Barbarians, worth enabling or not?

[pwoz]

They do a little better on high difficulty settings, but I play mostly Immortal and I often see barbs stealing workers and settlers from the AI, resulting in significantly stunting their progression. In addition, as others have mentioned, barbs make it easier for the player since they lead to free experience, free cash, free culture (with Honor or Aztecs) and free influence with CS's.

Of course, it isn't free given that you have to divert resources to dealing with the barbs instead of whatever else you would do with those resources.

 

[RedRover57]

It's free in the sense that you don't need to damage your reputation by declaring on a CS or neighboring AI in order to get cash/workers/combat experience. Usually we are talking about very early in the game when your combat units wouldn't have anything else to do anyway (unless you are going for a very early rush or if an AI declares on you early). If you are going for an early rush on a neighbor then yes, of course, having barbarians attack your capital at the same time is an inconvenience since it requires leaving behind an extra unit or two to deal with them.

 

[DrZ]

They force caution and restraint in your expansion
They force retaining a military presence at home to protect your workers and improvements
They give your initial units some experience for when the real enemies come knocking
They can provide a nice relationship boost with city-states
They require active, offensive military effort to stop the flow
They add a bit of risk to scouting
They provide some actual conflict in isolated starts
They can provide a (minor) threat from unexpected angles
They're tied to some civs/social policies/pantheon belief
They have cool-looking camps
They make the early game more interesting

I love barbs - I'd have raging barbs permanently on if it wasn't that the AI players can't handle them that well. They make things more fun and they also give that extra sense of minor risk that keeps you on your toes for when Monty comes knocking.

Yes, this sounds exactly how i think about barbs. They add a little bit of everything to the game: a little gold, a little xp to units, a little influence to cs, a little culture (if you choose honor or you are monthy). Also they add to the challenge factor to the game so i believe it to be a plus. Making the game easier is not necessary a good thing. I get a lot happier if i win a challenging game than if i win an easy game.

 

[Kerosene31]

I play on king with the default barb setting. I think the early game would be too boring most times without them (unless you get an early war). When barbs are on, I usually will research archery much earlier. 2 warriors and 1 archer can pretty much handle anything easily, at least on king. If you find an open area where you want to settle, just plant a unit there to prevent barbs from spawning.

 

[Martock]

I wouldn't enjoy the game as much if I didn't have barbarians to whack. Quite frankly, I find the Raging Barbarian setting to weak. I miss the sudden Barbarian outbreaks from Civ3 or Civ4 where you suddenly had to contend with a MASSIVE army of barbarians. I don't recall the last time I saw a civ or city state get destroyed by barbarians.

 

[Gort]

I do wish the barbarian AI was a bit more aggressive. They should really be running straight at your units and cities and immediately attacking them. Give them an ability similar to "coastal raiders" (they steal an amount of gold equal to half the damage they do) and you're set.

I would say that disabling barbarians would mean you're downgrading the bonuses of Germany and the Aztecs significantly, though.

 

[duxup]

I do wish the barbarian AI was a bit more aggressive. They should really be running straight at your units and cities and immediately attacking them. Give them an ability similar to "coastal raiders" (they steal an amount of gold equal to half the damage they do) and you're set.

I would say that disabling barbarians would mean you're downgrading the bonuses of Germany and the Aztecs significantly, though.

Naw, barbarians have other things to do than just attack you. Sometimes they like to explore, watch the sunset, ect.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I like playing with barbarians on. If they are an issue and are stealing workers and pillaging your tiles on a regular basis then you simply need some more units. This means you have too few and if you can't protect yourself against a brute wandering around then how will you defend yourself against an early attack by an actual AI Civ? Maybe the AI is such a warmonger in your games because you have no military so all they see is easy gains.

I play multiplayer with some friends often and we usually play Co-operatively. Several of them used to hate barbarians for the same reasons you do. But it's because they never built units early and barbarians just roamed around burning stuff and enslaving workers. Once they learned to actually have somekind of military force this stopped happening and their complaints ceased too.

It's rare for me to lose units to barbarians, and its not often they manage to pillage more than a single tile if it even survives that long. Toughen up!

