Barbarians

[morbror_sven]

why are you making thing so complicated? Just your ideas about the barbs would make a whole new game.

When you say that you want the barbs to capture cities like they did in Civ 2 you forget many things.

1. In Civ 3 the barbs have modern radar enquipment so that they always can find unprotected workers.
2. If you hunt them they escape.
3. New huts pop up on small pennisulas, tundras, wastelands etc....
4. Massive uprising means 60 barbs in Civ3 and absolutely not more than 6 in Civ 2.

Do you want everything to be like it were in civ2 or just make them even more awkward?

Giving the barbs their own borders and "intellegence" would just cause problems and become very abused.
I can already imagine how someone comes up with the thread "victory in 7 turns with the barbs".
That would never be fair in multiplayer, it would just shorten the games even more. Quitters will not only quit for "no iron", now they quit for "no barbs" too.

Barbs are awkward but some of your ideas would make them a real nigthmare.

 

[mhIdA]

Sorry for a double post but, Some things I missing.

Players could start as barbarians, nomads or sedentaries (normal civs). Once the discovery of writing tech in a Neolitic Age it become a minor civ (only if have a city sized 4 or 2 cities sized 2 it become a major/normal civ). In each era the city size that allow be a major civ is incresed by two - one city sized 6 and 2 cities sized 3 and so one.
Until that the sedentary cities could be like goody huts or somehow improved, and Barbs and Nomads stay in camps, with nomads move arround, given the clima and geography. The civs in great river valleys as an advantage in early stages of game.

morbror sven
Maybe I don't want the experience as you of barbs since I custom play with sedentary barbs. But the function of barbs is give to player more challenge.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Truth is, they would be LESS awkward in my system. In the current system, barbarians give you two choices, kill or be killed. Goody huts, also, give you a simple one off benefit. In my system, the line between the 'goody hut' and the 'barbarian' is quite blurred, as even the most aggressive barbarian village can be pacified via appropriate diplomacy-potentially giving you a new ally against your larger foes. More peaceful villages, OTOH, can from the outset give you benefits via trade and, eventually, their unique ability. The point is that, as it currently stands, barbarians are annoying without being a real challenge-much in the same way as it is for pollution and corruption. By making them more....shall we say, interesting, we are turning them into real wild-cards who can make or break the earliest ages of the game and, by the same token, could come back to 'haunt' even the most successful civ in the latter stages of the game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Minor nations would also make things easier for scenario makers; it gives them the ability to represent those tiny countries which are annoyingly necessary because they serve as buffer states or space-fillers.

 

[morbror_sven]

Maybe I don't want the experience as you of barbs since I custom play with sedentary barbs. But the function of barbs is give to player more challenge.

Yes but that challange may be uneven in multiplayer. Peapole already quit for these "goodie huts"... I'm afraid that more complicated barbs would make the situation even worse.
No more luck moments please!

Lockeydonkey:
I think that problem already is solved. As you may know there will be much better conditions for scenario writers in Civ IV.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I get the feeling that you are deliberately ignoring my posts, Morbror. You mention the problem with Luck in Civ3. Well, first up, luck already effects so many parts of the game, yet many good players are able to overcome bad luck-and even win the game-whether in SP or MP. If you just give everybody lots of goody huts, no barbarians and perfect terrain, every time, SURE it will be easier to win, but it will also be less of a challenge.
That said, my idea tones down much of the LUCK factor involved in Goody Huts and Barbarians, instead forcing the player to use all the skills at his disposal in order to turn things to his/her advantage, whilst also giving players many more options in the earliest part of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[morbror_sven]

I get the feeling that you are deliberately ignoring my posts, Morbror. You mention the problem with Luck in Civ3. Well, first up, luck already effects so many parts of the game, yet many good players are able to overcome bad luck-and even win the game-whether in SP or MP. If you just give everybody lots of goody huts, no barbarians and perfect terrain, every time, SURE it will be easier to win, but it will also be less of a challenge.
That said, my idea tones down much of the LUCK factor involved in Goody Huts and Barbarians, instead forcing the player to use all the skills at his disposal in order to turn things to his/her advantage, whilst also giving players many more options in the earliest part of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

True. I didn't read your post on the first page. But now i have.
Well you say you want "minor civs". As a true builder i say that would mean trouble, it would just be more likely to get boxed in early in the game.
In multiplayer it would be very abused and probably very unfair.

