Allow "No Barbarians"?

[Denniz]

Barbarians:
I did a query one time that showed that only between 10-15% of the games submitted to the Civ4 HOF had barbarians turned on. The benefits of a capturing a barb city seems to less important than the nuisance most people seem to see them as. They interfere with exploration and force players to build defenders where they might not. (speed bump)

Capturing a barb city is not all it is cracked up to be since they are not necessarily positioned where you would choose. Plus the AI is more likely to benefit on the higher difficulties that the player.

In Civ5, the above is still true but there are new game aspects that add to the mix. Players or AI gaining influence with city states seem like it is useful. The AI Civ's that have elements related to Barbs lose those advantages with Barbs off. It may not be much but it exists. Is Germany an easier early game neighbor without the extra units he can get from barb camps?

All in all, if there is a chance that the player gains an additional advantage against the AI with barbs turn off, then it seems like a good thing to require them to be on. (i.e. A player may need to be a little bit more skillful with them on than with them off.)

BTW, are people even playing CIv5 with the barbs turned off?


Random Oppenents
I guess it is just wishful thinking on my part. Having to play into the game somewhat to know enough about your opponets to decide to continue or not would probably disadvantage those with less time more. Still, we may want to try it with a gauntlet to see what the effects on submissions are.

Randomness is part of the game. It is not possible to eliminate. I think the more skilled players are bothered by it more than the rest of us, though.

I don't find the arguement for optimized setups being a good thing for competition particularly appealling. It can be just another form of advantage like having more time. In this case, it would be knowledge of the Civ's XML values and what they mean for picking the best opponents for a given setup. The strategy forum and posted articles fill the role that MapFinder does for time. Not that everyone is aware of them or use them.

 

[sanabas]

Randomness is part of the game. It is not possible to eliminate. I think the more skilled players are bothered by it more than the rest of us, though.

I think it's more that players whose main aim is to have #1 times seem most bothered by it. Plenty of skill but not caring so much about setting a particular #1 time don't seem to be as worried.

I will mostly play with random opponents.

To me, simply deciding that with enough time and enough rerolls everybody can get an optimal start with optimal opponents and optimal lucky bits in the first however many turns, so therefore we should allow people to optimise all of that before they even start the game, and remove random factors like huts, that doesn't make much sense.

To me, I play the game because it's fun. Removing flavour stuff, removing random things that might or might give you a boost, I don't see the point. It makes it less entertaining to me. Someone with more time to reroll but less skill than me might beat some of my times. Big deal. Back in Civ 3 there was a point where some civs had hundreds of HOF games accepted, and some civs had none at all. I went and played as the unpopular civs just because I could, I even filled some #1 slots with them. Plenty of those will have been beaten by other players who were luckier, who played with more optimal setups. Again, big deal. I'm not a worse player, I haven't somehow achieved less, just because others have beaten my times.

I especially don't see the point of removing minor random events, like an annoyingly timed barb costing you a turn or two, or a hut, when things that have a much bigger effect can't be changed. Such as the difference between having 3 maritime CS nearby rather than 3 militaristic ones. If you want to remove as much randomness as possible, test your skills as directly as possible against somebody else, then there's multiplayer or GOTM. HOF will automatically have random factors that can make a game 5-10 turns better or worse, simply due to neighbour location, types of CS, where coal or aluminium appears, etc. I don't see the point of wanting to remove the few turns difference that barbarians or huts may make, because it's still going to be the case that if a table is competitive enough, luck will be the difference between finishing #1 & #2. A very good player will be able to be consistently near the top of a wide variety of competitive tables. We'll still know who those very good players are.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Barbarians:
I did a query one time that showed that only between 10-15% of the games submitted to the Civ4 HOF had barbarians turned on. The benefits of a capturing a barb city seems to less important than the nuisance most people seem to see them as. They interfere with exploration and force players to build defenders where they might not. (speed bump)

This almost proves that Barbarians are considered an unwanted distraction in Civ IV. Barbarians are harder to deal with in the higher difficulty levels and honestly the only one I care about is Deity level where the Barbarians can be especially difficult to fight off in maps with large settled spaces.

Capturing a barb city is not all it is cracked up to be since they are not necessarily positioned where you would choose. Plus the AI is more likely to benefit on the higher difficulties that the player.

That is result of poor game design; the Barbarians should be modeled as several geographically separated groups that typically didn't cooperate with each other that much. They should be modeled after the Barbarians that ultimately ended the Roman Empire.

In Civ5, the above is still true but there are new game aspects that add to the mix. Players or AI gaining influence with city states seem like it is useful. The AI Civ's that have elements related to Barbs lose those advantages with Barbs off. It may not be much but it exists. Is Germany an easier early game neighbor without the extra units he can get from barb camps?

I disagree, Civ V Barbarians are very weak, stay near their encampments. They don't build cities, workers and certainly don't look for cities to capture. They are simply something inhuman to destroy for wealth and influence, if you're lucky to get there in time. Otto van Bismarck doesn't need his special ability to gain military units; he can build them like every other AI leader must do, since they have no such ability.

All in all, if there is a chance that the player gains an additional advantage against the AI with barbs turn off, then it seems like a good thing to require them to be on. (i.e. A player may need to be a little bit more skillful with them on than with them off.)

In Civ V, what conceivable way could a player gain an advantage against an AI specifically because the "No Barbarians" option is selected? There are no Barbarians to gain wealth and influence from and frankly who is better at doing that AI leaders or the player. The player can milk Civ V Barbarians for all there worth, but the rewards (influence) are extremely unpredictable and have no correlation to skill, because it is trivial to defeat Civ V Barbarians.

BTW, are people even playing CIv5 with the barbs turned off?

Why would anyone want to play "No Barbarians" when it seem likely that the HoF staff will ban the use of this option?

More importantly, why would any one care about the Barbarian "teddy bears" that mill around Encampments? A Barbarian Encampment is simply a fat juicy Influence reward for their destruction, but you must wait until a City State sentences them to death, before you execute the Encampment, otherwise all you get is 25 wealth for your effort (hardly worth the engagement of a single military unit, much less two units).

Like I said before, you may want to have a beta gauntlet with "No Barbarians" required, then you likely to find out whether such an option will be an advantage or disadvantage as I maintain.

Random Oppenents
I guess it is just wishful thinking on my part. Having to play into the game somewhat to know enough about your opponets to decide to continue or not would probably disadvantage those with less time more. Still, we may want to try it with a gauntlet to see what the effects on submissions are.

You will get fewer submissions, because more players want to reduce the randomness in the games they play than increase it, unless the randomness favors them, but that can't match hand picking opponents.