 

[BlackMoon450]

I keep the barbarians around, primarily because I like to play as Germany and this gives me a much-needed source of troops for a defensive military as I advance beyond my future opponents technologically. Without the barbarians, Germany is almost ordinary to play as. My strategy, at least, involves waiting until later in the game to strike if I so desire, using the meantime to develop powerhouse production and science cities that will one day fuel the War Machine I plan to unleash.

 

[MasterMishi]

i prefer barbs off

barbs will be more a problem to some players due to their random placement, this can have significant impacts on early development, and that effect snowballs considerably.

so in the interest of testing skill and not map luck i prefer barbs off. Civplayers civ league always play barbs off, tho no quitters play with them on for reasons stated.

barbs also add processing and therefore lag, as do any ai element like citystates. i reduce citystates also btw, and often remove them also as again random placement causes imbalances.

I find that the early game buildup is quicker when you dont have to build extra units, and making a multiplayer game go quicker is worth it imo.

barbs off means human civs fight on a more balanced basis.

yes it means some civs lose an ability but montezuma is imbalanced again on a barbs map esp raging.

 

[Moriarte]

i prefer barbs off

barbs will be more a problem to some players due to their random placement, this can have significant impacts on early development, and that effect snowballs considerably.

so in the interest of testing skill and not map luck i prefer barbs off. Civplayers civ league always play barbs off, tho no quitters play with them on for reasons stated.

barbs also add processing and therefore lag, as do any ai element like citystates. i reduce citystates also btw, and often remove them also as again random placement causes imbalances.

I find that the early game buildup is quicker when you dont have to build extra units, and making a multiplayer game go quicker is worth it imo.

barbs off means human civs fight on a more balanced basis.

yes it means some civs lose an ability but montezuma is imbalanced again on a barbs map esp raging.

I' d like to respond to your post. In my opinion skills are tested with barbs on. You have to have minor level of defense to manage barbs. If you go on building great library or whatever without establishing a military presence, barbs will act in balancing fashion, damaging your resources and slowing development. Which is fair, again, in my opinion, to other players and the AI. If you have skills, you'll fend them off and prepare your military for inevitable strike from AI or human, or just go about questing.

Picture this multiplayer game. Pangaea. Two players start next to each other, third one is distant. Switch off barbs and the distant player gets massive advantages, since no one will go after him and leave own borders unprotected.

The buildup can, actually, be only a fraction slower, and in most of my games even faster WITH military. If you kill a barb camp near maritime CS - you will grow faster, gaining higher production. Kill one near culture CS = More culture = more happiness, other bonuses, etc, etc. Early CS alliances give the biggest effect in the early game.

In my SP space race games i built all space parts before turn 250 consistently, some games were faster. Don't think i'll get much different results by just solving 'the barb problem'. There would be new advantages and new disadvantages, if i would switch them off, so i keep them.

 

[BlackMoon450]

Basically what I see in this debate is the collision of two options: Option 1 is to keep the barbarians in the game and use them as a diversion for those of us of the more warmongering persuasion or as just another AI nuisance and allow them to go about their terrorist ways as long as they don't start attacking you, while Option 2 is to remove them and, in most cases, suffer from a likely shortage of combat to boost XP with, lose out on a reason to have a military just in case of the practically inevitable invasion by one of your more aggressive AI opponents, and potentially sacrifice a good way to keep a minor check on your opponents' expansionism and military strength. While I favor the first option, I do see how removing the barbarians can create new and entirely different challenges on its own.

Without barbarians, you are challenged with keeping your military at the right strength without sacrificing the advancement of cities through buildings and Wonders. With barbarians on, you have an easily-recognized reason to make a certain amount of combat units, but without, unless you plan on being at war almost constantly, there is no way to judge just how much military might you need to stay alive and thrive while also maintaining urban development.

So, in it's own way, I see how removing the barbarians from the field of battle can present new and exciting challenges. I am still of the opinion that they are better left in play, but as I said, there is something to be gained gameplay-wise from removing them.

 

[workersareOP]

Have tried the game with barbarians off a few times, seemed less interesting. Never tried raging, though I've long intended to.