I get your point, maybe it would be interesting. But as you know both peapole and AI:s mostly act like real scumbags which is the biggest problem for your idea.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As a true builder i say that would mean trouble, it would just be more likely to get boxed in early in the game

You say this like its a BAD THING?! For me, I find the greatest imbalancer of the game is the rampant expansion that occurs in the early part of the game.
The reason it is unbalancing is that how much a player can expand in the first 1000 to 2000 years of the game has a VERY strong impact on whether or not they win the game-the much maligned (and rightly so) 'Snowball Effect'. It is factors like these which contribute to the 'late-game' malaise which even the most die-hard fan of the series complains about!
What makes Minor Nations so useful, IMHO, is that they still allow expansion, just at a slower pace, and with a GREAT deal more skill involved. Also, with minor nations popping up throughout the game, you introduce a more complex, and much more intriguing, set of relationship dynamics. Although Minor Nations are not ultimately seeking victory, their support and/or antagonism can really change the 'balance of power' between the major nations-something which will make ultimate victory a lot less guaranteed (thus keeping the mystique of the game until the end!)
Trust me, I am not just speaking hypothetically here. Birth of the Federation is an excellent 'benchmark' game for showing just how well minor powers can work. If you don't believe me, try it out sometime!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dr. Broom]

I have long been saying they should get rid of this land = power, tech and wealth formula. I feel the idea of minor nations or at least potentially useful barbarians would do much to ecourage trade and diplomacy as a source of power rather than almost exlusively land.

 

[Chazbagel]

BAH, HUMBUg

 

[Dida]

- Barbarians should be able to control cities, and research technologies (if they have cities).
- Barbs can destroy a civ. (Rome was destroyed by Barbs)
- No barbs popping out randomly, especially no barb popping up in the modern age. I hate it when I wiped out a whole island,and go back a few years after to discover it's full of barbs.
- The only barbarians are those we start the game with, or those that decays into barbarians, again, no randomly generated barbs.
- When you destroy a civ, its remaining units turns into barbs.
- Barbs gets bonus in research by having contacts with major civs. (in fact, every civ should get bonus in research for having contact with one another)
- We can have some limited diplomatic relationship with barbs. For example, barbs will pay some gold every turn, and accept you as their Lord, in exchange you promise not to attack them.

 

[morbror_sven]

You say this like its a BAD THING?! For me, I find the greatest imbalancer of the game is the rampant expansion that occurs in the early part of the game.
The reason it is unbalancing is that how much a player can expand in the first 1000 to 2000 years of the game has a VERY strong impact on whether or not they win the game-the much maligned (and rightly so) 'Snowball Effect'. It is factors like these which contribute to the 'late-game' malaise which even the most die-hard fan of the series complains about!
What makes Minor Nations so useful, IMHO, is that they still allow expansion, just at a slower pace, and with a GREAT deal more skill involved. Also, with minor nations popping up throughout the game, you introduce a more complex, and much more intriguing, set of relationship dynamics. Although Minor Nations are not ultimately seeking victory, their support and/or antagonism can really change the 'balance of power' between the major nations-something which will make ultimate victory a lot less guaranteed (thus keeping the mystique of the game until the end!)
Trust me, I am not just speaking hypothetically here. Birth of the Federation is an excellent 'benchmark' game for showing just how well minor powers can work. If you don't believe me, try it out sometime!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Lurker, have you ever played online?
You say it's good to be boxed early in the game?? I hate it, peapole always build 172896237894 towns on your frontiner to steal much land as possible.
Then it's good to have some towns with free squares behind.

Peapole will use these barbs as allies and knock others out very early in the game.
Maybe your last hope to grow large is expanding in the south. Do you want some minor civ to be there?
Killing them may make your opponents attack you and then ur dead.

We will never agree with each other lurk, we are representing two opinions which we will never give up.

 

[Dida]

I don't ever play online. The fact that civ is turn based makes it unsuitable for multiplay. I know it will be so much fun to play with real people, but no, I do not have a whole month to wait for someone to complete his moves so I can move.

 

[morbror_sven]

I don't ever play online. The fact that civ is turn based makes it unsuitable for multiplay. I know it will be so much fun to play with real people, but no, I do not have a whole month to wait for someone to complete his moves so I can move.

May that be a reason for your opinions?

 

[Virote_Considon]

- Barbarians should be able to control cities, and research technologies (if they have cities).
- Barbs can destroy a civ. (Rome was destroyed by Barbs)
- No barbs popping out randomly, especially no barb popping up in the modern age. I hate it when I wiped out a whole island,and go back a few years after to discover it's full of barbs.
- The only barbarians are those we start the game with, or those that decays into barbarians, again, no randomly generated barbs.
- When you destroy a civ, its remaining units turns into barbs.
- Barbs gets bonus in research by having contacts with major civs. (in fact, every civ should get bonus in research for having contact with one another)
- We can have some limited diplomatic relationship with barbs. For example, barbs will pay some gold every turn, and accept you as their Lord, in exchange you promise not to attack them.

I agree.

