barb, I got it because ... well, you know, it looks cool. :lol:



Welcome to the Forums satthukaraoke. :beer:

Thanks, you just make me feel a little warm inside. :blush:

I have been playing the game for years and for some miracle hold myself on Noble. I recently discorver Civfanatic and spent the last few days reading the material and guide on here, good stuffs. :king:

I remember when I played the original Civ4 I always get the GW up,

There was no Great Wall wonder in the original Civ IV :sad: Maybe you're thinking Warlords.

maybe, it has been a while. :lol:

Playing with raging barbarians and 18 civilizaitons, noble difficulty, on a 279 x 93 map, it seems that the raging barbarians generally tend to wipe out 3-5 players. It you're on a small or medium-sized continent with four-five other players, you can hardly feel the presence of the barbarians, while if you're isolated anyhow, it can be very expensive to counter.

Raging barbarians always limit the AI players greatly, which makes for a slower game.

I have had hopeless situations where I quite simply didn't have access to any horse, copper or iron. That meant that I had to produce tons of archers to have any chance to protect my improvements, but the barbarians were too many for my archers that were often upgraded with city-defence. I spread myself too thin in a stubborn attempt to develop, and they ended up taking my capital one turn before I could reinforce it, taking just three turns to reach it with a stack of seven units.

So it makes no sense to say the AI can do it, when you already know it won't.

I find it makes at least enough sense to lead me to the concluding statement of the post to which you are replying.

I understand that the AI will fail to race me to the GW despite starting conditions which should suggest the GW had value. We agree on the empirics of the situation, but not where the blame lies.

I've seen it numerous times built so early that the civ had to either beeline to masonry from the start (or popped it from a hut). Hammurabi in particular seems addicted to it, but he is certainly not the only one who goes after GW.

Bismarck beat me to the GW recently when I was trying my darnedest for it. I think it was ridiculously early like turn 120 in a Marathon game. I agree, though, that it's very rare when the AI really gives you a real race to the GW. All the planets have to line up just right.

The AI is welcome to do the same, and race to the Great Wall.

unfortunately the AI doesn't recognize the added value of the GW with that option on and won't do anything more than it usually does to rush it. So it makes no sense to say the AI can do it, when you already know it won't.

The AI doesn't do a lot of things.

This is strategy, nothing more, nothing less.

In any game, information = advantage. Card players know this well. As such, the less random you make the game startup, the more advantage you have over the AI.

It is my opinion that a difficulty level is not truly 'mastered' unless the player can win almost all the time under completely random conditions:
Random world size
Random world type (shuffle map or a mod random map script)
Random leader
Random personalities
Random barbs
Random climate
Random shoreline

The more settings the player picks, the more he/she is stacking the game in his/her favor since that player enters the game knowing some of the parameters.

with Random Barbs, you might have raging, you might not, so you truly have to make a choice whether or not to prioritize the Great Wall. If you intentionally set Raging Barbs, you know the Great Wall has a high value and should be prioritized in most cases.

Everyone should play however he/she likes, and I have no problem with that. What annoys me is when people come on these forums and brag about how great they are at some high difficulty level but then you find out that person always customizes the game to his/her favorite settings, favorite leader, favorite traits, and regenerates the map until getting a favorable starting position. Yeah, I could win every hand of poker if I hand pick my opponents, the seating order, and reshuffle my hand until I have four aces.

As such, my opinion on regenerating the map: each regeneration is a game loss and should be counted as such if Civ4 tracked win/loss statistics.

Dagta, not sure if your comment about bragging is directed towards me. But I am just play raging barbarians for fun. I didn't build Great Wall and I played on Huge with 7 civs (or 6, don't remember). Barbarians were everywhere, lol. With such a small number of civs in so large a space, the barbarian waves were endless. I am only a prince level player so there is nothing that I can brag about anyways.

Dagta, not sure if your comment about bragging is directed towards me. But I am just play raging barbarians for fun. I didn't build Great Wall and I played on Huge with 7 civs (or 6, don't remember). Barbarians were everywhere, lol. With such a small number of civs in so large a space, the barbarian waves were endless. I am only a prince level player so there is nothing that I can brag about anyways.

No, my comment was not directed at you.

I'm not a frequent of these forums and when I am here, I don't usually look at usernames, so I honestly cannot name the people who have given me the bragging impression. I simply recall getting that impression from a few (not many) people on these forums over the years.

I'm not a great player. I very much dislike micromanagement, so I'm content to play on Noble. It's just an observation.

