Barbarians

[Hunter]

I just finished a game of “Colonization” and one thing I greatly enjoyed was the Native nations and thought of a few things that would be interesting to add to “Barbarians”.

1) The camps should not be destroyed when your borders engulf them, you should have to attack them to destroy them.

2) Trade should be allowed with barbarian camps provided they are not hostile towards you. Ether refined goods (see my refined goods discussion) or if no refined goods then resources, weapons and food.

3) They should have a hostility rating based on your actions and a random starting setting. Ex: when a new barbarian group is found (more than one should have the same name) a hostility level should be set then every action following should increase or decrease it. Build to close to them they get angry (one tile around the village), over terra-form their land they get madder (one tile around the village), and if you kill one of their units they go to war. They can start off at war if the random hostility setting sets them at the highest level of anger. A friendly village may not be friendly with other civs and will attack them which could open a new diplomacy option (Request Barbarians Be Stopped). Possibly a rep hit could be added, especially for the modern age, if you destroy a village friendly to you.

 

[Teabeard]

It should be possible to conduct simple diplomacy and trade with barbarians/minor tribes... maybe get them to ally with you to take on a rival Civ. And with the new religion model, I think you should be able to send missionaries to barb camps.

 

[Princeps]

I think barbarians should be made more stronger, and they would steal weapons and technology of nearby Civilizations. Or they could also imigrate in a huge waves (move a way from bad terrains like desert to a fertail lands) and found cities.

 

[AndrewH]

Whenever the barbarian camp gets larger, i think it should turn into a city, and a new civ will form! Then there should be a random leaderhead, random UU, random their civ abilities should be militaristic and something else (RANDOM )

 

[Pounder]

I liked how Civ 2 handled barbarians, they would capture and occupy towns and produce units out of those towns. They could destroy a civilization.

 

[AndrewH]

I never played Civ II

 

[Corvex]

I'm not sure how I want barbarians implemented in Civ IV, but I can tell you what I don't want; I don't want a massive barbarian horde, after having wasted fifty horseman attacking a fortified city and finally wiping out its garrison to just ride into town do a little pillaging and then disappear off the face of the Earth (a la CivIII). There's got to be a little more to it than that. Either they should destroy the city, or they should occupy the city (as in Civ II), or, just for something different, they should declare the conquered city to be the capital of a new empire (as has happened surprisingly often in actual world history), instantly starting-off with whatever tech level the oringal owner had.

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

I agree, I think barbarians should be taken to a whole new level. The should have their own borders and fight with each other, but have mega simple AI so that they don't lag the game and they should eventually form into civs with complex AI if left alone for long enough. They should also appear more easily later in the game to represent the increase in global population and thus the population of those not living within anyone's borders.

I am concerned though about how long each turn will take if the world is filled up with these barbarians and however many new civs form as a result, it would be fun to contend with the rebels aswell as the empires, but may lag the computer quite a bit.

 

[Corvex]

Don't worry so much about that; if they suddenly appear in the middle of a game with only one city while everyone else has twenty, barbarian civs probably won't last that long anyway.

 

[AndrewH]

Whats the point? They are already annoying enough as it is.. why make them more annoying?

 

[Corvex]

Here's how barbarians should work: When a Barbarian horde overruns a regular city, it should be pillaged and destroyed. But when a horde overruns a provincial capital (assuming that there will be provinces in Civ IV, and, indeed, assuming that they will have capitals), the Barbarians should at this point gain control of the entire province. That province, and all units in it, will be incorporated, along with all Barbarian camps belonging to that particular barbarian tribe (which have suddenly become villages), into a new civilization, which did not exist at the start of the game. This new civ, however, must belong to the same culture group as the Barbarians who took over the province (so, for example, a Goth tribe would be able to create Spain because they are both European). When a Barbarian tribe overruns your national capital, however, they should get that city and half of your provinces (in as geographically contiguous a formation as possible).
Of course, this suggestion is assuming that alot of features will included in Civ IV.

 

[searcheagle]

Here's how barbarians should work: When a Barbarian horde overruns a regular city, it should be pillaged and destroyed. But when a horde overruns a provincial capital (assuming that there will be provinces in Civ IV, and, indeed, assuming that they will have capitals), the Barbarians should at this point gain control of the entire province. That province, and all units in it, will be incorporated, along with all Barbarian camps belonging to that particular barbarian tribe (which have suddenly become villages), into a new civilization, which did not exist at the start of the game. This new civ, however, must belong to the same culture group as the Barbarians who took over the province (so, for example, a Goth tribe would be able to create Spain because they are both European). When a Barbarian tribe overruns your national capital, however, they should get that city and half of your provinces (in as geographically contiguous a formation as possible).
Of course, this suggestion is assuming that alot of features will included in Civ IV.

