Barbarians, worth enabling or not?

[pontias]

easy way to get early faith using god of war belief.

 

[alpaca]

I'm mostly hesitant to disable them because of how tied-in they are into some parts of the game. The honor opener and some civ abilities (Germany and The Ottomans come to mind) make very little/no sense if you play without barbs.

Normal barbs don't necessarily make the game easier. If you play without them, you can draw off your whole army to fight the AI. Playing with them, you need at least a token force as garrison, which makes your offensive capabilities a bit weaker. Also, on the difficulties where the AI has tons of units (Emperor and up, probably), they don't have as much trouble with barbs - at least, they don't lose more than the occasional worker, which isn't much of a hassle for their production bonuses.

On the other hand, barb camp hunting is one of my main ways to garner city state influence in the early game. Maybe I'll try a game or two without them at some point.

 

[blasto]

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.

Well said. I love the little bastards too and usually rage. The only way they could be better is if they eventually found a city state if left long enough. Why Firaxis conceived of using city states in the game but got rid of this feature is beyond me.

 

[PostConsumerWat]

I also have enjoyed the raging barbs in the past... they can get tedious though. For a while I loved farming those guys.. you can set up your troops near a city state and an infringing barb camp and farm rep with the CS.

It gets old too after a while... or when you are on turn whatever, still mining barbs.

I would like to see them add more little flavors to the barbs and ruins... add in animals, have barbs settle barb-states... it would be cool if the barb camps united and joined together to be a late-game civ... I love such nuances...

 

[Halcyan2]

Barbarians are useful, Raging Barbarians even more so.

Though they may often hamper you, they hamper the AI significantly more. In fact, I would say that Immortal/Deity is actually *easier* with Raging Barbarians, especially since the AI can be rather bad when protecting their settlers.

Considering how crazy fast the AI expands on higher levels, Raging Barbarians can significantly hamper the AI. Oftentimes you will find one civ much weaker than the rest and discover that's because his settler was captured by barbarians. While human players tend to prioritize the freeing of their civilian units, the AI doesn't seem to care all that much.

Besides being good for influence points with City States, freeing captured civilians of other civs gives you a diplomatic boost.

This is even more significant with G&K due to all the missionaries running around. Unlike settlers/workers, missionaries have a better reason for wandering through the vast wilderness. In addition, they have limited sight which makes them easier pickings, and I feel much better about returning a missionary than about returning a worker or returning a settler.

 

[Khadroth]

I don't turn on raging barbs because it benefits players and some civs a lot more than others. Other than that I like the challenge that barbs present.

 

[Grendeldef]

I feel that barbs are an essential part of the game and whether I like them or not is irrelevant. Never tried without barbs but I had raging on 50% of the time @vanilla to have something to do in the beginning, either chasing or dodging them. So far yet to try raging @G&K. Besides, since there is nothing like corruption in Civ2 I think that barbs have to represent all the difficulties of a newborn civ from the environment.
All in all I find them more useful than annoying.

G

 

[Kingreaper]

I'd find the early game without barbs a bit boring.

However, I always found the level 2 limit on barbs a bit low, so I use a mod to up it to 3. Level 3 is the max you can build a unit at, so it makes sense as the max for barbarians too.

 

[Lexicus]

I literally never play without Raging barbarians. I find it makes the beginning of the game far more engaging, and it's also more realistic. My only problem is that they should make raging spawn more camps instead of just making the existing camps spawn more units. It makes sense...with few exceptions empires never expand into a void, they have to displace other occupants. Rhy's and Fall in Civ IV really nailed this with the Independent factions.

 

[duxup]

easy way to get early faith using god of war belief.

Also culture with Honor opened up.

 

[Cavalyn]

Definitely a near-requirement that you have barbs on tbh... Playing without them is basically playing an easier game. It's very much like choosing the enemy civs specifically to have ones you can beat more easily...

I usually play with raging, though I do agree they should turn off at a certain age, more like industrial than renaissance, since robbers and marauders were still common then! Come the industrial age and groups of robbers fell away to individuals and crime syndicates, not groups of people running round with weapons xD

As for the "I don't see how any of that is good." quote... There are alot of aspects to the game which aren't "good" for you. Is anyone DoW-ing you good? Probably not, but it's a facet of the game. Is a spy stealing a tech from you good? No, but again... part of the game...

Playing without them is just giving yourself one more handicap, and tbh, on difficulties lower than immortal and deity, you certainly don't need any handicaps to steamroll the AI!!!

 

[Cajamarca]

Playing without them is just giving yourself one more handicap, and tbh, on difficulties lower than immortal and deity, you certainly don't need any handicaps to steamroll the AI!!!

Maybe I just suck.

 

[Cajamarca]

Come the industrial age and groups of robbers fell away to individuals and crime syndicates, not groups of people running round with weapons xD

Somalia.

 

[alpaca]

Somalia.

Hmm good point. This is kind of the analogy of an unsettled backwater within the FoW in Civ5.

 

[smallfish]

Yes they are. In fact, one of the easiest CS quests to do (and the easiest way to obtain extra happiness without cashing in gold) is through Barb elimination.

 

[Cavalyn]

lol @ Somalia, you're right. As for the "Maybe I suck" comment, well if you want to improve you need to push yourself!!

Also it's weird that city states still give so much respect for destroying a barb camp of warriors, when they are running round with longswords and crossbowmen 0.o

 

[Halcyan2]

lol @ Somalia, you're right. As for the "Maybe I suck" comment, well if you want to improve you need to push yourself!!

Also it's weird that city states still give so much respect for destroying a barb camp of warriors, when they are running round with longswords and crossbowmen 0.o

Well, most of the time CS units are stuck within the borders of the CS. They apparently don't approve of sending their units into the vast unknown to deal with barbarians! Reminds me of Civ IV when it cost you extra maintenance for units outside of your cultural borders.

 

[Callonia]

Well, most of the time CS units are stuck within the borders of the CS. They apparently don't approve of sending their units into the vast unknown to deal with barbarians! Reminds me of Civ IV when it cost you extra maintenance for units outside of your cultural borders.

Aye, but sometimes, they do send units to deal with the barbarian encampment but its rare that they do it.

 

[peddroelm]

Early game barbarians can be a huge pain in the .... You need extra military units to escort//protect settlers//workers ...

So disabling them would be cheating ...

 

[RedRover57]

On lower diff levels perhaps. On emperor they happily clear out camps, often with 3-4 units, sometimes even with horsemen

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.