Barbarians...should they be able to capture cities?

[primeminister99]

In civ2 barbarians had the ability to actually capture and hold cities. I'm not nessecarily advocating that the developers of civ4 allow them to do this although the idea is intreging. So what I wanted to know is whether or not people think that barbarians should be able to capture cities, as opposed to how civ3 is set up now where they can only sack them, take your gold and mess up your production.

However if they do allow barbarians to capture cities in civ4 what will happen to the boundaries of those cities and their sphere's of influence? Will for instance 3 barbarian cities be linked by culture and act as a unified body, or will they fight amongst themselves? What about their production values will they rise as opposed to them just having settlements like they do now and will they be able to improve terrain? And when will all of this go over the line and prevent the 'barbarians' from acting like 'barbarians' and make them just another civilization? Personally I would like to see them have workers, but those workers would be slaves, that they have carried off from captured or sacked 'civilized' areas.

Also I'm intrested in hearing peoples ideas on how far barbarians should be able to progress in the terms of military technology, personally I think it would be strange for them to have units more advanced than those of the early middle ages (somewhere around the dark ages) in a default level (because the units the barbarians use can be currently changed in the scenario editor not to mention giving the barbarians extra units in specific scenarios).

 

[Simon_Sez919]

Perhaps when a barbarian takes a city, they form a new Civ, either from the regular list or a barbarian list.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think Barbarians should hold cities, but not produce anything from them. Your original culture would still exist if you take the city back, but the culture appears as non-existant for the Barbarians. However, if the Barbarians take enough cities, they should be able to form their own civilization. Than those cities start producing culture, units, etc. They should also be able to raise cities. Usually, however, they should just sack cities, taking money and destroying stuff.

I also think Barbarians should have their own "migrants" (Barbarian Settlers). These units should be able to settle even inside your borders, which could severely mess up your empire, and you have to fight back these migrants. A city built wouldn't have its own culture, but it would push your culture back one square (like an acutally culture would do). Barbarian migrants should sort of come in "waves" as Barbarain activity should only rise at certain points in the game (not tied to a specific date, however). Eventually, these Barbarians will settle down, and, if they have enough cities, they can form thier own civilization. If not, they would act like Civ3 Barbs. Its often advantagous to have a barbarious nation become civilized because they behave like a civilization, and you won't have to deal with the chaos they could cause. Of course you would than deal with an actual nation who can from alliances, build wonders, and possibly become more advanced than you.
BTW, Migrant-built cities should look like Huts, captured cities should look like they did before. Although hut can produce units, most Barbarian units should appear in the period of advanced barbarian activity. Also, when you first meet a specific tribe they might offer you a gift (when you move to the square next to it). They might also form a band of warriors to fight against you. Those that offer you a gift disapear to prevent you from killing it after they give you a gift. Huts that are created after the begining of the game never give you gifts.

About unit advancement. I would not let the Barbs get more than Ancient units, but I would make it possible from them to do so in the editor.

 

[Denarr]

I really like reading about this subject, but it would be nice to read about it in only one topic.
There is an older topic called Barbarians, neutral nations, criminals, which is discussing all kinds of concepts on what changes should be made to the Barbarians.
Perhaps this discussion could be continued there.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

Speaking of barbarians, does anybody know the formula which determines how much gold they'll lift from my treasury after they sack the city?

I've had like a thousand barbarian horsemen attack one of my border cities (size 1 or 2, I don't remember exactly) and each of them managed to squeeze 14 or 13 gold out of my treasury. Wow!!! I had never known that I kept so much gold there. I mean, why on earth isn't the loot proportionate to the city's size and location?

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

I think that Barbarians should be able to take cities and stuff, and form their own civilization if they have, say 3 cities or so, and are growing in them. Of course, if the cities weren't guarded by several barbarian wariors, they could culture flip. They could slave units from the cities they capture, unless you have nationalism, and those slave would become conscript units. Of course, each slave would take up 2 population points, putting them at a disadvantage.

This would make people much more careful with their city building and stuff, and would make them bring along at least a few units in the beginning to support.

I also like the idea of the barbarians offering you a gift, but isn't that the same as the villages that you can find in the beggining. Also, I don't think that most barbarian cities want to offer you gifts after you just killed one of their units.

Also, there should be barbarians of ancient age to modern age, where ancient it is warrior, middle it is medieval soldier (except maybe with a different look), in industrial it would be guerilla (and the barbarians would be renamed rebels or something, as there were quite a few rebelious groups at that time, as many people wanted to separate and form their own group), and for modern age it would be a more advanced version of the rebels. Also, they would change when ALL of the civs have changed to that age.

 

[Gogf]

I don't think so, but they should be able to raze them.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Razing also, but if barbarians could capture cities and forge empires, it would be a substitute for making your cities start civil wars with you. Well, it's all Firaxis' choice. We'll see how it goes.

