It's OK, I dont want it the same. Civ has changed many things since Civ1, why not remove barbs.it wouldn't be the same if they weren't back.
There's a huge difference between spawning settlers like no tomorrow and sending them unguarded to take all good spots insanely early. And building settlers _and_ army and carefuly guiding guarded settlers to spawnbusted places to find the cities and hoping that barbs wont find the cities in non-spawnbusted places.How does not playing with barbs effect the gameplay balance? Actually you are helping the AI out a bit, because often barbs are tougher on AI civ's than the human player... so you are making the game a bit more difficult for yourself by allowing easier AI expansion.
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
The Romans spent plenty of time fighting Celts. Boudica's name ring a bell?Just to nitpick a little. Barbarians are barbarians to Romans, Celts are barbarians to Greeks.
Everyone was a barbarian to the Greeks.
Barbarians are just a game mechanic.
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.
Everyone was a barbarian to the Greeks.
literally it meant one who only talks blah blah, as they werent speaking the clearly only real language in the world.
Exactly, this friggin barbarian's got it right! There's nothing politically incorrect about using the term as the Civ series has. Sure the Celts were barbarians to the Romans, but then again so were the Scythians and they were definitely a civilization.This is literally true; the old Greek word from which 'barbarian' is derived meant 'stranger' or 'foreigner'.