Barbarians are back :(

[CornPlanter]

I so didn't want barbarians to be back It's a stupid term. Celts were legitimate civ in Civ4 but they were "barbarians" to Romans, and Aztecs were barbarians to Europeans, and Europeans were barbarians to Aztecs presumably. Adding insult to injury, Civilization series barbarians are usually impossible to negotiate to. While in real history every "barbaric" nation was easily exploited by what is called divide et impera. Be it Germans, Celts, etc. exploited by Romans, or Native Americans fighting each other, or Native Africans selling each other as slaves. Basically lack of understanding of politics defined who are barbarians and who are so called "advanced" civilizations.

In Civ series barbarians are like some villains from comic books, attack non stop, no nothing else. It was OK in Civ1 given the time it was released. It's very much not OK now. It's neither historical nors adds anything to gameplay apart from constant annoyance.

What do you think?

 

[cccv]

I'm not concerned with the political correctness of it. But it would be cool if you could negotiate with them a little. I'm thinking of civII for example where, IIRC, rather than being sacked by barbarians you could pay them a ransom to spare your city. That ought to be an option. You could also bribe them with diplomats a lot cheaper than you could bribe civs, so based on that I'd say you should also be able to recruit them as mercenaries for a price.

 

[Ultimate_Waffle]

I think it's fine. We need a somewhat constant threat in our games to keep us on our toes in the early game.

 

[AfterShafter]

They had a "no barbarians" option in Civ IV... Is that back too? I played without them on most of the time. I found they inhibited the CPU's expansion more than the player's, once the player learned how to exploit them and basically use them as an XP farm that was vital to early conquest.

 

[BobDole]

They're a recognizable part of Civ, as is the term "barbarians", it wouldn't be the same if they weren't back. If you don't like them you can probably just turn them off like in IV. Not sure what the problem is...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

With the introduction of City States, I don't much see the point of "Barbarians" anymore. Why not just have City-States with differing levels of aggression? Non-aggressive city-states will not attack you unless you attack them first, wheras the most aggressive city-states will attack you first. There could be a spectrum of aggression also, where more aggressive civs are harder to negotiate with than peaceful ones-even if they don't attack you. It just makes sense to me!

Aussie.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Plus, from the perspective of empires, there were always "barbarians" that would come and cause havoc. They're different from states and principalities, which were on more equal footing.

 

[Souron]

With the introduction of City States, I don't much see the point of "Barbarians" anymore. Why not just have City-States with differing levels of aggression? Non-aggressive city-states will not attack you unless you attack them first, wheras the most aggressive city-states will attack you first. There could be a spectrum of aggression also, where more aggressive civs are harder to negotiate with than peaceful ones-even if they don't attack you. It just makes sense to me!

Aussie.

Since barbarians have a home city, they pretty much are city states. It's not clear that there is a distinction. If there is, it must be just an unwillingness to get into agreements, and a tendency to spawn units. Oh, and maybe the tech tree is different.

 

[bite]

Since barbarians have a home city, they pretty much are city states. It's not clear that there is a distinction. If there is, it must be just an unwillingness to get into agreements, and a tendency to spawn units. Oh, and maybe the tech tree is different.

From 2K Greg

Barbarians come from "encampments," which may spring up in any neutral space that cannot be seen by a civilization's city or unit. Every few turns the encampment will create another barbarian unit which will make a beeline for the nearest civilization and start causing trouble. The only way to stop this is to find the encampment and destroy it.

 

[2K Greg]

Since barbarians have a home city, they pretty much are city states. It's not clear that there is a distinction. If there is, it must be just an unwillingness to get into agreements, and a tendency to spawn units. Oh, and maybe the tech tree is different.

Barbarians don't have a home city in the same way that city-states do. Barbarians come from camps which spawn units, but each of them is independent.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Barbarians don't have a home city in the same way that city-states do. Barbarians come from camps which spawn units, but each of them is independent.

Which is my point-I'd just rather have a single concept-City States-but have those City-States show varying levels of aggressive behaviour! Hope that makes sense.

Oh, & great to see you back 2K Greg !

Aussie

 

[mjs0]

Barbarians don't have a home city in the same way that city-states do. Barbarians come from camps which spawn units, but each of them is independent.

Can we take this to mean that barbarians will not be founding actual cities in the later game the way they did in IV.
(On Terra maps those size 15 cities complete with wonders were a bit of a shock!)

Also, do barbarian camps defend like cities, with bombardment capabilities etc.

Incidentally I found the following line strange (my emphasis):

Encampments are usually guarded by at least one fortified unit

Surely with 1UPT a single fortified unit in the encampment is all you can get!

 

[bjbrains]

I believe he means that there may be more than one unit in the radius around it in addition to its own square.

 

[mjs0]

Of course he did...but a little friendly dig never did any harm!

 

[2K Greg]

Can we take this to mean that barbarians will not be founding actual cities in the later game the way they did in IV.

Also, do barbarian camps defend like cities, with bombardment capabilities etc.

Incidentally I found the following line strange (my emphasis):

Surely with 1UPT a single fortified unit in the encampment is all you can get!

You are correct; Barbarians will not be founding cities.

Camps do not have bombardment capabilities; they are only guarded (usually) by a fortified unit or two. And yes, barbarians are bound by 1upt, but remember that "guarding" a tile in Civ 5 can mean positioning your units intelligently in and around said tile

 

[mjs0]

You are correct; Barbarians will not be founding cities.

Interesting.
I was always a big fan of Terra maps, and if all you can find in the new world are small city states then that will change the flavour of Terra games significantly; unless there is a way to spawn actual Civs at later start dates to spread and provide some resistance (and diplomacy options) for old world Civs discovering the new world and flooding it with colonists.

 

[Souron]

ok, we're back to civ III barbarians basically, but with tech trees

 

[Thyrwyn]

Interesting.
I was always a big fan of Terra maps, and if all you can find in the new world are small city states then that will change the flavour of Terra games significantly; unless there is a way to spawn actual Civs at later start dates to spread and provide some resistance (and diplomacy options) for old world Civs discovering the new world and flooding it with colonists.

That was my first thought, too. But after thinking about it, City States might more accurately represent history, and will make for pretty interesting game play

Even with "raging" barbarians, the barbarian cities in the New World offered marginal resistance after the initial landing. If there are City States in the New World, With the potential benefits they have to offer, there will be incentives to not conquer all of them - and there will still be roaming barbarians on the continent to deal with. Plus, diplomacy will be a factor in the New World, now.

It could be pretty cool.

 

[mjs0]

That was my first thought, too. But after thinking about it, City States might more accurately represent history, and will make for pretty interesting game play

Even with "raging" barbarians, the barbarian cities in the New World offered marginal resistance after the initial landing. If there are City States in the New World, With the potential benefits they have to offer, there will be incentives to not conquer all of them - and there will still be roaming barbarians on the continent to deal with. Plus, diplomacy will be a factor in the New World, now.

It could be pretty cool.

All good points!
Though I am left to wonder...if the barbarian encampments have been in the new world for 5000 years churning out barbarians...do they fight each other? or will there be no free tiles left on which to land my colonists due to the wall to wall barbs?

 

[Thyrwyn]

That's even assuming there are Terra maps (I certainly hope so!). Though, that would probably be an easy mod . . .