Should/Barbarians-Rebels be able to capture Cities

Should Barbarian/Rebels be able to take cities?

  • Yes, they should

    Votes: 80 85.1%
  • No, they should not

    Votes: 14 14.9%

  • Total voters
    94
I'd like to see a city (or several at a time) be able to declare independence and create a whole new competitive AI civ or a city state with multiple cities.

Well if we were going this far I would want city-states to unionize into full on civs, rebels to be able to capture cities & form their own civs with social policies/ideologies based on what they were rebelling for, far off cities "rebelling" turn into rebel cities & pump out cities, with owners being able to negotiating independence, & want vassals etc.
But we're nowhere NEAR civ 4 style diplomacy & awesome features, so I would settle for barbarians/rebels be able to capture cities & form city-states :D

By the way I like your sig after all <insert famous influential person> said <insert famous quote making an outward statement on life, government, or ideological conflict>
 
In general, this game seems to operate under the principle that, no matter what happens with the populace and the government, you are always in charge. This is because the player doesn't represent any kind of human ruler, but rather a sort of "oversoul" of the State.

So the player never faces organized opposition to his control, because he isn't a ruler who can be toppled by the people; he IS the People, and the Ruler, and the Government, and the Opposition. He does, however, have to watch his people tear his country apart as they fight over exactly how his will will be implemented, what form it will take. Even if the rebels successfully enter and take over a city, it's still YOUR city, because you are both Government and Rebels.

Haha, well put, Tarvok! Apt, and downright poetic!
 
Would be real cool if they became a civ not in game, too
 
The only change I'd like to see is the creation of a Great Rebel Leader unit. He could just be a Barbarian version of the Great General giving bonuses to the barb units. Plenty of names available:

Spartacus
Robert E Lee
Guillaume Cale
Walter (Wat) Tyler
Jakob Rohrbach
Yemelyan Pugachev
Stepan Razin
Giuseppe Garibaldi
Pancho Villa
Zhu Yuanzhang
William Wallace
Nat Turner (One of my favorites)
Ali bin Muhammad
Toussaint Louverture
Jean-Jacques Dessalines
Samuel Sharpe
Gaspar Yanga

The list is almost endless...

"Rebel Leader" idea on a thread a while ago, along with some other great ideas around here like "Rebel-controlled territory" becoming city-states.(what I've been thinking as well)
 
i think it would be great if groups of barbs ("hordes") had leaders and it was possible to negotiate with them. say if you paid them tribute (luxury or gold) they wont pillage your improvements for X turns, or let your settlers pass, or you would bribe them into war with some civ or other barbarian horde, hire their units for some Y turns (they may give some cool UUs) etc.



On topic, i think barbs should not capture cities but destroy random building and kill 1 population each time barb unit defeats a city. If the city was size 1, it should be razed.
 
In general, this game seems to operate under the principle that, no matter what happens with the populace and the government, you are always in charge. This is because the player doesn't represent any kind of human ruler, but rather a sort of "oversoul" of the State. The closest thing to internal civil strife this game has is the penalties for unhappiness, particularly the extreme unhappiness that comes from adopting the wrong modern ideology, and can be alleviated with the adoption of the popularly desired ideology.

So the player never faces organized opposition to his control, because he isn't a ruler who can be toppled by the people; he IS the People, and the Ruler, and the Government, and the Opposition. He does, however, have to watch his people tear his country apart as they fight over exactly how his will will be implemented, what form it will take. Even if the rebels successfully enter and take over a city, it's still YOUR city, because you are both Government and Rebels. It's just wasteful to allow this to happen, because of the destruction that results when Your People kill Your People in Your Name.

Even the Barbarians represent some fragmented piece of the Oversoul, though not yet claimed by any of the competitors. They can cause damage, but can never separate the civilized people from the collective will of the State that is you.

That is why they Should liberate cities that were formerly owned by another player. (ie they shift that city into another "civilized will")

Cities that you originally founded should just be sacked (ie given the population/building loss and turns of civ disorder that a normal conquest would have)
 
That is why they Should liberate cities that were formerly owned by another player. (ie they shift that city into another "civilized will")

Cities that you originally founded should just be sacked (ie given the population/building loss and turns of civ disorder that a normal conquest would have)

I think that there should be a larger penalty for getting a city sacked. My suggestion is that In addition to loss of gold randomly one of the following three options should occur:
  1. Sacked cities are in anarchy a couple of turns. (Make the city vulnerable for conquest by other civs)
  2. Loose some population in sacked cities.
  3. New city state emerges from the sacked city. (Like already suggested above)
Maybe there could be other options too.
Most of the time barbarians didn't hold a city, they looted it and burned it down partially and the city get recaptured by its original owner or another civ took it over. Thus the first two options should occur more often than option 3 for barbarians. For rebels option three should occure more frequently in comparison to barbarians sacking a city.

yes. i like this idea. it would make civ5 a lot more fun. i also want some cities that rebel have the abilitiy to merge into a single civ. but someone already said that
 
It could be interesting, but I think barbarians do enough damage to the AI civs and city-states as is.

All they really do is make the AI put about 7-10ish turns on 2+ archers, at least on higher difficulties. That's not much of a bother ESPECIALLY on higher difficulties(Emperor+). And when they're really a threat many players haven't even improved their luxuries because of tech or traveling time for stolen workers/build time(lower difficulties).
 
Top Bottom