Barbarians far too advanced

[Sid the Lucid]

I agree (having also read 1491), the old world won through nastier germs, not through better technology.

True in South America, although the better technology would have won if the germs didn't. In North America, it was better technology.

I agree with the OP. I expect the difficulty to come from the AI civs, not from barbarians. If an advanced civ struggles with barbarians, and this is actually deemed necessary to make the game challenging, then the whole model is flawed.

 

[Meffy]

I agree with the OP. I expect the difficulty to come from the AI civs, not from barbarians.

To my way of thinking, Civ IV barbarians are an AI civ. They have cultural boundaries, they build all kinds of stuff in their cities, they behave in most ways like a "fully civilized" civ that is always at war (so no diplomacy) and has hard limits on advancement. They can achieve pretty impressive tech and so forth... up to those limits.

If an advanced civ struggles with barbarians, and this is actually deemed necessary to make the game challenging, then the whole model is flawed.

Why? That is, what's the reasoning between premises and conclusion? This is in the form of a syllogism, but IMO there's no logic in it. Plenty of games involve struggles of this kind, and some of them mighty good to play. And real life, which Civ at least roughly approximates, offers abundant examples of its own.

 

[jefmart1]

First of all, the Europeans won through a combination of disease, supperior tech, and better political organization. Read "Guns, Germs, & Steel", a great read for civvers. It attributes the close proximity and contant fighting of the European powers as the reason for their success in the New World. They were organized, experienced, and skilled at playing the tribes against each other.

Second of all, like the one post said, what is the gripe if they have guns in 1858AD. Like no one went there at all for another 350 years and they just dumbly stay at their 1492 tech level. Tech would have eventually spread, but as explained in the book mentioned above, there were climatological and topographical impediments to their growth. Thats why they were behind the Europeans, especially due to the lack of horses. Imagine if horses didn't exist at all, and it took forever to travel distances over land...

Anyway, barbs with guns in 1858 makes sense. Especially when I have tanks.

 

[Veteranewbie]

Well unless the barbarian is more advanced than the average tech levels of all civ in the world (which in such case, those "barbarians" are not barbarians anymore, but the most civilized civilization in the world), I don't find anything wrong for your scernario. If the AI can't handle the situation, tough luck, maybe you should jump in first and setup your colonial empire, clear those barbs before the other AI jumps in for a share ... much like the real world

 

[Sid the Lucid]

Why? That is, what's the reasoning between premises and conclusion?

Is it that hard to follow? Historically, barbarian tribes do NOT wipe out advanced civs. Much the reverse, in fact.

It's the same reasoning that says a game about Hitler's invasion of Poland in '39 should not be winnable by the Poles by outright military victory. That too would be a flawed model. Fun to play perhaps. But still flawed.

You yourself describe barbarians as having 'pretty impressive tech'. That is hardly the appropriate characterization historically, it is completely paradoxical, and the fact that it is applicable to this game makes it a flawed model IMO.

 

[ohioastronomy]

For the reasons given by others in the thread, I don't think that making the barbarians much lower in tech and strength than the AI/players would be a good game balance move. One modest step that could be taken, and that would be historical, would be to adjust the AI and resources on Terra maps as follows:

No horses (or animal resources of any kind) in the New World
No cavalry-line units in the New World barbarians
No counters to cavalry-line units in the New World barbarians (spears, pikes, etc.)

This would reflect the fact that these things were, in fact, absent in the New World. If tech is so advanced that contact occurs in the modern era, the absence of these things won't matter. If contact does occur at more-or-less the historical epoch, they'll make conquest significantly easier.

 

[Artanis]

Is it that hard to follow? Historically, barbarian tribes do NOT wipe out advanced civs. Much the reverse, in fact.

Rome begs to differ.

 

[SlipperyJim]

Is it that hard to follow? Historically, barbarian tribes do NOT wipe out advanced civs. Much the reverse, in fact.

Rome, anyone? (Edit: I see Artanis beat me to this point.)

Furthermore, the "New World" Barbs on Terra will not "wipe out" a decent player. They'll slow you down, they'll make it hard for you to colonize, and they might kill a bunch of your units ... but they can't wipe out your Civ. Why not? Well, for starters, they can't project their military power across the ocean to your homeland. No matter how advanced their land units become, I've never seen a Barb ship that was any more advanced than a Galley. Even if they somehow manage to overcome that hurdle, they'll never be able to whip up a trans-oceanic invasion force that can do any real damage.