Reminded me a bit of the classic Sega Genesis days when some kids at school would brag about beating a game that had just been released... then I'd find out they used some cheat code to get 99 lives or unlimited ammo or something else. Is it really winning at that level if you set the game up in your favor? That's kindof my point.

Sorry if you thought I was picking on you or if I offended you. Tone of voice doesn't carry over into text. I'm amused by it, not trying to be angry or rude to anyone.

It is my opinion that a difficulty level is not truly 'mastered' unless the player can win almost all the time under completely random conditions:


Then i'd guess that 95% of all people who ever played Civ4 would be stuck on Noble, especially with latest patches. Sometimes you get a random start so bad that it's incredibly difficult to beat the AIs, even when they don't have enormous bonuses and cheats.

If you intentionally pick raging barbs and always build the great wall, you're stacking the game in your favor

Really have to agree, even as I do it... :p
The moral implications tell us a bit, don't they? lol

In any game, information = advantage. ... As such, the less random you make the game startup, the more advantage you have over the AI.
...
The more settings the player picks, the more he/she is stacking the game in his/her favor since that player enters the game knowing some of the parameters. (ellipsis added)

This is provably false. Choosing the worst leader/map/barbs/etc (whichever that may be) is worse for the player despite the information gained, instead of random leaders. People often choose intentionally underpowered options for a challenge.

Information does sometimes produce an advantage. But it is not the only way to gain an advantage. And Boudica of the Romans on a Pangaea doesn't miraculously become hard if it is a surprise, right? So sometimes the actual settings trump knowing about them.

Even worse, information can't be kept out. Once I see one goody hut, I gain an advantage because I know that means they are set to 'on.' The terrain will instantly help me narrow down map options. An intimate familiarity with the settings possible might make the randomness moot. I think it would be a great experiment to have many excellent civ players play games on random settings and determine how many turns on average it takes to deduce the settings. Anyone claiming that randomness is the holy grail should know that number. Perhaps to truly test Civ skill, one might need hybrid or fluctuating settings?

==========

I understand your point about Civ 'bragging' under cherry-picked conditions and with regenerated maps. Seems like a valid complaint. The AI doesn't get to regenerate.

But the GW cheating accusation requires much stronger support. No one seems to offer an explanation of why the AI shouldn't be designed to know about the game settings. Does anyone really believe that isn't the solution? Fill in the blank: it is good the AI is blind here because ____________.

PS: Remember when the AI didn't know about any victory conditions besides space? Empirics suggest the devs may be fallible in their decisions in this area.

I find the idea of having experienced players play blind and see how long it takes them to determine the settings to be interesting. How long would it take such a player to determine the level of barbarian activity? Would it be soon enough to make an efficient decision regarding the Great Wall? It won't be turn 1, whereas setting raging barbs on means the player has that information at turn 1.

Nah, I can win at Prince with random everything that can be random, not all games, for sure, but noble is a bit too easy for people who have played all the versions of civ, especially with the extra fine tuning you can do (what with civics, traits , wonder combos, all the economies/sliders, unique units/buildings etc) in Civ 4.

Nah, I can win at Prince with random everything that can be random, not all games, for sure, but noble is a bit too easy for people who have played all the versions of civ, especially with the extra fine tuning you can do (what with civics, traits , wonder combos, all the economies/sliders, unique units/buildings etc) in Civ 4.

Where in New Zealand are you located? Beautiful country! I moved there in 2006 but couldn't afford the cost of living on any job I could find there so I moved back to the USA.

No, my comment was not directed at you.

I'm not a frequent of these forums and when I am here, I don't usually look at usernames, so I honestly cannot name the people who have given me the bragging impression. I simply recall getting that impression from a few (not many) people on these forums over the years.

I'm not a great player. I very much dislike micromanagement, so I'm content to play on Noble. It's just an observation.

Reminded me a bit of the classic Sega Genesis days when some kids at school would brag about beating a game that had just been released... then I'd find out they used some cheat code to get 99 lives or unlimited ammo or something else. Is it really winning at that level if you set the game up in your favor? That's kindof my point.

Sorry if you thought I was picking on you or if I offended you. Tone of voice doesn't carry over into text. I'm amused by it, not trying to be angry or rude to anyone.

