Allow "No Barbarians"?

[Dracandross]

As long as no barbs is not only way to go (as in C-IV) if you aim good score... Yes they are easier now and as long as it looks like ON is better than Off why restrict it. It might give new strategies anyway.

Personally it wouldnt been problem in IV either but HOF scoring just made it mandatory on some strategies (Warfare it didnt matter, diplomacy OCC eww, low diff it was essential to get multiplier)

So say NO to strick restrictions as long as they dont break the game.

-D

 

[Beef Hammer]

It's cripples a few Civs that need barbs for their traits, so no, plus it's really boring with no barbs popping up. Plus that's less money for you for taking their little camps.

If anything make Raging Barbarians have to be checked

 

[Denniz]

If anything make Raging Barbarians have to be checked

I wonder if anyone has tried raging barbs. That could be an idea for a gauntlet.

 

[sanabas]

I had them on raging for a game as Germany. It was a regular source of units for me, the worst that they'll do is cause problems with pillaging.

 

[Methos]

I had them on raging for a game as Germany. It was a regular source of units for me, the worst that they'll do is cause problems with pillaging.

Makes me wonder what a gauntlet game would be like if we required raging barbs and Germany as one of the opponents. Could be interesting.

 

[Ozbenno]

Makes me wonder what a gauntlet game would be like if we required raging barbs and Germany as one of the opponents. Could be interesting.

Aztec as opponents as well, think i know some setting for the next gauntlet now

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

It's cripples a few Civs that need barbs for their traits, so no, plus it's really boring with no barbs popping up. Plus that's less money for you for taking their little camps.

I suppose one could forbid AIs whose unique ability requires Barbarians when playing with option "No Barbarians". Its hardly a good excuse for forbidding "No Barbarians" entirely.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[iggymnrr]

Undecided. They are just too unbalanced. It's completely unrealistic to see barb infantry spawn period and to have them do so simply because someone has a tech lead is stupid. Of course, seeing this on the lower levels is totally unbelievable. And don't get me started on the barb galleys thing either.

 

[Beef Hammer]

been playing a few games with raging barbs, changes the way you play a bit thats for sure. you will deff. focus on military more at the very start, and they seem to attack your citys more frequently. It also seems to keep the AI in check for a little longer, so they aren't war mongering very fast.

 

[BLubmuz]

Barb in CiV are a source of training for your units, a source of gold and a potential big source of gold if a City State "becomes uneasy" (the destruction of a barb camp in this case nets you 537 gold). Their ships do not pillage nets and if you have some excess worker you can park them in a barb camp and rescue him when you need.

Thus, i think that if a player would like to renounce to all this he can be free to do it.

 

[iggymnrr]

Barb in CiV are a source of training for your units, a source of gold and a potential big source of gold if a City State "becomes uneasy" (the destruction of a barb camp in this case nets you 537 gold). Their ships do not pillage nets and if you have some excess worker you can park them in a barb camp and rescue him when you need.

Thus, i think that if a player would like to renounce to all this he can be free to do it.

I've seen capitols starve down to pop 2 immediately upon growing to pop 3 due to some barb camp on a 1-tile island that can do nothing but spawn galleys. Not to mention the fact that you can't even see the galley in the first place.

 

[Pizlenut]

Barbarians should be forced on with rampage enabled.
Reason being barbarians are a random element that can do as little as pillage an improvement or as much as give you a city-state. The spread on its benefits vs the relatively minor drawbacks means its a mostly beneficial wild-card. However its random properties means it could do as little as give one player 30 gold, while giving another a value of 500+ with no increase to risk or difficulty vs the player that got 30 gold.
The rampage helps offset the benefits of having them enabled, making it a little more balanced and helps civs that actually rely on barbs for their unique trait.

The real question is if you want random elements and how strong you think those elements should be. Its arguable that getting a free city-state could pave the way for an easy victory, but just getting 30 gold is just a few turns worth of income and has a relatively pointless impact.

 

[Sumorex]

Barbarians should be forced on with rampage enabled.
Reason being barbarians are a random element that can do as little as pillage an improvement or as much as give you a city-state. The spread on its benefits vs the relatively minor drawbacks means its a mostly beneficial wild-card. However its random properties means it could do as little as give one player 30 gold, while giving another a value of 500+ with no increase to risk or difficulty vs the player that got 30 gold.
The rampage helps offset the benefits of having them enabled, making it a little more balanced and helps civs that actually rely on barbs for their unique trait.

The AI can't handle the Raging setting. It absolutely cripples them, stalling the development of their empires for many, many turns. That has been my experience with the setting.

The real question is if you want random elements and how strong you think those elements should be. Its arguable that getting a free city-state could pave the way for an easy victory, but just getting 30 gold is just a few turns worth of income and has a relatively pointless impact.

So many things important things are random and important in this version of Civ. Just off the top of my head these two are way more game altering than barbs, but doubt anyone would argue to remove them other than maybe for a gauntlet:

The faster the speed of your game, the more important +pop and technology hut rewards are. You could even subdivide tech pops into 1st tier vs 2nd tier... or half researched.