Randomness is part of the game. It is not possible to eliminate. I think the more skilled players are bothered by it more than the rest of us, though.

True, but as MeInTheTeam pointed out, there are two very distinct types of randomness, one good and the other bad. The good randomness can be modeled as an integral part of good game design and managed by the player via risk assessment, resource allocation and the attainment of a tactical goal. The bad randomness is not an integral part of good game design, can not have its risk assessed, can't be affected by resource allocation and is not connected to a tactical goal. In other words, good randomness is something the player can exert some control over and mitigate the effects of less desirable outcomes. Whereas, bad randomness is just something (good or bad) that happens to the player for no sensible reason and for which he can do nothing reasonable to prepare himself for. Huts and Ruins are the perfect examples of bad randomness; other than the trivial skill needed to find them and activate them, they are simply a reward (Civ V and Civ IV with No Barbarians) or penalty (Civ IV with Barbarians) that required no real skill or control to achieve. Can you control what a particular Hut or Ruins provides?

There is nothing good about Random Opponents. It is simply something that happens to you that you can not prepare yourself for. Some players will get an easy set of Opponents to defeat while other players get a hard set of opponents and the remaining players get a set of opponents that are somewhere in-between. Imagine getting just one Start where every player gets a different random set of opponents to defeat. If you get the easiest set of opponents to defeat and you get the #1 game, have you convincingly demonstrated that you are the most skillful player?

I don't find the arguement for optimized setups being a good thing for competition particularly appealling. It can be just another form of advantage like having more time. In this case, it would be knowledge of the Civ's XML values and what they mean for picking the best opponents for a given setup. The strategy forum and posted articles fill the role that MapFinder does for time. Not that everyone is aware of them or use them.

What not appealing about the most skillful player winning the #1 game when the setup was made as fair as possible? What is appealing to see most skillful player not win the #1 game, because he had the most difficult random opponents to defeat?

To make competitions fair one must eliminate as much as possible all bad randomness (good or bad things that happen to the player just for the sake of pure randomness). This includes all randomness in the setup of the game. Can you imagine the complaints from GOTM players, if they all had to play different sets of opponents in the same competition?

The most skillful players use every legal source of information to improve their game play. This is what every player should aspire to do if they want to become as skillful as possible. If they just want to play for fun, they can select Random Opponents if they prefer, but please don't force everyone to do so.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

They should be modeled after the Barbarians that ultimately ended the Roman Empire.

An alternative view is that the Roman Empire ended itself. The barbarians were the only ones willing to put it out of its misery.

As an aside, to anyone who is interested in barbarians and/or Romans, I can heartily recommend reading "Terry Jones' Barbarians". It's a book. Yes, it was written by a former Monty Python member, but it is serious enough. It tries to demonstrate that the peoples surrounding the expanding Roman empire were in fact more 'civilized' than the Romans themselves, who primarily were a very brutal lot. But they conquered the 'barbarians' and were therefore in a position to write history.

 

[sanabas]

The most skillful players use every legal source of information to improve their game play. This is what every player should aspire to do if they want to become as skillful as possible. If they just want to play for fun, they can select Random Opponents if they prefer, but please don't force everyone to do so.

How does always playing against the optimal set of opponents, developing strategies that won't work if you have a more difficult set of opponents, encourage an increase of skill?

What is appealing to see most skillful player not win the #1 game, because he had the most difficult random opponents to defeat?

What is appealing is you can see the 'most skillful' player producing good games against a wide variety of challenges, a wide variety of opponents, needing to change tactics when they have monty right next door, etc, instead of one type of game always being with the optimal civ choice, against the optimal opponents. What is appealing is that the most skillful players will be consistently good on all the tables, even if for the small sample size of a single table they missed out on the #1 slot because they happened to have a slightly tougher game than the person who did get #1.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

An alternative view is that the Roman Empire ended itself. The barbarians were the only ones willing to put it out of its misery.

As an aside, to anyone who is interested in barbarians and/or Romans, I can heartily recommend reading "Terry Jones' Barbarians". It's a book. Yes, it was written by a former Monty Python member, but it is serious enough. It tries to demonstrate that the peoples surrounding the expanding Roman empire were in fact more 'civilized' than the Romans themselves, who primarily were a very brutal lot. But they conquered the 'barbarians' and were therefore in a position to write history.

I'm not aware of "Terry Jones' Barbarians".

However, I'm fully aware that the Roman Empire's history is full of both extremely brilliant leaders and power brokers as well extremely inept leaders and their cohorts. In deed, the fall of the Roman Empire was more due to internal conditions than external forces. The Roman Empire was near collapse when the Barbarians ended the Western Roman Empire, but the Eastern Roman Empire lived on, renamed by historians who should not have had the right to do so as the Byzantine Empire and it lasted another thousand years until it was finally picked apart and absorbed by the Ottoman Empire.

I must say that Civ V's Barbarians are pathetic and not civilized at all. The concept of Barbarian Encampments is very broken. Barbarians did not spent all their time in encampments, they built their own mini-civilizations around the edges of more powerful empires. They simply didn't want to be part of these larger empires and where often able to resist them. Also, there was probably a bit more diplomacy among true Barbarians than either Civ V or Civ IV model properly; they did live in peace, when their more powerful neighbors permitted or they were settled in remote enough locations. Barbarians were not always engaged in war.

For more information on the topic of Barbarian, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

How does always playing against the optimal set of opponents, developing strategies that won't work if you have a more difficult set of opponents, encourage an increase of skill?

What is appealing is you can see the 'most skillful' player producing good games against a wide variety of challenges, a wide variety of opponents, needing to change tactics when they have monty right next door, etc, instead of one type of game always being with the optimal civ choice, against the optimal opponents. What is appealing is that the most skillful players will be consistently good on all the tables, even if for the small sample size of a single table they missed out on the #1 slot because they happened to have a slightly tougher game than the person who did get #1.

The best the HoF can do with its ideal of multiple starts and a virtually open-ended time frame is to level the playing field by making it easy to have "optimized" starts. This is the best they can do to allow the best players the best shot at the #1 Game in each HoF slot.

If you want more challenging opponents, see the GOTM and HoF Gauntlets were specific opponents are required.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All in all, if there is a chance that the player gains an additional advantage against the AI with barbs turn off, then it seems like a good thing to require them to be on. (i.e. A player may need to be a little bit more skillful with them on than with them off.)

Simply put, this fails as an argument to force barbs on.

If you are going to open this can of worms, there is only one logical end-conclusion: the end of HoF and another XOTM series. Nothing more, nothing less. Virtually every setting on the list can be manipulated, through playing multiple starts, to give the human an advantage over the AI.

Was the AI ever the REAL opponent in HoF? Anybody remotely competitive for a top spot would probably say otherwise.

