Barbarian Trait Broken?

[Mu-Dog]

One thing I thought of for the Barbarian trait, what if you made it so that having it meant you got no war weariness?

Since you are barbarians it would seem to fit with the trait and it would make it have a positive aspect that would stay with you the whole time.

 

[onedreamer]

I must say I have yet to see the Clan or Charadon declare war to barbarians.

 

[xienwolf]

Just don't forget that Rantine relies on peace with Barbarians for his primary ability. Clan has to keep the peace no matter how you change the trait.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I just realized that the Barbarians are only ever triggered to declare war on leaders with the Barbarian trait, and that the death of Hyborem costs him all his traits except fallow. If you are playing as the Infernals and are willing to give up your traits then you can arrange to have Hyborem killed just before you become too strong; then the barbs would never declare war on you.

This is probably only a good idea very late in a game with very high AC, when the Barbs are the strongest civ around.

 

[NeoParn]

I feel like a -% to culture or GPP; or an increase in maint. costs would be more appropriate to the spirit of the Barbarous trait. Barbarism implies disorganization (the opposite of the Organized trait) and a war-like attitude (the opposite of the Pacifism civic), not stupidity or an unwillingness to adopt superior weapons and gear (a slow down in research). I could understand if the research hit only affected tech not directly related to war, or only the higher level techs (which take more coordinated research efforts), but any petty tyrant can grab a couple of "shmart-guys" and get them to do the brain work for them.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I concur.

Cultural penalties, GPP penalties, increased civic upkeep, slower non-military production, lower unit upkeep, faster military production, and possibly also including my barb-trait-specific random event idea (making barb-trait units sometimes fight each other, likely hurting and possibly killing units, but getting them the xp they miss out on by not being able to farm xp from barbarians) would make a much better trait. It would have logical, meaningful, strategic importance, but would not be overpowered or weakening overall.

I also think that either
1.) the trait should be removed when the barbarians declare war on you (maybe also when you declare war on the barbs), or
2.) there should be random events that occur for barb-trait leaders at war with the Barbarian State, in which peace with the barbarians is restored. The barbs could still declare war on you again if the conditions are met. (Also, I think that instead of declaring war as soon as you have 150% the score of the next best civ, it should be a random event that can (but probably wouldn't) occur on any turn when you are in first place.)

 

[Roghar]

I think the trait needs to remain through the game - one doesn't cease to be a barbarian because one fights other barbarians. Lower tech is a reasonable penalty, civilisation is normally a required precursor to decent technological advance. They just need another booster to make up for it, and I think susbtantially lower military upkeep is the way to go. They can live off the land.

Importantly, it makes their most effective tactic, that of rushing the enemy and expanding quickly, more achievable. I had my first play of Charadon recently, had great success rushing my neighbours, was just couldn't take the economy hit of the extra cities plus all of the troops.

 

[NeoParn]

Lower tech is a reasonable penalty, civilisation is normally a required precursor to decent technological advance.

I agree, but what we have here is a barbarous civilization. To make a (somewhat poor) analogy, take the Aztec's. They are people known for constant war and large scale human sacrifice; who also instituted public education for the masses and preformed (very limited) surgery under anesthesia. Barbarism does not imply a lack of technology, but rather a lack of refinement or high culture.

I understand what you’re driving at, however; disorganized peoples aren’t as innovative or creative. Still I feel that a reduction in culture or an increase in maintenance costs would be better for game balance. Being at peace with the barbs really isn't much of an advantage beyond the very early game, (even with raging barbs and barbarian world turned on). Of course a successful rush strategy would allow the game to end very early, and then the technology lag wouldn’t matter much. However, that makes any civ with this trait VERY one-dimensional (actually two civs and three leaders), as they are very poor performers in the late game where a tech lag is crippling.

By contrast a lack of culture (or GPP), or higher maintenance costs are still a major setback, but allow the barbarous leaders to maintain a military campaign late in the game, as they are very likely to do. It would also make the Clan less likely to build the Alter or flip cities with culture, (which happened to my annoyance a few games ago; it's very, VERY hard to accept, logically, that a human/elf/dwarf city would prefer to be run by an orc or a beast man)

I do agree that whatever the penalty is it should stick around even after the barb's renounce you, the people aren’t instantly going to become cultured. I'm not sure that having a high score is a good reason for them to turn on you though. Ranthane (sp?) converts barbarians because he IS stronger than them and they want to be on the winning team. Having them turn on you later because you’re TOO strong seams ridiculous. Being too far up the tech tree (or having too high a culture in your cities) would be more in keeping with the flavor of the trait, because you would need to actively work against the societal aspects that mark you as a barbarian.

 

[Roghar]

I'm not saying they can't have science, just that a penalty is reasonable. 10% really isn't very huge, if you start well and take an enemy's capital your expanded economy should cover for it, as long as you don't expand too much before you can get City States.

I think limiting effective means of playing/winning to mlitary conquest is reasonable. To have a barbarian civ win easily through culture, building or diplomacy would be anomalous. Likewise having to dominate fairly early on to win the game is fair - give organised civilisations a chance to grow and they become stronger than the barbarian hordes that surround them. However if you never give them a chance to flourish the power resides with the barbarians.

It is fairly widely accepted that for the slowest starting civs, namely those relying on magic, it is reasonable that they struggle early on. By the same token I think its fair that if you don't get yourself far enough ahead early as a barbarian life is going to be difficult.