How many Maritime city states are there? Which happiness resources do they city states have?

Randomness has always been a part of HOF. It is part of the allure of civ for me.

All of that said, I've posted about barbarians in some of the Beta Gauntlet games. I think Raging Barbarians is more exploitable than No Barbarians. The AI (civ and cs) just doesn't handle the raging hordes well at all.

 

[Gammagooey]

Given that most people seem to be saying that barbs are more helpful than hurtful due to city-state relations I'm gonna agree with Sun here- Allowing a harder game and adding the option for greater variety isn't a bad thing.

 

[Trivas]

Definitely keep barbarians. I have played from Civ II on and never used them. Then, as is my custom of playing a completely unedited, all options on game straight from the package, I realized how useful and good they were in Civ V. Keep them in, they did a far better job of making them relevant, balanced, and useful in this version.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem I see is that a player could check 'no barbs' and then choose opponents with traits relating to barbs, thereby making the game unfair.

Care (or dare) to try explaining how that is any different from hand-picking opposition in any HoF iteration ever made ? I bet you can't, not with people sticking uber peacemongers in dom games and throwing the least effective naval guys into archipelago maps, all while rolling super starts over and over.

The decision for whether to allow or disallow this option is quite simple! Answer the question: how much of the players outcome regarding barbs is due to luck, and how much is due to player skill? In civ IV it was possible to spawn lock the barbs entirely. While they're less likely to kill cities in V, they TELEFRAG you.

That's right. They spawn AT RANDOM near the encampments, and can move 2 tiles instantly after doing so, allowing the loss of workers from literally out of sight. To make matters worse, it's possible to lose multiple early game units to encampments if they feel like spam spawning you (and they CAN do this).

To force players to leave a chancy feature like this on, you need a pretty good justification. "players might abuse it to beat the AI" is not a valid justification; that argument comprises the majority of HoF games played. You might as well make siamese illegal for being too good and ottomans illegal for being subpar right now...ridiculous .

 

[sanabas]

That's right. They spawn AT RANDOM near the encampments, and can move 2 tiles instantly after doing so, allowing the loss of workers from literally out of sight. To make matters worse, it's possible to lose multiple early game units to encampments if they feel like spam spawning you (and they CAN do this).

They can't move the turn they spawn. You can not lose a worker unless you move into range with it yourself, or you fail to move out of the way of an already spawned barb.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

Care (or dare) to try explaining how that is any different from hand-picking opposition in any HoF iteration ever made ? I bet you can't, not with people sticking uber peacemongers in dom games and throwing the least effective naval guys into archipelago maps, all while rolling super starts over and over.

I did not realise that you can hand pick the opposition. Maybe that should be disallowed? I.e. other opponents should always be random.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

The decision for whether to allow or disallow this option is quite simple! Answer the question: how much of the players outcome regarding barbs is due to luck, and how much is due to player skill? In civ IV it was possible to spawn lock the barbs entirely. While they're less likely to kill cities in V, they TELEFRAG you.

That's right. They spawn AT RANDOM near the encampments, and can move 2 tiles instantly after doing so, allowing the loss of workers from literally out of sight. To make matters worse, it's possible to lose multiple early game units to encampments if they feel like spam spawning you (and they CAN do this).

To force players to leave a chancy feature like this on, you need a pretty good justification. "players might abuse it to beat the AI" is not a valid justification; that argument comprises the majority of HoF games played. You might as well make siamese illegal for being too good and ottomans illegal for being subpar right now...ridiculous .

In general I have nothing against randomness in a civ game. It is and always has been a part of the game. Civilization is not chess. If you take away all chance in the game, you take away part of its soul.

That is not admitting that the barbarians are a random effect only. Your skills contribute a lot to how well you can handle barbarians. If you have scouts, you can discover their camps. If you have an army, you can use it to defeat barbarians for personal safety, for relations with city states and for promotions. You can also wait for the barbarians to capture a worker before engaging them. Alternatively, you could focus on building libraries and workers at the start of the game. But this will leave you vulnerable to barbarians. Your choice, not chance! In other words, barbarians are not a random factor, they are first and foremost a strategic factor. The game will be shallower without them.

And another thing: I think a HOF game should be as close to a 'regular' game of civ as possible. Otherwise there is little use for carrying over experience from one type of game to the other.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

The problem I see is that a player could check 'no barbs' and then choose opponents with traits relating to barbs, thereby making the game unfair.

To force players to leave a chancy feature like this on, you need a pretty good justification. "players might abuse it to beat the AI" is not a valid justification; that argument comprises the majority of HoF games played.

I agree with the argue proposed by TheMeInTeam above.

Furthermore, there are only so many Opponents that have a "trait" that depends on the existence of Barbarians. Unless, one is playing a Map that requires only two opponents, one simply can't choose all opponents with Barbarian dependent "traits". (If I recall correctly, there are only two AI leaders that have Barbarian dependent "traits".)

Sun Tzu Wu