I see, my misunderstanding then. I think your statement is very true, I always play on fractal random climate + sealevel. But I choose my leader and map size because I never play on small maps and I dislike certain civs (this one is a bit on the unfair side since I like to use OP civs such as Romans/Persians). I sometime restart for a better starting location which is cheating (I know), but I never reload. I used to reload to beat monarch but then I feel no sense of accomplishment when I have beaten them.

I play raging barbs all the time on Monarch, it's a good reminder not to forget my military.

If I'm Protective, I get Archery and await the horde.
If I'm Aggressive, I build Barracks and work with whatever unit I can get.
If I'm Sitting Bull or Toku or Huyana, I send out special buses to bring 'em in.
The objective in all of these is to build a core of Strength 10 troops to be upgraded later in the game.

Without those traits, if I'm Industrious or have Stone, I'll go for the Great Wall.
Otherwise, I focus on getting fogbusters out. Warriors on forest/jungle hills will do fine until there's a better unit. What they cost in maintenance is saved by being able to go about my business relatively unmolested. Charoiots are great until the Spearmen show up.

One good thing about raging barbs is that it's very rare for an AI to do an early rush, so you can usually ignore that for a while. On the other hand, I've had early rushes of my own spoiled by the barbs, who will always attack me in preference to the AI.

I'm disappointed at how few cities raging barbs build when they have a landmass to themselves--eg on Terra Small/Standard, about half a dozen cities seems to be it. And then typically only 3-4 Longbow defenders--I very rarely see a city with around 8 defenders. Strong barb development could make the mid game more interesting on multi-landmass maps.

I'm disappointed at how few cities raging barbs build when they have a landmass to themselves--eg on Terra Small/Standard, about half a dozen cities seems to be it. And then typically only 3-4 Longbow defenders--I very rarely see a city with around 8 defenders. Strong barb development could make the mid game more interesting on multi-landmass maps.

The "revolution mod" might solve this. Lots of new spawning barb cities that develop to be small empires over time.



Besides: new to the "revolution mod", I thought raging barbs? great: the great wall will help me stay unmolested... so, when I saw a few barb cities spawning around me, I was smiling.... then, when they got to be own city state civs with 5 attacking units, I realized those troops were able to cross my great wall... A massive warrior-(quecha, actually my best unit then)rush was needed to hold off the axemen... the game was lost nevertheless cause my cities and ecnomy was crippled - the next game I anticipated the new city states attacks then and was able to win easily...

However: the revolution mod equalizes the benefits of the great wall whilst having raging barbs on - try it! (monarch difficulty with these settings is quite a challenge for me)

Would it be soon enough to make an efficient decision regarding the Great Wall?

A fair point. It is reasonable to assume that it would not be soon enough, since the desired 'exploit' is to turn away the barbs that the blind expert would still be gathering information from their arrival/frequency. Maaaaaaybe the animals and earliest barbs could be enough data, allowing a quick run at Masonry. (I assume early Mining is desired already (worker tech that is a prereq for BW)). BUT: If you think that Masonry is a great early tech (or if you start near stone/marble), then I would go the other way, and say I would wager the blind expert who likes to research Masonry early could attain a large part of the benefit that someone who clicks the box before the game starts gets.

Also, funny thought: it is very possible that even under pure random (a blind newb playing this time) that the existence of the chance of Raging Barbs as the actual setting might be enough to make the GW gambit attractive. The GW is not a bad wonder, just the chance of Raging might tip the scales. If you personally add it up that way, is it then cheating to build it under the random setting?!

Also, I feel like this accusation involves the fallacy of reification. It conflates the person who chooses the check box and the person who is deciding on building the GW. I am not checking the box thinking "heh, this will really screw the AI cause I am getting the GW, baby." I am checking the box based on what kind of game I would enjoy... I think Raging might be the best challenge. My GW gambit decision comes much later, and is on the gameboard. Yes, I have information, I don't know how to block that out and I seriously propose the remedy is to share that info with the AI.

=========

Quite a complex issue, I would be much more delighted if many of these details were addressed before the accusations of cheating start flying.

The Great Wall is not the be-all-end-all. Even if you finish it "early" enough it covers what... 3, 4 MAYBE 5 cities. Leaving all the rest of your empire exposed as the game progresses. So yeah its helpful, IF you can finish it first. If not you get a pocketful of gold and are otherwise behind in any number of areas, likely sparse units.


I really hate the conversion to gold mechanic when you lose out on building a wonder. There should be some percentage returned to the city as Hammers. Especially if you look at all the other Strategy guides that show how easy it is to convert excess hammers to gold - and at a huge rate 2,3 or 4 gold to 1 hammer, in later stages.

