Ancient Barbarians == Modern Terrorists?

[hagenx81]

I think they should do that. Upgrading the barbarians into modern age terrorist. That will make the game more enjoyable.

I mean, com'on... there is no such thing as a guy riding everywhere on a horse attacking tanks. It just doesn't make any sense at all. At least we could have the horsemen barbarian to be upgraded to a babarian with jeep.

 

[dc82]

yeah 'cept rite now i think they're trying to avoid anything assoiciated w/ terrorism - at most they'll just be "rebel guerrila fighters" or something.

 

[stormbind]

That's what I did for my Iraq mod (which I never made available because it was just too easy).

For insurgents I used the available barbarians feature, but replaced them with riflemen. They spawned mostly in the mountains which made them tough to get at, but they were puny when they wandered into the path of stampeding modern armour

But I think the game should play like that anyway, and the same for pirates!

 

[Rookie One]

From the interview it sounds like they don't want to step on anybodies toes. So they could be "Guerillias" like dc82 said.

 

[Horus Kol]

weren't there musket/rifle toting guerrillas in Civ I and II?

 

[sepamu92]

I think, of cource they should upgrade barbarians, but it should be based on the techs of surrounding civs. For example, the Germans are in the mid Medieval age, so the barbs near them should be early Medieval. But say the Aztecs have been early Ancient for millenias, so barbs near them are also early Ancient. It doesn't make sense if barbarians use axes and clubs when the nearby civs use tanks, but it also doesn't make sense if the barbs are ahead of the nearby civs!

 

[mastertyguy]

Why do associate barbarians with terrorist? Do you think vikings should be a civ or midlle age barbvs? BArbs should become minor civ, which you crush around end ancient age/beginning MA

 

[dc82]

well the idea of barbarians is pretty much these small forces (too small to be considered a civ) that wud like to do nothing but steal, plunder, and destory. to be honest, it's not a great concept - it's a very simplified visualization of complex forces of minor civs, citizen dissdents, terrorists, and independence movements.

 

[antonio]

It would be great to have barbarians as minor states that cant grow beyond a certain level but they should still evolve at the same pace as nearby civs or perhaps slighly slower.

 

[antonio]

It would be great to have barbarians as minor states that cant grow beyond a certain level but they should still evolve at the same pace as nearby civs or perhaps slighly slower.

 

[mastertyguy]

It would be great to have barbarians as minor states that cant grow beyond a certain level but they should still evolve at the same pace as nearby civs or perhaps slighly slower.

Exactly my opinion. Interratcion with barbs have to be ameliorated

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well Ideally, there would be no 'barbarians' or 'minor civs' just lots of civs that are currently at a disadvantage (currently 'officially' under your rule, or with a very low treasury so looting is sensible).. so the game starts with 100s of 'civs' but only a few get the 'player bonus' at the beginning that makes them competitive in the early game. (of course by the later game they could become competitive as the Franks, Angles, and various other Germanic barbarians did.)

Of course, this won't happen but an improvement would be to allow late game barbarians (ie they appear Within your borders...possibly reduced by terrain development and increased by nearby citizen unhappiness)

As well as letting them take cities instead of just raid them (like in Civ II..but in this case when it happens, make it a new Civ..one not currently being played...bonus if it is one with a local unassimilated population.. the city and the barbarian units near it would be changed to that Civ's)

They could probably also be improved by making them less random (ie you always have barbarian problems...it fluctuates, but any undefended city immediately gets taken, and either razed or captured)

 

[777]

weren't there musket/rifle toting guerrillas in Civ I and II?

In Civ II for sure, not so sure about first. And also there was cavalry in CivII IIRC.