Realize that this argument goes against the entire precedence of existence of HoF, and that it undermines it. The statement I quoted can not be rationally used as an argument for the forced inclusion of barbs at this time.

Edit: Let me put it this way: I can, and have, used valid HoF submissions to beat civ IV deity. With the right, LEGAL settings in BUFFY, I can easily win my choice of VCs on that difficulty with consistency. I hold 0 top spots for deity in HoF.

Think about that. Think about what is the TRUE test of skill. Anyone can win a game by spamming it enough times; not everyone can wrest a top spot from Sun Tzu Wu/Ironhead/Lexad/PaulisKhan/take your pick. Make no mistake, in the HoF mod, the AI is NOT the competition, the human players competing with your times are the real competition. Beating the AI is like beating level 1 of 8 in super mario world or breezing by an introductory boss in an rpg...the real challenge (and point) of HoF is what you can do compared against other players. I don't think you can rationalize a different reason, given the front-page display of finish times.

So when you start thinking about settings and whether they give an "additional advantage", why not ask yourself "does this feature give someone playing less skillfully an additional advantage against top composition"?

I don't find the arguement for optimized setups being a good thing for competition particularly appealling. It can be just another form of advantage like having more time. In this case, it would be knowledge of the Civ's XML values and what they mean for picking the best opponents for a given setup. The strategy forum and posted articles fill the role that MapFinder does for time. Not that everyone is aware of them or use them.

You might not find that argument appealing, but you can't escape from the reality: right now, HoF has no means to replicate comparable situations on a game-to-game basis using different maps such that even the same player going for the same VC with the same basic approach would have a consistent outcome. Now, we're throwing in wrenches like RNG map-spawn and MANY different humans. An optimized setup, barring any means of policing suboptimal setups on a consistent basis, is the only reasonable approach to maximizing the impact of skill on HoF results.

However, there's also a fundamental argument in favor of optimized approaches: HoF stretches the player toward showcasing what is possible in order to get a top slot. The very best times ever submitted can, in FACT, only be attained by an optimized setup. With the rules you're wanting to put in, there would never have been a BCs space win and the people holding lead positions in the HoF roster would likely be different; and I've yet so see any convincing argument that the different players would be better. In likelihood, but increasing the impact of chance they're statistically more likely to be worse, but still hold HoF spots. Please please PLEASE don't deliberately go that route.

Randomness is part of the game. It is not possible to eliminate. I think the more skilled players are bothered by it more than the rest of us, though.

Yes, randomness is part of the game by design (noticed its reduced impact in civ V though). However, in a contest to determine skill, the goal should be to take the impact of random-ness to its theoretical minimum; THAT is the level of RNG nonsense that requires the fewest #games to filter out the "noise" and tend to represent the outcomes of skillful play. Once again, that can only be done under optimized settings, otherwise it will simply become "optimized settings based on whatever ill-conceived or foolish constraints might be placed on competition". Some people like those kinds of shenanigans. They're probably the same people who enjoy watching metronome battles in pokemon or something. HoF is NOT the place for this nonsense, and never has been/will be so long as it purported/purportss to represent an actual competition between players.

Throwing in mindless non-strategic hassle for players is not going to make HoF a deeper experience. Limiting player options arbitrarily is not going to make HoF a better experience. Frankly, I'm still disappointed that this topic is even being considered, let alone that it has such support. It's amazingly terrible.

How does always playing against the optimal set of opponents, developing strategies that won't work if you have a more difficult set of opponents, encourage an increase of skill?

Think about the point of HoF and try something a bit more relevant. If you can't think of a good reason why players under the same conditions as top competition have incentive to improve, it's a major reach to believe you know what you're talking about in this thread at all. Surely, you can think of a reason or two ^_^.

To me, I play the game because it's fun. Removing flavour stuff, removing random things that might or might give you a boost, I don't see the point. It makes it less entertaining to me. Someone with more time to reroll but less skill than me might beat some of my times. Big deal.

It might not be a big deal to someone who is openly admitting no interest in actually competing within HoF, but to players who are trying to reach that #1 spot, it absolutely is a big deal. Where is the "fun" for the people who are really vying against each other for the best finishes possible? Where is the "fun" in forcing other people to play settings they don't wish to play?

I especially don't see the point of removing minor random events, like an annoyingly timed barb costing you a turn or two, or a hut, when things that have a much bigger effect can't be changed. Such as the difference between having 3 maritime CS nearby rather than 3 militaristic ones. If you want to remove as much randomness as possible, test your skills as directly as possible against somebody else, then there's multiplayer or GOTM. HOF will automatically have random factors that can make a game 5-10 turns better or worse, simply due to neighbour location, types of CS, where coal or aluminium appears, etc. I don't see the point of wanting to remove the few turns difference that barbarians or huts may make, because it's still going to be the case that if a table is competitive enough, luck will be the difference between finishing #1 & #2. A very good player will be able to be consistently near the top of a wide variety of competitive tables. We'll still know who those very good players are.

Some variation of this painfully ignorant argument crops up every time a competition has the option of leaving a "luck feature" in the game or not. It's like clockwork...and every single time it's based on the same flawed understanding.

Those two turns could snowball into the difference between a new record or quitting the game in frustration after playing for hours because you're falling just 1 turn short. Yes, every random factor can do that, and EACH AND EVERY ONE increases the "noise" in showing an actual best submission, requiring more games and more time by each player to normalize. Basically, people who want chance elements in the game want more noise, and can't really come up with valid reasons that people other than themselves should be compelled to deal with said noise.

Do you guys know what the fun part of this thread is? The REALLY FUN PART?

The premise of the thread itself somewhat of a joke.

This thread could have just as easily been titled "Allow Barbarians"? Comically, such a thread would be equally or MORE valid for HoF consideration. Why add random noise to a game that will blur good games and bad ones beyond what they need? Why add nuisance, hassle, and remove careful planning based on reasonably-accounted for factors (not getting units ninja-attacked from 3 tiles away the turn a barb spawns, and barbs CAN move after spawning).

So, in order to break a long-standing, competitive ruleset and FORCE barbarians on, what arguments are we really getting, hmmmmmmm? Where is the evidence

- That barbs on or off is materially beneficial? Who has #'s for this? ROI estimates based on units needed/difficulty to clear camps, average #camps? etc? I don't find in necessary to follow in terrible footsteps of firaxis and change something at random (yes, random) without proof of it being better one way or the other. Put it up, proponents of MUST HAZ BARBS. I'm sure ALL of us would like to see it.
- That barbs on or off ~actually~ helps or hinders the AI? This is a pretty bold claim for people who can't even think of why there's incentive to perform well within HoF, too. These assumptions are ridiculous.
- That one setting or the other reliably enhances the player's depth of decision-making, when compared against the necessary # of actions he/she must take?