Something like 50% of the hammers to COMMERCE, 50% to GOLD, and 25% returned as Hammers to build something else with. The values might need to be tweaked. But the current 1 Hammer = 1 Gold is nothing short of a big lemon.

The Great Wall is not the be-all-end-all. Even if you finish it "early" enough it covers what... 3, 4 MAYBE 5 cities. Leaving all the rest of your empire exposed as the game progresses. So yeah its helpful, IF you can finish it first. If not you get a pocketful of gold and are otherwise behind in any number of areas, likely sparse units.


This implies that the GW covers only cities built at the time the wonder was built, which of course is not true. The graphics will not change as you build new cities, but barbarians cannot enter your borders anyway.

The Great Wall is not the be-all-end-all. Even if you finish it "early" enough it covers what... 3, 4 MAYBE 5 cities. Leaving all the rest of your empire exposed as the game progresses...

I used to think that also, and wait too long to build it. The Great Wall's effects expand with your culture borders, so if you build it really early, when you have two cities, it will protect you as you expand.

Saying the GW stacks the deck is like saying, that Playing this civ or that leader is stacking the deck. It's the same as saying, using a particular unit over another is stacking the deck. It's in the game it's legal, it's strategy, use it. Most wonders offer something that no one accept the builder can have, so is Playing with wonders stacking the deck too?

Even when I don't play with raging barbs, or even no barbs at all, I still try to build the GW. It offers me a nice bonus to Great Generals.

The AI is programmed to perform well under standard settings. It does not change its behavior for special options, like raging barbs. One might think that's a shortcoming, but that's the way it is.

So if you pick the non-standard option raging barbs (adding a greater threat to everyone) and then rush the GW (eliminate that threat alltogether for just you), yes, of course that's cheating.

Also I'm sure 95% of players who do this always start over if they happen to miss the GW...

(Same is true for special maps like Terra, btw. The AI doesn't know about the Race to the New World so the player has an advantage if he prioritizes Astronomy and sets up colonies quickly.)

The AI is programmed to perform well under standard settings. It does not change its behavior for special options, like raging barbs. One might think that's a shortcoming, but that's the way it is.

So if you pick the non-standard option raging barbs (adding a greater threat to everyone) and then rush the GW (eliminate that threat alltogether for just you), yes, of course that's cheating.

It's not cheating; it's setting up the game in a way you enjoy. Cheating is something you do if you play with others, or try to fool others into thinking you achieved something you didn't.

It isn't CHEATING, it's merely setting the game so that it's easier. There's a difference, and I'd advise the players crying foul on this GW raging barbs nonsense to realize that difference.

I kind of hate players that accuse me of cheating. It's much more of an issue online in madden (where apparently using a speed weapon to burn man coverage or calling lots of audibles is cheating?), but I see complaints in Civ 4 a lot too. Now, things that break the game rules outright (for example hacking the game so you could use worldbuilder in multiplayer, or disconnect glitching people in madden) are cheating. Abusing mechanics in the game that were set up and well within the rules is NOT cheating. Yes, it lowers the challenge to use them, but they're viable tactics.

You run a slippery slope this way too. If great wall with raging barbs is cheating, what about praetorians on a pangaea? That's a huge advantage to the human. What about immortals? War bribes? Religion swaps solely for diplomacy? Bulbing to Liberalism to rush a nasty military tech and conquer?

Any of those things make the game easier. Some of them, such as pangaea or playing rome, are ALSO set up even before the game starts. Balanced resources etc etc.

These sort of cheating arguments are nonsense. If the AI doesn't recognize that going for the Great Wall should be prioritized in this scenario then that is a failure on Firaxis part - they need to make a smarter AI. (Despite what I just said I'm not criticizing Firaxis because if you compare the AI in Civ to the AI in other games it is awesome) If you can take advantage of that then great. Do so! If that technique enables you to easily win games on a skill level then go up a skill level when using those strategies so you are challenged. I have, in the past, played difficult scenarios on Noble and easier scenarios on Prince.

In the end, I only get to play 5 or so games of Civ a month. This means that when I pick each game I am going to setup the scenario so that it is the most fun for me. Not to satisfy some overly restrictive set of rules proposed by others. And yes, that means I may or may not regenerate my map a few times looking for a particularly fun setup. Just because I am capable of fighting through and winning a really bad start on Noble doesn't mean I want to. If I'm playing BOTM or some other tournament then I will, of course, abide by those rules but for my own games, anything is fair play.