 

[1wheel]

Speaking of barbarians, does anybody know the formula which determines how much gold they'll lift from my treasury after they sack the city?

gold in your treasury / number of your citys = loot


Barbarians should not be able to capture citys. By defntion Barbarians are uncivilzied people that don't build citys. Taking over the land were their was once a city does not make a barbarian civizied.

After capturing a city barbians should destroy all of the citys work on the current project, kill or drive awy some of the citys pop., take an amount of of gold from the treasury poprtinal to the citys pop., destroy some improvements, and have chance of razing the city. After doing all of these things, the barbarains are satisfied, and disband themselfs. The city functions in a state of anarchy until you sent a unit you send a unit to restore order to the city. Other barbarian units, seeing their is no loot in the city, ignore the city until you restore control.

 

[kulgan]

If the Barbarians take the city and hold it, then it should only take a little from the treasury, that can't be recovered. However the citizens should riot and depending on the size of the city, overthrow the new barbarian leaders, a couple of turns later, and install a new govenor.

The installation of a new govenor OR start there own indipendent nation, depending on culture, distance from capital, length of time left barbarians were in control or last time the capital spent any money on them.

 

[Denarr]

gold in your treasury / number of your citys = loot


Barbarians should not be able to capture citys. By defntion Barbarians are uncivilzied people that don't build cities. Taking over the land where there was once a city does not make a barbarian civilized.

After capturing a city barbians should destroy all of the citys work on the current project, kill or drive awy some of the citys pop., take an amount of of gold from the treasury poprtinal to the citys pop., destroy some improvements, and have chance of razing the city. After doing all of these things, the barbarains are satisfied, and disband themselves. The city functions in a state of anarchy until you sent a unit you send a unit to restore order to the city. Other barbarian units, seeing their is no loot in the city, ignore the city until you restore control.

Actually, by definition a Barbarian is a member of a people or a group with a civilization regarded as primitive, savage, etc.
This would include civs with cities, like that nation that somehow got stuck in the middle ages and never quite got out, while you're working on the last half of the moder age.
The only thing that would make a barbarian nation civilized would be for them to achieve the same level of sophistication as your own civ.

 

[primeminister99]

I like the civil war idea however it might be appropriate for a whole new thread, if one hasn‘t already been created.

I'm not really a fan of having the Barbarians take your cities - seceding - and forming a new civilization though, if they do hold cities it might - stress might - be appropriate. Personally I would like to see the Barbarians hold cities but be more like an occupying force, that would pillage your cultural buildings and of course take gold until you force them out. Although if Civ4’s Barbarians hold cities and follow ShADoW^HawK’s suggestion I would prefer that these 'civilizations' (more appropriate term ‘Barbarian Nations‘) would have some sort of severe economic and industrial disadvantages as opposed to the average civilizations (I say average civilization because some gov't's are less efficient).

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, barbs should be able to occupy cities, and why isn't this a poll?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'm a strong advocate for having both a 'National Treasury' and a 'City Treasury'. i.e. each city produces its own income each turn, some of which is 'tithed' to the national government, whilst the rest remains in the city for use in local infrastructure products, maintaining improvements and rushbuilding items in the build queue!
If this were to happen, then the amount of money a barbarian or foreign civ would get from capturing/pillaging a city would depend on that individual city's wealth.
This would be great for targetting certain cities who might be well known for being very wealthy!
Back on topic, though, I believe that barbarians and goody huts should be replaced with 'minor nations', and that civil wars should be able to spark new nations (minor or major, depending on the number of cities!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[painkiller]

Ofcourse they should be able to take cities. They shouldn't be able to produce anything (maybe units) but still. The barbarians of Afghanistan (the Taleban) took a whole nation and converted it to their visions of islam.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I have been quite vocal in saying that I would like to see Barbarians be able to become civs. So as part of this they would be able to capture cities.

 

[sampedestal]

i don't think so... look at the fall of rome. or genghis khan. or attila. most mega-horde people burn down cities. barbarians should raze the cities. but then, how about they plant some of their own?

 

[rcoutme]

One thing I definately want changed! Barbarians should not be able to empty out my treasury by having 18 units attack one city that has a 1 population in the middle of the tundra! If Firaxis wants each city to have the same amount of treasury, fine (although I think it should be divided by population, not by the number of cities), but once that is set, the idea that the pillaging of the city by one barbarian unit will cause my nation to automatically redistribute its wealth so that the next barbarian can do the same thing is absolutely ludicrous!

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

look at the fall of rome

rome was not burned or razed
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm

or genghis khan

Temujin apparently razed much less cities than the civilized spanish in S.A.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm

or attila

Attila did not sack rome
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02061b.htm

just for the record....

 

[kulgan]

If a barbarian took your city it should push your cultural border back a tile or two. The improvement you make should be pillaged even damaged so that if you take the city back a few turns later you could seriously consider abandoning it rather than rebuilding it.