[NFP] Barbarian Clans Game Mode Discussion

[Timewarp]

I am noticing that if there are units of my own, and AI or City State units close together (either at war or not), then the barbarians completely ignore the AI and City State units. Not only that, but City States in some cases have just not taken a barbarian camp when I had a nearby city. I kept expecting the city state units to take out the camp, and it just did not happen.

The barbarians are just acting too weird. I will take your advice and just completely remove them. It seems that there has been a change in their behavior (some sort of unannounced patch???).

There are a lot more of them, and they are a lot more focused on the player civ. It's like Firaxis heard our complaints, and their solution was to beef them up and have them focus on player civ cities and units.

 

[Timewarp]

No worries, I have put a TON of hours into this game trying to make it work for me. More than it probably deserves

I am trying very hard to like the game, and find some scenario that I enjoy and am entertained by. The game has so much potential. But like several other games I stopped playing, the developers seem to have put way more effort into making the game tedious and annoying, oops I meant to say CHALLENGING, rather than fun.

The players here asked for an improved AI, different win conditions, and a more interesting end game. Instead, the developers added a bunch of advertising gimmicks, oops I meant to say FEATURES, some of which are really good ideas. However, they did not integrate them too well into the base game, did not adjust the AI appropriately, and focused too much on the "challenge" and not enough on the "fun".

I hope my perception on the change in barbarian behavior is just flat out wrong.

 

[localdisk51]

It’s terrible immersion
It’s terrible gameplay
It also underscore’s that this game’s makers do absolutly zero playtesting. It is one of an unacceptably long list of bugs and terrible design choices that show that they literally don’t playtest at all, as even part of a single playthrough would have revealed it

I don't understand how snow city states is bad immersion. Snow cities exist in real life, and have for thousands of years. They're just small, so we don't hear much about people like the Inuit and Sami.

I love that they take the less desirable areas after I've already settled my main cities. By default, city states usually seem to start with the best land, almost always beside every natural wonder on the map. Spots that I would have liked to settle, or an AI settle so I can take their city. But I don't like to capture city states because some of them have very strong bonuses.

 

[Abaxial]

It breaks immersion because it is so artificial. It's nothing to do with little Inuit settlements; it's because barbarian camps in populated areas get trashed, but those at the polar edges of the map are left undisturbed. So it's the polar ones that develop into CSs. An artefact that was probably not considered in design.

 

[UWHabs]

It breaks immersion because it is so artificial. It's nothing to do with little Inuit settlements; it's because barbarian camps in populated areas get trashed, but those at the polar edges of the map are left undisturbed. So it's the polar ones that develop into CSs. An artefact that was probably not considered in design.

It would be better if they applied a similar change that they did to ley lines to prevent them spawning in the snow. I would rather barbarian camps be banned from the snow entirely. You could still get tundra camps taking up bad land, but it would cut it down a little bit. Especially since that's not land you ever really want to settle yourself, it's just too valuable to let those camps develop.

Now, some of this is the fact that the way the world wraps, games have vastly more tundra/snow than happens in real life, so there ends up being more wasted lands. If they could curve the map more to cut down on tundra, it would be less noticeable having the camps in bad spawn spots.

 

[localdisk51]

It breaks immersion because it is so artificial. It's nothing to do with little Inuit settlements; it's because barbarian camps in populated areas get trashed, but those at the polar edges of the map are left undisturbed. So it's the polar ones that develop into CSs. An artefact that was probably not considered in design.

I'm still not really following what's artificial here. Human migration was heavily influenced by the problem you mention. To escape things like war in the settled warmer areas. It's not like the people that moved into the artic wanted to live somewhere cold. Their people and their hunter gatherer/barbarian lifestyle got the crap kicked out of them by the civilized nations until the only places left for them to survive was either the artic, or a few pockets of very deep inhospitable jungle.

I like to imagine that when combat units are destroyed, not every one of them dies. Just most, and the rest flee. So in this context, the fleeing barbarians from the good lands run towards the articic. Although I can certainly understand the need to limit how many form in the snow. As that other user just mentioned, there should be much fewer snow tiles in order to better simulate a spherical planet.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I'm still not really following what's artificial here. Human migration was heavily influenced by the problem you mention. To escape things like war in the settled warmer areas. It's not like the people that moved into the artic wanted to live somewhere cold. Their people and their hunter gatherer/barbarian lifestyle got the crap kicked out of them by the civilized nations until the only places left for them to survive was either the artic, or a few pockets of very deep inhospitable jungle.

I like to imagine that when combat units are destroyed, not every one of them dies. Just most, and the rest flee. So in this context, the fleeing barbarians from the good lands run towards the articic. Although I can certainly understand the need to limit how many form in the snow. As that other user just mentioned, there should be much fewer snow tiles in order to better simulate a spherical planet.

How many Belgium sized countries does the Artic Circle and Antartica possess?

 

[localdisk51]

Well given their remoteness, sparse numbers, limited interactions with the rest of the world, and historical racism, a lot of them haven't been recognized. In the Canadian Arctic, Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland, there have been several that are much much larger than Belgium. The Canadian government has some confusing legal arrangement where they try to recognize some limited degree of independence for many of them. It's one of the reasons the Canadian government split up the Nothwest Territories and created the territory of Nunavut, as regonitaton that the groups there are different. And provide them a path for independence, in response to the Quebec independence referendum. Several groups in the far north see themselves as their own independent countries. I'm tempted to post some educational links but not sure what the policies are on that on this forum. Plus I'm not sure how much you care to learn about them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that Nunavit would count as a city state on the scale of Civ6

It would basically be a couple of hexes inside Canada’s cultural boundry that might have a few pops on it

 

[localdisk51]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that Nunavit would count as a city state on the scale of Civ6

It would basically be a couple of hexes inside Canada’s cultural boundry that might have a few pops on it

Nunavut is certainly more than a couple hexes on civs scale. It's about 10 times the size of the UK, and makes up nearly a quarter of all of Canada. 2D maps are very deceiving when you get closer to the poles.

 

[reddishrecue]

Nunavut is certainly more than a couple hexes on civs scale. It's about 10 times the size of the UK, and makes up nearly a quarter of all of Canada. 2D maps are very deceiving when you get closer to the poles.

Canada and spawning CSes from idle barbarian camps are really different. In fact, when I was able to use Canada, I farmed tundra and got some good food along with all the resources that are around. Canada is not as bad as I thought on the tundras but once you get to regular lands, they're like any other civ.
Btw, I also saw the map and Nunavut and that's a big spot. Lots of large archipelagoes but it is a large mass of large archipelagic islands, compared to Greenland, which is big, however, Nunavut is big too almost the size of Greenland by a bit.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Nunavut is certainly more than a couple hexes on civs scale. It's about 10 times the size of the UK, and makes up nearly a quarter of all of Canada. 2D maps are very deceiving when you get closer to the poles.

Nunavit has a grand total of about thirty thousand people living in it with zero significant economic activity. It’s a virtually empty wasteland.

This is beyond ridiculous at this point trying to compare that to an actual nation.

 

[Abaxial]

Furthermore, I doubt if you could find a case of a people who actually fled to the Arctic to escape agressive nations.

In any case, it's not like that. In Civ 6, barbarian camps spawn anywhere randomly, and because, as UWHabs said, there is an unrealistic amount of Arctic/Antarctic land on the map, some will spawn on snow or tundra. The ones that don't will get trashed by Civs or CSs, leaving the snowy ones as survivors.