Okay, sorry for the rant. It just bugs me when people accuse other people of cheating because they don't follow their home made rules

Despite what I said above, my last 4 or 5 games I have played on Noble with everything completely random. I'm testing myself to see if I am ready for the permanent move to Prince. It doesn't appear to me that all of those custom settings really get randomized from a random game. I've never seen raging barbarians in one of my random games. I have to turn it on myself from a custom game. I've not noticed random personalities. I've not noticed Aggresive AI being flipped on for me. Do you guys have a custom way of starting a random game or have my random games, by coincidence, not been to random?

Well, call it what you like. If you look for a way to get unlimited ammo or health in a single-player shooter you have to search for "cheats" on google, even though you only "set up the game for you" :rolleyes:

So if you prefer, call it "cheesy way to exploit the game mechanics". Cheesy because (as I said) the AI isn't programmed to counter it and because this happens at the very start of the game... no planning required. If you fail to get the GW, you can just start over without having wasted time and effort. It's like a special option "barbarians attack only AI players".

yes, of course that's cheating.

... a few posts later...

Well, call it what you like.

Hmmm, what was the "of course" part again?

So if you prefer, call it "cheesy way to exploit the game mechanics".

I would gladly compromise to calling it a "cheesy shortcut" - under one condition. You have to agree to be less reckless with your future cheating accusations. If you don't see a big difference between "cheating" and "cheesy short-cut" this condition should be a no-brainer for you, right? Just agree to call everything "cheesy short-cut" instead and then you feel just the same, right? If they are interchangeable, why not agree to interchange them?

We can all do without the drama of reckless accusations.

No, because "cheating" was and is no accusation. Everybody is free to cheat himself/the computer. I didn't imply any cheating of other players.

I cheat the AI in almost every game by attacking them although they have been friendly to me :mischief:

I always rush to built the GW, and I'd say someone else beats me to it about a fifth of the time - I play Earth maps 18 Civs at Prince mostly, normal Barbs.

As the effects of it expand with your Empire it's a must-have. I agree with the earlier post about it lets you concentrate on tech early game, giving you an often game-making advantage as the game hots up.

Last night I had raging barbarians without it even being toggled. The entire BC era, my civilization was beset by wave after wave, often four or five at a time, of barbarians. I had one city razed and couldn't defend most of my improvements, and found it hard to beat them away because I couldn't keep a road open to my copper mine. There were several barbarian cities nearby that were much larger than mine. My civ was far away from most of the other civs on the map (which was mostly one huge continent), so I don't know how they fared, but man, I have never experienced that huge number of barbarians before.

I think the proper term for taking advantage of AI weaknesses might be "exploit". I don't see a problem with taking advantage of "exploits". I usually play on Noble. If I played one of you who play on Emporer or Diety or some higher skill level you would most likely see a number of potential weaknesses in my strategies and would likely exploit every one of them as you crushed me by 1000BC. :lol:

I don't see how that is any different.

raging barbs + rushing great wall = cheating imo

This thread is so amusing. I really doubt the ppl that use raging barbs + GW really care what the ppl posting about what they believe is cheating or not.
People play the game for fun. What someone else's opinion of what is fun and what is cheating is hardly relevant.

raging barbs + rushing great wall = cheating imo

LOL, I guess they'll have to eliminate all those HOF games where a player had raging barbs on and has built GW. Those unlucky ones that got beaten by Hammurabi or Huayna or whoever else likes to build it were actually lucky cause they'll get to keep their win.

This thread is so amusing. I really doubt the ppl that use raging barbs + GW really care what the ppl posting about what they believe is cheating or not.
People play the game for fun. What someone else's opinion of what is fun and what is cheating is hardly relevant.

I agree. It makes for an interesting discussion though. :)

LOL, I guess they'll have to eliminate all those HOF games where a player had raging barbs on and has built GW. Those unlucky ones that got beaten by Hammurabi or Huayna or whoever else likes to build it were actually lucky cause they'll get to keep their win.

whats the point of making raging barbarians if your gonna rush GW. it just makes the game easier for you to win since they will be pounding the AI. You might as well lower it a difficulty and save the trouble.

You can still fight barbs just outside your borders to get xp. Also, raging barbarians isn't the same as lowering a difficulty level.

