Barbarians are back :(

[Peng Qi]

Poorly defended Dutch city which built the Oracle and bulbed Theology from it. Probably because one of those crap barbarian spawning events.

It's been a while since I played that particular game, but I seem to recall it not having been due to a barbarian spawning event, oddly enough. They may have just gotten ridiculously unlucky or something.

 

[Schuesseled]

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):

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

barbarians could found cities but they couldn't build wonders, they could capture a city with wonders, but thats completley different.

 

[mjs0]

barbarians could found cities but they couldn't build wonders, they could capture a city with wonders, but thats completley different.

Actually they could in Vanilla. If I recall correctly it was changed when Warlords was released.

 

[Shiggs713]

yea theres a whole list of buildings, units, and wonders that the barbs can't build anymore. Pretty sure no wonders or national wonders allowed... I forget maybe units stop at pre gunpowder, or maybe they get muskets, can't remember. Also they can't build most of the modern buildings, but some industrial ones iirc. Its all in the civilizations.xml

 

[Earthling]

It's very much not OK now. It's neither historical nors adds anything to gameplay apart from constant annoyance.

Both core counts of the argument are wrong, imo. The threat of barbarians - raiding and pillaging and the like is realistic and historical enough to warrant inclusion. Other "civilizations" simply cannot represent this type of interaction between peoples, because they cannot raise and maintain militaries quickly enough or at great distances. Since we can't really allow opponent civilizations to suddenly gather up a horde of cavalry and ignore the normal maintenance/economic costs - though to realism maybe that better represents, say, the Mongols - a neutral/third-party faction is reasonable.

Now, it may be argued that the way barbarians are implemented in gameplay is not historical - and yes, I can agree with that. Civ5 does appear to have incorporated and improved upon ideas from previous games though - reintroducing barbarian camps, which imo were the best system rather than civ4's random spawns, representing temporary yet significant threats to a civilization. And then the introduction of minor city-states, which aren't viewed as "barbarian," is another plus for realism.

In terms of raw gameplay though, barbarians as they've existed throughout the civ series serve absolutely vital purposes. Games without barbarians play immensely differently and the game is very much balanced for them. Civ4 animals for instance, certainly stretched realism and historical accuracy but only because the gameplay intention was also crucial - to place checks on expansion and require investment in military forces. Not that the best players couldn't get around it, but it was there for a very good reason. (in civ4 terms I would have favored having most barbarians represented in a better event-based system for later spawns after perhaps initial warriors/animals. But new combat mechanics and camps and all change that anyway in civ5)

And if you want better examples of barbarians' usefulness in immersion and gameplay, some mods do excellently - you'll never dismiss them entirely if you've checked out some great mods on the site here, like FFH as one of my favorites.

 

[timtofly]

It is quite possible that Sid had a choice between barbarians and natural disasters. He chose Barbarians.

 

[brianshapiro]

Both core counts of the argument are wrong, imo. The threat of barbarians - raiding and pillaging and the like is realistic and historical enough to warrant inclusion. Other "civilizations" simply cannot represent this type of interaction between peoples, because they cannot raise and maintain militaries quickly enough or at great distances. Since we can't really allow opponent civilizations to suddenly gather up a horde of cavalry and ignore the normal maintenance/economic costs - though to realism maybe that better represents, say, the Mongols - a neutral/third-party faction is reasonable.

Now, it may be argued that the way barbarians are implemented in gameplay is not historical - and yes, I can agree with that. Civ5 does appear to have incorporated and improved upon ideas from previous games though - reintroducing barbarian camps, which imo were the best system rather than civ4's random spawns, representing temporary yet significant threats to a civilization. And then the introduction of minor city-states, which aren't viewed as "barbarian," is another plus for realism.

In terms of raw gameplay though, barbarians as they've existed throughout the civ series serve absolutely vital purposes. Games without barbarians play immensely differently and the game is very much balanced for them. Civ4 animals for instance, certainly stretched realism and historical accuracy but only because the gameplay intention was also crucial - to place checks on expansion and require investment in military forces. Not that the best players couldn't get around it, but it was there for a very good reason. (in civ4 terms I would have favored having most barbarians represented in a better event-based system for later spawns after perhaps initial warriors/animals. But new combat mechanics and camps and all change that anyway in civ5)

And if you want better examples of barbarians' usefulness in immersion and gameplay, some mods do excellently - you'll never dismiss them entirely if you've checked out some great mods on the site here, like FFH as one of my favorites.