I say that barbs spawn in water more than land and that water barbs are harder than land barbs because of movement and that 99% of games are decided by water barbs.

You know what the difference between that and most of the arguments on this thread in favor of forcing barbs on is? None. People are pulling things from places one shouldn't pull, a lot.

You can't go with majority opinion here, either. That won't suffice and never has in HoF or even standard civ. An OVERWHELMING majority of civ IV and even V players never see deity, let along know what it's like to play there. On top of that, most civ IV players didn't understand the ridiculous variance in ROI that a scientist that leads to a GS has against some of their favorite alternatives. Most players still don't realize that 100's and 100's of beakers/turn are possible by early ADs w/o mids, or that you can have tanks on deity by the 1400's AD with a crappy leader if you're willing to put the time in to precision micro. So when the majority of people come on here blowing hot air about this feature or that feature being important or overpowered or whatever it is they're saying...ask for an analysis.

Show it to me. Show me the BIG HELP against the AI that this setting is going to give humans game-in and game-out. You on this thread who wish to limit the options of the HoF metagame before it even takes off, show us that you actually know what you're talking about, and that you have a good reason to break HoF traditions and deliberately add extra luck-based outcomes; a "feature" normally reserved for games that embrace fake difficulty. Show it to all of us. U_Sun did it when comparing cottages to specs to hammers. DaveMCW did it when he broke down whether working a cottage or an alternative tile is better. One could easily look at the repercussions of "no tech trading" or turning city states off and quantify them.

Or, if everyone is being lazy (as I am here), there IS NO BASIS for limiting player options of any kind, excepting gauntlets which certainly can narrow rule-sets to whatever the mods/player base sees fit as changeups. Banning options that nobody has ever, EVER quantified is not good practice, however. Firaxis pulls this crap too, but that doesn't mean that the esteemed and long-time great mod community has to follow suit.

Sorry for being a bit lengthy here, but IMO this has a BIG impact on the long-term viability/mentality of HoF play, not just on this issue but on future ones as well.

 

[sanabas]

Think about the point of HoF and try something a bit more relevant. If you can't think of a good reason why players under the same conditions as top competition have incentive to improve, it's a major reach to believe you know what you're talking about in this thread at all. Surely, you can think of a reason or two ^_^.

Read what I was replying to again. Comparing yourself against the top competition is certainly an incentive to get better. The top competition (and most of those comparing) always playing against the optimal set of opponents, refining strategies that simply don't work if the opponents aren't optimal, how does that help make someone a better player?

It might not be a big deal to someone who is openly admitting no interest in actually competing within HoF, but to players who are trying to reach that #1 spot, it absolutely is a big deal. Where is the "fun" for the people who are really vying against each other for the best finishes possible? Where is the "fun" in forcing other people to play settings they don't wish to play?

Certainly I'm interested in actually competing. But it's not the sole reason to play. There's also more ways within the HOF to measure skill and compete than individual #1 slots. A game isn't suddenly not worth playing just because I don't/can't get a #1 slot for it.

Some variation of this painfully ignorant argument crops up every time a competition has the option of leaving a "luck feature" in the game or not. It's like clockwork...and every single time it's based on the same flawed understanding.

And your own painfully ignorant argument simply boils down to 'If everyone has to deal with these random events, it allows undeserving people to get #1 slots.' Then that gets coupled with the idea that if undeserving people have a #1 slot, a deserving player is going to quit in frustration because they're falling just short thanks to being unable to replicate the #1 game's luck.

Sure, my opinion is simply subjective opinion. I would much rather see a HOF that requires players to learn to play well against everyone, to develop strategies that can cope with things like having a warmonger start next door, even if that means the most skillfully played game doesn't always get the fastest finish. I'd prefer not to see a HOF that removes ruins, requires optimal opponents to be competitive, and still results in the most skillfully played game not always getting the fastest finish.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Civilization games have many elements that are perfectly deterministic, like a chess game. For many players, this is the part of the game that appeals to them the most and keeps enticing them to play. Most Civilization game elements have no RNG (Random Number Generation) involved at all, such as the growth of a city when it has a constant X Fpt and Y Food units to grow to the next Population level.

There are three major ways in which RNG must be incorporated into a Civilization game:

1) Map Generation

2) Combat

3) AI Decision Making Process

Map Generation:

Map generation is part of the game that must use RND. No one wants to play a map that is always the same and certainly the exploration part of the game would be ruined if there wasn't some RND involved in map generation. Both Civ V and Civ IV map generators produce somewhat wide range of poor through excellent starts. For Civ IV, MapFinder largely reduces the problem of being stuck with poor to fair starts by being able to look at what the MapFinder rules found to be good to excellent starts. Without MapFinder or regenerating the map (manually controlled "MapFinder") a player just plays the first map generated, what I consider the Roulette Method (I assume a mathematically precise wheel). When one uses MapFinder, one can think of the randomness in map generation as shufflling a sufficiently large number of cards with map attributes on them and arranging them in a hexagonal grid for Civ V (rectangular for Civ IV). Mapfinder can in a way be counting the good cards in the sense of Backjack card counting and will presumably save only maps with the highest favorable number of cards (plots = squares for Civ IV and hexes for Civ V). Unlike real Blackjack games, we can chose to play the Civ start we consider the best which may be close to an ideal card counting setup for the Blackjack player which virtually sets him up to win the series against the house far more often than not. To carry on with the Blackjack analogy MapFinder sets us up with all the bad face cards unplayed and potentially busting the house's hand. To win a HoF #1 slot, one nearly always must have a "Blackjack card counting" type start. Like with a good Blackjack card count, the win is not assured; using MapFinder, one at least starts with a good to excellent start and nearly always needs such a start to win the #1 HoF slot.

So in Map generation, MapFinder can stack the deck in the player's favour, mitigating pure RND by keeping the grain type (good to excellent) starts and letting the MapFinder wind blow the chaff type (poor to fair) starts into the dirt, discarded.

Combat:

To model combat actually, there must be some RNG in the process, because there is no way to perfecting model combat units and predict the outcomes of battles deterministically where the side with the greatest adjusted strength always win. Also, in real life, inferior military forces have often prevailed against stronger military forces. This sometimes happens due to better commanders, unit mobility, complimentary unit types, military intelligence, surprise, and many other factors that may not be directly modeled in the game. The most important part of the Combat subsystem is that it must be statically fair. This means that combat outcomes conform to a statically predictable curve that the player can depend on being used. No additional (hidden) randomness is added into the combat system to skew the combat outcomes in a way that can't be predicted or observed. In other words the combat system after determining that your unit won doesn't repeat the combat or electronically roll two dies and if it comes up snake eyes it loses after all, etc.