But don't ask me, I only play RB about 1/3 of the time and the GW 1/12 of the time.

whats the point of making raging barbarians if your gonna rush GW. it just makes the game easier for you to win since they will be pounding the AI. You might as well lower it a difficulty and save the trouble.

ahem, because it is fun watching the barbarians beat the pulp out of AI players? :D

I'm playing on noble, raging barbs, 18 civs and they raging barbs didn't wipe out anyone. I was beat to the great wall too. I even had that event where Atila decides he hates civilization and goes on a rampage. No one died.

whats the point of making raging barbarians if your gonna rush GW. it just makes the game easier for you to win since they will be pounding the AI. You might as well lower it a difficulty and save the trouble.

Why wouldn't you want to rush the GW if you had raging barbarians turned on?

It makes strategic sense to go this route if raging barbs are enabled. To not consider the wonder under such circumstances would be strategic folly.

IMO the great wall should have been a national wonder that came a bit later in the game and was a bit harder to build. but that's just me.

Seems to me that all the arguments against the GW + raging barbs could be used with ANY option used in the custom Game menu. Basically, if you Select Custom game, your Exploiting the system? That seems to be the real argument here.

Ragging Barbs is there for a reason. It provides for more options for people to have fun. This is a Game remember? Games are supposed to be fun. To me Ragging barbs are fun. Rushing to the Great Wall adds a bit of drama to the game to for me, because if you miss it, it provides many more consequences. I won't restart a game just because I missed the Great Wall, but I won't bash anyone who does.

How is it cheating, it just make you prioritize making the great wall over something else. If you dont make it you can get screwed.

It's cheating because you're not playing the game the way THEY think you should play it.:lol:

A cutthroat business, governing... :p

I got worked over last night big time by Raging barbs. I was rushing to build the wall, but there was a significant lack of trees around. Other then that it was an IDEAL Location, unfortunately I did not save my turn 0 game. I got over run pretty fast. It was a fun fight though probably had about 5 turns left on TGW but the Barb rush showed up early! I failed but it was a fun game trying to dodge barbs with my workers n such while others try and ransack my city.

Thats why I play raging. :)

"Ready?"
"Dodgeball!"
(Six Barbs and six of you lol)

I tried Raging Barbarians for the first time last week. I had the perfect starting location and was setting up a great civ on Prince. Then the next turn there were 8 warriors on the screen. Then about 4 more added each turn thereafter. I had to shut down production on my two cities and start researching Archery. It was fun battling them while trying to build settlers and keep my workers and improvements protected. In the end I held off the barbarians but the other civs had passed me by in techs and cities. My 5 cities to their 10. Are the AI's not affected by Raging Barbarians?

whats the point of making raging barbarians if your gonna rush GW. it just makes the game easier for you to win since they will be pounding the AI. You might as well lower it a difficulty and save the trouble.
Actually, this isn't the same as it would seem. I always play raging barbs and personally, I don't get the GW often. I just don't value it much. The only 2 reasons I will have it in the game are:

1) I have stone and could use the GG points/ GS points it provides.
2) I conquered it.

However I play on Prince/Monarch level and it is not uncommon at all for me to see 2 AI civs get wiped out early in the game. Sure it helps the AI survive because they suck, but it also hinders you because if they survive those assaults and eliminate their FOW they will be much more solid opponents to take down. Now if you rush your neighbors after you build it sure you are going to conquer more than you would without it but I see no problems with that personally.
Saying that using the Great Wall in combination with raging barbs is cheating is saying that the wonder may as well not be in the game at all. As raging barbarians is the only time it is actually *worth* building. Building it for any other reason greatly depreciates the value of the entire wonder. Which is why I personally rarely build it. I genrally see the GW as valuable as building it with Barbs turned off. Because you actually have to sacrifice unit experience (CRIII) for a few extra GG/GS points.

I tried Raging Barbarians for the first time last week. I had the perfect starting location and was setting up a great civ on Prince. Then the next turn there were 8 warriors on the screen. Then about 4 more added each turn thereafter. I had to shut down production on my two cities and start researching Archery. It was fun battling them while trying to build settlers and keep my workers and improvements protected.

I find researching archery ASAP helps greatly at Prince+ difficulties. Doesn't really matter if you have metals nearby as they barbs can show up extremely early on these levels.(SO you may not have enough axes built when they show up if you didn't have access to copper once you finish researching Bronze.
If you haven't noticed the barbs generally come in waves as you said. You'll have the 8 show up then 4 every turn for reinforcements for about 10-15 turns. Then they will seemingly ignore you for around 5-15 turns. Then comes wave number 2 etc. I don't know if it is meant to be that way or if it just seems to always play that way on my machine. It's just something I have noticed.