My only complaint with barbarians is the fact that the camps can spawn a unit (in an adjacent tile, not the camp itself, whereas cities always spawn units in the city even if it causes a stack) and that unit can move/attack that same turn.

I occasionally lose military units when a surprise barbarian spawns in the middle of a fight, but far more annoying is when one spawns, sometimes in rough terrain, from an encampment just out of my line of sight and then beelines for a settler or worker that was momentarily unprotected. It ruins my tile math on whether a unit is safe, and I find few things in the game more frustrating.

Seems like this could easily be fixed by causing new barbarian units to spawn in the camp, even if it causes a momentary stack situation.

 

[Esperr]

I suppose I wouldnt mind them if they were static from the beggining of the game. I just hate how you wipe them out and they just randomly pop up right next to your worker and nab him. ever. single .time.

 

[BlackMoon450]

I suppose I wouldnt mind them if they were static from the beggining of the game. I just hate how you wipe them out and they just randomly pop up right next to your worker and nab him. ever. single .time.

I agree, the thing they could do to fix this is to make it so that the camps are a little harder to destroy, a little like cities are now but not quite THAT hard, and have them spawn slightly more often when the world generates, but no more encampments spawn after the game begins. This would give you a little practice if you plan to be a warmonger later on, and it would also solve the absurdity of like 5 encampments springing up from out of nowhere surrounding your city and all moving in at once. This sort of thing is why I like to refer to the barbarians as the "terrorists of Civilization."

Of course, that sometimes gives me a much-needed bolstering for my army when I play as Germany, which I often do, but it will be more likely to do far more harm than good even with the 50% chance of them joining you after you raid their camp...

 

[slobberinbear]

I have not read any of the replies and apologize in advance.

In my opinion, barbs and ruins are both key elements in the game as certain civs have been designed with them specifically in mind. In other words, turning them off will have unintended consequences. I am thinking specifically of the Aztec, Songhai, Americans, Germans, Polynesians.

I occasionally play Raging but find that it forces a particular playstyle early on, which I disagree with philosophically. I play Civ (over and over again) because it presents consistent, varied, and meaningful strategic choices.

 

[MasterMishi]

@ moriarte

skill is tested when humans are on a level playing field, barbs will affect players to greater or lesser extent anbd therefore create imbalances, thus testing skill less imo.

pangaea example arguing barbs on to test an isolated player: isolated will often mean less barbs.

i can totally see why in SP you want barbs, esp the city state element.

but in mp: can you imagine the effect 4 barbs surrounding a civ compared to 1 or no barbs hassling the other: its totally imbalanced.

the other extreme is barbs on or raging: if i am montezuma i have such an advantage, it so much extra culture, you never want to kill the barb camps, just farm the barbs for culture ftw, that makes the cost of units really worth it. if its raging barbs its ridic op vs other civs.

alos barbs are ai and therefore make bad tactical decisions, so easy to out play that adding them makes the game easier as you promote your units super quick, and get the city states from them.

so barbs off for more balance and harder game

 

[SMA333M]

I have barbarians enabled, always... it's fun to have them, especially at the beginning of the game, you can kill them for xp and you can get gold from their camps. Also you can get workers too, if they took them from other civs. You should have enough units to defend against barbarians... if you can't defend against them, then no chance against a civilization.

 

[BlackMoon450]

I play Civ (over and over again) because it presents consistent, varied, and meaningful strategic choices.

Good call, my thoughts exactly when I posted about the different aspects of both options above.

 

[binhthuy71]

Raging barbs, always, because if you can deal with them then you can deal with having Caesar as your neighbor.

I tend to be a peaceable builder. The game still allows that as long as you have sufficient military force and/or gold pile to keep from being DoWd. I research Archery second, no matter what, and every city builds two archers before it does anything else. Yes, it's simplistic and yes, there's an opportunity cost. On the other hand, the raging barbs (If I was younger I'd have a band named the Raging Barbs) ensure that my early game archers all have the Cover promo without having to build any barracks. I build or buy more archers and rotate them in position at barb camps to get them promoted up. The upgrades to Composite Bowman>Crossbow>Gatling Gun>Machine Gun mean that you will have strong units game long so that you can peacefully build.