In the early game, the Barbs can certainly kill your Civ ... especially if you play on Raging Barbs, and especially if your start location is vulnerable. But that makes sense! An Ancient-era Civ isn't much better than Barbarians, anyway. In fact, the Barbs can temporarily gain an advantage over your Ancient-era Civ, particularly if you concentrate on non-military techs for the first thousand years. I lost my first Noble/Marathon game to (Raging) Barbs in ~1800BC. My start location was exposed to Barbs on all sides, and I delayed too long in setting up strong defenses. I learned my lesson in the next game.

The history of civilization has always included a struggle with barbarism. IMO, Civ4 is the only Civ game to get this issue correct.

 

[Meffy]

Is it that hard to follow? Historically, barbarian tribes do NOT wipe out advanced civs. Much the reverse, in fact.

Less advanced people, including ones considered "barbarians," have indeed destroyed more advanced ones. I can think of one dramatic example but you've probably spotted it already.

[edit] Artanis and SlipperyJim did!

You yourself describe barbarians as having 'pretty impressive tech'. That is hardly the appropriate characterization historically, it is completely paradoxical, and the fact that it is applicable to this game makes it a flawed model IMO.

If Civ IV were intended to be an authentic model of human history I might agree with this. But it's not. It is a game that uses the names associated with real people and places but models an imagined world -- not ours.

I think the flaw is not with the game's model, but with the assumption that Civ is a history simulator rather than a game.

But that's okay, it's not hard to mod the game to suit people who want to take Civ in new directions. That's part of what makes it appealing to me: those who want to try something different have the freedom to try it out, and to Hades with nay-sayers like me. ;-) They can have their variant, and I don't have to deal with it unless my tastes in gaming change.

 

[eric_]

Is it that hard to follow? Historically, barbarian tribes do NOT wipe out advanced civs. Much the reverse, in fact.

Aside from the obvious example of Rome, in many cases the classification "barbarian" only sticks to the loser of a war. I'm sure a conquered "barbarian" civilization wasn't thinking, "Oh, these guys are just so kind and civil and wow look how decisively they can kick our asses! Thank god they're so civilized or we'd be doomed!"

I don't mean to downplay the OP's concerns, however. Just, for my part, at least on noble, I enjoy and often benefit from the fact that the new world isn't a cakewalk.

 

[Sid the Lucid]

I think the flaw is not with the game's model, but with the assumption that Civ is a history simulator rather than a game.

As an old grognard it is my tendancy to seek out the simulation aspect of games like this. The scope and scale of civ is too vast to hope for anything more than an approximation really, and this game actually accompolishes it pretty well in many respects. It is obvious to me that the designers did care about historical relevancy. I just think they said 'Aw screw it, let's have some fun here' when it came to the barbs.

They are a little too aggressive, numerous, and advanced. Would you have a problem with barbarian 'civs' teching up to modern weaponry? Stealth bombers and nukes? Could you still justify calling them barbarians with a straight face at that point?

I think most people would say that crosses the line, simulation or no. Obviously, Firaxis thought it would. Well, for me, the line is just further back. For me, gunpowder crosses it.

And it's not just the tech but the constant assault on your cities. Say what you want about the HRE, it wasn't a series of relentless military assaults on Rome that brought it down. Barbarians in this game are never insidious. They cannot be negotiated with and do nothing but attack you, unprovoked mind you, at all times. How anyone can defend the accuracy of that model is beyond me. I don't expect perfect simulation, but these barbs are straight out of Diablo 2.

 

[eric_]

I don't expect perfect simulation, but these barbs are straight out of Diablo 2.

Hahaha!

I do often wish I could negotiate with the "new world" barbs...could really shake things up.

 

[SlipperyJim]

As an old grognard it is my tendancy to seek out the simulation aspect of games like this. The scope and scale of civ is too vast to hope for anything more than an approximation really, and this game actually accompolishes it pretty well in many respects. It is obvious to me that the designers did care about historical relevancy. I just think they said 'Aw screw it, let's have some fun here' when it came to the barbs.

Again, you're not looking at the "big picture" here. Barbs are only a deadly threat to your Civ during the Ancient era, maybe into the Classical era. By the time you get to the Middle Ages, you should have enough technology and resources that your homeland is secure against any Barb assault. Yes, the Barbs will eventually get to Longbows, Macemen, and even (gasp!) Riflemen ... but you should be well ahead of them.