In the end I held off the barbarians but the other civs had passed me by in techs and cities. My 5 cities to their 10. Are the AI's not affected by Raging Barbarians?


On Prince diffculty and up the barbs PREFER to attack the human over an AI. I have witnessed many times barbs spawning 5 tiles from an AI city but the barbs will walk about 20 tiles to my territory to attack me because of the altered values on higher difficulties. (Another reason why I wouldn't say the GW is cheating.)

It would be kinda interesting though, if instead of preventing Barbarians from entering at all, it:
Stopped them for X+Turns, while they try and siege the wall. Allowing you to choose to go attack or not.

I suppose, as well, I don't really agree with the great walls defense 'expanding with your borders'. The experience aspect for GG could still count for combat w/i your borders.

[EDIT]
A wall that has been sieged/breached, only stops the barbs for 1 turn. A worker can go repair the breach.

It would be kinda interesting though, if instead of preventing Barbarians from entering at all, it:
Stopped them for X+Turns, while they try and siege the wall. Allowing you to choose to go attack or not.

I suppose, as well, I don't really agree with the great walls defense 'expanding with your borders'. The experience aspect for GG could still count for combat w/i your borders.

[EDIT]
A wall that has been sieged/breached, only stops the barbs for 1 turn. A worker can go repair the breach.

excellent observation.

On Prince diffculty and up the barbs PREFER to attack the human over an AI. I have witnessed many times barbs spawning 5 tiles from an AI city but the barbs will walk about 20 tiles to my territory to attack me because of the altered values on higher difficulties. (Another reason why I wouldn't say the GW is cheating.)

I highly doubt that the barbarians let up on the AI on prince difficulty, especially since noble, one level below, is supposed to be completely neutral for both parties in terms of advantages.

Things that the barbarians do prefer or workers and improvements to destroy, weakened units and badly defended cities.

I tried Raging Barbarians for the first time last week. I had the perfect starting location and was setting up a great civ on Prince. Then the next turn there were 8 warriors on the screen. Then about 4 more added each turn thereafter. I had to shut down production on my two cities and start researching Archery. It was fun battling them while trying to build settlers and keep my workers and improvements protected. In the end I held off the barbarians but the other civs had passed me by in techs and cities. My 5 cities to their 10. Are the AI's not affected by Raging Barbarians?

Yes, it does indeed. If you read my post a bit earlier in the thread, you would see that I point out how it greatly hinders the AI development until people have grown together enough to prevent most barbarians from entering the lands. Of course, I play extremely big maps (279 x 186 normally, three times the size of 'huge'), on noble difficulty, so there will be more barbarians and more isolated players. Generally, a few AIs who have been close togther or develop good military early have done quite well, while most only have a chance to catch up later.

I suppose, if you play on prince, the advantage that the AI gets will have a much greater effect with raging barbarians on as well. When I play on noble, I see raging barbarians as a little too much help for me since the AI players will be badly developed and I will do well, just getting a little more starting experience. After a few games, I understood the importance of getting a horse or copper resource early, and after that they haven't ever brought me to the brink of extinction. Regardless of how I fare, they are still great fun to fight and there are moments where they are quite scare and the great wall looks awfully good.

I highly doubt that the barbarians let up on the AI on prince difficulty, especially since noble, one level below, is supposed to be completely neutral for both parties in terms of advantages.
Barbarian preference on Noble is tileted towards the player just slightly. It is not the same value. On noble if you put a scout of yours next to an AI scout and a barb, the barb will always attack you. And on prince I have seen the barbs bypass AI territory to march to mine. And that AI did not have the GW. On Monarch I see it more often yes. But it does happen on prince.

[/QUOTE]Things that the barbarians do prefer or workers and improvements to destroy, weakened units and badly defended cities.[/QUOTE]
Not always. I also notice waves on this as well. The first 'wave' will attack anything that it gets near. But by the second wave they begin avoiding confrontation to pillage. Although you can still manipulate their behavior by not sending uber troops into the field but rookies instead. As the barbs will have something around a 20% chance of victory or more which is more than enough to tempt them into attacking. Barbs usually attack if they have ~10% chance of victory or more from what I noticed. So if you are sending out Geurilla III archers of course they will avoid your sentries. But if you just send out some regulars or maybe Geurilla I's they will still attack your guys.