Barbarians should be able to conqueor and run individual cities as in Civ II. A provincial capital, if conqueored, should only lose that city. The capital would be eventually assigned to another city in that province. It is too powerful to have the whole province gone if a barbarian catches it.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

The barbarians of Civ II should be brought back. In Civ III i set the barbarian setting on raging just to get something out of them

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have two words for you: Minor Nations. These would represent a new format for both 'barbarians' and 'Goody Huts'. Minor Nations are ones which, without outside intervention, will always remain smaller and technologically inferior to Major Nations. However, all Minor Nations have a certain, special something which only they possess, and which can be gained temporarily by any major civ which is able to incorporate the civ into their 'empire'. This something might be a special unit, a unique tech, a unique wonder or improvement, or some kind of bonus to commercial, scientific, food or industrial output-just to name a few. Though they are smaller and less powerful than major powers, their 'unique talents' and the resources needed to simply 'conquer' them should help to keep minor nations in the game a great deal longer than goody huts or barbarians-making the map in the Late Middle Ages on a great deal MORE interesting. Minor Nations could also become major foci for Tug-of-Wars throughout history-particularly in the later Ages-as these minor nations start to seek a greater degree of independance from any State they have been a protectorate of.
The other issue with 'minor nations' is that they would have a variable starting degrees of 'Hostility' (adjusted by Culture Group Relationships) and 'Nomadicism'-which will determine how much these minor nations resemble Goody Huts, Barbarian Camps, or sudden swarms of barbarians. Hope that makes sense.
Oh, Minor Nations were in Birth of the Federation and, trust me, both the Human and AI Empires worked VERY hard to keep the minor powers in the game! Sure, some fell to conquest, but the majority were incorporated peacefully into one Empire or Another! It helped make for VERY interesting games.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, AndrewH, I can assure you that my ideas have nothing to do with making barbarians more annoying-its about making them more Interesting and, therefore, less annoying. In my system, even the most hostile 'barbarians' can be 'civilized' by a major nation prepared to conduct diplomacy with them-after all, the Roman Empire bribed the Barbarian Tribes of its Eastern Frontiers for DECADES-before said Tribes were finally forced Westward by migration pressure exerted by other, more Eastern Nomadic Tribes. Minor Nations (even peaceful ones) could act as very useful barriers to the Rampant Land Grab which we see in the earliest stages of the game. They could also act as vital 'balance of power' States-to help reduce the chance of a single nation becoming the runaway leader in the Modern Age. Again, I hope you can see where I am coming from.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[AndrewH]

Well, they would have to do it right. But them building citys on my luxuries, etc. Could get very annoying. Although one thing that i would like about this... you could get the barbarians to fight the wars for you. Like if you didnt like one civ, you could get all of the local barbarian nations to declare war on them. Then you could take out the barbarian nations 1 by 1. Then you will have lots of land...

Would large goody huts turn into friendly nations, that give techs?

Either way, good idea. Probably better than my wall idea that everyone loves so much.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the important thing with Minor Nations is that, being minor, you would not deal with them in the same way as you would the other Major Players-after all, they are NOT direct rivals to your power, and are not out to WIN the game like the other major powers are. In some ways, this will make them much better to deal with than other major players-though make no mistake, the WILL look out for their OWN interests, and defend them quite strongly!!! Thus, they won't build a city ON a resource, they will build a city NEAR a resource, so that they can take advantage of it. What they won't neccessarily do, though, is build cities within your borders simply to antagonise you!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Corvex]

Remembering the many interesting campaigns I've played in Birth of the Federation, I am intrigued by the notion of 'minor powers' replacing Barbarians. Civs should be able to negotiate the accession of these states to their empire and thereby gain control of their 'special something.' That way, for example, instead of having the Carthaginians able to build Numidian Mercenaries, Numidia should be a nation on its own, and whoever gets it can build this unit. The minor states, upon accessing to your empire, should be incorporated as a province, but they should be rather more likely to separate than your other provinces.
I still like my idea, mind you, but I think this one is worth considering too.

 

[Aramda Master]

I have two words for you: Minor Nations. These would represent a new format for both 'barbarians' and 'Goody Huts'. Minor Nations are ones which, without outside intervention, will always remain smaller and technologically inferior to Major Nations. However, all Minor Nations have a certain, special something which only they possess, and which can be gained temporarily by any major civ which is able to incorporate the civ into their 'empire'. This something might be a special unit, a unique tech, a unique wonder or improvement, or some kind of bonus to commercial, scientific, food or industrial output-just to name a few. Though they are smaller and less powerful than major powers, their 'unique talents' and the resources needed to simply 'conquer' them should help to keep minor nations in the game a great deal longer than goody huts or barbarians-making the map in the Late Middle Ages on a great deal MORE interesting. Minor Nations could also become major foci for Tug-of-Wars throughout history-particularly in the later Ages-as these minor nations start to seek a greater degree of independance from any State they have been a protectorate of.
The other issue with 'minor nations' is that they would have a variable starting degrees of 'Hostility' (adjusted by Culture Group Relationships) and 'Nomadicism'-which will determine how much these minor nations resemble Goody Huts, Barbarian Camps, or sudden swarms of barbarians. Hope that makes sense.
Oh, Minor Nations were in Birth of the Federation and, trust me, both the Human and AI Empires worked VERY hard to keep the minor powers in the game! Sure, some fell to conquest, but the majority were incorporated peacefully into one Empire or Another! It helped make for VERY interesting games.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Star Trek Birth of the Federation had something like that.

 

[mhIdA]

Barbarians - the people who come from montains and hills to fertille valleys to pillageand destroy and eventually they evolve to Nomads or Minor Civs by the contacts with a major civ.

Nomads - people who have no cities, only camps (goody huts) who could evolve to a Minor Civ if they becoma sedentary.

Minor Civs - Sedentary people, they don't need posses any special (unit, tech, wonder or improvement). It can also possibly a Minor become a Major Civ.

So the path is Barbs -> Nomads -> Minor -> Major. This passage could be automatic with Barbs pass to Minors, or the way around. A Major become a Minor and a Minor become a Nomad, like amerindians with introduction of horses in North American, pass from sedentaries to nomads).