Players can easily deal with combat RNG, by stacking the deck in their favour by either using terrain, better promoted units, countering units, a better mix of units, stronger units, etc. and when they have no such advantages, call on allies, avoid combat, and try to make peace or get a cease fire, etc.

In Civ V combat has far less RNG (almost none it would seem) involved in outcomes and the game is better for that than is the case with Civ IV. Furthermore, in Civ V, because healthy units can usually sustain at least one successful against them, what little RNG involvement is averaged out by necessitating at least two hits to kill a healthy unit of similar promotion/terrain adjusted strength. There really is too much RNG effect in Civ IV in the sense that a Swordsman (Strength 6) can kill an attacking Tank (Strength 28), though statically rare it can actually happen. However, such impossible combat outcomes are extremely rare in Civ IV and a other has many options for eliminating RNG as a factor in losing or winning a battle. The RNG essentially determines how many units were lost in winning the battle.

The effect of RNG is so weak in Civ V combat, that it is almost as deterministic as taking a piece in chess when one has enough units attacking the enemy unit to kill it. So whereas I think Civ IV has a little too much RNG involvement, I suspect that Civ V may not have enough RNG involvement. The Civ IV combat system's greatest weakness is the defending unit is always eliminated when it loses.

So, Civ IV combat is like Blackjack deck stacking and Civ V comabta is almost chess-like.

AI Decision Making Process:

The AI control system absolutely must have some RNG involvement so that the AI is not predictable in the sense of always choosing the best alternative when a choice must be made and there are almost as many choices that the AI needs to make as the player himself does. This is a natural consequence of the goal of making an AI that is as good as a real Human Player. The game designers have come close to that goal in many ways in Civ IV with combat probably the weakest. With Civ V it is hard to tell, but from my brief experience with the game, the designers have a long way to go before Civ V AI is able to do anything reasonable it its own defense when a player attacks it.

The good RNG involvement in AI decision making process should result in a competent AI opponent that can adequately defend itself and even engage in successful military attacks versus the player. Mostly, RNG involvement must make the AI unpredictable without choosing tactically inferior choices too often, but perhaps often enough to make the AI less predictable.

Game Breaking RNG:

Civ V Ruins and Civ IV Huts.

Civ IV Events.

Barbarian Spawning:

In Civ IV, Barbarians are a definitely an unneeded nuisance and at higher levels a resource consuming obstacle, so long as there is unsettled and unwatched land from which they can spawn.

Barbarians:

As I've mentioned several times before, Barbarians can be modeled as one or more Civilizations that shuns Diplomatic contact or is simply hostile.

In history, Barbarians were almost always a neighboring Civilization that was derogatorily referred to as Barbarians (sub-human or animal-like) whereas often the truth was they simply had a different culture, poorer technology or less infrastructure, etc. Rarely were Barbarians nomads that lived in Encampments. True encampments like those used by the Crusaders where more often confiscated permanent dwellings used as encampments whiled they worked their way slowly to the Holy Land they promised the Holy See in Rome that they would liberate from the Muslims. The crusaders were Barbarians to the Muslims and often they truly were barbaric in their behavior and their pope given right to do whatever they needed to do to free the Holy Land, such as looting nations they traveled through.

The depictions of Barbarian Encampments in Civ V is laughably simplistic as though the only thing Barbarians ever did is build (train) new military units.

Your Comments are most Welcome:

Please let us know of any other game subsystem that requires RNG to function properly.

Also, please let us know of other unnecessary use of RNG like in the implementation of Barbarians in Civ V or Civ IV (for comparison).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Barbarians:
I did a query one time that showed that only between 10-15% of the games submitted to the Civ4 HOF had barbarians turned on.

Is this thread your attempt to justify forcing all HoF Civ V games to have Barbarians on, because you are so disappointed by the low 10-15% of Civ IV HoF games that used the option?

I'm convinced that your stated reasons for forcing Barbarians on for Civ V Hof games are not in least grounded by the facts.

The link between Barbarians and City Sates is very weak. When a Barbarian Encampment is far from the City State that requests its destruction, what was is its in-game reason for offering the reward? It seems that Barbarian units don't wander far from their Encampment, so how is this possible? If City States often offer Influence for Barbarian Encampment destruction, that would clearly be a game breaking series of RNG events.

The argument that some Civilizations' unique ability that depends on the existence of Barbarians necessitates forced used of the Barbarians option is absurd. Each civilization's unique ability can't be so powerful that the Civilization becomes game breakingly powerful, therefore a Civilization's inability or neglect of its unique ability likewise can't be crippling to that Civilization either.

So far, I've only seen you speculate that somehow allowing the "No Barbarian" might give a Civ V HoF player some advantage that compensates for the huge advantage of having Barbarians and the nearly "free" City State influence they provide. I don't think anyone believes that the "No Barbarian" option provides the player with a net advantage or any advantage at all, including yourself.

Where is the Civ V Beta Gauntlet that at least explores the "No Barbarian" option and its possible consequences for Civ V HoF play?

Banning the "No Barbarian" option from Civ V HoF should require proof that permitting this option allows an exploit that provides a game breaking advantage? Where's the proof?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Monthar]

Is this thread your attempt to justify forcing all HoF Civ V games to have Barbarians on, because you are so disappointed by the low 10-15% of Civ IV HoF games that used the option?

I'm convinced that your stated reasons for forcing Barbarians on for Civ V Hof games are not in least grounded by the facts.

The link between Barbarians and City Sates is very weak. When a Barbarian Encampment is far from the City State that requests its destruction, what was is its in-game reason for offering the reward? It seems that Barbarian units don't wander far from their Encampment, so how is this possible? If City States often offer Influence for Barbarian Encampment destruction, that would clearly be a game breaking series of RNG events.

The argument that some Civilizations' unique ability that depends on the existence of Barbarians necessitates forced used of the Barbarians option is absurd. Each civilization's unique ability can't be so powerful that the Civilization becomes game breakingly powerful, therefore a Civilization's inability or neglect of its unique ability likewise can't be crippling to that Civilization either.

So far, I've only seen you speculate that somehow allowing the "No Barbarian" might give a Civ V HoF player some advantage that compensates for the huge advantage of having Barbarians and the nearly "free" City State influence they provide. I don't think anyone believes that the "No Barbarian" option provides the player with a net advantage or any advantage at all, including yourself.

Where is the Civ V Beta Gauntlet that at least explores the "No Barbarian" option and its possible consequences for Civ V HoF play?

