searcheagle
Emperor
If they have the force to take it, does it matter how well they can manage the city?
Barbarians...should they be able to capture cities?
- Thread starter primeminister99
- Start date
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I prefer the idea of barbs being enabled to occupy cities. After some time (perhaps 5 - 10 turns) having hold said city, they could adopt the culture and form a civilisation of their own. That way it has been all the way in history.
The conquerors came, the conquerors won, the conquerors stayed, the conquerors were assimilated but built some kind of new society this way.
Additionally, this would make barbs become a much higher threat than they are today. I mean, what happens if they take one of your towns? You loose the production, you loose 1 pop, you loose some money. But after that, they are gone and you can proceed. Annoying for sure, but not really devastating, as barbs have been in history.
The conquerors came, the conquerors won, the conquerors stayed, the conquerors were assimilated but built some kind of new society this way.
Additionally, this would make barbs become a much higher threat than they are today. I mean, what happens if they take one of your towns? You loose the production, you loose 1 pop, you loose some money. But after that, they are gone and you can proceed. Annoying for sure, but not really devastating, as barbs have been in history.
I agree barbarians ought to be able to conquer a city.
I'm undecided about whether barbarians should be able to morph themselves into a new civ. Certainly it shouldn't always happen when a barbarian unit conquers a city, but the cities shouldn't always be razed either. I think the sensible middle ground is that the city remains in anarchy (nothing built, no growth, no barbarians accumulating a treasury) until you reconquer it.
But most importantly, regardless of what happens when a city is taken by barbarians, the barbarian units should not disappear! If anything, they should be emboldened by their success and even more likely to attack other cities. They certainly wouldn't be "satisfied" and "disband themselves."
If the barbarian units stuck around until defeated by your military, and could thus potentially threaten more than one city, it would eliminate the exploit where you decide its easier to give up a single city and a portion of your treasury than to bother rushing new units to defend against a barbarian incursion.
I'm undecided about whether barbarians should be able to morph themselves into a new civ. Certainly it shouldn't always happen when a barbarian unit conquers a city, but the cities shouldn't always be razed either. I think the sensible middle ground is that the city remains in anarchy (nothing built, no growth, no barbarians accumulating a treasury) until you reconquer it.
But most importantly, regardless of what happens when a city is taken by barbarians, the barbarian units should not disappear! If anything, they should be emboldened by their success and even more likely to attack other cities. They certainly wouldn't be "satisfied" and "disband themselves."
If the barbarian units stuck around until defeated by your military, and could thus potentially threaten more than one city, it would eliminate the exploit where you decide its easier to give up a single city and a portion of your treasury than to bother rushing new units to defend against a barbarian incursion.
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
I think that the barbarian concept is purely a civ one with minimal relation to reality.
Actually there were never barbarians in history(tribes hellbent on destruction without any cultural or trade outpout), but it makes interesting gameplay and we all love them.
Allowing the capture of cities by barbarians could happen under the premise that these cities under barb control would be bereft of any contribuition to our modest empire.
Furthermore and to second judgement's idea they could generate one barb warrior per turn.
Allowing a "barb" civ (which is the historical case) would simply mean adding one more civ that would start as barbs.
Actually there were never barbarians in history(tribes hellbent on destruction without any cultural or trade outpout), but it makes interesting gameplay and we all love them.
Allowing the capture of cities by barbarians could happen under the premise that these cities under barb control would be bereft of any contribuition to our modest empire.
Furthermore and to second judgement's idea they could generate one barb warrior per turn.
Allowing a "barb" civ (which is the historical case) would simply mean adding one more civ that would start as barbs.
sampedestal
Warlord
Garbarsardar.jr said:
i never said that rome was burned. the goths, visigoths, etc. did a tremendous amount of destruction elsewhere. really didn't hold most cities
genghis khan was very very intent on razing cities. he had a plan--albeit a far-fetched one--to burn all of europe to the ground and turn it into a giant pasture for his horses. i believe the deciding factor was that if the people are left alive, he gets more money.
if the spanish were demoted from civ-status and put in barbarian-status, they would not hold cities either.
i never said attila sacked rome. he sacked many other cities, though. and didn't hold any of them.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I think that two issues should determine whether barbarians frequently OCCUPY or RAZE a given city. The setting of your barbarians in the opening screen SHOULD be a factor-so if Barbarians are more sedentary, then they are also more likely to occupy rather than raze cities. Also, each barbarian tribes 'aggressiveness' rating should be a factor. More aggressive tribes should raze cities almost ALL the time, wheras less agressive tribes will occupy cities!
Of course, as I've mentioned previously, I think barbarians/goody huts should be 'merged' into the single concept of Minor Nations-which I think would solve most of the issues raised previously!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Of course, as I've mentioned previously, I think barbarians/goody huts should be 'merged' into the single concept of Minor Nations-which I think would solve most of the issues raised previously!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
sampedestal
Warlord
hmm... actually, i really like the whole "agressivness rating" idea. it would certainly make barbarians more interesting. of course, the player would have a way to find out how agressive the barbs that they're fighting are
Denarr
Warlord
Maybe Civ 4 could just separate Barbarians in to Civ 2 Barbarians, and rename the Civ 3 Barbarians as Raiders, since that's what the Civ 3 Barbarians amount to in Civ 3.
Similar threads
- Poll