After the early game, Barbs are a nuisance. On Terra, they can overrun your New World colonies if you're not adequately prepared, but that's the most they can do. If Barbs wipe out your colony, that's not a fatal blow. Do what the real-world Europeans did in that circumstance: get some more colonists, add more guns, and come back in greater force. Lather, rinse, repeat....

They are a little too aggressive, numerous, and advanced. Would you have a problem with barbarian 'civs' teching up to modern weaponry? Stealth bombers and nukes? Could you still justify calling them barbarians with a straight face at that point?

I think most people would say that crosses the line, simulation or no. Obviously, Firaxis thought it would. Well, for me, the line is just further back. For me, gunpowder crosses it.

Actually, recent history is full of examples of undisciplined, "uncivilized" people who manage to inflict significant damage on a Great Power simply by getting their hands on a few guns & bombs.... Substitute "terrorist" for "barbarian" and I think you'll see my point.

What was Rummy's quote about 9/11? Something about the terrorists using technology they could never have developed to destroy buildings they could never have built....

And it's not just the tech but the constant assault on your cities. Say what you want about the HRE, it wasn't a series of relentless military assaults on Rome that brought it down. Barbarians in this game are never insidious. They cannot be negotiated with and do nothing but attack you, unprovoked mind you, at all times. How anyone can defend the accuracy of that model is beyond me. I don't expect perfect simulation, but these barbs are straight out of Diablo 2.

What "constant assault"? Barbs only spawn in unsettled territory. Unless you're playing a Terra map, most of the unsettled territory is gone by 1AD or earlier. If you are on Terra, then the Barbs have to cross an ocean to get you, as I noted earlier. I can understand it if you think the Barbs are too tough in the early game, but this particular complaint doesn't seem to make much sense....

 

[Meffy]

Would you have a problem with barbarian 'civs' teching up to modern weaponry? Stealth bombers and nukes? Could you still justify calling them barbarians with a straight face at that point?

I never suggested such a thing. If you'll look back you'll see I specifically mentioned that barbs have limitations.

"Barbarian" is a convenient tag to hang on people you consider inferior, no more. The word confers no magic, doesn't reflect any real distinction-with-a-difference, is mostly a political term really. Civ IV barbarians are one expression of the idea. Anyone who wants to mod the game to suit their idea of just how inferior they want their opponents to be is welcome to do so and I won't argue their right.

But when I get good enough to take on the barb world, I want them to put up a serious fight. If they're not able to provide a real challenge, I'll be disappointed.

 

[Favorius]

Yes, yes those barbarians are more than a match compared to barbarians in civ 3. I am the most advanced civ and I have rifleman, and those natives are coming to take back their cities with rifleman. Actually in the game there were several barbarian kingdoms with size>10 and when I looked their cities had barracks, obelisk, market, grocer, lighthouse, harbor, castle, courthouse and even Mauryan had colloseum. The latter had its borders 3square far away. A very civilizied outlier tribe I think, would the histories wrote for such a case.

 

[Meffy]

I can't blame the German-Harappan city dwellers. I'd have a red sad face if I were in that situation too.

 

[Sid the Lucid]

I never suggested such a thing. If you'll look back you'll see I specifically mentioned that barbs have limitations.

Of course you didn't, which was my point. Read the next line of my post. The limit imposed is arbitrary and subjective, and IMO gunpowder is really no less ludicrous than stealth bombers. A civilization capable of mass producing either has advanced too far to rightly be called barbarians.

If you believe that barbarians are done just right then hey, great, more power to you. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Artanis]

But when I get good enough to take on the barb world, I want them to put up a serious fight. If they're not able to provide a real challenge, I'll be disappointed.

I agree. It was always depressing in previous Civ games to get warning of a Barbarian uprising and think "ooh, killing!", only to subsequently find out that the uprising is 20 Warriors despite it being 1950.

 

[cthom]

barbarian is a generic name for any civ not specifically listed in the game. afaic they can win the space race if they're able! it's all part of the fun

 

[shooter6947]

I do often wish I could negotiate with the "new world" barbs...could really shake things up.

I think that a good time to have this occur would be when someone builds the United Nations. Seems to me that it's at that point that all people worldwide were given the 'civilized' status. And it would make the diplomacy and UN votes more interesting, while at the same time not preventing you from conquering them if you want to