Banning the "No Barbarian" option from Civ V HoF should require proof that permitting this option allows an exploit that provides a game breaking advantage? Where's the proof?

Sun Tzu Wu

I agree with this. It should be my choice whether I want to have no, regular or raging barbarians. It really only affects Bismark and Suleiman if they're off. Both of which can end up fielding way too large an army/navy very quickly with barbarians turned on. Since barbarian camps will spawn units appropriate to the era, this means getting free current tech units throughout the game, by ensuring there is a place for them to spawn from.

Granted, Bismark will have a more difficult time finding barbarian camps to raid in the late game and his ability is limited to attacking the camps themselves. Since the raging barbarians setting only seems to effect the units spawn rate, not the camp spawn rates, his ability can't be gamed with this setting.

Suleiman, on the other hand, can greatly benefit from raging barbarians since he only has to get one of his ships near a barbarian ship to convert (capture) it. Since the raging barbarians means more unit spawns at a much faster rate, he can amass a huge navy in a very short time.

Therefore if any setting pertaining to barbarians should be banned it's the "raging barbarians", not the "no barbarians" setting.

With no barbarians in the game, that makes completing city state quests an actual challenge instead of the almost mindless send 1-2 units to take out the camp with the players bonus vs barbarians. Even deity difficulty gives a small bonus vs barbarians.

The even simpler, kill a barbarian near the CS for 5 points is a joke. More often than not, especially on the higher difficulty settings, you'll wound the barbarian and the CS will finish it off, thus you get nothing. Plus, as of the last patch, you have to kill it with a melee unit or it doesn't count. Even if your archer and the barbarian are both standing inside the CS's borders, if you shoot it, you get nothing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Read what I was replying to again. Comparing yourself against the top competition is certainly an incentive to get better. The top competition (and most of those comparing) always playing against the optimal set of opponents, refining strategies that simply don't work if the opponents aren't optimal, how does that help make someone a better player?

For one, you'd have to actually realize what situations are optimal. Two, you'd have to understand what works in what situation and why. Three, even under optimal conditions this game is still civ, and people who can post top scores in HoF can certainly win standard settings with good consistency.

This entire part of the discussion is missing the point, however. AFAIK, HoF has never been seen as a tool to improve, but rather as a means to showcase strategies/approaches/ability.

Certainly I'm interested in actually competing. But it's not the sole reason to play. There's also more ways within the HOF to measure skill and compete than individual #1 slots. A game isn't suddenly not worth playing just because I don't/can't get a #1 slot for it.

Why not make a thread to disable settings YOU like then, because there are other ways to measure skill and compete? How is this anything but a 100% canned argument with no supporting statements? How is this argument even different from me saying the EXACT same thing, except with barbs on?

Also, if you're not actually vying for one of the goals HoF sets, then why are you voting on allowed/disallowed settings?! This thread isn't about forcibly not allowing barbs, you'd still be able to play with them on. What is your basis for this quoted argument as a reason to force barbs on then? It doesn't make sense.

And your own painfully ignorant argument simply boils down to 'If everyone has to deal with these random events, it allows undeserving people to get #1 slots.

Negative.

My argument is that by increasing random factors, more games played are required to filter out the "noise" random factors creates. My position is that allowing extra random factors increases tedium as opposed to skill. My counter-argument is that you guys wanting to force a setting one way have ZERO OBJECTIVE BASIS to force that setting.

In other words, my argument is a lot stronger than your side of things because it's based on logic. The presence of some random factors does not logically conclude that the game should be ENTIRELY RELIANT on them. Why, then, does the competition not seek to minimize their impact and reduce tedium?

Sure, my opinion is simply subjective opinion. I would much rather see a HOF that requires players to learn to play well against everyone, to develop strategies that can cope with things like having a warmonger start next door, even if that means the most skillfully played game doesn't always get the fastest finish. I'd prefer not to see a HOF that removes ruins, requires optimal opponents to be competitive, and still results in the most skillfully played game not always getting the fastest finish.

Cut the ducky/horsey crap. Now you're going to hide behind a subjective personal opinion, rather than giving us a reasonable, quantifiable reason we can't use a given setting in HoF? Really? Do you REALLY think that having barbs off, or any setting one way or another, is going to eliminate skill determining the outcome? You have no more basis for this crap I'm quoting than I'd have for saying that having barbs on makes the game easier and starting next to warmongers is favorable.

I asked for some objective, analytical reasoning, and even gave examples of it being done in the past. Your response was to ignore than and talk about your own personal feelings about a public competition, WHICH YOU OPENLY ADMIT YOU'RE NOT REALLY COMPETING IN. The reality of that should be very, very telling.

A refresher, straight from HoF website:

"At it's most basic level the CFC HOF just takes that simple screen to a new level. It is, quite simply, a database, an elite level of tables of the best games. Not the best games of a single player, but of all CFCr's that care to participate. It's an oppurtunity for humans to play standard stand-alone games, and yet submit them into an environment where they compete with other humans at the same time. "

"At the community level, the CFC HOF exists to serve the players who compete in it. As games are submitted, verified and posted on the tables, it will become clear who is the best."

And yet here we have people who want to FORCE top HoF players to use a setting, and why?

...because they don't agree with the settings because of how they feel. They don't even understand the fundamental concept of HoF as quoted, and instead blather on about "dealing with this or that" when HoF is about the "best games".

Since this seems to be really, really hard for some of you to understand, let me try to get it through the thicker skulls: you get "best games" with optimal settings/starts in standard HoF. Extra restrictions are placed in gauntlets to allow people to compete with differing rules. Any restriction of STANDARD HoF submissions better have a VERY good reason behind it, not some non-competitor's personal opinion.

Banning the "No Barbarian" option from Civ V HoF should require proof that permitting this option allows an exploit that provides a game breaking advantage? Where's the proof?

EMPHATICALLY quoted for truth.

 

[sanabas]

My argument is that by increasing random factors, more games played are required to filter out the "noise" random factors creates. My position is that allowing extra random factors increases tedium as opposed to skill. My counter-argument is that you guys wanting to force a setting one way have ZERO OBJECTIVE BASIS to force that setting.

In other words, my argument is a lot stronger than your side of things because it's based on logic. The presence of some random factors does not logically conclude that the game should be ENTIRELY RELIANT on them. Why, then, does the competition not seek to minimize their impact and reduce tedium?

Your argument is based on the logical extension of the idea that more random factors means more abandoning games befoire the skill can shine through means more tedium. My argument is based on the logical extension of the idea that always starting with optimal settings, making it impossible to compete without doing so, increases tedium. There's no hiding behind subjective personal opinion, my view is the logical extension of my subjective opinion, your view is the logical extension of your subjective opinion.