This is probably the biggest hinderance on the AI is not knowing how to fight off the barbs properly. But turn on Agg AI and it willhelp them a little more. I wish I could find Blake's old improved AI that had the AI unit spamming alot. That AI was awesome.

King Flevance, I think you can put the slightly random barbarian attack behaviour down to the barbarian leader having the value iAttackOddsChangeRand set to 16, while the greatest for any other leader is 8, which means at there is a big chance of added likeliness for the barbarians to attack. One round, they don't attack, the next round, the attack with exactly the same odds.

By the way, what I said about barbarians skipping AI land on prince seems to be my mind playing tricks on my. I was thinking that it wouldn't make sense that the AIs would have a harder time against barbarians om prince, but it's the other way around. I'm sure you are correct in your observations.

Of course, I play extremely big maps (279 x 186 normally, three times the size of 'huge'), on noble difficulty, so there will be more barbarians and more isolated players.I'm curious why you would want to play on a map of that size? It takes long enough to get anywhere on HUGE maps. A map 3 times the size of huge pretty much guarantees a significant number of civs will be isolated, whilst having free reign to just build and expand and not worry about neighbours at all.

Balderstrom, I actually end up with 4-5 neighbours playing with 18 civilizations normally. For me, no game seems worth playing if I cannot make up a comprehensive lasting universe. I think that the bigger the map, the more possibility there is for exciting situations, long wars and room for all 18 nations to be established. It's nice to see some nations grow big and powerful and others do their best to overcome being overpowered. So, I don't think I could play the game with a much smaller map.

Only problem is that in my current hotseat savegame where most of the land has been occupied and all techs have been finished, the game crashes after two turns due to memory error. So, it's a long and tiresome wait, but I hope a new computer will fix some of that. Right now the computer is running out of psysical memory (I have 2GB RAM) faster than my graphics card is running out of memory (512MB). I fear that that the new computer will still have troubles hardling the graphical memory use thoght, as graphics normally only crash one turn later than memory and very few graphics cards offer 1GB memory.

Lol as I was reading this I was thinking (how can I fend them off of me) and then pops 6 swordsmen...I don't even have copper yet the resources are just too far out there. Thankfully I had 3 horse archers n' a bowman with 2 city garisons...as well as 2 of them warriors stationed in the city. I ran my horses at the swordsmen before they attacked to weaken them and managed to kill one of them lost the other two...then my archer took everyone else out. "PHEW" now i have to recoup that was basically all my extra military

Thanks for the info guys. I tried to build the GW before going for Archery but the AI beat me to it. I don't know about that "The AI will stop attacking for 10-15 turns". I can remember a turn or 2 without one showing up but it stayed pretty continuos. Warriors for a while , Archers for a few , Axes for a little while, then came the Swords. It was, i must admit, one of the funnest games I've ever played and the most frustrating at the same time.

This is probably the biggest hinderance on the AI is not knowing how to fight off the barbs properly. But turn on Agg AI and it willhelp them a little more. I wish I could find Blake's old improved AI that had the AI unit spamming alot. That AI was awesome.

You can easily edit this yourself increasing the number for iBuildUnitProb in CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.

Thanks Asjo. I may have to look into that.

You can easily edit this yourself increasing the number for iBuildUnitProb in CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.

If thats the case, it would likely make more sense to have it be python so it would only increase the chances when raging barb's are selected.

Well, having AIs go Montezuma-style on you is nice regardless of the situation if you like conquest-style :P ...

For modding, of course, I can see the problem, but for personal use, you could just have two files and swop.

Actually, it worked rather well in the BetterAI mod I thought. Blake said he actually changed it because people were shouting the AI was too hard. That is impossible for me. I like an AI that is not a pushover. As Blake put it a good AI means the player is winning 1 out of X games. X being equal to the number of civs on the map. But people don't think their "good" unless they win 9/10 games. I actually had games where I was rushed by the AI with that version. Wish I could find it again if it still exists out there somewhere.

Lol take a look at the game I'm in now...All of the warriors except the one to the far left are barbs. Note the turn number...

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7721/crapuf1.th.png (http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crapuf1.png)

I just noticed looking at the reference guide, and Game Speeds...
Even without the "Raging Barbarians" option checked,
EPIC: x1.5 Barbarians
Marathon: x4.0 Barbarians

Quite the difference right there.
Almost everything else in Marathon is a multiple of 3, aside from Anarchy/GoldenAge x2.0