 

[ZhugeTien]

I vote for dropping the barbarian trait altogether. It could easily be replaced with Aggressive or Raiders, and it would make me want to actually play Charadon or either Clan leader. As it stands, that 10% research penalty makes me restart when a random leader start gives me any barbarian leader. The trait just isn't balanced against the rest, near as I can tell. And I'm looking at balance overall, not just the trait balance, but taking into account civ strengths and weaknesses, heroes, magic, etc... Barbarian trait just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Blakmane]

It is fairly widely accepted that for the slowest starting civs, namely those relying on magic, it is reasonable that they struggle early on. By the same token I think its fair that if you don't get yourself far enough ahead early as a barbarian life is going to be difficult.

Problem is, the barb trait doesn't actually make it easier to dominate early game. The barbs are never a serious issue to contend with in 0.30. If anything peace with the barbarians actually limits the easy XP farm that other civs will be getting from the barbs. The barbarian trait is *actually* more useful in mid-lategame when the horsemen are rampaging about and the barbs have a lot more power (just look at hyborem for an example).

The reason doviello can attempt a quick conquest victory has nothing to do with their trait and everything to do with their UU warrior. I think you'll find it's actually easier to rush with mahala rather than charadon. Similarly, the Clan used to have a serious early game advantage due to their goblin -> wolf rider upgrade. Now that has been removed they have no advantage at all.

 

[Sarisin]

Problem is, the barb trait doesn't actually make it easier to dominate early game. The barbs are never a serious issue to contend with in 0.30. If anything peace with the barbarians actually limits the easy XP farm that other civs will be getting from the barbs. The barbarian trait is *actually* more useful in mid-lategame when the horsemen are rampaging about and the barbs have a lot more power (just look at hyborem for an example).

.

I agree with your statement that the barbs are never a serious issue to contend with in .30 for the human player. However, the AI still has a problem defending against them. Raging barbs, I am talking about, not the normal setting. In every one of my games at least half of the ai civs were wiped out when the barbs finally appeared.

As it said in my 'Squatting Barbarians' thread I find the mid-late game a lot easier with regard to the barbs as they just are not raging any longer. Their squatting behavior changes your focus to going after them rather than them coming for you.

I've found the ai civs that survive the early game onslaught can expand at will too because there just aren't any raging barbs coming after their lightly defended cities any longer.

 

[it-ogo]

Barbarism implies disorganization (the opposite of the Organized trait) and a war-like attitude (the opposite of the Pacifism civic), not stupidity or an unwillingness to adopt superior weapons and gear (a slow down in research).

For effectve research you need organization more then intellect. I am researcher so that is my observation.

 

[Sarisin]

I must say I have yet to see the Clan or Charadon declare war to barbarians.

And in the five Shadow games I have played so far, if Jonas Endain, Sheelba, or Charadon is in the game, they declare war on the barbarians very early.

Sometimes I read the threads in this forum and I wonder if the posters are playing the same game I am. Of course they are! However, there are so many game settings and options it is likely that you would never have any two posters play the EXACT same game.

I have learned to just post what I am seeing in my games and read with interest what the other members of the forum are seeing in their games. In FFH2 it is the variety available in game selections that is one of its strong points and just provides unlimited replay value.

 

[Blakmane]

I agree with your statement that the barbs are never a serious issue to contend with in .30 for the human player. However, the AI still has a problem defending against them. Raging barbs, I am talking about, not the normal setting. In every one of my games at least half of the ai civs were wiped out when the barbs finally appeared.

As it said in my 'Squatting Barbarians' thread I find the mid-late game a lot easier with regard to the barbs as they just are not raging any longer. Their squatting behavior changes your focus to going after them rather than them coming for you.

I've found the ai civs that survive the early game onslaught can expand at will too because there just aren't any raging barbs coming after their lightly defended cities any longer.

I think the AI definately needs an improvement in how it tackles the barbs. However, a trait that has limited uses against AI, but is actually detrimental in a multiplayer game is, as the OP pointed out, broken. I think eventually what has to happen is the barbs need to get stronger and tougher, BUT, not until the AI has been sufficiently 'educated' in how to defend its early cities.

*edit*

I just updated my barbarian trait mod. Check out the changes and see if it makes those leaders a bit more competative.

 

[onedreamer]

Ppl tend to miss the fact that except Infernals, the barbarian civs (Doviello and Clan) have a MUCH bigger penalty to research, which is they can't build libraries. While the barbarian trait is somewhat balanced, THIS particular feature isn't balanced in any way (and no, +25% city attack on warriors rather than defense is not a balance). Added to barbarian trait this totals a net 35% research penalty, and more vs Alfar which can cottage just about anything. Less maintenance cost for the army or a unique civic that allows something like this -but with low or no cost, unlike Military State- would maybe balance things a bit and be also realistic enough.

 

[Blakmane]

Ppl tend to miss the fact that except Infernals, the barbarian civs (Doviello and Clan) have a MUCH bigger penalty to research, which is they can't build libraries. While the barbarian trait is somewhat balanced, THIS particular feature isn't balanced in any way (and no, +25% city attack on warriors rather than defense is not a balance). Added to barbarian trait this totals a net 35% research penalty, and more vs Alfar which can cottage just about anything. Less maintenance cost for the army or a unique civic that allows something like this -but with low or no cost, unlike Military State- would maybe balance things a bit and be also realistic enough.

It's hard to directly change the barbarian trait, because it effects the clan and Charadon differently. See if my small changes are enough to make the AI use these civs a bit better- the clan have a slight maintenance cost reduction now, although I feel they may need something a bit extra. I'm tempted to re-introduce the goblins ---> wolf rider mechanic, albeit perhaps changed to make it less broken (say, a % chance)

 

[onedreamer]

I think you should operate on the Civs not on the trait, especially since Barbarian trait is also one of Hyborem's.
Also, the Goblin thing is good stuff. But it shouldn't happen if you have Subdue Animal, or you should have a choice on what to do.