Cut the ducky/horsey crap. Now you're going to hide behind a subjective personal opinion, rather than giving us a reasonable, quantifiable reason we can't use a given setting in HoF? Really? Do you REALLY think that having barbs off, or any setting one way or another, is going to eliminate skill determining the outcome?

Do you REALLY think that forcing barbs on, forcing random opponents, allowing ruins, is going to eliminate skill determining the outcome? If you don't, then why keep using it as the primary justification for your opinion?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your argument is based on the logical extension of the idea that more random factors means more abandoning games befoire the skill can shine through means more tedium. My argument is based on the logical extension of the idea that always starting with optimal settings, making it impossible to compete without doing so, increases tedium. There's no hiding behind subjective personal opinion, my view is the logical extension of my subjective opinion, your view is the logical extension of your subjective opinion.

Actually, saying that playing under optimized conditions increases tedium is probably wrong. One thing neither of us have harped on much so far is the straight practicality/possibility of doing/policing/replicating settings. Mapfinder existed because there was no better alternative to accomplish the same thing, for example.

So, in discussing HoF settings, we have a range of possible options. There's a chance that all settings are equally tedious, but I find that unlikely. Barring that, there are going to be settings that make the game more tedious or less tedious. Here you are arguing that locking a setting (which still doesn't have a proven reason) would make the game less tedious. You've still no basis for this.

The reason my side of the argument is stronger right now is because and only because I'm not trying to force players to play with barbs off in general HoF (If I were to take that position, then I would need to come up with proof as to why barbs off allows for better competition). General HoF allows the widest possible variety of settings so that players can get the best game results (again, taken straight from the HoF FAQ). In order to ban a setting, players need a VERY GOOD REASON. You don't have such a reason; as this arguing over subjective points repeatedly is demonstrating. On my end, I don't have any proof that they should be forced OFF, either, but that isn't the position I actually took. Banning settings without a good, well-defined/analytical reason is bad practice.

We can arbitrarily ban anything based on the arguments here. We could ban using the ottomans, or ban playing against america. We could even recycle some of the exact same arguments presented here to do it. Where's the proof?

Do you REALLY think that forcing barbs on, forcing random opponents, allowing ruins, is going to eliminate skill determining the outcome? If you don't, then why keep using it as the primary justification for your opinion?

I'm not the one advocating change. You're the one arguing the side of banning something, so let's turn your question around.

Do you really think that forcing barbs/random/ruins on is going to add skill element to the game? You may have considered this, but simply allowing the choice of those things might functionally force top players to use them because of the "chance" they might provide an advantage. There's a potentially strong case for forcing them off...but I've seen zero objective case for turning them on by force on this thread.

More importantly, do you have any objective reasoning to take that position? Any of us can argue for our preferred settings, but what good does that do?

General HoF is different from gauntlets...and the difference is the point of gauntlets.

Sun Tzu Wu summed it up best: Where is the proof that this setting provides a game breaking advantage?

 

[Denniz]

My think with regards to Barbs is based on two things:

1. There are Leaders (2?) and a game play feature (influence for killing barbs) that make the absence of barbs have some effect on play beyond just dealing with the barbs that come your way.

2. Allowing Barbs to be optional is effectively requiring players to play with them off in order to compete with best times. I base this on past behavior (Civ4 barb 'on' rates) and the natural desire to optimize setups.

Requiring Barbs to be on would level playing field with regard to that setting.

We sought feedback in this thread to verify our thinking with regards to Barbs. The poll shows that most don't really have a problem with Barbs being required. No matter what we end up doing, some are going to agree or disagree.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

My think with regards to Barbs is based on two things:

1. There are Leaders (2?) and a game play feature (influence for killing barbs) that make the absence of barbs have some effect on play beyond just dealing with the barbs that come your way.

Where's the proof that using the "No Barbarians" option, results in an exploit related to Leaders whose unique ability is related to Barbarians (there are 3 such leaders)?

Influence is awarded for destroying Barbarian Encampments and not for killing Barbarian units. With the "No Barbarians" option, there would be no Barbarian Encampments and thus no Influence for destroying them. How is the lack of such Influence rewards an exploit?

2. Allowing Barbs to be optional is effectively requiring players to play with them off in order to compete with best times. I base this on past behavior (Civ4 barb 'on' rates) and the natural desire to optimize setups.

You can't use statistics on Civ IV Barbarian option usage to predict Civ V Barbarian option usage. In Civ IV, having Barbarians, especially with Huts on was a significant disadvantage, since the unit entering a Hut was often surrounded by Barbarians units that killed it. In Civ V, the Barbarians are too weak and incompetent to defend a Barbarian Encampment, making the Influence reward trivial to achieve.

Requiring Barbs to be on would level playing field with regard to that setting.

Leaving the Barbarian option open also levels the playing level, by leaving all options on the table. Let the players pick the option they prefer rather than force them to use a particular option.

What this is leading to is for each option, the HoF staff decides which one is legal. That would probably be OK, if such action made an exploit impossible to use. But that is not the case, since there is no exploit.

We sought feedback in this thread to verify our thinking with regards to Barbs. The poll shows that most don't really have a problem with Barbs being required. No matter what we end up doing, some are going to agree or disagree.

The poll is nothing more than a reflection of the Civ V Beta Gauntlets that have been played so far = all required the Barbarian option. The wording of the poll question made it seem that the "No Barbarian" option should be banned; you got the numbers you wanted, because of the way the poll question was worded.

So when is the HoF going to include a Civ V Beta Gauntlet that requires the "No Barbarian" setting?

Requiring the Barbarian option will make it virtually impossible to play a totally peaceful game, since the Barbarians lack the diplomacy interface that would make peace with them. Forcing Barbarians will make players who prefer peaceful, builder games very unhappy.

Exactly where is the exploit in "No Barbarian" games that provides the reasoning for banning the "No Barbarian" option?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Here is an exact quote of the first post of this thread:

Barbarians are a lot more integral to Civ5 than they were in Civ4. The majority of the HOF IV submissions were played with "No Barbarians" checked. (i.e. off).

The question is: Do we want to allow Barbarians to be turned off for the Civ 5 Hall of Fame?

The first sentence almost tells the people polling they should favour including Barbarians in game because they are "a lot more integral to Civ5 than they were in Civ4".

You are almost begging people to vote for against allowing "No Barbarians" option.

So please don't use a biased poll to support your decision to ban the "No Barbarians" option.

Also, even though it is very biased, only 2/3 of the voters actually favor banning "No Barbarians"!