I also think that Barbarians shouldn't be confined to just 2 types of troops. Those poor things fighting for their lives in the mordern ages with warriors, being hunted down by Panzers and Modern Armours... They don't stand a chance!!!

They should have AT LEAST 2 (Weak) standard units PER ERA!!!

Eg. Ancient Era: Warrior, Horseman
Middle Ages: Swordsman, Pikeman?
Industrial: Medieval Infantry, Geurella
Modern: Guerilla, TOW?

 

[Eetu Pellonpää]

I agree.

I also think that Barbarians shouldn't be confined to just 2 types of troops. Those poor things fighting for their lives in the mordern ages with warriors, being hunted down by Panzers and Modern Armours... They don't stand a chance!!!

They should have AT LEAST 2 (Weak) standard units PER ERA!!!

I share your views!

How about these:

Eg. Ancient Era: Warrior, Horseman
Middle Ages: Swordsman, Ancient Cavalry
Industrial: Rifleman, -
Modern: Guerilla, -

The era of barbarians might be calculated from the average of the civs? If the barbarian units need some resources (iron/horses), it would be nice to have them near by their camp!

 

[ianschuessele]

Minor Nations. A supreme idea, the great thing is the vareity that can be established from this basic principle is immense, my suggestion is that they do act as there own seperate nations, the amount of these to be chosen from the start game screen, they could have various restrictions, i.e it could be made so that they by themselfs can not expand very much, either not at all or they could build a few smaller towns (garrisons) where military units could be produced, and the structure of the towns would be unique from the major nations where a town is just a town and gets bigger, the small garrison/town built by the minor nation could be like the fortress improvement from civ 3, but with building abilities. There first city may aswell be like the major nations cities, to allow some element of growth.

This way this gives some element of growth and prosperity to the minor nations without making them major nations.

The ways how the minor nations can effect gameplay, could be that they can be convinced to merge into a major nations economy, this could be done through cultural impressment, positive trade, peace/war characteristics of both nations, religion, governmental control.
The minor nation however will still act for itself, however the major nation could influence what it builds depending on it's freindliness with the minor nation.
'Freindliness' could be determined in various ways, e.g if a minor nation is more peace based (determined randomly at the start of the game and influenced through the game, e.g by events, religion, government) then a peaceful major race would be liked more by the minor race, and for example the relationships could deter during a time of war that the major race is involved in.
Thereby meaning that within a major nation there very well could be minor races that were incorporated into the major race, there opinions would still have to be maintained like the citizens in civiliastion 3, and the minor race could dislodge it's self from the major nation in a time of unease, taking parts of the major nation with it who are located near to the minor nation and share the same opinion of the major nation. This would invoke a great sense of diplomacy into the game which is not involving discussions between two or more great civiliastions.

For those of you who are not very diplomatic, conquest could be used upon the minor races to take the land off of them by force, this would mean that relationships with minor races could be avoided, but possibly in doing so the major nation could lose the benefits of incorporating the minor nation, such as increased culture, increased productivity, free technologies, new military units gained as a bonus of gaining the minor civilastion.

This could mean that early on there could be heavy competition to gain hold of the minor races to establish an earlier advantage over the other major nations, such as a military capable civilastion nearer to an enemy than the major nations military power.

This incorporation of minor races would mean that not only could you have the normal five / four advisors from civ 2 that they will hopefully incorporate back into 4 but also have more advisotrs apearing on the advisors screen that represent the minor races, which could well represent a large % of your population as minor nations could grow in your nation so that your control over your own nation is some what limited, bringing in a larger sense of democracy.

well i hope this has been some what intresting if not long. lol. well thanks for reading it probably only took you all week.

 

[OLX]

Here's an Example of a Minor Civ I wrote down.

Civ Name: Hopi
Plural: Hopis
Adjective: Hopi
Prefered Religion: Mysticism
Shunned Religion: Catholicism
Frequent Game Traits: Religious, Commercial, Industrious
Starting Technologies: Ceremonial Burial and Pottery
Culture Group: American
Aggression Level: 1 (Very Low)

(Cities)

Oraibi
Walpi
Sichomovi
Hano
Mishongnovi
Shipaulovi
Shongopovi
Bacabi
Kyakotsmovi
Hotevilla
Tuuvi
Moenkopi
Polacca
Keams Canyon

Is it a good idea or not a good idea?

 

[dh_epic]

There's no need to go into that much detail yet. That kind of stuff will be easy to pull off. The hard part is creating the simple AI that will fill the game with a bunch of new Civs without leading to vastly slow load times.

Which is why I think the minor Civs should have really simple AIs. They should play like beginners, more or less, even if you give them a handicap or two.

 

[Chazbagel]

Barbarians are annoying.