Barbarians in the game are also meant to account for things like pirates and Viking invaders, anything that isn't represented in normal gameplay between competing civs. Its an abstraction

 

[SGRaaize]

Meh, I don't like the historical idea of Barbarians, but they fit the gameplay well

 

[Schuesseled]

barbarian hordes existed, they raided and pillaged and were eventually driven off.

 

[Tavenier]

I know for a fact that Amsterdam is quite barbaric.



And I like the idea of having Civs start later in the new world on Terra Maps. I do it manually sometimes. I start a terra game with a lot of civs. Then I place the Inca's, Aztecs, NA, etc in the new world. I remove their two starting techs and place them on a not-so-good spot. Then when I arrive with my galleons I encounter a civ that is about 10 techs behind me and still puts up a fight, but are doomed in the long run when I invest enough on expeditionary forces.

It isn't perfect, but to me it is the closest thing to an age of sail-like game.

 

[D712]

Barbarians are probably the most annoying thing in the game. But they are historical (i.e. sacking of Rome) and provide a risk in the game when there really isnt any other one.

I know that in Civ 5, domination victory is taking just the capitals of all the world civs, but what happens when you loose the capital? Do all your cities go barbarian? Or Do you just loose?

 

[Schuesseled]

niether you just dont have your capitol. it's just a city.

 

[D712]

niether you just dont have your capitol. it's just a city.

But you wont be able to win a domination victory unless you get it back, or somone else's capitol.

 

[Schuesseled]

quite right, youll need to retake it at some point if you want a dom victory, but you don't necessarily lose the game.

 

[D712]

quite right, youll need to retake it at some point if you want a dom victory, but you don't necessarily lose the game.

ahh. thank you for the clarification.

 

[IndustrialG]

If they are to be in the next game I hope the barbarians will have an advanced AI: they'll learn that it will take more than a couple axeman every 5 turns to take me down. Have the threat grow over time. (Bring a small army towards the end of their existance) Hopefully they wont randomly spawn in an area clouded by the fog of war. Have some goody hut that are armed towards the beginning that grow into to cities if they are not taken out! And please, no more random events where x6 spearmen appear near my only city--- 25 Turns into the game!

Finally dont just may them dissapear after the Middle Ages. Turn them into Pirates ( renaissance) then Rebels (Industrial) and.... then... may I say... Terrorists? (Modern & Future)

Just some ideas.......

 

[Dachs]

Most of the examples of historical analogs to the Civ 5 "barbarians" in this thread are poor. Think more like groups such as the Suebi, Greuthungi, Carpi, Kimmerioi, and so forth; non-urbanized sedentary peoples who periodically raid more economically developed regions (i.e. your territory) but who can be prevented from doing the same by raiding their own "territory" and inflicting military defeats upon them.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I know for a fact that Amsterdam is quite barbaric.



And I like the idea of having Civs start later in the new world on Terra Maps. I do it manually sometimes. I start a terra game with a lot of civs. Then I place the Inca's, Aztecs, NA, etc in the new world. I remove their two starting techs and place them on a not-so-good spot. Then when I arrive with my galleons I encounter a civ that is about 10 techs behind me and still puts up a fight, but are doomed in the long run when I invest enough on expeditionary forces.

It isn't perfect, but to me it is the closest thing to an age of sail-like game.

If you want that so bad go play RevDCM right now. The barb civ mod allows new civs to spawn from barb cities including in the new world. This is one of the reasons I'm sad to see barb cities go. If a Civ5 RevDCM was ever made it wouldn't be the same.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If you want that so bad go play RevDCM right now. The barb civ mod allows new civs to spawn from barb cities including in the new world. This is one of the reasons I'm sad to see barb cities go. If a Civ5 RevDCM was ever made it wouldn't be the same.

Not necessarily. You could potentially create a new level of City-State, one which eventually can evolve into a new civilization-if left alone for long enough. Whilst they're at it, it would be nice to give City-States varying degrees of aggressiveness-so that some might attack you-like Barbs do in Civ4-but with the obvious option that you can deal with them diplomatically as well as via violence.

If anything, having barbs & city-states potentially expands the opportunities for modders.

Aussie.

 

[Schuesseled]

im still hoping for some warlike city states, be kinda anoying if they were all whiney babies, going please attack them for us master schuesseled.