Sun Tzu Wu

P.S. Also, the selection to ban "Barbarians" is not even offered in the poll. I would vote to ban Barbarians, because I believe they impair or even break the game. I haven't dug enough to find proof yet and I'm not sure I will, since the game imbalance probably doesn't rise to the level of an exploit.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. There are Leaders (2?) and a game play feature (influence for killing barbs) that make the absence of barbs have some effect on play beyond just dealing with the barbs that come your way.

STW correctly asks for proof that this feature provides a severe advantage/disadvantage in HoF. We've yet to see any.

I'd also like to point out that what you're saying here in #1 isn't unprecedented. Many of the early UUs in civ IV were tailor-made anti-barb units. Inca, Mali, Native America, and Maya for example all had an easier time vs barbs than standard leaders, as did every AGG leader for the experienced player because the combat I would flip the odds of a warrior in forest vs archer in favor of the player by >20%. This, in a game where barbs actually threatened to capture cities as opposed to being a largely turn-shaving nuisance and taking units in civ V.

In other words, you're trying to sell the idea that having the CHANCE at gaining influence from barb camps is so big a difference that the setting needs to be locked. When you compared it to settings old and new that are allowed/disallowed (permanent alliances vs no tech trades, marathon vs normal, events and vassal states), that position is ridiculous .

2. Allowing Barbs to be optional is effectively requiring players to play with them off in order to compete with best times. I base this on past behavior (Civ4 barb 'on' rates) and the natural desire to optimize setups.

This is where you drop from "opinion" to "wrong".

You yourself have pointed out that barbs are a different feature in civ V than IV. This makes any conclusions based on IV patterns completely unreliable. I can just as easily say (and provide a little evidence) that leaving players the option will force top competitors to always leave them on and deal with a nuisance/hassle for the chance of favorable outcomes, say maritime-city state boosts via worker-freeing abuse for example.

On top of all that, it's worth noting that EVERY feature will eventually have a tendency to be turned on or off if allowed. I bet you'd see that in civ IV if you looked at each one individually (vassal states, choose religion, events, permanent alliances, random personalities to name just a FEW). I'll even guess that the % variance on at least some of those features will be HIGHER, and yet you've started no thread about them, yet. That's because banning features based on this criteria for a system that by definition looks for optimized playthroughs is fundamentally unsound. I don't see why barbs are an exception, and nobody has shown them to actually be an exception.

We sought feedback in this thread to verify our thinking with regards to Barbs. The poll shows that most don't really have a problem with Barbs being required.

General public agreement does not constitute a sound decision making process here.

Most players for the first few years of civ IV's existence would have told you that FIN is overpowered or at least materially better than most traits (IE a much stronger runaway poll result than what we have here, and despite more options!). Elite players have since proven otherwise. I could go on with examples where the majority of players don't even know how to milk features, but there's no point; we both know it.

The issue here is NOT how many people have a problem with the option of the feature. The issue is whether the feature can be reliably shown to provide such an advantage/disadvantage that it constitutes being turned off in general HoF. I have serious issues with the practice of banning some things in civ IV HoF and not others; it was indisputably arbitrary. Are we going to repeat that in civ V in an even more extreme fashion? I'll do everything I can here to try to discourage that.

So I ask yet again: where is the PROOF? Show us a numerical reason from civ V that banning "no barbarians" has merit based on the criteria of consistently fair/competitive settings.

 

[Monthar]

My think with regards to Barbs is based on two things:

1. There are Leaders (2?) and a game play feature (influence for killing barbs) that make the absence of barbs have some effect on play beyond just dealing with the barbs that come your way.

2. Allowing Barbs to be optional is effectively requiring players to play with them off in order to compete with best times. I base this on past behavior (Civ4 barb 'on' rates) and the natural desire to optimize setups.

Requiring Barbs to be on would level playing field with regard to that setting.

Just to prove how flawed this thinking is with regards to barbarians, I started a game with the current gauntlet's settings. The only thing from the default settings that I changed was to go with with raging barbarians. I chose Suleiman as my civ. By turn 50 I was over my military supply limit due to the number of barbarian galley's I captured from building one, yes, just one trireme and setting it to auto-explore. Every time I captured a galley I set it to auto-explore. I had also met every AI and reveled half the map.

Apparently the military demographic doesn't count naval units, because it said I was dead last with my single starting warrior and 12 triremes/galleys. I had to keep disbanding galleys just to stay under my supply limit, so my production wouldn't suffer.

In my games playing as Bismark I had similar results, it just took a little longer, but not by much. Except in those games it put me at #1 in military, because all land units do count. Most of those games were with default barbarian spawn rates instead of raging.

Due to how easily Bismark and Suleiman can build up their military might from just abusing their UA, I can guarantee you, if having barbarians is optional, anyone playing as either of these two civs will not only leave them on, they'll likely set them to raging.

You yourself have pointed out that barbs are a different feature in civ V than IV. This makes any conclusions based on IV patterns completely unreliable. I can just as easily say (and provide a little evidence) that leaving players the option will force top competitors to always leave them on and deal with a nuisance/hassle for the chance of favorable outcomes, say maritime-city state boosts via worker-freeing abuse for example.

QFT

This will also guarantee that folks will likely have barbarians on for other civs as well. Especially if playing with a civ that gets bonuses from having CS allies.

In games where someone is playing as Genghis Khan, they might prefer to have barbarians off since they would have no real benefit from having them in game. In fact it might be a hindrance for them, since their UA means they should be attacking CSs, not forming alliances with them.

Civs that a player would want barbarians on and why are as follows:

Aztec - To gain the extra culture from unit kills. Raging barbarians would be a nice benefit and no need to go to war.

China - To earn more GGs before going to war, or to use for GAs if trying to go for a peaceful win.

Greece & Siam - for cheaper CS alliances.

Germany & Ottomans - to amass a huge military by only buying/building 1 or 2 units to start and getting the rest for free from the barbarians.

Songhai - for the triple gold from pillaging the barbarian encampments. Easy money without having to go to war to earn it.

That's 7 of the 19 civs that don't require a paid DLC, or 36.8% of the legal HoF civs that you'd want to have barbarians on if you're playing them. 11 of the 19 (57.89%) civs can go either way, but would likely want them on just because of how good CS alliances are.Only 1 of the 19 civs, Mongolia, that you'd want barbarians off most of the time, that's a mere 5.26% of the civs.

With only 5.26% of the civs wanting barbarians off 36.8% always on and 57.89% of the civs that don't have to have if barbarians are, but will most likely keep them on anyway, I think you'll find that unlike Civ 4, most of the games submitted will have barbarians on, if this is optional. By making it a required setting, you'll probably find you have far fewer submissions for the HoF.

So, unless your goal is to have fewer submissions so you have less work to do, I don't see a valid reason to force us to play with barbarians turned on all the time.